Hearing held on bill to change state wildlands designations
ANNAPOLIS — Distrust and lack of transparency were repeatedly mentioned as one bill after another in the Maryland House Thursday addressed land protections threatened by power companies.
Several hearings were held before the Economic Matters Committee including for HB1270, sponsored by Del. Jim Hinebaugh and cross filed with Sen. Mike McKay's SB0399.
The legislation aims to strip wildlands designation from Big Savage Mountain Wildland, Bear Pen Wildland and Dan's Mountain Wildland for NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic to build new overhead transmission lines.
Hinebaugh said the electrical pylons would carry high-voltage current for roughly 105 miles over land from southwestern Pennsylvania to Virginia.
'More specifically of our interest, it'll run through Garrett and Allegany' counties, he said.
Hinebaugh said farm bureaus in Garrett and Allegany counties as well as the state endorse HB1270, but added he doesn't believe 'anybody wants to have a new power line going through their area.'
Construction of the transmission line is 'a pretty sensitive issue,' Hinebaugh said.
'I knew it was going to be very controversial and stir up a lot of emotions,' he said.
'I tried to look at the big picture and not just look at my district in particular,' Hinebaugh said of regional electrical demands. 'I'm convinced that this is absolutely necessary.'
Friday, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Media Relations Manager Gregg Bortz said the organization hasn't taken a stance on the bill.
'The department is monitoring this legislation and does not have a position at this point,' he said.
'Very gun-shy'Questions from the Economic Matters Committee included whether the proposed project in the wildlands would be illegal and/or jeopardize funding on a federal level.
A policy note on HB1270 from DNR 'advises that state wildlands are partially managed using federal grant monies received under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.'
According to DNR, 'the bill may jeopardize a portion of the funding it receives annually under the act because it would permit the installation of overhead transmission lines on land that is currently part of existing state wildlands.'
Del. Jesse Pippy said HB1270 has some support as well as opposition whereas 'everybody is unanimously against' plans for the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project that proposes to construct a high-voltage electricity transmission line across roughly 70 miles of land in Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties.
'I'm very gun-shy about supporting any bill related to a transmission line at this point because the last nine months have been nightmarish in Frederick County dealing with this transmission business,' he said. 'But it was interesting to see that you do have support from elected officials ... that is in stark contrast to what we're dealing with.'
Route pushbackT. Lee Beeman, Allegany County's attorney, testified at the hearing on behalf of the county's three-member board of commissioners.
'At this point and time the commissioners aren't supportive of this exact route,' Beeman said. 'But they are supportive of the legislation that's necessary to have this route be considered and to ultimately voice their opinion through the (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) process where they believe it would be most appropriate.'
He said the commissioners support the bill because infrastructure to support data centers is necessary.
'It has to go somewhere,' he said.
Discussions with NextEra have included consideration of a new substation in Allegany County, Beeman said.
Violates COMARGarrett County resident and farm owner Steve Storck testified against the legislation.
'I've spent the last 40 years teaching people about stewardship of wild and natural places and providing data products to help inform policy and protect and preserve them,' he said. '(HB1270) is a direct affront to that work.'
Policy notes attached to the draft include 'all the things wrong with this bill,' Storck said, adding that the proposed law violates the resource protection statue in the Code of Maryland Regulations.
'The more I learn about this bill ... it's likely a concession or some other downstate interest,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wildlife, land conservation groups push for tweaks to Republican stewardship grant bill
Rep. Tony Kurtz testifies on his proposed legislation to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner) Organizations representing wildlife, land conservation and local governments testified Wednesday at a public hearing to push for the passage of a Republican bill to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program while advocating for a number of amendments to the bill's text. The proposal's authors, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), say the current version of the bill is a starting point for negotiations. Without a deal, the 35-year-old program will lapse despite its popularity among voters. The challenge for legislators is that despite overwhelming public support for land conservation, a subset of the Republican members of the Legislature have grown opposed to the grant program. In their view, the grant program allows land to be taken off the local property tax roll and blocks commercial development. That opposition has grown stronger since the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision last year that the Legislature's Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee's authority to place anonymous holds on stewardship grant projects is unconstitutional. Kurtz has said that without returning some level of legislative oversight, the Republican opposition to the program won't get on board with reauthorizing it. But the bill also needs to be palatable to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers so that he will sign it and any Republican opposition to the bill could make the votes of Democratic legislators more important. In an effort to recruit Republican holdouts, the bill includes a provision that requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to submit a list to the Legislature each January of any major land acquisitions costing more than $1 million the department plans to purchase with stewardship funds that year. The Legislature would then need to approve each proposed project in a piece of legislation and provide the required appropriation. To gain the support of environmental groups, the bill allows stewardship dollars to be used for the first time to fund habitat restoration projects. Following a recent trend of Republican-authored legislation, the bill separates the policy changes to the program from the budget appropriation to fund it in an attempt to sidestep Evers' partial veto pen. Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at non-profit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said in his testimony at the hearing Wednesday that the bill's authors had to 'try and thread a challenging political path towards reauthorization.' At the hearing, testifying members of the public mainly highlighted two areas for improvement on the bill — clarifying how the DNR should prioritize habitat restoration, facility upkeep and land acquisition in award grants and more clearly laying out how the legislative approval process for major land acquisitions will work. As currently written, the bill would require the DNR to prioritize property development over land acquisition projects. Brian Vigue, freshwater policy director for Audubon Great Lakes, said those types of grants are so different that they should be considered separately. 'Because habitat management projects are so different from land acquisition projects, it really will make it difficult for the DNR to determine which of the two types of grant applications would have priority over the other,' he said. 'It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison to make so I think a practical solution to this challenge is to create a separate appropriation for wildlife habitat grants.' A number of organizations testifying called for more direct language outlining how the legislative oversight process will work, such as binding timelines for when the Legislature must consider the projects on the DNR list, clear guidelines for how projects will be evaluated and quickly held votes on project approval. Representatives of organizations that work to purchase private land and conserve it through conservation easements or deals with the state said that the opportunities to purchase a piece of land and save it for future enjoyment by the broader public come rarely and that those real estate transactions can often be complicated and take a long time. If a deal is largely in place except for the required legislative approval — which could potentially take years or never even come up for a vote — landowners might be unwilling to participate in the process. 'Opportunities to provide such access sometimes only come once in a generation,' said Tony Abate, conservation director at Groundswell Conservancy, a non-profit aimed at conserving land in south central Wisconsin. 'We are concerned with the funding threshold and the logistics of the proposed major land acquisition program. Real estate near population centers is expensive, and we often compete with non-conservation buyers to secure farmland or recreational lands.' Abate said that of the conservancy's 16 current projects, four would surpass the $1 million threshold and require legislative approval. He suggested raising the threshold to $5 million. Carlin, with Gathering Waters, said the provision as currently written could indefinitely delay projects. 'We appreciate legislators' concerns with oversight, and we welcome discussion about how to provide effective and efficient oversight,' he said. 'Unfortunately, the current proposal lacks defined timelines, transparent evaluation processes or mechanisms to require timely votes. Without these elements, worthy conservation projects could languish indefinitely. So we would ask that any review process include binding timelines, transparent project evaluation and timely votes to ensure strong oversight while maintaining predictability for applicants.' At the hearing, members of the committee asked few questions of the testifying groups and members of the public. Democrats on the committee pushed more than once to make sure they see the partner bill providing the money for the program before voting on the policy changes. All of the testimony at the hearing Wednesday was either to provide information only to the legislators or in favor of the bill. The committee received one written comment against the bill's passage, from the Wisconsin Bear Hunters' Association. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Republican lawmakers introduce bill to keep stewardship grant program alive
Republicans on the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee rejected a funding request from the City of Ashland to build a new boat launch at Kreher Park. (City of Ashland) A pair of Republican lawmakers has introduced legislation that would re-authorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, a popular program that allows the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fund the purchase of public land and the upkeep of recreational areas. The decades-old program is set to expire next year and despite its bipartisan support among the state's voters, a subset of Republicans in the Legislature — largely from the northern part of the state — have become increasingly opposed to the program due to concerns that it stops land from being developed for commercial activities. Until a 6-1 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last summer, members of the Legislature's powerful Joint Finance Committee had the ability to place anonymous holds on proposed grants through the program, which resulted in many projects being delayed or prevented altogether. Without that ability, Republicans who were already wary of the program became more opposed because of what they characterize as a lack of legislative oversight. Proponents of the program say the Legislature exercises oversight through the budget writing process when it allocates funding for the program. In recent years, the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program has received $33 million annually in the state budget. In his budget request this year, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers proposed re-authorizing the program with a $100 million annual budget. Republicans stripped that provision out of the budget along with most of Evers' other proposals. Last week, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) introduced a bill that would keep the program alive with $28 million in annual funding. The bill would also create a major land acquisitions program for stewardship grant awards which would require the DNR to annually submit a list of all its proposed land acquisitions costing more than $1 million for that year. Those acquisitions would need to be approved by votes of the full Legislature. Additionally, the bill would create a sub-program to use stewardship grant funds for habitat restoration projects, require the DNR to prioritize projects that develop already existing public lands over new land acquisition, require local governments to match 20% of the state funding, get rid of the current 10-acre minimum size requirement and limit the state's contribution to 40% of the total cost if the sale of a piece of land is already closed when stewardship funds are applied for. In a co-sponsorship memo, Kurtz and Testin, who did not respond to requests for an interview about the bill, said the initial proposal is meant to be the start of negotiations, not the final version of the bill. 'It's important to note what we're proposing is not an agreed upon deal,' the memo states. 'It's a first offer to provide a starting place for negotiations on this important program. It's very likely the bill will continue to change during the legislative process, but it's important to put something forward to allow feedback, have open-minded conversations and ultimately find a good place to ensure the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program's legacy continues.' At a meeting with the Wisconsin chapter of the Audubon Society in April, Kurtz said the program was on 'life support' and he was trying to save it from dying but any bill would need to put some oversight on the DNR in order to receive enough Republican support. The opposition to the stewardship program from a subset of the Republican caucus in both chambers means the bill might require Democratic votes to pass the Legislature and reach Evers' desk. Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) has spent months pushing for the program's reauthorization – often pointing to a stewardship grant project in her district that was subjected to an anonymous hold, the Cedar Gorge Clay Bluffs on Lake Michigan. She said the hold on that project angered a lot of her constituents of both parties. 'That really got people upset,' she told the Wisconsin Examiner. 'People would not at all want to see a reenactment in any fashion of that anonymous objection process.' Habush Sinykin said that she's closely watching the bill to make sure it protects a program that enjoys wide support outside of the Capitol building and will stir up significant opposition if it's allowed to die. 'Once people understand that this program is at risk, they are coming forward to express their opposition to any permanent damage to the program,' she said. 'And so what we are engaged in right now is this process to keep it going forward, and there is going to be ongoing negotiation, because the devil is in the details. We need to make sure that what is one step forward will not ultimately be two steps backward.' Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, a non-profit aimed at land conservation across Wisconsin, said that Kurtz and Testin should be credited for working to get the conversation started and provisions in the bill like the habitat restoration program. But he added that there are still a lot of questions about how provisions such as the requirement for legislative approval will work. 'I think part of what they are trying to balance here is a recognition that this is an incredibly popular program with voters, while trying to balance that against the fact that there are a handful of legislators who are deeply skeptical of the DNR and deeply skeptical of additional investments in conservation,' he said. 'So I see that major land acquisitions component as a way for them to try and balance those competing interests. The way that that major land acquisitions program is currently described in the bill just leaves a lot of question marks.' The bill is set to receive a public hearing in the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Wednesday at 11 a.m.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Yahoo
Cyber charter reform that could save public schools $616M advances with unclear future in Pennsylvania Senate
Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters. HARRISBURG — Public school districts in Pennsylvania could save more than $600 million annually under a bill that the state House passed Wednesday to cap the tuition they pay to cyber charters. The bill is part of a several-year effort to boost oversight and cut spending on cyber charter schools. At least some of its concepts have support in both chambers, but the issue has always been complicated by the commonwealth's tricky education politics. Democrats, who control the state House, have championed increased spending for poor public schools, while Republicans, who control the state Senate, favor funding alternatives including charter schools, though the issue doesn't break neatly down party lines. Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R, Indiana) reflected that dynamic in a statement Wednesday, saying 'certain aspects' of the bill advanced by the state House 'could be beneficial.' That includes the measure's requirements that cyber schools do wellness checks on students and that public districts get proof of residency for students for whom they pay tuition. But, Pittman added, there needs to be recognition that the proposal would save school districts money, which he believes should count as the legislature giving public schools increased support as required by a 2022 court ruling. Democrats, meanwhile, are casting this issue as an administrative necessity. 'This bill is the result of repeated and urgent calls to update our commonwealth's outdated charter school law,' state Rep. Mary Isaacson (D., Philadelphia), the bill sponsor, said on the House floor Wednesday. 'This proposal is about fiscal responsibilities and aligning tuition to the actual cost.' The measure made it through the lower chamber 104-98, with two moderate Republicans voting in favor. It now goes to the state Senate Education Committee. Its chair, Sen. Lynda Schlegel Culver (R., Columbia), said in a statement, 'We will thoroughly review the legislation as we do for all bills given to the committee.' Pennsylvania school districts must pay tuition for any students who live within their borders and opt to attend a charter school. These tuition rates are calculated based on the district's per-student spending using a formula that has changed little over the past several decades. Currently, the state uses nearly the same formula to fund online-only cyber charter schools as it does for brick-and-mortar charters, despite the former's relatively lower overhead costs. That would change under this bill. It would instead set a base tuition rate of $8,000 per student. That rate would be increased for students who have extra needs, such as disabilities. This mirrors a proposal that Gov. Josh Shapiro has made in his last two budgets, and of which Democrats have long been supportive. The measure would also make several other changes. A number focus on transparency, such as the wellness checks and residency requirements Pittman cited. Other provisions include requirements that cyber charters post annual performance assessments online and inform students if they are found to be low-performing, as well as an enrollment cap on cyber charters found to be low-performing. Cyber charters would also be required to disclose any 'entities' helping to finance their capital projects. Along with the flat tuition rate, there are also other financial components. By the end of this year, cyber charters would have to pay back a significant portion of their unspent surplus dollars from the 2024-25 fiscal year to the state. That money would go into a state fund for public schools' facility improvement projects, and would newly make charter schools eligible for those funds. The bill would additionally bar cyber charters from accumulating large surpluses in the future. Starting at the end of the next fiscal year — June 2026 — any surplus dollars in excess of 12% of the school's total expenditures that aren't earmarked would have to be sent back to public districts. Plus, it would require that any revenue cyber charters generate via property be paid back to the school districts they receive money from. According to the bill's fiscal note, lower cyber charter tuition payments would save districts an aggregate of $616 million, half of what they currently spend. Each district's specific savings would vary based on how many students they have enrolled in cyber charters. The shaky bipartisan agreement that Pennsylvania's cyber charter law needs to be updated didn't come out of nowhere. Cyber charter enrollment has risen significantly in recent years — by nearly 57% across the state since 2020, when the pandemic began pushing more families to explore the option. Nearly 60,000 Pennsylvania students now attend cyber charters, which means a growing number of school districts and lawmakers are affected. A review earlier this year from Republican Auditor General Tim DeFoor solidified members' opinion that something had to change. DeFoor audited five of the commonwealth's 14 cyber charters and found that the revenue they were taking in nearly doubled from 2020 to 2023, from $473 million to $898 million, and also that the schools' financial reserves had increased by nearly 150% in that period. In addition, he found cyber charters had been spending funds on 'unusual' things like gift cards and vehicle payments. Still, division remains. During the floor debate Wednesday, several Republicans slammed the bill as unfair to cyber charter schools. 'We still have some more work to do for our school districts complaining about equal funding. All they ask is to be treated the same, and I'm here to advocate for them,' said state Rep. Craig Williams (R., Chester). 'House Bill 1500 doesn't do that. House Bill 1500 puts us on a path to end cyber charters.' Cyber charter administrators and advocates are also uniformly against the measure. Marcus Hite, who heads the Pennsylvania Association of Public Cyber Charter Schools, called the $8,000 tuition cap 'arbitrary and unrealistic,' saying in a news release it 'doesn't reflect the real cost of educating students, especially those with disabilities or unique learning needs.' 'Cyber charters are already subject to some of the highest levels of oversight in the education system — audits, performance reviews, and public transparency,' he added. 'HB 1500 piles on duplicative and punitive rules.' In a joint statement, a group of administrators from five cyber charter schools said the bill would lead to closures. Jon Marsh of Philadelphia's Esperanza Cyber Charter School called it 'an attack on some of the most chronically disenfranchised and disadvantaged students in our Commonwealth.' Public education advocates support the measure. Susan Spicka of Education Voters of PA said it 'will save hundreds of millions of tax dollars annually and bring long-overdue accountability and transparency to Pennsylvania's billion dollar cyber charter industry.' The issue is heavily lobbied. Last year alone, Commonwealth Charter Academy, the state's biggest cyber charter, spent $202,500 on education-related lobbying. Other cyber charters typically spend at least tens of thousands of dollars annually. That doesn't touch the significant dollars that traditional brick-and-mortar charters and their advocates spend on lobbying. Public schools have their own lobbying presence, too. The Pennsylvania State Education Association, the union that represents teachers, spent nearly $178,000 on lobbying last year. If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
