It would be no surprise to readers to know how strongly I support land preservation. Hence, I find news out of the Maryland General Assembly rather disturbing, but not too stunning.
Budget pressures are intense as Gov. Larry Hogan tries to eliminate the state’s structural deficit, that is, the divide between revenues and expenses. He has been abundantly clear about the need to free state government of this stifling albatross.
Unfortunately, actions to produce a constitutionally mandated balanced budget and remove a big chunk of the deficit are diluting land preservation. Program Open Space, the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, and the Rural Legacy program are suffering from budget machinations.
With a $37.7 million “sweep of cash” proposed in the 2015 budget, coupled with a similar diversion of $77.7 million in 2013, land preservation programs have lost $115 million for a 64 percent cut.
Of $90 million in cuts during the Ehrlich Administration (2002-2006), a $50 million payback was supposed to be included in this year’s budget.
In December 2014, the Board of Public Works cut $10.5 million.
Heritage conservation programs have endured $300,000 cut.
State legislators face a wrenching dilemma: fund K-12 education, Medicaid, and two percent pay raises for state employees versus full funding of land preservation programs. It’s tough and may be unpopular to argue against social services and education in favor of preserving open space and farmland.
It is not difficult, however, to argue for the preservation of land and wetlands on the Eastern Shore as a legacy for our children and grandchildren. It is not difficult to appreciate the rural character of the Delmarva Peninsula and fight for its survival.
Loss of farmland extinguishes a food source, employment, and a way of life that still defines the Eastern Shore.
It’s usually at this point for a writer to address the perils of development and the permanent loss of farmland and forests. I will avoid that temptation since the Shore has to accommodate people and open space—sensibly and carefully.
As budgetary constraints compel well-intended legislators to enact painful cuts, I hope that the loss of land, never to be retrieved, will be a priority, however tempting it might to forgo future considerations for current needs.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.