Date:  January 31, 2012

Due to a number of phone calls and emails from people wanting to know what is happening with respect to the rezonings, I thought it helpful to provide a summary:

Between 2008 and 2010 the Frederick County planners and Planning Commission had over 100 meetings, many workshops and expert testimonies on the development of the 20 year Comprehensive Plan for our future.  The Gardner BOCC and planners:

• considered thousands of Frederick County’s properties
• looked at extensive study on the impact of development on the environment, roads, schools and other public facilities
• determined what would best promote the public interest and general welfare of all residents in Frederick County

They prioritized development to infill and redevelopment, a sustainability measure that favors the economic development and social welfare and lessens the environmental impact on our natural resources.

That document plans for:

• development of over 36,000 new homes, and sets aside land for commercial, industrial and retail growth, and it
• designates implementation of corridor plans and transit oriented development

Wouldn’t it be great  if the BOCC were spending their time focusing on redevelopment and JOBS along the 355/85 corridor?  Jobs is what we want, not impoverishment of our county.

The difference between the last BOCC and this one is the last one focused on making a great future for 233,000 people;  this BOCC focuses on making a future for 193 landowners their families, lawyers and developers – and damn the rest

The current BOCC reopened the process for comprehensive rezoning and are considering rezoning 193 properties for development, with total acreage over 15,000 – an area roughly equivalent to 1/3 the size of Washington DC.   That’s a huge loss of our nations’s most productive farmland, and a huge windfall for developers on the backs of Frederick County taxpayers.

In November 2011:

• the Frederick County Planning Commission, citizens with over 30 collective years in county planning, and educated through a Maryland State planning program, voted to halt the rezoning hearings.  They “felt the entire process was seriously flawed, totally unnecessary (no facts had changed substantially since the previous review), a waste of taxpayer money and potentially illegal (possibly a false cover for piecemeal zoning without a change in the character of the neighborhood or a mistake in zoning)” (FNP, 12/11/11)
• the Maryland State Department of Planning wrote a letter to Mr. Eric Sotor, Director of our county’s Community Development division.  In that letter the state took issue with the flawed process.
• citizens sued the county over the flawed process, and the fact that the Board of County Commissioners has no authority to rezone for the purpose of increasing the value of selected properties

The process to many is seen as one requested by the BOCC to fulfill campaign promises to certain friends in the audience tonight (ie those representing parcels where there stands to be large financial gain).

Let it be clear that there has been no change to warrant more houses or commercial growth above and beyond what is already in our 20-year plan.  In fact there are two considerations that show even greater absurdity to these proposals:

• a study released by the Washington Area Council of Governments last Fall 2011 shows that Frederick County residential projections are actually about 30% lower than they were when we were doing our comprehensive planning 2 years ago.  That report says we will need between 20,000-27,000 homes, not over 36,000.
• PlanMaryland, the recently passed state planning document, clarifies that support for infrastructure will go to smart growth development, not sprawl.

With that in mind,  who will pay for the infrastructure demands that come with the proposed development?

Where are the studies that show we can afford to widen roads to accommodate  over 163,000 more car trips/day, afford new schools to teach to nearly 9000 new students, afford enough emergency service personnel and stations to accommodate over 17,000 new families, libraries, water and sewer, and all the amenities we require.  Where are those studies?

Thank you.

Janice Wiles

Executive Director

Date:  January 10, 2012

In 2010 Frederick County adopted a comprehensive plan and zoning map after

• Consideration of thousands of Frederick County’s properties
• Consideration of extensive study on the impact of development on the environment, roads, schools and other public facilities
• Determination of what would best promote the public interest and general welfare of all residents in Frederick County

The purpose of this public hearing and the 2011 zoning review is to grant the right of greater development to selected property owners in Frederick County, a purpose that has been made clear by Commissioner Young on many public occasions.

And, this is even after County Attorney John Mathias advised the BOCC on April 8, 2011 “that the Commissioners’ proposal to rezone for the purpose of conferring greater development rights on selected properties is not lawful.”  In fact this effort to amend the 2010 Comprehensive plan and zoning map are unlawful for three reasons:

1.  The County has no authority to rezone for the purpose of increasing the value of selected properties

2.  The zoning of individual properties requires an adjudicatory hearing with right of cross-examination to establish there has been a mistake in the original zoning, or a change in the character of the neighborhood (and these requirements have not been met)

3.  Although labeled “comprehensive” zoning, the legal requirements for comprehensive zoning are not met, including studies as to the impact of greater development on the environment and public facilities

It was for these reasons that Friends of Frederick County, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Audubon Society of Central Maryland and many residents of Frederick County filed a complaint in the Frederick County Circuit Court against the Board of County Commissioners in November 2011.

We note that the Frederick County Planning Commission also took the position that the BOCC’s procedures were improper.

Additionally, there is no room in this process for careful and comprehensive surveying and study of the numerous issues involved in development, as required by State law, Article 66B Section 3.05©.  It is only such careful studies that demonstrate changes –  that can provide a basis for revision.  Not only are there no such studies, but if conducted they would disclose no changes warranting the proposed revisions.    I make special reference to relevant sections in the state code 66B:

Section 3.05 ( c )  Considerations in preparing plan and plan provisions. A plan shall promote, in accordance with present and future needs:

The health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity

and the general welfare of the local jurisdiction

A plan shall provide for:

• Transportation needs
• The promotion of public safety
• Light and air
• The conservation of natural resources
• The prevention of environmental pollution
• The promotion of a healthful and convenient distribution of population
• The wise and efficient expenditure of public funds
• Adequate public utilities

Because the procedures are not proper we think it most prudent and beneficial for the taxpayers of Frederick County that the BOCC wait until the court resolves the complaint before moving ahead.

Thank you.

Janice Wiles

Executive Director

I have read the paper and watched the news pertaining to national politics and have been very frustrated with the direction politicians are taking this country and the impact that big business has on political decisions. I feel like I can’t make a difference on the national level but that I can have some influence in local politics. Unfortunately many people like myself are too busy with working to support our families and spend quality time with them to be actively involved with local politics. However I feel very strongly about this issue and the direction this board of commissioners is going with it.

I am strongly opposed to the commissioners attempt to arbitrarily and hastily change the comprehensive growth plan for this county.

I would like to start with some of the effects of uncontrolled growth will have on this community.

Lets start with the schools and as an example lets look at the Urbana area because it is a prime example of the problems all the schools in Frederick County will have to address if development is not controlled. The schools in that area are already at or beyond maximum capacity. Commissioner Young made the suggestion of having children in that area bused to other schools in the county where there is additional capacity. I don’t think he took into consideration the impact on children and families in that area. As well as the additional costs to the county for doing so. Recently there was an article about Urbana Middle School and the need to create shuttle buses and new bus routes for the school-at a cost of $426, 588. That is what is needed now, just think what the cost will be with even more development in the area as well as other areas of the county. There’s also the issue of the state considering of pushing some of the cost of teacher pensions onto the counties. More housing development means more children, which means the need for more teachers, which in turn means more costs to the county.

Next I would like to address the issue of traffic, specifically the traffic on I-270, which has been an issue for years. There has recently been talk of opening the shoulder on 270 during rush hours to help alleviate the traffic congestion and that’s just for the traffic issues now. Just think how additional development would impact that issue. And we know that many of the people moving into the Frederick area are working in the Metropolitan DC area. I wonder how many members of the this board of commissioners must travel on 270 during rush hour. If they did I’m sure more uncontrolled development in Frederick County would not be something they would be in favor of supporting.

Many politicians and developers argue that additional development will increase the tax base of the county, bringing in additional revenue and attracting business to the county. However that tax base increase will offset or even push into the negative the county revenue. The increase in costs for infrastructure such as roads, road maintenance, public safety and schools will cause the county to spend more money than it takes in from the additional tax base. There has been an ongoing and comprehensive study done by the American Farmland Trust, as well as other researchers from a variety of backgrounds, in regards to the costs of community services, which is a study of the amount of money that local governments must spend on different types of land categories. All of these types of studies show the same results consistently. Those results show that the cost to local government budgets for land that is developed for residential use ends up costing the local government $1.15 to $1.50 for every dollar that the local government collects in taxes. Which means a huge deficit in the county’s budget and unfortunately those costs are forever and eventually increase over time. On the other hand these studies show that if the area is designated as agricultural or open space, the local government on average only has to spend between 30 to 50 cents for every dollar the local government collects in taxes. These studies consistently show that residential development costs local governments more in revenue than they collect.

And as for attracting more business to Frederick County, that argument is also misleading. Hopefully most taxpayers will learn that when new big businesses relocate to a certain region it is usually because they are receiving tax incentives to do so. That is, they are given a certain time frame in which they don’t contribute to the tax base because they are supposedly bringing jobs to the area. However they contribute little or nothing to the infrastructure to support their business. Then when their tax incentive time frame expires they end up moving to another location that offers better incentives, leaving the local government on the hook for all the costs of that infrastructure, as well as leaving a vacant building.

I’m not sure about all of the commissioners but I do know that commissioner president Young has made the following argument. He says that his reason for making these changes is that the voters of Frederick County put him in office to make these changes. He feels that the voters have given him a mandate to make changes to the comprehensive growth plan and to reduce the cost to developers in this county. Unfortunately his argument is completely false. There have been approximately 200 rezoning applications in Frederick County but the population of Frederick County is about 240,000 of which about 138,000 are registered voters. So when commissioner Young talks about his constituents wanting these changes to be made, who he is really talking about are about 1 one thousandth of percent of the population. That doesn’t seem like a mandate to me. More like a politician looking for personal gain at the expense of the taxpayers.

Lastly I would like to make reference to an article about the last commissioners’ meeting about the comprehensive growth plan. The article referenced one of those few property owners who felt that his land should be rezoned so that it can be developed. The property owner said and I quote, “I was very sad to see all the development come south of me” referring to the Urbana development. Then he went on to say and I quote, “On the other hand, progress is progress, and we must develop.” Isn’t that a strong argument? I don’t think so either. That property owner unfortunately is only interested in what he can get for himself and his family, no matter what the impact is on the rest of his community. I have watched others talk about this matter, stating that the property rights of land owners in this county have been stripped away, usually those comments are made by attorneys representing wealthy property owners. Those attorneys stand to make even more money if those owners have the ability to sell their property to developers. And what’s worse is that those attorneys probably don’t even live in this community. So I’m writing this to let you know that as a taxpayer and voter of this county I will not and can not let big business take over this community like it has our national government. I also would like each of the commissioners to stop acting like typical politicians and start doing the job they were elected to do. That job, in case they have forgotten, is to leave this community a better place for everyone than when they first took office. Not just for those who have the ability to provide financial gain for them and their family.

Read more!

To read more on Thatcher and Crum development plans search either name on the FoFC home page search tab.

Frederick News Post article:  Annexed farmland clear for developing Originally published January 27, 2012  By Pete McCarthy

Photo by Staff file photo by Sam Yu  This June 2009 photo shows U.S. 15 running left to right with Willow Road perpendicular at lower right. The Board of County Commissioners voted Thursday to allow the City of Frederick to annex the Crum farm, to the left of Willow Road, and the Thatcher property, on the far side of U.S. 15. The City of Frederick is about to gain some acres.For more than a year, two large farms just north of the city have been approved for annexation, but the city and previous county officials disagreed on zoning so developers were told they would have to wait five years. The Board of County Commissioners voted Thursday to end that mandatory waiting period and allow the developers to proceed immediately. The two farms — known as the Crum and Thatcher properties — total nearly 400 acres. Both are north of the city limits along U.S. 15. Frederick Mayor Randy McClement was at Thursday’s meeting and called the commissioners’ decision a positive one for the city. “We need the growth area,” McClement said. “Everything is set in place. We are looking forward to the ability to give our residents an opportunity to stay here and work here.” The city approved annexation of the land in 2009. The properties are ripe for development, according to Commissioner C. Paul Smith. “I think this will be a great benefit for the city,” Smith said. “It had been planned for some time.” Commissioner Billy Shreve said, “I think it is a good example of planning.” Before significant construction can proceed, the developers would need to make improvements to a U.S. 15 interchange and other road enhancements. “I think it takes care of the important traffic problems we have,” Smith said. Construction at either site is still years away. Both developers will need a year or two to finalize their plans, according to land-use attorney Bruce Dean. The Crum property, just north of Willow Road, is 285 acres, and the plan is to build up to 1,200 homes and a mix of commercial and retail space, said Dean, who represents both developers. Up to 400 of those homes could be built before the interchange is completed, he said. The Thatcher farm is across U.S. 15 on Biggs Ford Road. The plan there is to build up to 1.3 million square feet of office space, which could result in thousands of permanent jobs, Dean said. Both developers are excited to get started, he said. “The focus was the proximity to Fort Detrick,” he said. “That is the No. 1 economic driver in Frederick County.” Both companies should have plans developed in the next two years, but there is no way to know when construction could begin, Dean said. “There is no huge impetus to be building a lot of houses right now,” he said. “It’s dependent on economic factors that are out of our hands right now.” Commissioner David Gray was the lone dissenting vote. “Classic sprawl,” Gray said. “Look for problems to come.” Friends of Frederick County — an activist group opposed to the annexation — filed a lawsuit against the city in 2010. The group alleged the city did not properly prepare for the potential growth and did not complete an appropriate plan. The case is still pending in court, Friends of Frederick County Executive Director Janice Wiles said Thursday. “I still have the same concerns that I had before,” Wiles said, referring to the dangers of added congestion on U.S. 15 and other factors. “Taking good farmland out of production and sprawling out into the countryside is not a good idea.”

The draft guidelines are intended to assist local governments in identifying PlanMaryland Planning Areas in their jurisdictions.

The guidelines list the purpose and intent of each Planning Area, a recommended management approach, and location criteria. The guidelines also described the intended objectives of each Planning Area, along with examples that jurisdictions may have used or could pursue. The list is not all inclusive and other examples may be suggested.

MDP encourages comments on the draft guidelines. They will be finalized in March for review and acceptance by the Governor’s Smart Growth Subcabinet. MDP staff is available to meet with those local jurisdictions that would be interested in modeling the draft Planning Area guidelines in their communities prior to March. To arrange a meeting to discuss this, please contact Chuck Boyd at the Maryland Department of Planning –cboyd@mdp.state.md.us.

• Issues to be Considered in Revising/Refining Draft Guidelines
• Potential Implications Based on Implementation Strategies
• Planning Area Guidelines

Read  PlanMaryland here.

Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County, Maryland

My name is Peter Currer and I am a new resident of Maryland and Frederick County.  I live at the new development, Linton at Ballenger Creek.

First I want to congratulate Frederick County in general for having the planning skills and foresight to collect developer fees or a parcel taxes or user fees or whatever you call your fee for new building in Frederick County.  What it means for me is that as this high-density development, about 775 housing units, is being built the County has the funds necessary to build the needed infrastructure for all the new residents.  A new ‘round about has been built at Elmer Derr and Ballenger Creek to ease traffic flow and sidewalks are being installed on Ballenger Creek Pike for the anticipated pedestrian traffic.  Thank you for charging a fee that I, the buyer pay within the purchase price of my home.  I am glad to pay these fees because I am enjoying the services that I purchased.  I am in my 60’s, I am glad to pay now and get the services now, when they are needed instead of waiting until traffic is impossible or dangerous.  Good Planning!

I am here tonight to speak against the proposed changes to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and to speak against the addition of 17,000 additional housing units in the County.  I appreciate this chance, my first time here, to speak to the County Commissioners but I must say this is not a Planning Process in any sense of the process as I know it from California where I have lived all my life prior to moving here.

I come tonight to tell a cautionary tale to the Commissioners; my personal experiences from living in Vallejo, California for 25years and watching unlimited and unfunded growth.

Everyone knows the financial mess that California is in.  But you may not know the story of Vallejo, California which is in the San Francisco Bay area.  I lived in Vallejo and worked for the Vallejo City Unified School District. The City of Vallejo is the largest California City to file for municipal bankruptcy.  The Vallejo City Unified School District is in receivership, taken over by the state, one of the few school districts in California to not be able to meet payroll.

There are many reasons for this disaster (and it is a disaster for anyone living in Vallejo or working for the City or the schools) but the one that really sticks out for me is the unlimited and unplanned growth that took place in the 90’s and 2000’s during the boom periods.  Vallejo did not plan well for growth and did not assess development fees to the extent necessary to pay for growth.  It was almost like a Ponzi scheme, each new development paid for the last one.  Then, when the economy crashed real estate values fell and tax income to the City fell and the whole house of cards collapsed.   The EPA came in; the sewer plant was spilling sewage into the bay and required millions of dollars of improvement, money that had to be borrowed.  Then they had to add police and police sub-stations, and then they had to add fire protection and fire stations for them.  None of these expenses were budgeted for, and as the economy went into a bust cycle the city could not pay their costs.  Property values dropped, tax income dropped and the city as well as the school district could not shrink fast enough; bankruptcy followed in 2008.

Five miles away is Benicia, a city with controlled (but not no) growth.  They have had stable real estate values, stable tax revenues and stable schools.  They planed well for their growth and the expenses that are associated with growth and have prospered.

And I just read this week that the Watershed Cleanup Plan could cost almost $4 billion dollars for Frederick County’s share.  Will the proposed added housing add to the cost of the Watershed Cleanup for Frederick County? Perhaps finding a way to pay this expense is the job that this Commission should be working on now, not adding more unfunded housing costs to the county.

Comp Plan rezoning will damage Frederick County

Originally published January 08, 2012

A huge chunk of the area surrounding Frederick is being considered for high density rezoning. This is a terrible idea.Frederick County finalized its comprehensive plan in 2010, with a lot of community input over the past few years. That plan calls for 36,000 new homes, and more than 3000 acres of retail and commercial development. To accommodate that development we would need to build and widen roads, sewage and drainage systems, have a plan for emergency coverage, and so forth. It’s an ambitious but manageable plan for growth.

Now the current Board of County Commissioners is considering rezoning 193 more properties (over 15,000 acres) without a plan for infrastructure to support the development. (Have you ever tried to drive from Frederick to D.C. in the morning ?) Whose taxes are going to pay for all the new roads, schools, water lines, sewers and so forth that will need to be built? The only people who this would benefit are the current property owners and the developers (who paid for the campaigns of many of the current county commissioners), at a high cost to the citizens.

Take the parcel near where I live, for example. Parcel 19 on Indian Springs road is wooded, mostly steep-sloped, contains ponds and wetlands, and is on the foothills of the Catoctin Mountains. I have seen herons resting there. It is part of the natural watershed for Frederick city. It is on a small, winding country road with poor visibility, no shoulders and no sidewalks. This land is correctly designated as Resource Conservation land and should not have its zoning changed for a housing development, which is what is being requested.

Other areas that have applied to be rezoned are farmland that would be turned into massive developments. This will change the rural/agricultural community feel of many parts of Frederick County. It will ruin many beautiful areas of Frederick County and destroy many environmentally fragile areas. It will lower the quality of life for current residents.

I grew up on the northern edge of Germantown. The next-door farmland and woods were stripped and the land leveled for poorly planned sprawl development. Now, 20 years later, many of these neighborhoods and the wider area are not well maintained and not safe to live in. Seneca Valley High School, where I went to school, was once a top-notch high school but is no longer a place where teachers want to work. I don’t want to see the same thing happen to Frederick County.

I would like to encourage anyone who feels that we should stick with the 2010 development plans to express an opinion at the Board of County Commissioners public hearings at Winchester Hall, 12 E. Church St., at 6 p.m. on Jan. 10, 18, 24 or 31 (different night for different areas). Read the specifics at: Frederick County government website (2011 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Review).

Lesli Summers- Stay

writes from Frederick

How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, home to a dazzling spectrum of spe- cies and an engine for the region’s economy estimated to be worth more than $1 trillion dollars.1 But pollution continues to cause serious damage to the nation’s largest estuary, as shown by beach closures, fish consumption advisories, harm- ful algal blooms, and other afflictions.2

In December 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re- leased new pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay to accelerate its cleanup and the recovery of jobs which rely on clean water. The Chesa- peake Bay “Total Maximum Daily Load,” or TMDL, requires water- shed states to reduce pollution flowing into the estuary by 25 percent by 2025 3,4 and pushes the states to follow through with clean-up promises they made in 2010, based on previous plans called Tributary Strategies, which were released in 2004 and 2005. Almost as soon as these pollution limits were an- nounced, however, they were attacked as “job killers” by national agricultural and homebuilder lobbyists and their political allies.5

This rhetoric was part of a broad assault on environ- mental regulations, in general, spearheaded by some members of the U.S. House of Representatives.6

Sweeping assertions about economic ruin caused by environmental regulations are nothing new, and many economists7 have concluded that there is no substance to them.8 Claims that a good quality of life demands a tradeoff between jobs and the environment have repeatedly been proven false9 over the last four decades. In 1976, for example, Henry Ford II warned that clean air and fuel- efficiency standards would “shut down” the Ford Motor Company.10 Thirty-five years later, Ford not only remains in business, it ranks number 10 on the For- tune 500 list, with profits of $6.5 billion in 2010.11 The company is now mar- keting zero-emission electric cars with a sales pitch that they will “reduce your carbon footprint.”12

Critics of 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments asserted that tighter air-pol- lution limits would mean “a quiet death for businesses across the country.”13 But these gloomy forecasts did not come true, and in the end, the amend- ments produced a benefit-to-investment ratio of more than 40 to 1, including over $70 billion in human health benefits annually and a significant reduction in acid-rain pollution.14

Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth: How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, deCemBer 2011cbf.org/tmdl 1

43 Percent:

The increase in the number of environmental industry jobs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia over the last two decades. Source: Environmental Business International

The cries about Bay pollution limits are a variation on this old song.

This report presents several examples of job creation that have already grown and will likely expand in the Chesapeake region because of water-pollution limits:

 Overall, the number of environmental clean-up and monitoring jobs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia has surged 43 percent over the last two de- cades, from 98,000 jobs in 1990 to 140,000 jobs in 2009, with a significant portion of this growth com- ing from required sewage and water system improve- ment projects.15

 Construction is underway in Montgomery County, Maryland, on $305 million in stormwater pollution control projects that will create 3,300 construction and engineering jobs.16 Similar stormwater projects could provide work for 178,000 full-time-equivalent jobs across the region over the next five years, includ- ing 36,000 jobs in Maryland, 10,000 in the District

of Columbia, 80,000 in Pennsylvania, and 52,000 in Virginia, according to a projection by the Economic Policy Institute.17

 Among several sewage plant upgrade projects across the region, 118 con- struction workers, engineers, and others are employed in a $63 million project to reduce pollution from the Noman Cole Pollution Control Plant in Fairfax County, Virginia.18 Virginia and Maryland officials plan to invest a combined total of $3 billion19 improving sewage plants over more than a decade, with each billion invested resulting in 20,000 construction-related jobs.20

 Most of the farms in Pennsylvania’s part of the Chesapeake Bay wa- tershed (40,000 farms21) could also create jobs by implement- ing a variety of runoff- and pollution-control practices like this.22 For example, 25 contractors, excavators, and others worked to build manure management pits and a state-of-the-art barn for a dairy farm in Thomas- ville, Pennsylvania.23 The new facilities will reduce runoff of manure into a nearby stream as they help the farmer meet state requirements to maintain a manure management plan.

 About 11,751 temporary jobs are expected to be created over five years if Virginia and the federal governments invest $804 million in farm runoff- control projects such as planting trees and building fences along streams to meet Bay-pollution goals, according to a University of Virginia report.24

It is difficult to predict exactly how many job opportunities will spring up be-

Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth: How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, deCemBer 2011cbf.org/tmdl 2

ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRY JOB GROWTH

100 80 60 40 20

0 ’90 ’00 ’09

MARYLAND

’90 ’00 ’09

VIRGINIA

’90 ’00 ’09

PENNSYLVANIA

Jobs in environmental industries such as sewage plant construc- tion, pollution cleanup, site testing, etc.

Source: Environmental Business International, Inc.

THOUSANDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JOBS

cause of projects driven by the Chesapeake Bay pollution limits.25 Innovation will likely inspire the birth of a wide variety of new firms that will hire employees for everything from pollution-credit trad- ing,26 to building high-tech barns, low-runoff hous- ing developments, green roofs, and stormwater-con- trol systems that look like gardens beside the road.

Harvard Business School Economist Dr. Michael Por- ter argued in a ground-breaking article in Scientific American more than 20 years ago that well-designed environmental regulations could actually enhance the competitiveness of businesses by encouraging in- novation and by improving the efficiency with which businesses use natural resources. “Strict environmen- tal regulations do not inevitably hinder competitive advantage against rivals; indeed, they often enhance it,” Porter wrote in 1991.27

Cleaner water also will mean more fish, crabs, and oysters, which will translate to more work and income for fishermen, processors, packers, restaurateurs, and people in tourism-related industries. If history is any guide, environmental regu- lations will once again nourish job creation, not bury it.

Read full report here.