Equal pro­tec­tions should be ap­plied to all wa­ter­sheds

Maryland Independent - - Community Forum -

When I worked for the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, I of­ten over­saw com­pet­i­tively awarded con­tracts. Con­trac­tors would oc­ca­sion­ally tell me that I was be­ing un­fair. My re­sponse would be that it is my job to look out for the best in­ter­ests of the gov­ern­ment and that my obli­ga­tion was not to be un­fair, but to be equally un­fair. Most ac­cepted this bit of sar­casm and rec­og­nized that I was be­ing im­par­tial and treat­ing each con­trac­tor equally.

When it comes to the Charles County Wa­ter­shed Conser va­tion Dis­trict, I don’t see equal treat­ment. I agree it is im­por­tant that re­sources be con­served and sprawl re­stricted, but it is also im­por­tant that prop­erty rights be pro­tected. If the west­ern part of Charles County is to be re­zoned and prop­erty rights abridged to pro­tect the Mat­ta­woman Wa­ter­shed, then other wa­ter­shed ar­eas should be sub­ject to sim­i­lar re­stric­tions.

The Port To­bacco, Ker­rick and Zekiah wa­ter­sheds de­serve pro­tec­tion as well. Are the De­part­ment of Plan­ning and Growth Man­age­ment and the Board of County Com­mis­sion­ers will­ing to take on the stake hold­ers in these ar­eas as they have with West­ern Charles? That would likely mean re­stric­tions re­gard­ing an­nex­a­tions by the Town of La Plata and down-zon­ing of ar­eas of St. Charles, some of which were up-zoned a few years ago.

J.R. Cur­tis, La Plata

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.