Letter was incorrect on watershed claims
A letter in the May 19 Maryland Independent made a mistaken attribution to the Mattawoman Watershed Society (MWS), and contained faulty assertions that are contrary to the known problems facing Mattawoman Creek (“Commissioners, please recall the WCD”).
It was not MWS, but a real estate group that said (at a Nov. 28, 2016, hearing) that the watershed conservation district “could potentially be a loss of almost 17,000 [new] dwelling units.” MWS conducted a check by applying base densities to the various zoning acreages that would be replaced by the WCD (as given by the county at the same hearing), and computed more than 24,000 units. Since some of the acreage may already be developed, this value appears consistent with the Realtors’ value of 17,000 new units. However, with bonus densities, this number could increase very significantly. The WCD will produce many fewer new units, even including the compromise of child-lot subdivision recommended by the Planning Commission that MWS endorsed.
The letter mistakenly asserts that the Watershed Implementation Plan, a step in the Chesapeake Bay’s pollution diet, somehow assures the health of Mattawoman Creek. To the contrary, the county’s more recent and detailed Stormwater Restoration Plan is unable to meet Mattawoman’s own pollution diet mandated by the Clean Water Act, and even concludes it may “not be feasible.” Worse, the restoration plan computes that new development, if it follows business as usual, will overwhelm any reductions in nitrogen pollution achieved by restoration, and this includes use of best management practices to treat stormwater. Such development would clearly push Mattawoman beyond its present position at the “tipping point” for irreversible degradation caused by so much impervious surface. The WCD, by significantly reducing sprawl development, will curtail new pollution and forest loss, and so keep Mattawoman safe as a recreational and tourism centerpiece, while also improving the quality of life.
Finally, the letter lists some organizations opposed to the WCD. Those who know Charles County understand these groups have long been boosters for the growth machine that has overcrowded the schools, kept property tax rates high to service sprawl development, led to long commutes, threatened the water supply and stressed emergency services. Thank goodness a majority of county commissioners has moved toward smarter growth policies, including the Watershed Conservation District.
Jim Long, Accokeek The writer is the president of the Mattawoman Watershed Society.