Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman - Mandatory Appropriation
HB0671 would expand Maryland’s on-site sewage disposal system rules to address climate-related flooding and sea level rise. It requires county water and sewerage plans, by January 1, 2026, to include strategies to minimize inundation of existing septic systems and to limit new septic installations in areas identified as Coast Smart Climate Ready Action Boundaries or Riverine Climate Ready Action Boundaries. The bill defines these as “climate vulnerable areas.”
Beginning July 1, 2026, the bill generally prohibits installing a new on-site sewage disposal system to serve a newly constructed building in a climate vulnerable area unless the system uses nitrogen removal technology, is approved with climate resiliency considerations, and the owner pays an alternative compliance fee equal to the cost of connecting to an existing municipal wastewater facility. It also prohibits replacement of an existing system in those areas unless the replacement uses nitrogen removal technology and is approved with climate resiliency considerations. Violations would be subject to existing civil and administrative penalties, capped at $8,000, and the Department of the Environment must adopt regulations to implement the new requirements, including site evaluation criteria and design standards that reduce climate-event impacts and prohibit deep trench systems.
The bill also amends the Bay Restoration Fund to support these changes. It adds the new alternative compliance fee to the Fund and creates a use for the separate septic-related account to provide financial assistance to low-income homeowners for up to 100% of the cost of installing or replacing drain fields in climate vulnerable areas, if the Department approves the system under the new climate-area rules. Existing Bay Restoration Fund uses for nitrogen-removal upgrades, system repairs, operation and maintenance assistance, and pump-out support remain in place, with the new provisions layered on top.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a climate resilience and water quality measure, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts indicating formal debate in the provided materials. The structure of the bill suggests support for limiting septic expansion in flood-prone areas while preserving a path for installation or replacement through higher-standard systems and a fee-based alternative compliance option. Because no discussion or vote history is included, there is no documented opposition or consensus reflected in the supplied record.
The main point of potential contention is the practical impact on property owners, developers, and counties in vulnerable coastal and riverine areas, who would face tighter limits, added approval requirements, and possible added costs. At the same time, the bill provides financial assistance for low-income homeowners and directs fee revenue into the Bay Restoration Fund, which may be viewed as balancing environmental protection with affordability concerns.
HB0671 would amend the Environment Article to add climate-vulnerability restrictions to county water and sewerage planning and to the state’s on-site sewage disposal system permitting rules. It would create new statutory definitions for “climate vulnerable area,” require new county plan elements, impose new installation and replacement limits in designated areas, and direct the Department of the Environment to adopt implementing regulations. It also expands the Bay Restoration Fund and its separate septic-related account to finance low-income drain-field assistance in climate vulnerable areas, while preserving existing septic upgrade and maintenance assistance programs.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears generally pro-environment and pro-resilience, with a policy design that combines restrictions on septic systems in flood-prone areas with financial assistance for affected homeowners. The absence of recorded debate makes it impossible to identify formal support or opposition from the provided record.
The likely points of contention are the new limits on septic system installation and replacement in climate vulnerable areas, the requirement that systems use nitrogen removal technology, and the alternative compliance fee tied to the cost of municipal sewer connection. Counties, builders, and property owners in affected areas may view the bill as increasing costs and constraining development, while environmental and water-quality advocates are likely to support the restrictions as necessary to reduce flooding, contamination, and sea-level-rise impacts. The low-income homeowner assistance provisions appear designed to soften those concerns, but the bill still shifts more responsibility to property owners and local governments in vulnerable areas.