The lush greens of a former golf course could be hazardous to your health.
That?s the concern of some lawmakers and activists pushing to require developers to test for potentially toxic chemicals before building on land that was once a golf course.
“Without the testing, construction workers and neighbors and future residents are being exposed to potentially toxic concentrations of chemicals,” said Marc Norman, a resident and outspoken critic of development at the Turf Valley Resort in Ellicott City.
Two state bills would require developers planning to build on land once used as a golf course to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the land.
The Maryland Department of the Environment would assemble a panel to review and approve the testing plan and evaluate the results, according to the legislation.
“I just think that makes absolute sense,” said bill co-sponsor Del. Elizabeth Bobo, D-District 12B, who is a member of the Environmental Matters Committee and one of eight House members to sign on. On the Senate side, six lawmakers are backing a similar measure.
The hotly contested Turf Valley Resort is one of several golf courses planning redevelopment statewide that would be affected by the legislation, Norman said.
“There is broad appeal to this because this problem is happening across the state,” he said.
In Howard last year, then-County Council Member Ken Ulman wanted to introduce legislation forcing developers to test former golf courses, but he was advised the county didn?t have the authority, and it was a state issue.
Testing would allow developers to see what land might be contaminated, and they wouldn?t want to build there, Bobo said.
However, the Maryland Department of the Environment opposes the bills, because of a lack of funding for the department?s role and the measures? limited scope.
“The bill does not focus on other types of properties slated for redevelopment where pesticides and herbicides are commonly used, including agricultural and residential properties,” the department?s position paper states, adding that the measures don?t include analysis for other potentially hazardous compounds.
The bills “would not advance the state?s goal of protecting human health and the environment.”
