And we have so many people to thank!

The show must and did go on!
Storms threatened in the days and even hours before the event but for the most part skirted south - all but 5 minutes of drops that brought a double  rainbow over the barn stage. 

A multitude of thanks go to:
Our hosts - Madison Fields
All those who attended  to celebrate the Reserve with us. 

Royce Hanson- Architect of the Ag Reserve who joined us to share the importance of Reserve.

Our talented Musicians - The Eastman String Band and the 19th Street Band

Our wonderful Food Vendors: Cipolla Rossa Pizza, 3rd Alarm BBQ and Bruster's Ice Cream along with our friends at Wegmans that provided the drinks. 

Our locally crafted beer and wine (where you can go to enjoy the varieties you tried along with other great events most weekends!)  Waredaca Brewing Company and Rocklands Farm and Winery.

Our keen Vendors: Switch Purse, Lady Farmer, Glisten Jewellery, Countryside Artisans, Fugal Foxhunter, Rustic Roads Advisory Board, Friends of Ten Mile Creek, American Farmland Trust and Madison House Autism Foundation.
Van, Dwain and the Washington Folklife Festival Crew crew who used their expertise to construct our barn-side stage and make it sound like a concert hall. Thanks guys! 
​

​Outer beltway through the Reserve! Keep your eyes open... Because. Shifting positions.
A tale of two surveys... check out candidates' positions on transportation projects. Seems that for some, the answer really depends on who is doing the asking...
Seriously...
Just reporting here. Up to voters but inconsistency makes our job to inform ourselves... hard.
MCA survey question regarding 2nd crossing/outer beltway support...
Candidate Gabe Albernoz "I do not support M83 or a second crossing."
Yet when Suburban Md Transportation Alliance asks him if he "supports studying the concept"... the answer: ✔️yes (see question 8)
Mind you SMTA offers only yes or no option to a strategically phrased question. But yes is an answer. And no is an answer that would have been consistent with the answer on the MCA survey. You can find all the survey results on Seventh State
MCA's Survey Results are here.  Other conflicting answers include Marilyn Balcombe who says "the bridge won't happen in my lifetime" still says she'd like to see it studied.

Together with our supporters and partners we have a lot of accomplishments to be proud of:

• 400+ acres of local land linked with new and expanding farmers through our Land Link program. 
• A Mobile Ag Lab program that bring hands-on agriculture lessons to all MoCo Elementary Schools along with a High School Ag Education program that brings farmers to the classroom and students to local farms.
• Bringing candidate views on agriculture, transportation, and land use to voters through our candidate's survey. 
• Help pass state legislation paving the way for the cultivation of industrial hemp - a crop with benefits for farm ecology and the local economy.
• Partnered with other civic organizations to stop sewer sprawl into the Ag Reserve.
• Served on both the On Farm Composting Committee and the Zero Waste Task Force to help  Montgomery County move toward a zero-waste future.

 What’s old is new again and the economics are promising!
Hemp can now be cultivated under certain conditions in Maryland thanks to this year’s legislation now signed into law by Governor Hogan. Big thanks to Delegate David Fraser Hidalgo and his team for their tireless work in seeing this through.
 
Why hemp production in Maryland?

• Hemp is good for the environment: Hemp requires little to no fertilizers or pesticides, improves soil health, reduces farm runoff that can pollute our waterways, and supports biodiversity.
• Hemp is good for farmers: Hemp is a fast-growing crop that performs well in our climate and can open up new markets for farmers. It also helps build nutrients in the soil so farmers need fewer fertilizers or other costly additives.
• Hemp is good for Maryland: Hemp production can bring new jobs to the state to grow and process the crop and manufacture it into goods, including textiles, construction materials, food, health and beauty products.

 
Farmers and businesses have been quickly getting up to speed on how best to proceed in Maryland. The question of start up costs has rightly been raised especially with regard to equipment. MC producer Joe Orlow offers, “The specialized machinery can be perhaps be obtained and shared by forming a co-operative of hemp farmers. The labor intensive nature does not have to be a downside. As example, Growing Warriors  under Mike Lewis has found employment for veterans.” 

Pending Federal Legislation is co-sponsored by 1/3rd of the Senate and a recent resolution touting its potential benefits just passed this month.

More - economic and environmental benefits:
 
Forbes : A win for Industry and environment
 
The Guardian: The Plant that Could Boost America's Economy

​Our Previous Post on Hemp

There was a productive stakeholder meeting in May 2018 at the MC Farm Bureau. To learn more drop us a line info@mocoalliance.org

A good summary from Seventh State from back in March sets up the issue : "County Executive Ike Leggett said he intends to pursue a public-private partnership (P3) to administer the county’s stormwater management program.  That decision is particularly interesting given the facts that the State of Maryland has alleged that the county committed numerous violations of its stormwater permit and the county agreed to a consent decree in January." 

​All while other stormwater projects have been canceled while this new system is considered. Water Quality Can't Wait!

MCA's response and request that County Council override:

This is an important issue. Here is our response - Montgomery Countryside Alliance:
-----

On May 17, 2018, Executive Leggett issued a public statement with his intent to line-item veto the stormwater program funding approved by the County Council for the FY19 Capital Budget. On June 1 he did just that.
Executive Leggett claims that the Council’s decision “threatens our ability to meet important environmental goals and will certainly delay projects designed to meet our State-mandated MS4 permit”.
Executive Leggett further claims that the stormwater programs needs to be “responsive to County taxpayers who – without changes – will be paying more in stormwater management charges to get less”.
These statements are factually incorrect. For months, Executive Leggett has pushed forward a narrative that a large, sole-sourced contracting mechanism (design-build-maintain, or DBM) is the only way Montgomery County can meet its stormwater goals and requirements. We disagree. And ask the Council to override this veto.

Point 1:
• The County Council has budget discretionary authority. The T&E Committee and the Council heard public testimony from citizens and watershed groups for months. The T&E Committee responded to this public testimony in agreement; the Committee decided the Executive’s proposal was risky, uninformed, and vague. The Committee recommended a different proposal, to move forward with existing procedures to build projects already in a pipeline (with existing investments totaling $5.3 million). The recommendation passed 2-1 in committee and 5-4 in full Council.
• The Executive’s decision to threaten a veto here is undoing weeks of careful public debate the Council undertook. The Executive’s veto threatens to undermine the role of public accountability and transparency the Council plays during budget negotiations.
Point 2:
• In March 2018, the Executive cancelled 26 stormwater projects, with investments of $2.6 million. The rationale provided by DEP stated:
o “In our most recent analysis of the County’s comprehensive watershed restoration actions, we documented significant progress toward meeting the restoration goals. The progress achieved to date towards meeting the Permit requirements allows the County to reduce the number of remaining capital projects originally identified to meet the 2010 MS4 permit. As a result, the County has decided not to move forward at this time on 25 projects currently in design”. (A 26th project was included after this letter from DEP was distributed.)
o If the Executive is so concerned with meeting MS4 permit requirements and environmental goals, why did he cancel these projects and suspend 44 others? The county could be working on these projects right now, but instead, these projects are waylaid by the Executive’s decisions. The veto threatens moving forward on all county stormwater projects (not just the 44 suspended projects). The Council decision helps the county continue construction and implementation of stormwater projects – why would the Executive further delay these projects from moving forward?
o 14 of the 26 cancelled projects were in Craig Rice’s district – district 2. Why is he unconcerned with these project cancellations, given his interest in Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts? These local projects are the only way to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
o 21 of the 44 projects are in Craig Rice’s district – district 2. Why would he support the Executive’s proposal that would delay these projects? These projects may never be built under the DBM approach.
Point 3:
• The Council voted to maintain a level Water Quality Protection Charge this year – the same budget recommendation that came from Executive Leggett. Why is the Executive claiming taxpayers will pay more?
Point 4:
• We fail to understand why the Executive is continuing to push forward this design-build-maintain (DBM) contracting change. The Council analyst packet from May 2, 2018 states:
o “The [Executive’s] Recommended CIP assumes savings in per-acre retrofit costs totaling about $5 to $6 million in the six-year period. However, actual savings will not be known until the new contract is awarded”.
o The Executive is basing his DBM proposal on math that doesn’t add up. 5 to 6 million over six years, when we have already thrown $2.6M away and we’ve suspended $5.3M (total = $7.9M). Even assuming we didn’t build all of these projects, for technical or timing issues, what are we really saving with the DBM?
o Executive has claimed a DBM is the only way of meeting our environmental goals, saying these goals are “achievable only if we modify our approach to contracting out the design, construction and maintenance of our stormwater management facilities”.
o Why is this the only way? We still have seen no evidence supporting this decision. No analysis. No data. There are lots of ways of doing contracting; did the Executive perform a cost-benefit analysis for different contracting methods? What lessons learned (if any) have been pulled from the county’s existing pay-for-performance contracts?  

The County Council voted correctly. Please override the Executive's Veto.