Subcommittee opens work session on HB 34 "Mason's Law," weighing scope, timelines and costs

The non-energy utilities subcommittee of the Environment and Transportation Committee convened a work session on HB 34, known in testimony as "Mason's Law," to begin drafting amendments and to consider implementation challenges raised by witnesses and local governments.

"The substance of the bill is requiring municipalities to construct or install an improved grading system on any new or existing open drainage inlet within the municipality, and retrofits of existing inlets must be completed by 06/01/2027," said Kristen Flynn, committee staff, summarizing the bill and the implementation concerns that have surfaced in testimony.

The bill grew out of testimony about a child who died after being swept into an open drain; members described the motivation as compelling but said the legislation needs work. The committee discussed three core issues: the bill's scope and the statutory definition of "open drainage inlet," whether and how to cover private property, and how to manage retrofit timing and costs.

Members said the bill's current definition is broad. Chair (non‑energy utilities subcommittee), reading the draft, noted the text defines an open drainage inlet as "a structure with a surface opening that has a diameter of 12 inches or more," and several delegates said that threshold could capture many low‑risk drainage features.

Several witnesses and local jurisdictions urged narrowing the types of structures covered. Flynn reported that Baltimore City recommended focusing on "large open culvert head walls and similar inlet configurations associated with entrapment hazards" rather than retrofitting all open inlets, and Gaithersburg suggested allowing local safety evaluations to target inlets that present a demonstrated public‑safety risk.

Committee members proposed building a safety‑evaluation process into the bill so that local governments could identify high‑risk sites and choose appropriate mitigations — grates, fencing or signage — rather than imposing a single retrofit solution statewide. "We may even be able to say if it's accessible to the public, if it, you know and if it's a certain size, which the bill already does," the chair said when discussing a targeted approach.

Lawmakers also debated whether the measure should reach private property. Several members favored limiting private‑property obligations to common ownership communities and apartment complexes — common areas where residents lack control — while excluding single‑family yards and other inaccessible private features. Delegates raised liability and insurance concerns if homeowners were made directly responsible for retrofits.

Timing and cost dominated the discussion. Flynn noted the draft requires retrofits to be completed by June 1, 2027, a schedule members called unrealistic for many jurisdictions. "In Baltimore City and Baltimore County, we have like 15,000 miles of pipe," one delegate said, urging a long runway and a tiered approach that prioritizes highest‑risk locations. Several members suggested the state consider grants or other assistance to avoid an unfunded mandate on small municipalities.

Members pointed to Mount Airy as a local example: town officials identified inlets, conducted a safety evaluation and then retrofitted the high‑risk locations. The committee asked staff to seek additional technical input from State Highways and municipal associations. "We should reach out to them and see what they do because they must have thousands of these things," a delegate said.

The committee took no formal votes. Chair directed Kristen Flynn to compile a list of concerns and suggested amendment points, reach out to the Maryland Municipal League (MML), the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo), State Highways and other stakeholders, and circulate options to committee members. Members also agreed to monitor a Senate cross‑file and any amendments by the Senate sponsor, Senator Karen Lewis Young.

The subcommittee adjourned with staff work and stakeholder outreach as the next steps; no formal amendment was adopted and no vote was taken.