Panel debates bills to speed landlord response and extend lead-law coverage to single-room units

Delegate Rosenberg opened a paired presentation on two bills aimed at addressing remaining gaps in Maryland’s lead‑poisoning law. House Bill 15-47 would expedite landlord responsibility when a child’s blood lead level meets or exceeds the state action level by requiring landlord assessment and, if necessary, remediation rather than waiting for the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to complete an environmental investigation first. House Bill 15-49 would remove an exemption that currently leaves some single‑room units outside the statute’s protections.

Ruth Ann Norton, chair of the Maryland Lead Poisoning Prevention Commission and president and CEO of the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, said the original law is a major public‑health success and that the 2019 change created a loophole leaving children exposed while waiting for MDE inspection. She summarized a case in which children’s blood‑lead levels rose dramatically while remediation was delayed. Riley Grace Rochong, a family‑advocate attorney with the same nonprofit, described how the 2019 procedural change requires MDE to inspect before a landlord must act and said the delay has left tenants waiting for remediation.

Supporters said the bills would restore a prior remedy allowing landlords to be required to perform a cursory assessment and remediation when a child tests positive. Matt Hill, an attorney with the Public Justice Center, framed the bills as necessary for low‑income families who cannot relocate and need a prompt remedy.

Opponents from the housing industry — Robert Anton of the Maryland Multihousing Association and Bill Castelli for the Maryland Realtors — argued the 2019 change was deliberate and that MDE inspections can determine whether the property caused the exposure; they cited state data indicating many elevated blood levels stem from non‑rental sources. Anton said MDE’s inspection and environmental testing will identify when property remediation is required and cautioned against shifting immediate relocation or remediation costs to owners when a property may not be the source.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about how many of the reported 267 cases (statewide at the current action level of 3 µg/dL as cited at the hearing) would be covered by the proposed expansion; witnesses said specific cross‑tabs were not on hand but could be obtained from MDE. The hearing included written testimony references and both proponents and opponents asked the committee to weigh enforcement speed against avoiding unnecessary costs for landlords.

The record shows a clear dispute in policy tradeoffs: proponents want faster, tenant-protective remedies to reduce children’s exposure; industry representatives urge continued reliance on MDE investigation to avoid misdirected remediation.