Register now on! Login


Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users

TU calls on PA Gov. to tighter Regs

2007/3/29 7:56
From Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 60
From an article re- posted on our chapter website:


Posted on: 2011/10/20 7:03

Re: TU calls on PA Gov. to tighter Regs

2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 2197
Agree with the reg changes, buffers and going to edge of pad, etc.

Disagree with money from the impact fee going to broader conservation efforts. That starts you down a slippery slope, the money is intended to cover increased costs to various parties directly impacted by drilling. That money needs to stay with those issues where the direct assignable cause is drilling activity, so that those impacts can be properly measured and the fee adjusted, if necessary. Starting to use it for causes that are unrelated or only loosely related to the drilling is a mistake, IMO. It'd amount to a tax. It is not a tax.

However, I would support a portion of the state's royalties going to broader environmental efforts. That's a completely separate issue.

Posted on: 2011/10/20 12:11

Re: TU calls on PA Gov. to tighter Regs

2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 37
Obviously drilling and related activities have no impact on the watersheds, thus there should be no money allocated to the Growing Greener fund.

Posted on: 2011/10/20 18:20

Re: TU calls on PA Gov. to tighter Regs

2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 2197
Not saying they have no impact. Saying the impact fee needs to stay specifically tied to things with a DIRECT AND ASSIGNABLE causes due to drilling, not to a broad statewide fund. My reason for this is that I strongly support the impact fee, but expect the impacts to be greater than the initial fee can cover. The cost of alleviating those impacts has to remain specific in order to keep accurate records, so when an increase in the fee is needed at a future time, it can be adequately justified.

So, if it is found that certain specific streams suffer from something related to drilling activity, and Growing Greener creates a program to alleviate those issues on those specific streams only, then yes, I'd be open to impact fee money going to that specific program. But I wouldn't support fee money from a well in Potter County going towards AMD remediation in Schulykill Cty, or creating a new park in some other location. In fact I'd do what I could to stop it from happening. Sorry.

But again, royalty money, thats a different ballgame. Go after that! Landowners get to keep royalty money and use it for whatever they deem a priority. In this case, the citizens of PA are the landowners. And more, those public lands were created with public $$$ set aside for recreation and enhancing health and outdoor activities. As a member of that public, I suggest that it makes perfect sense to use any proceeds towards recreation and enhancing health and outdoor activities. Like, say, the growing greener fund.

Posted on: 2011/10/20 21:28

You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]

Site Content
Stay Connected facebook instagram RSS Feed

USGS Water Levels
The New Keystone Fly Fishing Book
How many trout did you harvest in 2016
Zero, I am C&R all the way.
1-5 wild trout
1-5 stocked trout
6-10 wild trout
6-10 stocked trout
more than 10 wild trout
more than 10 stocked trout
The poll will close at 2017/2/21 10:26

Copyright 2017 by | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by