Franklin's got it.
Obviously, if a well is drilled on public land, then the public entity that allows it will get some $$$. Same is true of private citizens, if you allow drilling on your land you'll get some money up front plus a % of sales. I have no issues whatsoever with public entities using this money for whatever they wish. In fact, that's how it's already set up. This has nothing whatsoever to do with an "impact fee."
Further, all businesses of any type pay taxes. Those taxes go to the general fund to be used on whatever Washington and Harrisburg feel is high priority. I have no issue with that.
The impact fee, though, is another cost on top of all of that. It is meant to alleviate the problems caused by drilling. This is stuff like roads and bridges, traffic issues in small towns (who may have to alter roads, add stoplights, etc. to adjust), increased monitoring and enforcement costs, wastewater treatment changes, cleanup of any spills or accidents, etc.
So yes, I support such a fee. Otherwise, the taxpayers get pinched for all those associated costs of drilling. It should be built into the cost of doing business for the industry. If feasible, I'd even prefer it be scaled to the impact of each well, thus giving the drillers incentive to avoid causing issues to begin with, though I do realize that'd be very difficult to implement on a large scale. I'd also support an impact fee for most, if not all industries. Cause again, why penalize the drillers for their environmental cost, and not touch coal mining, steelmaking, auto making, farming, and any other industry? The real cost, including not only traditional business expenses, but also the cost to society and the environment, should be built into the market.
You think the farmers who use fertilizers in central PA should be partially responsible for the plight of fishermen in the Chesapeake? I do. Build this cost into the cost of fertilizer. Suddenly, the market can determine whether its worthwhile or not. If consumers deem the fishermen more important than the famers, then the market will make it so. If not, then obviously the fertilizer is more important to consumers, and so be it.
Imagine if coal included all of its environmental costs from the beginning. 1. Coal would have been more expensive, which would accurately reflect it's REAL cost. 2. Coal companies would have strived to protect the environment more than they did to keep their costs LOWER.
But no, I do not support opening up that "impact fee" money for use in anything aside from what it's intended for, such as new restrooms in state parks or establishing new state land. Again, I support those causes, but it's inappropriate use of this particular money. It just establishes bad precedent and reeks of corruption, as everyone and their mother sees green and tries to get the fee increased to fund their pet projects on the backs of consumers.
It is consumers that ultimately pay. That means everyone who uses electricity or gas. If you want the people to pay for more public land and sprucing up existing public land, then do it the traditional way and justify it properly. i.e. tax the citizens and explain to the voters why it's worthwhile. Or if it's the PFBC or PGC, explain to fishermen and hunters how a license increase for this purpose is worth it for them. Don't try to sneak in a revenue stream through some fee from an unrelated industry.