Bucks County Eco news

Corbett Gas Ads Lie to the Public and Should Come Down!

2010-10-05T18:56:00.000-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 5, 2010

Contact:

joshua.mcneil@conservationpa.org; 215.564.3350

jeff.schmidt@sierraclub.org; 717.232.0101

marnowitt@cleanwater.org; 412.765.3053

david.masur@pennenvironment.org; 215.732.5897

Corbett Gas Ads Mislead the Public

Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, PennEnvironment and Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania call for the Corbett campaign to stop airing ads on Marcellus Shale

Harrisburg – In the last week, gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett has launched two campaign ads that focus on Marcellus Shale drilling and the severance tax. The first, a radio ad, refers to the severance tax as “a huge extra tax on drillers” that will: “make it more difficult for companies to compete, kill jobs, and increase utility bills.” The second, a TV spot, calls a severance tax “a massive Pennsylvania energy tax that will kill jobs and drive up utility bills.” These statements paint a dire and inaccurate picture of the economic impacts of a severance tax. PennEnvironment, Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, Clean Water Action and the Sierra Club ask Mr. Corbett to pull these ads off the air.

“These ads are pure and simple fear mongering without any facts,” said Myron Arnowitt, PA State Director, Clean Water Action. “The reality is that communities have had their drinking water contaminated by gas drilling. It’s only fair to ask these multinational oil and gas companies to pay to clean up the damage.”

“A massive/huge extra tax”: Pennsylvania is the only major gas producing state that does not require gas drillers to pay for our natural resources. Montana charges an effective rate of 7.5% on gas drillers. New Mexico: 7.3%. Oklahoma: 6.7% The proposals for a PA severance tax fall into this same range. Pennsylvania is also the only state in which property taxes cannot be collected on drilling rights, lowering the Commonwealth’s overall tax rate for drillers. It’s not a huge tax, it’s a tax that’s in line with established practice throughout the country and one that drillers expect to pay. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that a drilling executive from Dallas told Rep. Karen Beyer (R., Lehigh) that the industry is willing to pay a production tax. Beyer called Pennsylvania's lack of an extraction tax "an outrage."

“Drilling poses serious risks to Pennsylvanians and our environment. A severance tax will compensate communities and fund projects that repair environmental damage,” state Dennis Winters, Chair of Sierra Club’s Pennsylvania Chapter. “It is time the drillers pay their fair share in Pennsylvania. The public deserves to be told that the severance tax is a tax on producers and not consumers. Mr Corbett seems to be running the same ads as the American Petroleum institute, the industry’s mouthpiece.”

“Drive up utility bills”: Gas is bought and sold on a worldwide market and the production price of any single gas source has a negligible effect on the market rate. Currently, most Pennsylvanians get their gas from out of state, from states that already impose a severance tax. Gas that is produced in Pennsylvania goes into the same gas market as the gas from everywhere else, meaning that an increased production cost in Pennsylvania due to a severance tax will have little bearing on the price paid by consumers.

“Mr. Corbett’s advertisement feels a bit like an Alice in Wonderland scenario where everything is topsy-turvy,” stated David Masur of PennEnvironment. “The environmental community by and large has vocally supported the passage of the natural gas severance tax so for Mr. Corbett to attempt to claim the environmental high ground on this issue by opposing the extraction fee is a bit ridiculous.”

“Kills jobs”: The argument that a severance tax will kill jobs is based on the idea that a tax will slow the production of gas in Pennsylvania and thus delay the creation of drilling jobs. This argument supposes that increased taxation will lead to less drilling. The massive amount of drilling currently occurring in Texas, Colorado, and the other states, each of which currently maintains a severance tax, belies this argument. Pennsylvania’s location, next to the major gas markets of the American northeast, means that Pennsylvania drillers will always have an advantage over other states due to decreased transportation costs.

Additionally, a recent Penn State study* reports that a severance tax will actually create jobs in Pennsylvania. The study predicts that for every $100 million paid in severance taxes, the Commonwealth will see a net job gain of 1,100 jobs. Meanwhile, the Allegheny Conference on Community Development estimates that 70% of the jobs at Marcellus Shale sites currently go to workers from out of state. The job increase from state and local spending based on a severance tax would employ primarily Pennsylvania workers, meaning that the net job gain for Pennsylvanians would be even higher than the study reports. The real truth is that failing to enact a severance tax will cost Pennsylvania thousands of jobs each year.

“If you want to lead Pennsylvania, misleading its citizens is a bad place to start,” said Josh McNeil of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania. “Mr. Corbett needs to take down these deceitful ads.”

Neither the Sierra Club nor Clean Water Action have made an endorsement in the Pennsylvania Governor’s race. Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania and PennEnvironment have endorsed Dan Onorato.

*Rose M. Baker and David Passmore, Benchmarks for Assessing the Potential Impact of a Natural Gas Severance Tax on the Pennsylvania Economy, September 13, 2010 http://www.personal.psu.edu/dlp/remi2010/#/.

- 30 -

Pennsylvania needs a moratorium on any new Gas Drilling!

2010-09-13T19:47:00.000-04:00

With a history of environmental degradation, economic exploitation and safety violations, the coal industry’s record foreshadows the impact hasty drilling will have on Marcellus Shale communities.

Pennsylvania needs a moratorium on further Marcellus gas drilling until state and federal governments have adequate regulations to protect local drinking water standards. The Marcellus drilling boom has swept across Pennsylvania before our state government was prepared to handle this. It has imposed a heavy costs on our state environment: from air pollution due to hydrocarbon emissions; pipelines defacement our forests and natural areas, drilling pads and wastewater pits scarring our landscapes; heavy rigs damaging our roads; billions of gallons of water taken from our streams with the potential to them to dry up; and operational errors contaminating our land and water and air

Pennsylvania communities are affected as well, people being killed and injured from accidents, communities and towns having to pay for additional services such as training and equipment necessary for emergency personnel to deal with fires, toxic spills. Towns are also involved in costly legal battles to make companies comply with regulations and zoning. All these expenses are occurring which communities have to absorb in a time of economic downturn!

The state was not prepared for the onslaught. As a result, thousands of permits were issued before the problems you read about in the newspapers were revealed. This problem included:

1. A gas well explosion in Clearfield County, which led DEP to impose requirements on operation of blow out preventers.

2. The contamination of drinking water wells in Dimock and in other counties due to poor casing and cementing of the wells;

3. The gas explosion where two workers were killed in Explosion near Pittsburgh.

4. Fracking Spills which have ruined Pennsylvania Streams

5. The lack of wastewater infrastructure to treat wastewater

6. The Pennsylvania State Police finding that 40% of trucks serving the Marcellus industry had safety violations; and the destruction of rural roads by heavy trucks.

7. Pennsylvania DEP issued 1435 Violations in 2.5 Years - 952 Identified as Most Likely to harm the environment.

8. The quarantine of cattle after a mixture of fresh water and wastewater leaked from an impoundment pit

9. The Spilling of 12,000 gallons of synthetic drilling mud spilled in Sproul State Forest

10. Numerous fish Kills From Marcellus Shale Drilling like what happened in Cross Creek Park Washington County

This is just the tip of the iceberg to the numerous problems and issues which face Pennsylvania because of natural gas drilling

If we can't protect our communities and natural resources, then we should not drill!

Pennsylvania needs proven assurance their irreplaceable water sources will remain clean and safe to drink long after the gas has been fractured away. We ask you to write your Legislators in Harrisburg to impose a drilling moratorium until state and federal governments have adequate regulations to protect local drinking water standards.

Why did Jane Hamsher attack the Sierra Club? MONEY!

2010-06-17T23:15:00.004-04:00

After looking and contemplating the two articles by Ms Hamsher attacking the Sierra Club, it became clear to me why she went after the green groups, and more specifically the Sierra Club.

It had nothing to do with who is the better environmental organization or who is not being tough on the current administration or BP. The reason is to get more green. I realized this after noticing both of the articles right up there along side the big bold title is another column which states “Firedoglake needs to raise $50,000 by June” (see graphic below)

This got me to thinking of her possible rationalization for the attacks
If you need money to keep your site operating who can she get to fund her site, who has deep pockets and may be able to provide an infusion of cash donations. What issue is a hot button issue right now? Of course the oil spill! People are clamoring to help with this cause! but the field of worthy groups is pretty crowded. How can she divert some of that money from these environmental groups to my own personal cause?

How about attacking the large environmental groups for not being as critical as FDL on the administrations and show how FDL more concerned with the issue in the gulf than the others.

Now which organization to lead off with which organization has the most name recognition? Of course the Serra Club! They even have some controversies which I can use to stir up the pot! Lets attack them!
Hence the first article which attacked several major environmental/conservation origination, and specifically targeted the Sierra Club

if you notice predominately displayed right next to the article is a second Column boldly displayed which states “Firedoglake needs to raise $50,000 by June”

The interesting thing to note, on other articles this donate section is lower on the page and only on the two Sierra Club attack articles are the donation buttons pushed up to the top.(see examples of other articles below.

For the second Article I theorize that she noticed how much discussion there was and it must have created a flurry of donations to her FDL site so she decided to write another attack ad to try and generate more donations. Hence the second attack on the club

It looks like I may have contributed to the second attack article as when I read the first article I felt she was attacking me, and as an active member of the Sierra Club she was. So I went on a rampage and wrote a long response to her article I posted this on my blog and posed an abbreviated version on FDL with a link to the longer response. In her second article she even linked to my blog and stated: "Sierra Club loyalists were quick to defend the club..."

I think she noticed how much discussion there was and it must have created a flurry of donations to her FDL site, so she decided to write the second attack article to try and generate more donations, Hence the second attack on the club

In the second article she also tried to attack the club again as well as bring up the club’s past controversies, much of the information she used was edited to mislead or distort the club’s stance on issues and to show just how much more concerned she and FDL is when compared to the Sierra Club. If you read her second article she tries to make the club look like a “corporate sellout” and infer how evil those corporations are, taking money to protect the environment is bad and evil, don’t support that horrible origination give your money to me I am greener than them.

One question which was posed by a reader was about the first article being posted on Huffington post as well as FDL and that Huffington does not solicit donations for FDL. I think the reason to post on Huffingot was to act as an unpaid advertisement to draw others to FDL. there is noting like free press to draw others to your site and that is what the Huffington post article was supposed to do.

It easy to point fingers and criticize and yes I am not saying the club have not made mistakes in the past, but at least to me it is truly a low blow to criticize an organization and people trying to better the planet just to fund your own organization (and pay yourself!).

My response to Sierra Club: Pro-Corporate, Anti-Grass Roots on Firedoglake

2010-06-15T23:23:00.003-04:00

Article URL http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/06/15/sierra-club-pro-corporate-anti-grass-roots/

Since Ms Hamsher is going to try and show the Sierra Club’s dirty laundry, let’s list it all. The controversy concerned payments for supporting Greenworks She stated clorox gave $1.1 million to the Sierra Club is inacurate as the amount was "not discolsed" The Club put the Florida chapter executive committee on probation not the members as she states in her article.

for those of you who want more information on the club's perespetive of greenworks it is at http://www.sierraclub.org/greenworks/

Delving further into the past how about the club’s immigration issue controversy which nearly tore the club apart or even further back with the club’s nasty firing of David Brower. Controversy stretches all the way back to and also involved John Muir.
Ms Hamsher stated where is the Sierra Club focusing its attention? …. The Sierra Club issued a press release saying “It’s encouraging to see the Obama administration taking steps to improve safety regulations for offshore drilling.” On that same day, they took out a full page ad in the Washington Post, thanking Obama for putting a hold on an Alaska drilling project (no press release).

Of course Ms Hamsher neglects to mention the other environmental groups who were also listed on the ad. She also totally neglected to show the other press release the club issued on June 7th (http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=180143.0) or the other ad the club took out (http://www.sierraclub.org/oilspill/downloads/beyondOil.pdf)

Ms Hamsher also tries to infer that the club is totally backing Kerry Lieberman, but if you look at this http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=adv_aces&s_src=ac the club has and is pushing to improve any clean energy legislation, But again she doesn’t bother to point that out

I stated before the actual part where the rubber meets the road are the volunteers. And it is the volunteers who run this organization so when she is trying to belittle the club she is belittling every single one of the people who set and urn meetings, organize and set up events, conduct outings, write their elected officials about legislation testify at hearing and in court for the environment she defames each and every one of these dedicated individuals. But NO she doesn’t think that her words hurt them, that is not the true Sierra Club in her mind. Well in the mind of every sierra club volunteer it does!

From comments on the FDL site it is obvious that most of the club dissenters were never member of the club or if they were most likely just sent in their application and expected “the club” to handle it for them These people most likely ever laid a hand at actually volunteering at any actions or events! (and probably don’t do anything now but complain now either! These people are just looking for an excuse to bash the club

The Sierra club is not perfect it never will be and there will always be something that upsets or angers someone the old saying “can’t please all the people…” and they shouldn’t try as there is always other groups such as Greenpeace, or the the Audubon Society.

Let me also point out some additional misinformation from Ms Hamsher: Mr. Pope is not the head of the Sierra Club, He is the chairman, he was the executive director until March 2010. when Michael Brune was hired. The actual “head “of the Sierra Club is the president of the board of directors; I posted the org chart (http://bucksenvironment.blogspot.com/2010/06/sierra-club-org-chart.html) for reference. The Board of Directors are unpaid volunteers elected by the general membership of the club.

Mr. Pope does not have the authority to disband a group that can only come from the board of directors not from the executive director. And the number in the chapter was 175-member not the 700,000 which was stated by Ms Hamsher.

While we are on the topic disbandment my own Sierra Club group, The Bucks County Group of the Pennsylvania Chapter, which I was actively involved with in the 1990’s was disbanded 2 years ago. The reason several individuals from the local (Bucks County PA) democratic committee tried to take over the group and use it for their personal and political benefit. They wanted to use this group to only politically endorse democrats at the exclusion of other candidates from other parties. It took the board of directors and the PA chapter to disband the group. While I was upset at the actions I understood the reason for their action. (Note I was not "an active volunteer" at that time.)

Lastly Ms Hamsher you never bothered to address the main point of my response which I repeat here

While you feel the Obama administration can wave this magic wand and instantly fix this mess in the Gulf, they can’t. No one can. Even if the administration nationalized the efforts to cap the well and clean up the spill they would not be able too much of anything until the well is sealed.

If you want to criticize someone, look in the mirror. It is the public’s apathetic and uncaring attitude which caused this spill. The Sierra Club has been fighting for decades for cleaner energy solutions while the general pubic buys gas guzzling SUVs and energy inefficient mc-mansions. The public has also allowed the previous administration to block any measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency.

It is disappointing when people like you suddenly jump on the bandwagon to criticize others who have spent years making REAL efforts to protect our environment. It’s time you and your fellow ambassadors of anger stop complaining about the problem and become part of the solution.

So, I pose a question to all of Ms Hamsher minions what are you doing to help this crisis? Other than criticizing the hard work of others. The volunteers of the Sierra Club are gathering volunteers to help in what ever way we can in the gulf http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/VOLUNTEER_OPPORTUNITIES_AND_RESOURCES.pdf?docID=5142, pressing for clean energy solutions http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/UploadedFiles/ZichellaTestimony11.05.09.pdf , and attempting to push better environmental legislation through congress http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=TakeAction_CI_Energy and the states

It looks all Ms Hamsher's and her cronies are willing to do is complain about others!

Sierra club Org Chart

2010-06-15T16:54:00.002-04:00

My response to Jane Hamsher' Artilce "Why The Sierra Club No Longer Deserves Your Trust"

2010-06-14T19:10:00.002-04:00

This is my response to Jane Hamsher's article titled "Why The Sierra Club No Longer Deserves Your Trust" published in the Huffington Post on June 14, 2010

Article URL http://huff.to/a99ETV

Dear Ms Hamsher,

As 30 year member of the Sierra Club, I find you article insulting and degrading to every member of the Club. The Sierra Club is a grass roots organization, so I ask you, what are you doing -- besides criticizing others -- to assist with the people and the ecosystem of the Gulf?

The Club has been actively asking for volunteers to assist with whatever they can to assist the people and animals of the Gulf. Members from around the country have answered the call and are donating their time, talents, and resources to aid the people and the environment of the Gulf.

Your article insults those very volunteers and every Sierra Club member who has ever volunteered to help with an environmental cause -- be it lobbying for stronger legislation, testifying at local or state hearing, or promoting the outdoors by sponsoring a trip or an outing to a natural wonder.

While you feel the Obama administration can wave this magic wand and instantly fix this mess in the Gulf, they can’t. No one can. Even if the administration nationalized the efforts to cap the well and clean up the spill they would not be able too much of anything until the well is sealed.

If you want to criticize someone, look in the mirror. It is the public’s apathetic and uncaring attitude which caused this spill. The Sierra Club has been fighting for decades for cleaner energy solutions while the general pubic buys gas guzzling SUVs and energy inefficient mc-mansions. The public has also allowed the previous administration to block any measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency.

It is disappointing when people like you suddenly jump on the bandwagon to criticize others who have spent years making REAL efforts to protect our environment. It’s time you and your fellow ambassadors of anger stop complaining about the problem and become part of the solution.

You want someone to do something? You start! Write your congressman and senators and urge them to support legislation that provides for clean energy. Volunteer at a local environmental preserve. Make a donation. Just stop pointing fingers… unless it’s at yourself.

Jane, your ramblings are not better than the claptrap that comes out of Rush Limbaugh or Gen Beck!

Now let see if Jane Hamsher bothers to read or reply (I doubt she will)

A national mess, worse by the day, so where is the urgency?

2010-05-22T14:20:00.000-04:00

May 22, 2010
Just a thought by W. Kenton

The Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 released an estimated 250,000 barrels (10.8 million gallons) into Prince William Sound one of the richest wild life and fishing grounds found anywhere. Today, 21 years later this once vital and rich nature wonder is just a shadow of its former self, with oil and tar still to be found. Prior to last month this was known as the largest and most devastating human-caused environmental disaster ever to occur in history (1).

Since the explosion and sinking on April 20 of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, BP, government, and/or media estimates have reported repeatedly that approximately 5,000 barrels a day are being released into the Gulf of Mexico (2). Since this past weekend estimates of 210,000 gallons are being extracted through an inserted pipe in the ruptured well, admittedly a very small amount of the overall leak. (3)

Some noise has been made in the last few days that the oil leak is much larger per day than estimated and reported. Additional multiple leaks have been reported but where is the national coverage, where is the urgency, where is the science and fact reporting? Today another story has estimated that 4 million gallons per day (95,000 barrels daily) is actually pouring into the Gulf, much of it unseen (4). If multiplied by 30 days that is 2,850,000 barrels since the explosion have poured into the surrounding ocean. Said another way, 11.4 times the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster have been released into the Gulf in the last month alone; the equivalent of one disaster every 2.6 days.

Reports of oil reaching the Gulf Loop Current and oil washing up in the Keys is now a fact, and so is predicting the oil will make its way in the Atlantic Gulf Stream currents and be carried to every beach along the East Coast in the very near future.

I have one question, where is the national emergency and who is calling for more action? Are we completely dependent on BP to solve their disaster, or shouldn’t we be demanding much more action from everyone! Back in 1989 the response as I recall it was all over the national media and government stepped in under then President Regan. Is it me or was our response then far more aggressive, caring, and complete then what we are seeing today? The clean up in Alaska two decades again fell far short and was in itself a disaster, maybe it was all media hip I recall then, but my goodness where are we headed today with an event now calculated at many times that size?

Possible leak solutions have ranged from the stupid plugging it with golf balls to the scarcest using nuclear blasts (5) (6) to seal the wells nearby geology. Recent reports suggest that we could still be faced with the same leak or rate until August or more, that is 4 months, and that is if their Band-Aid attempts actually work someday. Based on performance to date it is clear regardless how difficult it may be, BP is way over their heads and only trying; they have no real solution or the talent or urgency to get it done any time soon!

It is high time that this national crisis be elevated to the highest levels in the most urgent manner and to get the best national talent and resources working on a solution today. It is time that BP turn over all technical data to the public, immediately start Sandia National Labs modeling solutions on their super computers, and get the Department of Defense engaged; this is a national crisis. Yes, media noise indicates that this may all be happening slowly in the background but again we cannot stand by idly; this event is killing the Gulf of Mexico for generations to come, placing the entire Gulf Coast on a countdown to destruction, and threatens the entire Atlantic Gulf Stream Region and eventually the Northern Caribbean Basin.

It is time to remove this solution from private industry, clearly unable to handle this growing mess, elevate this to the crisis level that it is and to mobilize all resources! Sorry BP you destroyed our ocean and national well being, once again we are paying the price for poor leadership and understanding. Call your Congressman today and demand the most immediate response and our best national talent possible be called upon. Enough is enough; we are past needing real action, get mad and get making the calls to Congress to get this stopped.
Footnotes:

Source Wikipedia.org
Source http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14oil.html
(3) Source AP posted to: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/worldnation/744617-227/bp-concedes-gulf-oil-spill-is-bigger.html?i=1
Source http://www.examiner.com/x-27431-World-News-Examiner~y2010m5d20-Second-leak-on-BP-Gulf-oil-spill-brings-total-gushing-to-4-million-gallons-per-day
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100513/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2052
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare#Natural_gas_stimulation_experiment
Sources indicate these tests did not yield the results sought and actually created a geologic cap that seal off much the desired area, exactly what is needed today but nowhere near on the same scale. Russia has also used this technique with mixed results. Two down sides are clear, 1. Conventional explosive yields are not enough, 2. The oil exposed to the a nuclear blast becomes radioactive rendering unsellable, thus is the quest saving the oil or the ocean, not sure if it is that simple or even a choice still

The Candidates for PA Governor on Natural Gas Drilling and the Environment

2010-05-08T10:41:00.008-04:00

	Joe Hoeffel	Dan Onorato	Jack Wagner	Tony Williams	Tom Corbett	Sam Rohrer
Supports a severance tax on natural gas	YES	YES	PARTIAL SUPPORT	YES	NO	NO
... with revenue dedicated to restoring full funding to Dept of Environmental Protection?	YES	YES	NO	YES	NO	NO
... to renewing Growing Greener to protect open spaces and farmland?	YES	YES	NO	YES	NO	NO
... to repairing infrastructure in gas drilling communities (like roads and bridges torn up by the 100s of heavy trucks driven in for each well)?	YES	YES	NO	NO	NO	NO
... with revenue dedicated to long-term sustainable economic development in gas drilling areas (such as community colleges), to prevent a boom-bust scenario?	YES	NO	NO	NO	NO	NO
Supports a moratorium on issuing new drilling permits until we fully regulate and protect our drinking water to Safe Drinking Water Act standards?	YES	NO	NO	NO	NO	NO
Supports a moratorium on leasing state land for gas drilling until we study what old-growth forests, preserves, and recreation areas are most important to protect?	YES	YES	NO	YES	NO	NO
Supports a moratorium on issuing any drilling permits in the Delaware River Watershed (water supply to 15 million, and currently an un-drilled area) until we perform a comprehensive cumulative impact study?	YES	NO	NO	NO	NO	NO

Joe Hoeffel

Joe's position paper covers all of these with the exception of the last, for which he issued a separate statement.

Dan Onorato

While Dan Onorato explicitly said he "wouldn't support a severance tax" at the Farm Show forum (11 January 2010), saying "You want to do it in a way where you don't kill the industry before it gets going," he rapidly changed his mind and proposed a severance tax three weeks later in a policy paper on 1 February 2010 -- "but not an excessive one". In the March 25, 2010, Scranton Times-Tribune, Onorato said that he would dedicate severance tax revenue to local infrastructure, Growing Greener, and DEP (this comes from multiple sources, including WGAL interview). Onorato has has recently called for a moratorium on leasing state land (multiple sources, including WGAL interview).

When enumerating what his severance tax would cover, it is very consistently just DEP, Growing Greener, and local infrastructure -- Onorato has never addressed the need to establish sustainable economic development in these communities to prevent a boom-bust scenario when the industry leaves. And Onorato has not responded to Hoeffel's entreaties to join him in calling for a moratorium on new permits or on protecting the Delaware River. These are not things Onorato has explicitly stated he is against, but things to which he has has repeatedly refused to respond .

Jack Wagner

Jack Wagner has said very little about the environmental side of the Marcellus Shale, focusing instead on economic potential and specifically on how we should create natural gas fueling stations on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. On a severance tax, Wagner said he would "insist that the costs of the increased government oversight necessary to build and monitor this new industry be borne by the industry itself" (Philly for Change questionnaire, fall 2009), but says he is "cautious about taxing a new industry" on his Auditor General website. At the Sustainability Forum (late April 2010), Wagner echoed support for a severance tax after all three other Democrats supported it but "threw in the caveat that Pennsylvania should not tax shale at a rate higher than other states". Unlike the other three Democrats at that forum, when given the opportunity to do so he did not outline any plan for using severance tax revenue, and he has not to my knowledge ever identified specific ways severance tax revenue would be dedicated.

Jack is in general very pro-drilling (easily seen in his WGAL interview), and holds views incompatible with moratoria. He speaks in great detail about the economic benefits of drilling, and addresses environmental issues only in saying "We must protect our environment. That is first and foremost the responsibility of state government. I am committed to do that," while identifying no specific environmental concerns and proposing no policies.

Tony Williams

Williams expressed support for a severance tax at the Sustainability Forum (late April 2010), citing he would fund "green initiatives" and Growing Greener, naming nothing else. Williams has called for a moratorium on leasing state land (WGAL interview), but has gone on record saying "I do not support a moratorium on new permits" (Capitol Ideas with John L. Micek, 22 Feb 2010) and has never mentioned making an exception to this policy for the Delaware River.

Sam Rohrer

Sam Rohrer says "we have the ability to take and make Pennsylvania look like Texas when it comes to energy. And if anybody's been to Texas, you know what it has done for their economy in the long term. Pennsylvania can in fact be that same kind of a look." Rohrer says, "the laws are in place, and the technology is there, so that we know how to drill. We know how to obtain these natural resources, develop them in a safe way for the environment. It's been done before, we can do it again" (WGAL interview).

Rohrer has said "he'd avoid unnecessary taxes of the industry. The state should encourage investment from energy companies ... not 'worry about how to tax them'" (pa2010, 9 February 2010). In his Energy Freedom Plan (22 March 2010), he says he will "veto and oppose every effort to impose a natural gas severance tax" and will "support expanded exploration and drilling on state lands".

Tom Corbett

Corbett "has consistently championed the potential of the Marcellus Shale and the opportunity to create jobs and revenue for the commonwealth without imposing any new taxes. Tom does not support a tax on the industry and has said that state lands belong to the taxpayers and therefore any royalties or funds derived from them should be used to reduce the tax burden on taxpayers" (his campaign website).

Corbett's "Making Pennsylvania an Energy Leader" paper includes a small section on environmental concerns after lengthy discussion of economic policy and tax credits for natural gas drillers. Corbett says, "Pennsylvania’s water protection statutes and regulations relating to oil and gas drilling are among the toughest and most effective in the nation." He will form workgroups with the legislature, the industry, and environmental groups "to further protect this precious resource", and he will encourage water recycling where technology permits. Tom also repeats his preference for leasing state land and collecting royalties rather than taxing the industry

Blog Action day! On Climate Change My recommendation: Write your elected officials!

2009-10-15T18:25:00.010-04:00

I Hope everyone who is concerned about climate change sends a letter to their elected officials, no matter what country they are from. In the US we need to send letters, Faxes and phone calls to our Senator and ask them to support strong climate change legislation.

To help people I have posted this letter below, you can copy and past it to your word processor or to your email and send it to both of your senators.

If you don't know how to send a letter to your Senator or who your Senators are you can find them by clicking on this link. You will be able to find both your Senators by entering your state.
I strongly suggest you print out the letter and send it via regular mail as actual letters have more significance than emails or phone calls.

Also if you want to add any additional information please feel free. Follow the guidance at this site to properly address your letter to your senators.

I ask everyone who reads this blog to PLEASE write!

We need to let our Senators know this is an important issue. The opponents to this issue have lots of money and paid lobbyists to get their side across. The only way we are gong to get our side to be heard is from our grassroots efforts and that means YOU!

Here is the text of the letter: and I thank you for writing

Dear Honorable Senator,

The historic passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives creates a sound framework for a clean energy future. While imperfect, it sets forth goals that America must achieve -- and exceed. Its most important achievement is setting the United States on a path to reduce carbon emissions some 80 percent by 2050. It also makes strides in halting international deforestation, requires new buildings to dramatically slash energy waste, will speed the development of made-in-America electric vehicles, and provides important protections for workers, consumers, and others who may be affected by our transition to a clean energy future.
Although it makes a strong start, this bill must be strengthened before it reaches President Obama's desk. I hope that you will work to strengthen this plan as it moves forward. There are a few main areas for improvement I urge you to push for. In particular, a mechanism for cleaning up the oldest and dirtiest coal plants must be included in a final bill. It's also vital that we ramp up the bill's investments in energy efficiency, hasten our transition toward clean energy sources like wind and solar, and steer more of the bill's investments toward the public benefit--not polluters.

Comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation can create millions of new, good-paying clean energy jobs, make us more energy independent, and help solve our climate crisis. Please ensure that this legislation achieves these goals.

Sincerely,

My letter to the editor on the PA Budget

2009-10-14T08:38:00.003-04:00

Just in case our local papers don't bother to publish my letter I wanted to let others know about my outrage with the cutbacks by the PA legislature to our environmental programs in the state

so here it is:

Dear Editor,

New Pennsylvania Budget Devastates the Environment

Politicos may be upbeat about Pennsylvania's new budget, but a detailed look reveals devastating cuts to key environmental agencies and programs:

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources funding cut by 18.5 percent

The State Parks budget will be reduced by 15.6 percent. Permanent closure of some state parks now appears to inevitable. Goodbye Ralph Stover? Noxamixon? Tyler Park? Delaware Canal?

Perhaps most shocking is the $60 million loss to the Oil & Gas Fund, which was established in 1955 to fund land acquisition and other conservation priorities. The Legislature plans to replenish the fund by leasing more state forest land for gas drilling. All of which leads to more roads, forest fragmentation, noise, air and water pollution, and groundwater contamination on our precious state forests.

These cuts seem huge and devastating, but they pale in comparison to the $58 million, cut in Department of Environmental Protection's funding. This reduction is so massive that the full implications are not yet clear, but could mean layoffs for more than 300 DEP staff. With that many people gone who would monitor all the new oil and gas drilling across the state? The combination of the huge budget cuts and massive expansion of oil and gas wells requiring permitting and inspections & enforcement appears to set the stage for the de facto deregulation of oil & gas drilling.

None of this was necessary.

Pennsylvania is the only gas-producing state without a severance tax on natural gas production. The tax is widely supported by environmental organizations, many legislators, local municipalities, and sportsmen's groups. Even Governor Rendell supported the tax until he flipped flopped on this in late August. The severance tax was expected to raise over $100 million for this budget year, far exceeding the $60 million to be looted from the Oil & Gas Fund.

Who do we have to thank for this? Our state senators who voted yes for this plunder of our natural resources and who refused to allow a severance tax on natural gas extraction. Keep this in mind the next time you wonder why our state parks are falling down and Pennsylvania's environment keeps degrading.

Sincerely
David Meiser

Pennsylvania's new budget deal is HORRIBLE for the environment!

2009-10-12T13:18:00.006-04:00

In stark contrast to the upbeat political rhetoric in Harrisburg on Friday, a look at the actual budget numbers reveals devastating cuts to key environmental agencies and programs.

PA Environment Digest reports that DCNR has been cut by 18.5%, or $21,000,000.00.
State Parks funding takes the lion's share of the massive cuts with a reduction of 15.6%, or $9,300,000.00.
Permanent closure of some state parks now appears to be inevitable according to a source in state government.
Forest pest management funds, essential as the state's forests are attacked by the hemlock woolly adelgid and emerald ash borer, are decimated with a cut of over 55%.

The assault on DCNR's programs and lands does not stop there.

The real show-stopper is a whopping $60 million grab by the legislature out of the Oil & Gas Fund. The Oil & Gas Fund was established in 1955 to fund land acquisition and other conservation priorities. That $60 million is to be replenished by leasing more state forest land for gas drilling. More roads, forest fragmentation, noise, air & water pollution and groundwater contamination on our precious state forests, all so the legislature can loot the money from DCNR and put it into the General Fund.

None of it was remotely necessary!

The budget deal did not include a new severance tax on natural gas production. Pennsylvania is the only gas-producing state without a severance tax. The tax was widely supported by environmental organizations, many legislators, local municipalities and sportsmen's groups. The proposed tax was also supported by Governor Rendell until he suddenly reversed his position on the tax in late August. The severance tax was expected to raise over $100 million for this budget year, far exceeding the $60 million to be looted from the DCNR Oil & Gas Fund under the budget deal.

These cuts seem huge and devastating, but they pale in comparison to the enormous 26.7%, $58 million, cut in DEP's funding. This reduction is so massive that the full implications are not clear yet. PA Environment Digest reports that over 300 DEP staff may be cut. The effects could be dire as DEP is faced with a tsunami of new oil & gas drilling across the state. The combination of the huge budget cuts and massive expansion of oil & gas wells requiring permitting and inspections & enforcement appears to set the stage for the defacto deregulation of oil & gas drilling.

It gets worse!

Not included in this year's budget is the plan by some in the PA Senate to raise an additional $180 million for next year's state budget by forcing DCNR to lease even more land for oil & gas drilling. That leasing would be on top of the acreage leased for this budget year and the 660,000 acres already under lease. It goes without saying the acreage needed to raise $180 million would be so large that it would have a devastating impact on our state forests. Start getting ready now, this year's budget battle will probably be dwarfed by the next one. As one Capitol insider put it regarding the Senate leadership's scorched earth approach to DEP's and DCNR's budget, "There's no adult supervision."

If you're wondering what the good news is, there isn't any.

Don't be fooled by upbeat statements coming from the governor or others, this budget is catastrophic for our environmental stewardship. We all need to start planning and organizing for next year's budget battle now. Today. Otherwise, we will look back on this year and think that it wasn't so bad, when clearly it's catastrophic!
Arthur Clark
State Public Lands Chair
Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter

Eight Myths about the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill

2009-09-21T21:25:00.005-04:00

No bill is perfect. Certainly not one that contains a thousand pages and seeks to overhaul the way our nation uses energy. But many of the recent attacks on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) proposed by Representatives Waxman and Markey go beyond fact-based policy disagreements and venture more into the realm of mythology. Below is a list of a few of these myths, along with an attempt to set the record straight.

Myth #1. By giving away emission allowances, the bill is less effective at protecting the environment.

Reality: The cap in a “cap-and-trade” system determines its environmental stringency by setting the number of emission allowances that are available. These allowances are equal to the amount of emissions that are permitted under the cap and their number declines over time as the cap is tightened. From an environmental perspective, it doesn’t matter how the emission allowances are distributed. They could be auctioned or freely distributed or any combination of the two. All that matters is the total number of emission allowances that are distributed -- the environmental goal is determined by the cap itself and is not in any way impacted by whether the allowances are auctioned or distributed freely.

Myth #2. The WaxmanMarkey bill will cost the average household thousands of dollars in higher energy costs.

Reality: A few widely touted studies purport to show that climate legislation will impose costs of $1,600 - $4,300 per household. But a closer look at these studies shows that they do not actually model the key provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill. Others have suggested that the changes required under the bill would not cost consumers any money and in some cases would even save consumers hundreds or even thousands of dollars. These claims also fail to fully account for costs. One study that does specifically model the core elements of the bill concludes that household costs are likely to increase by $80-111 annually. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) testified before a Congressional hearing in May 2009 that household costs would be $1,600 per household. But this number was based on a CBO study done nine years ago when energy prices and economic growth were very different. Nor did this statement take into consideration the potential to lower costs through the use of offsets and the use of allowance value to reduce household costs as specified in the Waxman-Markey bill. In June CBO released a new analysis that states that costs in 2020 would average $175 per household and that those households in the lowest twenty percent by income would actually receive a net benefit of $40 per year. A study by MIT is being used by some to argue that the climate bill would cost $3,100 per household. But the author of this study has written that this number misrepresents the conclusions of his study and that estimated household costs would actually be far less. Finally, the Heritage Foundation recently issued a memo claiming that the Waxman-Markey bill would cost households $4,300 annually. But this analysis fails to consider many of the key provisions of the bill including its extensive use of offsets to reduce overall costs and its use of the value of emission allowances to reduce costs to consumers. Others have claimed that the bill will have no cost impact, but this ignores the very real economic costs of shifting to a clean energy economy. A study of the bill by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy concludes that the energy efficiency provisions would save consumers $750 per household in 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030. This study focuses only on the changes in energy use associated with specific energy efficiency provisions and doesn’t include other requirements contained in the bill.

One study that does seek to estimate the costs of Waxman-Markey was released recently by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This analysis takes offsets and the use of allowance value into consideration and concludes that costs could be
on the order of $80-111 per household annually for the period from 2012-2050. Given the limitations of economic modeling, no analysis should be assumed to give a correct answer. But certainly it is critical that any credible analysis that is used in the policy debate should faithfully represent what is actually required by the bill.

Myth #3. The WaxmanMarkey bill will significantly increase gasoline prices.

Reality: According to one recently advertised myth, gasoline prices could rise by as much as 77 cents per gallon over the next decade. In fact, EPA projects that under the ACES Act, by 2030 gasoline prices would be only 25 cents per gallon higher – an average increase of less than three pennies per gallon per year. Meanwhile, gasoline prices have swung by more than two dollars per gallon over the last year alone.

Myth #4. The bill creates windfall profits for industries by giving 85% of the total emission allowances available to them for free.

Reality: The bill does not give away most of the allowances freely for industry’s benefit. The bill does provide emission allowances to help consumers, workers, businesses and communities transition to cleaner sources of energy. Over the lifetime of the bill, about 80 percent of the total available allowances are used to protect consumers from higher energy prices and for other public purposes such as clean energy research and climate change adaptation efforts. For example, 15 percent of allowances are returned as a rebate to low- and moderate-income households. In addition, over the period covered by the bill, approximately 22 percent of allowances are given to electric utility and natural gas local distribution companies, primarily in the early years of the program, expressly for the purpose of being passed on to consumers to offset higher energy bills. The approximately 20 percent of allowances that are distributed freely to private industry includes about 12 percent for energy intensive industries, oil refineries and merchant coal plants to facilitate their transition to clean energy technologies. But even here provisions are included stating that such allowances should not result in windfall profits. Providing allowances to energy-intensive industries that compete in international markets also has an environmental objective. It prevents emission leakage – the potential for increases in production and emissions abroad from competing companies not facing similar restrictions. The ability to use the value of emission allowances to offset price impacts on consumers and others impacted by efforts to shift away from fossil fuels is one important advantage of a cap-and-trade policy.

Myth #5. The bill relies heavily on a capandtrade regime, the same policy approach that was tried and failed miserably in the European Union

Reality: The European Union (EU) has instituted a cap-and-trade program as the cornerstone of its efforts for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It began using this mechanism in 2005, starting with a 3 year trial period aimed at developing the institutions required for an effective trading system. This trial period demonstrated the importance of good emissions inventories and the need for consistent rules across all member nations making up the EU. Over time the EU’s trading system has tightened its emissions cap and is moving toward greater use of auctions. The EU system has demonstrated that a market price for emission allowances will develop and serve as an incentive for achieving cost effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It is currently effectively reducing emissions at 12,000 sources and enabling cost-effective compliance through the nion.
trading of millions of EU allowances. Because of its success, it remains the policy instrument of choice for the European UA detailed experts’ review of the initial implementation of the European Union’s emissions trading system is available at: ttp://www.pewclimate.org/eu-ets.

Myth #6. The bill creates a new class of unregulated financial derivatives.

Reality: Given the recent problems in the financial sector, due in part to unregulated mortgage-backed derivatives, some have suggested that the market in emissions allowances and the types of financial instruments that could be developed under the bill could lead to the same types of problems. Creating a market that allows companies to hedge against the risk of future price changes can reduce costs over time and help manage the transition to a clean energy economy. What it should not do is create a new unregulated market. The bill contains extensive provisions calling for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to monitor and regulate developments in energy markets and for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission o play a similar role in monitoring and regulating derivatives that may develop under any cap-and-trade program.
t
Myth #7. The bill will result in huge job losses or, alternatively, will create thousands of new green jobs.

Reality: While these statements taken together may in fact be true, either one by itself is misleading. Given the size of our economy and the changes that occur over time, new jobs are constantly being created and existing jobs are constantly being lost. Twenty years ago fewer jobs existed in the telecommunications industry, but there were more in the auto manufacturing industry. This process of job creation and loss will continue whether the Waxman-Markey bill becomes law or not. What is less clear is whether the net impact of the bill on total jobs will be positive or negative. None of the models used to look at economic impacts is well suited for predicting both the number of jobs lost and the number gained. But for those losing their jobs, it is of little comfort that new jobs may be created elsewhere in the economy. The Waxman-Markey bill contains provisions for assisting workers and communities in meeting the challenges of shifting to a clean energy economy.

Myth #8. Regardless of the costs of WaxmanMarkey, the benefits in reduced climate change from the bill itself are so small it isn’t worth it.

Reality: Climate change is a global problem and will require nations of the world to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is true that the United States has recently been overtaken by China as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, but the United States still contributes 20 percent of global emissions, so what we do is critically important. It is also true that if the United States acts alone, we cannot solve climate change. The key point is that all major emitting nations must contribute to those efforts and the bill both lays out what actions domestically the United States would pursue, while also providing a framework which encourages other nations to act. Nor is the United States alone in moving forward in this process. Other nations are at various stages of developing and implementing national programs and all are also actively engaged in international treaty negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The reductions from the Waxman-Markey bill are a significant step in reducing emissions from the United States, but should be iewed in the context of what all nations must do to contribute to this global effort to limit climate change.

Climate Policy Memo #2 – Eight Myths about the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill
June 2009

The American Clean Energy And Security Act Is Good For America!

2009-08-31T19:54:00.005-04:00

The facts on the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Americans Support Regulating Carbon Emissions
Poll: "Three-Quarters Of Americans Think The Federal Government Should Regulate The Release Into The Atmosphere Of Greenhouse Gases." As reported by the Washington Post, "Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents."
[Washington Post, 6/25/09]

Cap-And-Trade Will Create Millions of American Jobs
Investment In Clean Energy Technology Will Create Over 1.7 Million American Jobs. According to the Center for American Progress: "Investments in a clean-energy economy will generate major employment benefits for the entire U.S. economy. Our research finds that spending $150 billion on clean-energy investments would create roughly 1.7 million jobs. This is even after assuming a reduction in fossil fuel spending equivalent to the increase in clean-energy investments."
[Center for American Progress, the Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy, 6/17/09]

Every State Will Gain Jobs From Investment In Clean Energy Technologies.
According to the Center for American Progress, investments in clean energy projects would create 1.7 million American jobs in every state in the country.
[Center for American Progress, the Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy, 6/17/09]

Investment in Clean Energy Technology Creates FOUR TIMES As Many Jobs As An Investment in Oil & Gas.
According to the Center for American Progress, "spending $1 million on energy efficiency and renewable energy produces a much larger expansion of employment than spending the same amount on fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Among fossil fuels, job creation in coal is about 32 percent greater than that for oil and natural gas. The employment creation for energy efficiency-retrofitting and mass transit-is 2.5 times to four times larger than that for oil and natural gas. With renewable energy, the job creation ranges between 2.5 times to three times more than that for oil and gas."
[Center for American Progress, the Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy, 6/17/09]

Investment In Renewable Energy Has Already Salvaged Many Manufacturing Facilities Closed During Economic Downturn.
Across America, factories and plants abandoned by the old economy have been re-tooled and re-opened to satisfy the growing demand for new energy technologies. For instance, once hopeless manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan have re-energized their communities by creating jobs and leading the charge toward a new energy future.
[Bloomberg, 4/2/09; Star Tribune, 4/22/09; Grand Rapids Press, 3/6/08

Rebuilding America for the Cost of a Postage Stamp
In 2020, Cap-And-Trade Will Only Cost an Average of $175 Annually, "About A Postage Stamp A Day." In its analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Congressional Budget Office wrote: "On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economy wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion-or about $175 per household." Rep. Edward Markey noted it was "the cost of about a postage stamp a day."
[CBO, 6/19/09; House Committee on Energy & Commerce Release, 6/20/09]

Cap-And-Trade Would DECREASE Energy Prices For Low-Income Americans.
In its analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Congressional Budget Office wrote, "households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020."
[CBO, 6/19/09; emphasis original]

The Actual Cost Will Likely Be Lower, As Federal Subsidies Were Not Taken Into Account.
In its analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Congressional Budget Office wrote: "The analysis does not include the effects of other aspects of the bill, such as federal efforts to speed the development of new technologies and to increase energy efficiency by specifying standards or subsidizing energy-saving investments."
[CBO, 6/19/09]

By 2025, A Clean Energy Standard Would Save $95 Billion On Energy & Gas Bills.
According to the Center for American Progress: "A national renewable electricity standard, a key piece of the clean energy legislation currently before Congress, would save households and businesses in every state billions of dollars in electricity and natural gas bills... The numbers come from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who earlier this year analyzed a renewable electricity standard that would aim to have 25 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2025. They found that this standard would save families and businesses $95 billion in electricity and natural gas bills through 2030 and spur new investments and hundreds of thousands of new clean-energy jobs."
[Center for American Progress, 5/19/09]

Contact your Senators and Congressman and ask them to support: the American Clean Energy and Security Act! Today

In Pennsylvania you can contact

Senator Robert P Casey Jr.
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6324
Toll Free: (866) 802-2833
Fax: (202) 228-0604
(use this web form)

Senator Arlen Specter
711 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-4254
Fax: 202-228-1229
(Use this web form at the bottom of the page)

To find the phone and address of other Senators please go here

The Climate Bill passes the house on a narrow margin

2009-06-27T13:14:00.002-04:00

I spent most of Thursday night and all of Friday trying to get people to take action on this legislation. I sent out about 200 twitter updates on which house member’s position was leaning, urging the twitter universe to call fax or email their member of the house.

Well as you most likely know the bill passed by razor thin vote of 219 yes to 212 no

Bucks County’s Representative Murphy voted in favor of the bill, we need to send him thank you notes for voting this way. But I am disappointed in Representative Jim Gerlach, he voted no even though he is supposedly relatively pro-environment. After his vote on this I don’t think I can support him in any way, this bill was way too important!

The league of conservation voters stated that they made the decision not to endorse any representative who votes no on this legislation. I hope the Sierra Club takes the same route.

One thing I did find interesting was that I was searching all the PA House Representatives web pages for clues on how they would vote on this bill. Representative Bud Shuster had a pole on his page. It was do you support cap and trade. At the time I logged on there were only 5 votes yes, so I voted and it updated and tallied my vote so the count went up to 6. About 4 hours later I re-checked his site again and the vote count was back at 5. I thought it was just my browser and refreshed but low and behold it was still 5. I wanted to see if this poll was rigged or not so I went to other computers at work and voted 4 more times one on a different computer. Each time it registered another vote (from 5 to 6) and then went back to my main computer refreshed and low and behold it stayed at 5, and it was still 5 after 2 hours later. Was it a bug? Or was the survey rigged? I don’t know.

So how did the Pennsylvania delegation vote on the passage of the American Clean Energy & Security Act? (ACES)

Yes Votes	Party	No Votes	Party
Robert Brady	D	Jim Gerlach	R
Mike Doyle	D	Joseph R. Pitts	R
Chaka Fattah	D	Todd Russell Platts	R
Paul Kanjorski	D	Thompson	R
Tim Murphy	D	Jason Altmire	D
John Murtha	D	Christopher P. Carney	D
Allyson Y. Schwartz	D	Kathy Dahlkemper	R
Joe Sestak	D	Charlie Dent	R
		Tim Holden	D
		B. Shuster	R
		Jim Gerlach	R
		Joseph R. Pitts	R
		Todd Russell Platts	R

The work is not over, the bill still has serious flaws which need to be improved and it still has to go through the Senate. The Senate’s version is much weaker than the houses and currently it looks like there are not enough votes to get this legislation passed.

An analysis reveals that in the 2 weeks leading up to the vote, coal and oil lobbyists outspent environmental groups 16:1, resulting in a bill that may dissuade international support at the upcoming U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen. Also knowing full well that nary a single republican would be voting for ACES, Democratic Rep. Peterson used his clout to give full power to the Dept. of Agriculture in allocating its own carbon offsets. This means the EPA will have no jurisdiction over agricultural permits, even if they have environmental impacts.

We should enjoy this victory for now but we need to keep vigilant and work to improve this landmark bill.

Stop Raid on PA's Conservation Funding

2009-06-15T16:48:00.002-04:00

Senator Mary Jo White proposes taking the money that supports grants to communities for conservation and recreation to support the state operating budget. Her new legislation creates a lose-lose situation for conservation: either (1) accept operating budget cuts that will close State Parks or (2) eliminate funding for important local community park and open space projects across the Commonwealth. Senator White plans to submit Senate Bills 962 and 963 to the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee on Tuesday.

Call your PA senators this week, ideally Monday or Tuesday morning. Tell them to oppose Senate Bills 962 and 963, which would have DCNR choose between community parks & recreation and state park operations. Tell them not to touch the Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund. Tell them not to touch the Environmental Stewardship Fund (Growing Greener). Tell them that community conservation projects have already suffered a steep decline in funding and that these new proposals to further disinvest in either our communities or State Parks are unacceptable.

You can find your senator by using the upper right corner at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/
Please take action as soon as possible. The Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, which Senator White chairs, is scheduled to meet Tuesday June 16 to consider her bills. A Senate floor vote could come as early as June 22.

More detail for those who want it: Senator White creates the lose-lose situation by seeking to amend the Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund to make state park operations an allowable funding purpose. This would effectively kill the dedicated purpose that the Keystone Fund was created for. Since 1993 the Keystone Fund has supported community recreation and conservation as well as capital expenditures in State Parks and Forests. It was never intended to fund state operations, park or otherwise! Senator White and colleagues last attempted to raid the Keystone Fund during the 2007 budget negotiations but was turned back by the outcry of people across the Commonwealth and conservation advocates in the legislature. Senator White likewise proposes to amend the Environmental Stewardship Fund (Growing Greener) to allow it to be tapped for state park operations.

(If your senator wants to know where they can find funding for state parks and other needs, remind them that Pennsylvania, unlike every other major gas producing state, lacks a tax on the extraction of natural gas, and that studies show that such taxes do not discourage gas production.)

Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee members
Republicans: M.J. White, M.J. (Majority Chair), Erickson (Vice Chair), Baker, Vogel, D. White, Yaw
Democrats: Musto (Minority Chair), Dinniman, Stout, A. Williams

Download SB 963

Download SB 962

Andrew M. Loza, Executive Director
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
105 Locust St, Harrisburg, PA 17101
717-230-8560
aloza@conserveland.org
http://conserveland.org/

How Do We Know That Carbon Dioxide Increases Are Due to Human Activities?

2009-06-03T09:26:00.005-04:00

I am reposting this from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87 this is for me is the keystone on which convinced me that climate change is due to human activity.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

Pennsylvania Senate Favors Gas Drillers Over State Parks

2009-05-31T15:56:00.003-04:00

The recently passed Senate’s budget bill (Senate Bill 850) included such drastic cutbacks that it would force the closure of at least 35 state parks, and 1,000 miles of state forest roads, which would sharply reduce access for anglers, hunters and hikers. According to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources The Senate’s proposal would be absolutely devastating Pennsylvania’s efforts to preserve our natural resources for present and future generations.

It is funny how the Pennsylvania’s Senate is willing to cut back on things which the people of Pennsylvania use and enjoy. Yet they refuse to institute a new source or revenue on industries which are exploiting PA’s own resources for profit.

House Bill 1489 would amend the state General County Assessment Law to explicitly make underground resources such as natural gas and oil subject to real estate assessment and taxation. The bill would require gas companies to pay taxes on the resources they extract, but wouldn’t add any tax burden to landowners.
However, the bill has been stalled in the House Finance Committee since May 2007, and sentiment among supporters is that State Senate Republicans, on principle, won’t support a tax bill

Scientists estimate the natural resource to be worth as much as one trillion dollars which would go a long way to help Pennsylvania’s budget shortfall. The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, in a report, supported the governor's proposal, saying severance taxes are common across the United States as a way to cover the public costs -- most notably environmental ones -- created by resource extraction. 14 states with greater natural-gas production than Pennsylvania levy a severance tax or a conservation fee. The report concludes that without a tax, the costs of drilling would be shifted to local taxpayers.

While all taxes are burdensome and painful, this bill is beneficial to the entire commonwealth. Rather than shift the burden of drilling to the taxpayer, shouldn’t the companies who are profiting from exploiting this resource give something back to the state they are profiting from? Also why are the Republicans trying to blatantly kill a bill which would help the citizens of Pennsylvania as well as provide funds to cover costs to remedy any environmental remediation necessary from the drilling and extraction?
If you wonder why the Senate would rather close at least 35 state parks and 1,000 miles of state forest roads, which benefit the citizens of Pennsylvania rather than tax gas drillers who make profits exploiting Pennsylvania’s natural resources I strongly recommend you cal or write your State Senators and ask them why!

Warminster has Become a Clean Air Community

2009-05-26T21:37:00.000-04:00

Committee helps township go green with solar panel
By: RICH PIETRAS The Intelligencer

Warminster has officially graduated to being a "Clean Air Community," and as a gift, will receive a $10,000 solar panel.

Gail Johnson, a member of the Warminster board of supervisors, proudly announced the news at last week's supervisors meeting for the effort that began almost a year ago.

Joining more than 20 other area municipalities, Warminster signed on with the nationwide nonprofit SmartPower in 2007 to find ways to use more clean energy.

The township pledged to purchase 20 percent of its energy from clean sources by 2010. But another part of the township's end of the bargain was to get at least seven percent of its residents, about 200, to agree to pay for 300 kilowatts of wind energy. By signing up, residents also agreed to pay $7 more on their energy bills.

But the effort was almost left twisting in the wind.

By August 2008 the township had only received about 50 of the needed 200 sign-ups.

Warminster voted to establish an Environmental Advisory Committee in September to help get the word out, but hadn't formed it until January.

But according to supervisor Johnson, whose wife Barbara is on the committee along with residents Jim Scott, Larry Menkes, Chuck Bristow and chairman Dan McPhilips, after the committee was formed, the movement got going.

In March, less than six weeks from the deadline for the required signups, fewer than 100 signatures were needed. Scott convinced Frank Feinberg, the president of the board, and others, to register during a March supervisors meeting where he explained the process.

"This money really goes toward the infrastructure for two wind farms located in the state," Scott said.

After informing the board last week of receiving more than 300 sign-ups, Gail Johnson informed the board the solar panel, which would be used on municipality property, would be arriving soon. The unit, which provides 1 kilowatt of power, can also be expanded to provide about 3 kilowatts for about $3,000, or enough to power an average home.

In addition to the panel, Warminster also received $20 for each signup, the proceeds of which will go toward open space programs, according to Gail Johnson.

Now that the EAC got the ball rolling for the solar panel, Gail Johnson, who works as the supervisor liaison for the committee, said it is now working toward getting LED street lighting, which uses less electricity. He's also encouraging energy audits for municipal buildings, like the recreation center.

"We're a green group of guys, we're into global warming and things like that, anything we can do to get more green we will look at."

SmartPower partnered with the state's Sustainable Development Fund to promote the campaign focusing on Philadelphia and surrounding counties because of limited funding for the panels and a limited amount of clean energy sources.

Rich Pietras can be reached at 215-345-3119 or rpietras@phillyburbs.com.

May 26, 2009

Help Clean Up Creeks in Lower Bucks

2009-05-11T17:44:00.002-04:00

By: JAMES MCGINNIS Bucks County Courier Times

About 300 volunteers have pledged to clean up trash in creeks through the Farmbrook, Stonybrook and Greenbrook sections.

Most see dumping and are disgusted. Dale Frazier gets motivated.

After five years of staring at trash dumped in the creek near his own home, the Bristol Township resident is on a mission. He started a Web site to publish photos and document the damage to parks and streams in Levittown.

On Saturday, Frazier's group - the Greenbelt Overhaul Alliance of Levittown - plans a "phase one cleanup" of three Levittown sections.

Some 300 volunteers have pledged to help clean up trash in the creeks that run through Levittown's Farmbrook, Stonybrook and Greenbrook sections, Frazier said.

In the future, the group hopes to tackle each of Levittown's 41 sections.

"We are doing this by organizing volunteers in each of the sections that make up the four municipalities that make up Levittown," Frazier added. "We would like to have a leader in each section."

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Waste Management and Bristol Township each have agreed to donate hundreds of trash bags and protective gloves for the kickoff cleanup, Frazier said. Shop Rite is providing cold drinks, Frazier said.

Tullytown officials agreed to provide hamburgers and hot dogs for a barbecue, which will follow the cleanup. Part of the Stonybrook section is in Tullytown.

Volunteers will gather at 9 a.m. at the ball fields behind John Fitch Elementary School at 101 Greenbrook Drive in Bristol Township. "We have about 300 people who have told us that they plan to be there, but we always welcome more help," Frazier said.

"You've got the Friends of the Delaware Canal and the Delaware River, but who takes care of these greenbelts in Levittown?" Frazier asked. "Someone has to do it."

For more information and to view pictures of dumping, visit www.ltowngoal. webs.com.

If you go

What: Phase one cleanup of greenbelts in 3 Levittown sections

When: 9 a.m. on May 16

Where: Meet on ballfields behind John Fitch Elementary School on Greenbrook Drive, Levittown.

What you can expect: Trash bags, protective gloves will be provided for 3-hour cleanup of greenbelts and creeks; hotdog and hamburger cookout after the 3-hour event

Support the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009

2009-04-19T14:52:00.001-04:00

The No Child Left Inside Coalition, a large and growing coalition representing more than 1150 organizations with more than 47 million members, is supporting federal legislation to expand and improve environmental education in our public schools – the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009.

This marker bill will include new funding and support for environmental education in the reauthorized No Child Left Behind law, due for renewal in 2009. In particular, the legislation will provide:

· Funding to states to train teachers in environmental education and to operate model environmental education programs, which include outdoor learning.
· Funding to states that create environmental literacy plans to ensure that high school graduates are environmentally literate.
· Funding through an environmental education grant program to build state and national capacity.
· The No Child Left Inside bill is critically needed.

Many schools have had to cut back on the time they can devote to environmental education, in part due to the unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind. With its emphasis on high-stakes testing in math and reading, the law has crowded out time and resources available for other subjects, including environmental education. However, learning through environmental education is not incompatible with math and reading instruction. In fact, some studies have shown that students who learn science, math, reading and social studies using environment-based curricula are more engaged in and excited about their learning.

The No Child Left Inside bill will add funding and incentives for states to improve environmental education, but it will not add any new mandates or testing requirements. Under the No Child Left Inside Act, teachers will have increased flexibility to use environmental education methods to teach their students the basic subjects while exciting them about the real-world environment. Teachers who are not already comfortable with environmental education methods will receive training in environmental education techniques such as teaching across disciplines and using the outdoors as a classroom.

Under the bill, states will be given an incentive to develop environmental literacy plans. This provision will allow states to draw on the expertise of both the schools and local environmental educators – at parks or nonprofit learning centers, for example – to develop plans to ensure that high school graduates have a basic understanding of their natural world and the challenges it faces.

The legislation is winning strong bipartisan support in Congress. Encourage your legislators to co-sponsor the bill.

To learn more about the No Child Left Inside Act, visit www.nclicoalition.org.

My State Representative's response to supportting a tax on gas drillling

2009-04-02T16:39:00.006-04:00

From: Marguerite Quinn Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:12 Subject: Re: Make gas drillers pay their fair share

Thank you for your email and for sharing your thoughts about severance taxes on natural gas drilling operations in Pennsylvania. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me regarding this important matter.

There seems to be significant potential for the Commonwealth in terms of revenue, jobs, and abundant clean and affordable energy through the development of the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation.

While we do not currently tax natural gas operations, the Governor, has proposed a severance tax as a means of generating additional state revenue. The Governor projects that this tax will generate $107 million in new funding for the Commonwealth. This figure is contrary to testimony that I have heard from industry experts who claim that natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania is still in exploratory stages and that there simply is not enough productive activity at this point to generate the $107 million in taxes.

Given these difficult economic times, a new income source would certainly help alleviate many budgetary concerns. I also understand the importance of dedicating a portion of the severance tax to benefit the Environmental Stewardship Fund and other environmental programs. Conversely, we must remain cautious about any new tax increases that would further burden our residents and small businesses in these challenging economic times and jeopardize the economic potential associated with developing the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation.

Please know that the Pennsylvania General Assembly is aware of the environmental and economic issues associated with this topic. This is a complex topic, requiring some very careful consideration. Please be assured that this issue is being carefully examined and debated to determine the proper course for Pennsylvania. I am confident we can develop a prudent course of action that will benefit the taxpayers of Pennsylvania.

Again, thank for contacting me to discuss this important issue. Should you have any further questions or comments regarding this or any other state related matters, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Marguerite

Marguerite C. Quinn State Representative 143rd District Harrisburg phone 717-772-1413
District phone 215-489-2126Harrisburg fax 717-783-3793
www.RepQuinn.net

This is the reaon I don't like canned letters, they get a canned response back.

A sobering look at gas drilling

2009-04-02T07:18:00.002-04:00

PhillyBurbs.com: A sobering look at gas drilling

A sobering look at gas drilling By: AMANDA CREGAN The Intelligencer

With natural gas drilling knocking on Nockamixon's door, a local environmental group spoke about some of the consequences.
We have everything to lose, said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
As gas drilling looms in Nockamixon's future, Carluccio laid out sobering reports of how natural gas drilling companies continue to ravage natural resources and wreak havoc in communities across the country at a presentation Wednesday night at the Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic Management Committee's quarterly meeting.
Poisoned water wells, crumbling roads, toxic streams and rivers, 24 hour construction, miles of gas pipelines, polluted air and higher cancer rates are just some of what residents might expect if drillers take over in Upper Bucks, said Carluccio.
"The issue, from cradle to grave, is this an environmentally responsible fuel? We have to realistically and honestly look at what the real costs are," she told nearly 25 members and residents at Nockamixon's municipal building.
The costs add up for 15 million people from New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey who depend on the Delaware River each day for water - including Philadelphia and its suburbs.
"A lot of people depend on the Delaware River. Of course, this is not the concern of the natural gas folks," said Carluccio, who noted that just one natural gas well site requires 1,400 trucks, each holding 6,000 gallon water tanks, to supply and dispose of water involved in extracting gas trapped thousands of feet below the ground in tight shale formations across Pennsylvania and the East Coast.
"This amount of water brings up the issue of where are you going to get this water?"
Carluccio and wild and scenic members are pushing legislators to buckle down on regulation in a time when most federal and state lawmakers are easing restrictions and hailing the natural gas boom as a ticket out of recession and foreign oil dependence.
"Despite the fact that natural gas is a force we'll probably not be able to stop (in Nockamixon). Something we've learned throughout the last months is that we can do something to regulate it," said Carluccio, who says wild and scenic organizers are hoping the Delaware River Basin Commission, which regulates water withdrawal and pollution standards in the Delaware, won't cave under pressure.
She emphasized that natural gas harvested from the massive Marcellus Shale formation, which promises to supply enough energy for the entire nation for generations, won't necessarily stay within our borders.
"There is a very slick campaign about energy independence going on, but there is no law that you have to use this natural gas here," she said.
A Norwegian company recently bought the rights to 30 percent of the natural gas yielded from the Chesapeake Bay area, she said. The company plans to sell the gas to eastern European nations struggling to get enough fuel from Russia.
Although Upper Bucks does not lie within the Marcellus Shale, gas companies are battling with Nockamixon Township supervisors in court in hopes of beginning exploratory drilling.
Hundreds of homeowners in Nockamixon have already signed leases.
Carluccio warned that communities could be destroyed under the slogan of energy independence, and that gas companies are solely after large profits at the expense of natural resources.
"This is clear and simple exportation of a natural resource for someone's bottom line."
Amanda Cregan can be reached at 215-538-6371 or acregan@phillyBurbs.com.
April 02, 2009

New report: Chesapeake Bay's health still in trouble

2009-03-19T11:25:00.003-04:00

New report: Bay's health still in trouble • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)

By PAMELA WOOD, Staff Writer
Published 03/19/09
Yet another report on the health of the Chesapeake Bay issued this morning contained no surprises: The nation's largest estuary is ailing and in need of more help.

The Chesapeake Bay Program, the federal-state partnership overseeing bay cleanup, concluded that the bay's health is about 38 percent of where it should be. It showed pollution levels are too high, crab and oyster populations are too low, and bay grasses are suffering.

And restoration efforts, such as rebuilding wetlands and planting oysters, have accomplished 61 percent of the goals.

It's another set of failing marks for a cleanup effort that has fallen short of expectations time and again since it was launched 25 years ago.

The report, "Bay Barometer," was blunt in its assessment of the state of the Chesapeake: "Despite small successes in certain parts of the ecosystem and specific geographic areas, the health of the Chesapeake Bay did not improve in 2008. The Bay continues to have poor water quality, degraded habitats and low populations of many species of fish and shellfish."

Roy Hoagland, a vice president with the nonprofit Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the lesson is one that's been repeated again and again: The bay needs more attention and pollution limits that have teeth.

"We're not doing enough of the right things for the bay," he said.

Bill Dennison, a vice president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, said he was troubled by some of the findings in the bay-program report.

Pollution loads, over time, are gradually decreasing and restoration efforts such as planting oysters and preserving land are improving. But the health of the bay - the water quality, the fish populations - still is lagging.

"That's, to me, the biggest issue that's not addressed," Dennison said. "We have to ask ourselves what's happening that we're not getting the kind of response we should be getting."

Dennison suggested that perhaps the cleanup effort needs a new set of goals.

"Maybe we need to make our restoration goals even more stringent, because what we haven't done is reverse the trajectory," he said. "The health remains in poor condition ... We're going to have to work harder."

Jeff Lape is the Environmental Protection Agency employee who heads the federal-state Chesapeake Bay Program. He acknowledged in the report that the cleanup effort is lacking.

He wrote: "While there are many individual success stories behind the collective numbers - work that in most cases will take time to influence water quality - the sobering data in this report mostly reflect only marginal shifts from last year's results. This affirms the need to take bolder actions and involve a wider network to achieve sharp improvements in our Bay Barometer readings."

While the report itself represented more of the same bad news about the bay, the way it was presented was slightly different.

EPA officials planned to unveil the report at a news conference this morning in Washington, D.C., in hopes of drawing more national attention and media coverage.

The lineup of officials at the news conference included J. Charles Fox, who was just appointed to a new advisory post on bay issues and reports to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

The EPA cast Fox's appointment as a sign the Chesapeake Bay is of great importance to the EPA and the Obama administration. Fox has worked in bay circles for years, including a stint as Maryland's natural resources secretary.

Environmentalists criticized the EPA during the Bush administration for not focusing on the bay enough. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation grew so frustrated that it sued the federal government under the Clean Water Act. The lawsuit hasn't yet been resolved.

The cleanup effort even has been criticized by EPA's own inspector general and the federal Government Accountability Office in recent years.

A scathing GAO report blasted the EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Program for painting an overly rosy picture of bay health. And in December, a former bay program leader told The Washington Post that there was pressure to be overly optimistic before Congress to ensure continued federal funding for the effort.

The Chesapeake Bay Program's report is just one of several on the bay's health. The University of Maryland issues a health report card in April and has helped local river groups with their annual report cards. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation discontinued its annual "State of the Bay" report, but has discussed developing a new report.

To see the full bay report click: www.hometownannapolis.com/photos/2009bayreport.pdf

What Is a Stream Designation?

2009-03-14T10:52:00.009-04:00

Ever wonder what is meant when the PA-DEP states a stream is considered EV or WWF. Or they talk about upgrading or Downgrading of a stream? The below explanation hopefully should give the basics of what these designations are and streams are classified.

A common question from the public is what is a stream designationand, “How in the world are these things determined and why?” First let’sexplain what “designated use” vs. “existing use” means. A Designated Use is the assigned use according to Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code whether it has been scientifically attained or not. An Existing Use is the assigned use according to Chapter 93 that has actually been scientifically attained after Nov. 28, 1975. This may or may not be to the current water quality standards. So what does that mean? – Translation – a stream will not be assigned an Existing use unless it has been physically researched and ground-truthed by the state. Designated Uses can be petitioned by a group(s) and once verified by the state, the stream’s classification can be changed based on the findings.

There are currently 13 classifications and they go as follows :

Code	Classification
1 CWF	Cold Water Fishery
2 CWF, MF	Cold Water Fishery; Migratory Fishery
3 EV	Exceptional Value
4 EV, MF	Exceptional Value, Migratory Fishery
5 HQ-CWF	High Quality, Cold Water Fishery
6 HQ-CWF, MF	High Quality, Cold Water Fishery, Migratory Fishery
7 HQ-TSF	High Quality, Trout Stocked Fishery
8 HQ-TSF, MF	High Quality, Trout Stocked Fishery, Migratory Fishery
9 HQ-WWF	High Quality, Warm Water Fishery
10 TSF	Trout Stocked Fishery
11 TSF, MF	Trout Stocked Fishery, Migratory Fishery
12 WWF	Warm Water Fishery
13 WWF, MF	Warm Water Fishery, Migratory Fishery

So what the heck does this mean? Many things go into thisbut to keep them as simple and basic as possible. Let’s look at the basics,according to Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code, the above classifications aredescribed as:

CWF ColdWater Fishes Maintenance orpropagation, or both, of fish species including the family Salmonidae andadditional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a cold water habitat.

WWF Warm Water Fishes Maintenance and propagation of fish species and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a warm water habitat.

MF Migratory Fishes Passage Maintenance and propagation of anadromous and catadromous fishes and other fishes which ascend to flowing waters to completetheir life cycle.

TSF Trout Stocking Maintenance of stocked trout from February 15 to July 31 and maintenance and TSF propagation of fish species and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a warm water habitat.

The first four designations listed above explain in detail how and why a stream is considered High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV). Hopefully after you have read these articles, you will truly understand the sheer importance of these water resources and how detrimental our impacts can be to them, but first for this issue, let’s look at a warm water fishery (WWF). This classification is often times looked at as the bottom of the barrel but this is not the case in actuality. A warm water fishery simply means it is a water body that supports fish, plants and animals that thrive and prefer warmer temperatures (above 70 degrees F) such as bass and sunfish.

A cold water fishery (CWF) in the simplest of terms supports fish, plants and animals that best live and reproduce in colder temperatures, such as the trout. Many times this classification is based on the presence and absence of trout.

Migratory fishery (MF) means just that. Fish use this “designated” waterway to travel to and from the ocean to reproduce. Some of them live here and reproduce in the ocean (catadromous) like American Eels and others live in the ocean and reproduce here (anadromous) likethe American Shad.

Trout –Stocked fisheries (TSF) are waterways that meet the basic criteria for a warm water fishery and maintain a stocked trout population by the Fish & Boat Commission between the dates ofFebruary 15 and July 31st. That gives a basic understanding.

Now there are two not mentioned: High-quality (HQ) and Exceptional value (EV) –these are our “special protection” watersheds and are very important to the system.

A stream must meet several setcriteria to meet a certain classification; this is called the “specific waterquality criteria” in the Pennsylvania Code (e.g. the “DEP stream law book”).For starters, there are formulas and varying levels for multiple parameters that go into determining a certain stream’s classification. Largely, based upon temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and the macroinvertebrate score are all major players in determining a stream classification. Again, generally, based on these levels the stream falls into a certain classification. Two of these parameters, dissolved oxygen and temperature are averaged over time for a stream segment to help classify it. The average DO is determined daily and the average temperature is determined monthly. If a stream has an average daily dissolved oxygen level of ‘X’ and an average monthly temperature of ‘Y’ (due to seasonality, each month is different), then it falls into a certain classification. Again, these are just the basics, many more things go into determining this.

A minimum daily average is set up for dissolved oxygen and a monthly temperature threshold is also determined. For example, to be classified as a WWF, a stream must have a minimum daily average of 5.0 mg/L and cannot have a single reading that drops below 4.0 mg/L at any point throughout the day. Meanwhile, the stream’s monthly temperature threshold can not rise above 87 degrees F in the summer months nor should it rise above 40 degrees F in the winter months (each month has a specific threshold e.g. June 1-15 = max. 80 degrees F), these are only two items that go into the equation.

A CUFF on the other hand, must havea minimum daily average of 6.0 mg/L and can not have a single reading that drops below 5.0 mg/L at any point throughout the day (= more oxygen in the system vs. CWF). Meanwhile, the streams monthly temperature threshold cannot rise above 66 degrees F in the summer months nor should it rise above 38 degrees F in the winter months (= cooler, more shaded stream), just based on these criteria alone, a WWF could have a 21 degree temperature difference from a CWF.

In a nutshell that is the what and how's ofstream designation

Economy bolstering open space programs

2009-03-10T20:50:00.002-04:00

By: FREDA R. SAVANA The Intelligencer
Lack of builders' interest and cheaper land rates add up to land preservation.

Although it's hard to draw a direct parallel between the battered economy and land preservation, planners say it does pose an unexpected opportunity to snatch up open space.
In a number of municipalities, preservation efforts that have been in the pipeline for some time are coming under agreements of sale and interest is growing in conservation easements, one of the techniques for preserving open space, said local officials.
Plumstead recently signed an agreement to preserve 59 acres with road frontage on four of the community's main streets for $13,500 per acre - or $796,500.
With help from Bucks County and state preservation money, a horse farm on Groveland Road is also under an agreement of sale, protecting another 50 acres that are contiguous with 100 acres of other preserved open space in the township.
"I think the economy has something to do with it," said Louis Fineberg, the township's planning and land use director. "We're not competing with developers."
Tom Gilbert, a member of Buckingham's agricultural preservation committee, agreed but said that hasn't led to a drop in prices, yet.
While other parts of the country are watching real estate prices fall, many Bucks County municipalities are holding steady, said Gilbert.
"It's not like easement values are declining," he said. Buckingham historically has paid between $15,000 and $25,000 per acre for easements, depending on a variety of factors. All properties wanting to be preserved have to be appraised by the township.
Montgomery County's planning director painted a different picture, saying his office is seeing a dip in land prices.
"There's been a lowering of prices," said Ken Hughes. "The more recent (appraisals) are lower than a few years ago. It will help our money go further."
As the economy slipped into recession and the once relentless drive for housing slowed to a mere trickle, land once considered prime for development is up for grabs.
In fact, said Feinberg, "They're (developers) selling their land, if they can."
Michael Roedig, a planner with the Bucks County Planning Commission, said the historic drop-off in housing plans is a shock to an area once inundated with development.
"We never thought we were ever going to see this," he said at a recent commission meeting. "The market just doesn't seem to be there for these homes."
In 2008, the commission reviewed plans for just 826 housing units, a decrease of about 54 percent from 2007 and the lowest level since 1970.
But what is bad news for home builders can be a shot in the arm for preservationists.
"I think of it as a checkerboard, taking squares out of play," said Fineberg. "We preserve now and then there's less available for development when the tide turns."
Buckingham has preserved more than 1,000 acres in the past dozen or so years and is continuing to pursue property owners who might be interested in preservation.
The agricultural preservation committee sent out a letter to landowners with 20 or more acres, inviting them to a meeting to learn more about the preservation process. About 15 responded to the survey and nine attended the meeting, said Gilbert.
Several expressed serious interest but wondered if it's a good time to sell, given the uncertain market. Gilbert said he told them it may be a perfect time.
"They don't have as many options, developers aren't beating down their doors, and the township is a buyer. From that stand point, it's a good time."
Tax benefits are another incentive. Charitable tax breaks in place through the end of the tax year may or may not be there next year, Gilbert explained.
The township recently announced an ambitious plan to protect about 157 acres that surround the village of Wycombe. Owned by the Histand family, the land is considered a valuable asset to Buckingham.
Ed Murphy, the attorney working on the negotiations, said although money didn't motivate the Histands, it could be a factor in helping preserve land elsewhere.
"Clearly you would think the time is good. If a township has the money to preserve, now would be a good time to push it."
Freda R. Savana can be reached at 215-345-3061 or fsavana@phillyBurbs.com.
March 10, 2009

Study: Quarry affecting Primrose creek in Solebury

2009-03-05T11:41:00.002-05:00

By: BILL DEVLIN The Intelligencer

The results of the study were released at this week's supervisors meeting.

It was a data-filled 80-minute presentation that, at times, only Bill Nye the Science Guy could love. Yet, for those who packed the Solebury Township meeting room, the information was as simple as getting a glass of water.

An overflow crowd attended the Solebury Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday to hear a report on water in the township, particularly, the Primrose Watershed that, according to the township-commissioned study, has been adversely affected by mining at the New Hope Crushed Stone Quarry.

Solebury resident Peter Brussock, a principal in an environmental firm, directed the 2008 study. He said the evidence collected shows that the quarry is in violation of the state Department of Environmental Protection's permit that says the quarry must take corrective actions when its mining has changed the groundwater significantly.

Brussock's presentation focused on the Primrose Creek, which flows directly through the quarry. He used a myriad of charts, maps and photographs to support the study's contention that mining has changed the flow of the creek both upstream and downstream from the quarry. It also has had adverse effects on the chemistry and biology of the Primrose Creek, including reducing the number of fish species.

According to Brussock, New Hope Crushed Stone pumps 2 million gallons of water from the quarry pit daily.

"Extensive groundwater withdrawals are required to keep the quarry pit dry," he said.

Brussock contends that those millions of gallons pumped from the pit create dry conditions upstream and create a sediment-filled creek downstream.

He recommended that the state limit the quarry discharge to 500,000 gallons a day, or just a quarter of what it now pumps. He said those involved with the township study will present the report to the Department of Environmental Protection.

"We are going to meet with the DEP over the next few weeks to compare our findings with their data," said Brussock.

Bill Devlin can be reached at 215-345-3179 or wdevlin@phillyBurbs.com.

March 05, 2009

The person who created this is an evil genius

2009-02-23T10:25:00.002-05:00

I love this graphic!

Environment groups outraged by plan to swap stream safeguards for fast-track permit review

2009-02-17T08:20:00.002-05:00

www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b1_5buffers.6767750feb16,0,6499561.story

By Patrick Lester Of The Morning Call
February 16, 2009

A movement afoot in Pennsylvania to better limit pollution and flooding along rivers and creeks is turning into a classic clash between environmentalists and builders.

Environmental organizations across the state are gearing up for a showdown with state regulators over what they're calling a cop-out on protecting waterways. They fear the state is abandoning a plan to require builders of new developments to establish construction-free buffers near streams andrivers.

The building industry, which says it's being unfairly targeted, prefers that the state leave it up to municipalities to regulate development near water.

The state Department of Environmental Protection has yet to unveil its proposed rules for planting protective areas with native plants near streams and rivers. They are meant to prevent runoff the spread of pollutants into waterways, and stream bank erosion.

Environmental groups, following months of lobbying the DEP, say the agency is poised to begin an incentive program that would leave it up to builders whether to buffer. Those who to do it could avoid lengthy reviews of sediment and erosion control plans by county Conservation Districts.

The proposal, to be discussed at a Feb. 25 meeting of the DEP's Water Resources Advisory Committee, has outraged environmentalists.

"I think the current path [the DEP] is on is absolutely not the right path for anyone involved," said Maya K. van Rossum of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. "What the DEP is doing is saying, 'We're going to extend with one hand this incentive to build a buffer and for that we're taking away a tremendous level of protection for the community and environment.' "

Conservation districts, an arm of the DEP, also are urging the agency to keep those technical reviews in place, said Susan Fox Marquart, executive director of the state Association of Conservation Districts.

The sudden outcry -- environmentalists are flooding Gov. Ed Rendell with letters on the issue -- is the result of what some say is a shift at the DEP since acting Secretary John Hanger succeeded Kathleen McGinty in August 2008.

McGinty in 2007 said the state was looking at a mandatory 50-foot setback. A 2008 DEP report says nearly 16,000 of Pennsylvania's 86,000 miles of streams and rivers don't meet water quality standards.

The state currently doesn't require buffers, but some townships and boroughs already have regulations in place. Among them are about a quarter of the 62 municipalities in Lehigh and Northampton counties, said Michael N. Kaiser, executive director of the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission.

Neighboring New Jersey requires a minimum 50-foot buffer, which increases to up to 300 feet for high quality waterways.

The Pennsylvania Campaign for Clean Water, a coalition of more than 130 environmental, conservation, sporting and religious groups, wants a minimum 100-foot buffer for all new development near waterways. The group wants additional protections for high quality streams.

"If we can ... reduce runoff immediately after a rainstorm, there could be a significant impact on reducing flooding incidents," said Bob Wendelgass of Clean Water Action and chairman of the Pennsylvania Campaign for Clean Water.

Mark S. Mitman, a spokesman for the Lehigh Valley Builders Association, said a state mandate would ultimately lower property values because it would reduce the amount of land that could be built upon.

"We feel that mandatory buffers statewide is a heavy-handed approach to the environmental concerns, which are legitimate," Mitman said. "It represents a dramatic government taking of property."

Mitman said if the state imposes buffer mandates on developers, it would be unfairly singling out only one of the contributors to water quality problems. Others include abandoned mine drainage and farming.

Hanger, in a recent interview, wouldn't discuss the specifics of the proposal, saying it could change before being advertised for public comment later this month or in March.

He acknowledged one possibility is a program under which developers who establish buffers and get their plans approved by an engineer would get a "streamlined" permitting process. Those who would decide not to buffer would have to follow regulations as now written.

Hanger said the department's goal is to "increase protection of water and increase the ability of business to get projects done in a timely and not too expensive manner."

The environmental coalition says the proposal would amount to a violation of the Clean Water Act because it would eliminate public input and the DEP's ability to require changes to development plans that could prevent potential water pollution.

patrick.lester@mcall.com

610-820-6764
Copyright © 2009, The Morning Call

PhillyBurbs.com: Sewer capacity key to growth

2009-02-16T10:29:00.003-05:00

PhillyBurbs.com: Sewer capacity key to growth

Here is another township which doesn't understand that by limiting sewer capacity it keeps sprawl in check. more houses mean increased taxes on the current residents!

Sewer capacity key to growth By: HILARY BENTMAN The Intelligencer
Richland officials have taken the first steps to bringing the bulldozers and building crews back to the township.
Development in the once feverishly growing municipality all but stopped several years ago due to sewage capacity problems at the nearby Quakertown treatment plant.
But Richland supervisors recently approved an update to the township's sewer service plan, a necessary step to increasing the capacity at the plant and eventually lifting the moratorium on new development in Richland.
The Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority provides sewer for Richland residents, but most of it is treated at Quakertown's plant through a partnership between the borough and the authority.
The authority gets 45 percent of the plant's capacity for its customers, but has run out of its allotted space.
A few years ago, the authority put a moratorium on new connections for Richland, halting most development until a solution could be found.
That solution, says the authority, is $22 million worth of improvements to the plant and the infrastructure over the next five years to provide for current and future needs. The authority would seek to do hydraulic improvements, construct new pipelines and sewer extensions, and make pump station repairs, as well as buy more capacity at the plant.
Bucks County Water and Sewer will pay for the work, and as of now the authority is not looking at a rate increase. Of course, it is also too early to know the actual costs, said authority spokesman Patrick Cleary.
"We're still in the preliminary stages," he said.
For their part, Quakertown officials have voiced no real resistance to the plan as the authority is footing the bill and the borough doesn't wish to lose the authority as a customer, since that could cause sewer rates for their own residents to rise.
"In principle, it's to Quakertown's advantage, economically, to allow the plant to expand," said Councilman Jim Roberts.
Some measures to free up capacity could be completed in a year or less, said Ken Heydt, executive vice president of Carroll Engineering, which is working with the township on the project.
There are more than 15 building projects planned for Richland that are on hold awaiting sewage hook-ups. How many of these projects are still viable given the economy and the housing market is unclear.
Cleary said the authority will sit down with the developers to see how many are still interested in proceeding.
Two of the major housing projects held up are Front Gate on Station Road, an age-restricted development of 402 condominiums, and Reserve at Woodside Creek, 75 single homes on Paletown Road.
Some projects, like the Reserve at Hidden Ponds, a single home and townhouse development on Station Road, have only a portion of the sewer capacity needed, said township manager Stephen Sechriest.
The township's sewer plan, known as Act 537, is a document that outlines how to get water and sewer to places that will be developed. Heydt said the township's plan and the sewer capacity improvements will accommodate future growth unless officials change sewer service areas or allow for higher density building in the township.
Quakertown's plant handles an average of 3.1 million gallons of sewage a day, with 1 million gallons coming from Richland. With the projected development coming to the township, Heydt said space is needed for an additional 1.343 million gallons of sewage per day over the next 20 years. Currently, the plant has space for only 186,000 gallons per day.
The project must be approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection.
Hilary Bentman can be reached at 215-538-6380 or hbentman@phillyBurbs.com.

Municipalities sign on for Highlands Trail Network

2009-02-15T11:44:00.002-05:00

Follow this linke to the full article

http://www.buckscountyherald.com/~Municipalities%20sign.pdf

PhillyBurbs.com: PUC rules in favor of power line

2009-02-13T17:01:00.006-05:00

Another Blow for the upper Bucks Environment. There is an alternate route but PP&L only cares about the costs and not the environmentally impact to sensitive areas.

PhillyBurbs.com: PUC rules in favor of power line

By: AMANDA CREGAN Bucks County Courier Times

A judge sided with PPL's proposed power line route. Springfield supervisors said they would continue the fight.
A proposed power line route that would cut through environmentally sensitive portions of Springfield and Richland townships is one step closer to fruition.
In a decision filed Wednesday, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Judge Angela T. Jones sided with PPL's plan for a cross-country route and a 7-acre substation that would be built on an 80-acre parcel, which includes wetlands.
The 7-mile route primarily follows the length of the Tohickon Creek and would loop power lines and put utility poles through forests, sensitive wildlife habitats, protected wetlands and high-quality watersheds in Upper Bucks.
Springfield supervisors have spent $168,000 battling the Allentown-based utility giant for nearly a year, and vow to continue their fight.
"The board of supervisors were very disappointed with the decision by Judge Jones," township Manager Richard Schilling said. "She basically threw caution to the wind for any environmental damage that could be done here."
In a 4-1 vote, supervisors agreed at Wednesday night's meeting to file an exception to the judge's recommendation. Supervisor Rob Zisko voted no.
"The bottom line here is that we're moving forward," Schilling said. "The board voted overwhelmingly to send our lawyer to file exceptions."
Township attorneys have until March 2 to file those documents.
In her decision, Judge Jones wrote that PPL has proven the proposed power line route is necessary, it does not create an unreasonable risk or danger to the health and safety of the public, and that the utility has eminent domain rights over Springfield and Richland property owners.
Robert and Kathleen Mackey have already had 3 of their 35 acres taken by PPL. This time, PPL wants another 4 acres from the property they bought in 1964, a year after they married.
"We really don't want it, but if we have to have it, we feel we should be getting a lot more money than what they're offering," said Kathleen Mackey.
They have since raised four children in their home along Rocky Valley Road in Springfield. The couple, who are both in their late 60s, are counting on the property as a nest egg, she said.
But Kathleen Mackey says power lines have sliced through much of their lands, which are primarily woodlands.
"The one power line goes in the back of our home, and the other comes down the side of it. It's really splitting our land up."
Judge Jones also found that PPL's plan "would have minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the electric power needs of the public, the state of available technology and the available alternatives."
Schilling disagrees, and said the Department of Environmental of Protection's written concern for the power line route's impact on the region backs up Springfield.
"The DEP is very critical of the environmental impact of what PPL is proposing," he said.
PPL spokesman Paul Wirth was satisfied with the decision.
"We're pleased that the judge recommended approval of all parts of the project, which is very important to the reliability of the electric system in this region."
Judge Jones' recommendation and the township's appeal will go before a panel of five PUC judges, who will make a final ruling.
Springfield is prepared for the fight ahead, says Schilling.
"(The judge's opinion) is defeat, but we are ready for round two, and we're ready for round three."
February 13, 2009

PhillyBurbs.com: Planner: Natural gas drilling 'huge' issue

2009-02-12T21:02:00.002-05:00

PhillyBurbs.com: Planner: Natural gas drilling 'huge' issue

Posted using ShareThis

By: THERESA HEGEL The Intelligencer
Natural gas drilling is a "huge environmental issue" facing Pennsylvania's water supply, according to Lynn Bush, executive director of the Bucks County Planning Commission.
She and Julie Kollar, director of a nonpartisan educational group, spoke about water quality Wednesday morning at a meeting of the Bucks County League of Women Voters.
Gas drilling was once too expensive to be considered in Pennsylvania, but new technology has made it more feasible.
Throughout the state, gas and oil companies have started drilling wells to extract the fuel trapped deep within underground shale formations.
"The industry views Pennsylvania as being the Saudi Arabia of natural gas," said Kollar, director of the state's Water Resources Education Network.
Though Bucks County isn't part of the largest shale formation in the state, Nockamixon supervisors have been fighting a lengthy battle to keep drilling from their township.
The gas drilling process requires about 3 million gallons of sandy, chemical-treated water to be injected into the shale, Bush said. That figure is per gas well.
Drillers in other parts of the state have been pulling water from rivers and streams all day long, Kollar said.
In some cases, "They throw the hose over, and suck the stream dry," she added, pointing out that those streams are the source of drinking water for many.
Besides depleting the water supply, gas drilling raises serious concerns about water quality, the women said.
Water used to extract natural gas is briny and chemical-laden.
The oil and gas companies, however, won't tell the public which chemicals are used in the drilling process "because it's proprietary," Kollar said.
But they have had to release forms outlining the hazards of whatever materials they are using, she added.
A big problem is disposing of this treated water in an environmentally sound manner.
"Not a single treatment plant in Pennsylvania can deal with this water," Bush said.
Maintaining a sustainable and safe water supply is paramount, Kollar added.
"If we don't take care of it, it won't take care of us," she said of the environment.
Her organization, WREN, is "kind of like a one-stop shop" where citizens can find information they need on water issues.
"We're not here to tell people how to think," Kollar said.
Instead, she said, WREN is about enabling residents and local governments to make educated decisions about the environment.
The group has provided about $1 million in mini-grants to help develop water education programs throughout Pennsylvania.

Theresa Hegel can be reached at 215-538-6381 or thegel@phillyburbs.com.

In a related Story

DEP denies drilling permit

PhillyBurbs.com: DEP denies drilling permit

By: AMANDA CREGAN The Intelligencer
Arbor Resources will have to "start from scratch" if it wants to drill for natural gas in Nockamixon.
A gas drilling company fighting to break ground in Nockamixon has suffered a major setback.
Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection announced Wednesday it has denied Arbor Resources' permit to drill in the region.
It was the only active permit to drill for natural gas in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
The Michigan-based drilling company is wrapped up in a legal battle with the township to open up natural gas wells in Upper Bucks.
Arbor first gained approval from the DEP in 2007 to begin drilling on a property along Beaver Run Road in Revere. The company submitted an application for renewal in November, and was handed a denial letter Monday.
"These permits are only good for one year, and that should be for construction activities, and drilling should start within that process," said DEP spokeswoman Lynda Rebarchak.
But the company was not penalized for work delays; no construction or drilling had yet begun.
Arbor failed to fully complete its latest application. The company did not list what impact, if any, its operations would have on endangered species, according to the DEP. The company was even given a chance to rectify the problem, but the DEP has not heard any response from Arbor regarding the permit denial, said Rebarchak.
An answer would have been easily found with a quick Internet search or by an environmental consultant, she said.
The permit denial takes the gas company back to square one.
"They can reapply at any time, but they'd literally have to start from scratch," she said.
Although nearly 250 Nockamixon homeowners have signed with Arbor, only two permits had been issued by the DEP to start drilling.
The second permit, a field located along Durham Road in Kintnersville, expired in August, and there was no application for renewal.
"At this point, both permits are dead," said Rebarchak. "It doesn't matter if they re-apply in the next couple weeks or 10 years. The process is the same."
Arbor Resources did not return several calls seeking comment.
It is unclear what impact this will have on a case before Nockamixon's zoning hearing board.
Arbor attorneys have argued that DEP approval trumps local ordinances regulating gas drilling, according to Pennsylvania's Oil and Gas Act.
Township supervisors maintain they have the right to protect Nockamixon from possible pollution and groundwater contamination.
"We didn't ask for anything more than responsible drilling," Supervisor Chairwoman Nancy Janyszeski said Wednesday. "The headlines are there. There are water supply issues in Upper Bucks, particularly in Nockamixon. It's always been about our water and our environment here in Nockamixon Township, and I think it demands respect."
A decision was expected to be made in coming weeks.
Arbor has also filed a state court appeal to a Bucks County judge's decision that handed the case over to the zoning hearing board.
The issue has divided the community between residents who side with the right to develop their property and those who fear potentially damaging effects on the environment.
Homeowners who have already signed contracts with Arbor Resources were promised payment should drilling yield gas.
Residents received upfront cash for the leased acres and would receive further royalties from what's extracted from the rock thousands of feet below their properties.
The DEP issued 7,924 permits for oil and gas wells across the state in 2008. They are all located in northern and western Pennsylvania along the Marcellus Shale rock formation.

Amanda Cregan can be reached at 215-538-6371 or acregan@phillyBurbs.com.
January 29, 2009