HB 1565

FD:

The discussion is good. The section (a) vs (c) is interesting to me too, based on what I know about the intent of this. I wrote to Ms. Hahn directly to find out which section the Bill would replace. Hopefully that will answer that, but knowing politicians and lawyers, it will probably confuse it more.

Your example about the home owner may be a positive unintended consequence to this, although I believe your relative (or anyone else) would be protected under one of the many exceptions including:

(viii) A single family home that is not part of a larger common plan of development or sale and the parcel was acquired by the applicant prior to November 19, 2010.


So as I read it, they are already protected under the current code.


Edit: Hadn't considered pipelines, although I heard one is proposed for the Lehigh Valley area, which would make sense.
 
ebroesicke wrote:
FD:

The discussion is good. The section (a) vs (c) is interesting to me too, based on what I know about the intent of this. I wrote to Ms. Hahn directly to find out which section the Bill would replace. Hopefully that will answer that, but knowing politicians and lawyers, it will probably confuse it more.

Your example about the home owner may be a positive unintended consequence to this, although I believe your relative (or anyone else) would be protected under one of the many exceptions including:

At this point, I'm leaning towards it being exactly that. An unintentional benefit for my example.

So as I read it, they are already protected under the current code.

Somewhat protected.

I could tell you stories, but chose not to at this time because I believe it is no-longer relevant.

What I appreciate is that usually when someone questions an OP like that, people get upset. This did not happen.

My hat is off.
 
Agreed that there are almost always unintended negative consequences too, and as much as we hope common sense would prevail, it often doesn't.
 
ebroesicke wrote:
Agreed that there are almost always unintended negative consequences too, and as much as we hope common sense would prevail, it often doesn't.

This is why this bill should be defeated. It was not very well thought out and rushed through the House before the session ends.
There are plenty of people out there who will exploit the "unintended negative consequences" of this bill.
This does not have to be done in this session and can be reintroduced during the next one allowing time to do proper study of the cause and effect of this bill on our streams.

Take a moment and call or write your Senator and tell the to vote NO on this bill. It is better to take your time and answer all the questions people are bring up that to try to amend a piece of bad legislation.
 
I wrote the Senator in our district and asked him to vote no. Doesn't seem like a good thing. Going from "shall" to "may" is the deal for me. I don't need any more details.
 
thanks fritz, I feel the same.

FWIW I e-mailed the sponsor, Ms. Hanh after calling her office. Still haven't heard back. I only asked 2 questions:

1. Exactly which section of 025 PA Code 102.14 does HB1565 replace/ modify? Could you please quote the section so I can be sure I am understanding.

2. Is the intent of this Bill to allow land owners with HQ and EV waterways to be able to remove existing 150' riparian buffers as required by 102.14, if they will be using other accepted BMP's?


We'll see what the answers are.

Erik
 
Erik and others - I thank you for taking the considerable effort to research and examine this complex issue(s), which could affect everyone of us on this forum. What are the timings of the next steps in the state Senate?
 
my sources tell me that even though this may not appear on the legislative calendar (haven't confirmed that), there will be a push to get it through the Senate before the session closes, which I think is coming up.
 
This bill has everything to do with pipelines and nothing more.
 
This is the most down to earth, logical opposition letter I've read regarding this bill. Can all the organizations in bold at the bottom be wrong on this issue?

Link

David E. Hess, Department of Environmental Protection Secretary under Governors Ridge and Schweiker, wrote to all members of the Senate Tuesday urging them to oppose House Bill 1565 (Hahn-R-Northampton) eliminating the nearly 4 year old requirement for stream buffers in High Quality and Exceptional Value streams if it comes up for a vote in the five remaining days of legislative session.

The text of the letter follows--

The science is clear and the economics are indisputable, forested stream buffers are the most effective and least-costly best management practice you can install to help prevent pollution of our streams and rivers, stabilize stream banks and improve habitat for fish and other aquatic life.

But don’t believe me, research by Pennsylvania’s own Stroud Water Research Center in Avondale, world-recognized experts on stream buffers and watershed ecology, and decades of experience on the ground have proven it. A large and growing body of scientific evidence clearly indicates there is no practice more effective or less costly.

Nearly four years ago the Department of Environmental Protection adopted a rule requiring stream buffers, not along all streams, but only in High Quality (HQ) and Exceptional Value (EV) Watersheds, 4 percent of the watersheds in Pennsylvania.
To provide flexibility, the rule provided nine different exemptions and six different waivers from the requirement, including for single family homes not part of a development, maintenance of pipelines, and for oil, gas, timber and mining operations. In January DEP told the House they did not recall a single instance when a waiver was not granted.

The House also heard overwhelming opposition to House Bill 1565 from environmental, conservation, sportsmen’s groups and from the Monroe County Conservation District which has decades of real-world experience with development where nearly all the county’s streams are HQ or EV. I would note Monroe County is the second fastest growing county in Pennsylvania. Its population increased more than 70 percent since 1990.

House Bill 1565 would take away the stream buffer requirement without any scientific or independently verified evidence of any problems it is creating. I know, because I met with the Builders Association.

When I was Secretary of DEP under Governors Ridge and Schweiker, I visited every one of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties at least twice and saw first-hand how simple tools like stream buffers, many times installed by volunteers and funded by the Growing Greener Program matched by local support, improved water quality.

That improved water quality made it easier to use streams and rivers as sources of drinking water, meet water quality standards and helped restore fishing on streams that hadn’t seen a fish in decades. More than one grandparent came up to me and said how happy it made them to be able to take their grandkids to a local stream to fish. As a grandparent now myself, I’ve come to appreciate these comments even more.

In the five voting days remaining, you may be asked to vote on House Bill 1565. As you make your decision, I would encourage you to look at the clear scientific evidence and decades of on-the-ground experience supporting the effectiveness and economics of stream buffers versus the lack of any documented problem with the requirement from the other side.

If there are problems with the way the rule is administered, let’s tackle those issues, not throw out one of the most effective tools we have to improve water quality.

Pennsylvania is facing significant mandates to meet water quality standards under the federal Clean Water Act in every watershed in the Commonwealth, as well as in special areas like the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Erie and Ohio River Watersheds.

To deny us the use of tools like stream buffers in our best watersheds will impose additional costs on taxpayers they can ill afford in today’s economy.

I encourage you to vote against House Bill 1565.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this issue and my experience with stream buffers. Call me at 717-576-0420 or send email to: DHess@CrisciAssociates.com.

The bill is also opposed by PA Environmental Council, Chesapeake Bay Foundation-PA, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, the PA Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, the Fish and Boat Commission, PA Council of Trout Unlimited and PA League of Women Voters.


 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
This bill has everything to do with pipelines and nothing more.

Probably, but I believe the existing regulation 102.14 provides for exceptions related to these activities. Maybe they just don't want to go through the process of getting a waiver though.


VC:

Thanks for posting that, an well written and fact based response.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
This bill has everything to do with pipelines and nothing more.

sal, if it was just about pipelines it would be easier to to deal with. We have a pipe line crossing the Bushkill. True there are no trees there but the buffer was replanted by the pipeline company.

This bill started out when a developer in M Hahn's district. He wanted to build on a piece of property with a buffer. He said that the buffer was stopping him from using his proper in any way he saw fit.

I hope this info helps you and others understand how a piece of bad legislation got started.

Bill

 
Possibly but I disagree that it would be easier to deal with if it was just pipelines.

Tons of new legislation has taken place and continues to take place along with the changing of environmental policies. All of which as taken place just to aid the golden cow that is Pennsylvania natural gas.

Don't think for a minute that it won't be used as such.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Possibly but I disagree that it would be easier to deal with if it was just pipelines.

Tons of new legislation has taken place and continues to take place along with the changing of environmental policies. All of which as taken place just to aid the golden cow that is Pennsylvania natural gas.

Don't think for a minute that it won't be used as such.

Good point, Sal. That angle never occurred to me. We should all be on guard for the Legislators trying to sneak in regs to help out the gas industry, which throws in a lot of cash to support some politicians.

I'm glad to say it looks like the sun is setting on this Administration (sorry folks, I'm referring to Corbutt not Obama - but the Big O be gone too pretty soon, too) so it is likely that Corbutt administration will try to ramrod things favorable to the gas companies through the Legislature before he leaves.

 
word on the street is that this will be brought up for vote soon, so if you haven't contacted your Senator, please do so.

Find your Senator HERE
 
my Senator (Pileggi) has a Facebook page - am trying to figure out how to write a note on 1565 on it
 
lestrout i think you have to friend him first and then you can write something on his time line.
 
Just curious as to why this got moved now, after JackM and I had a discussion about it before....

This will probably be voted on by the environmental Council on Monday or Tuesday, and if it pass there it will be taken to the Senate for a full vote.
 
Here is a good video explaining the bill.

http://youtu.be/N50RzIHGDr4

 
Passed the Senate Environmental Committee yesterday. Next stop is the Senate. Please continue to pressure your Senator to stop this.
 
Back
Top