HB 1576: Efforts to Undermine PA Wild Trout Protections Continue

[TimRobinsin]

BTW, with all respect to the gentleman from TU who testified here at the hearing. that testimony from TU did not seem very helpful to the cause.

 

[Moosehead_Belle]

Tim
Ditto on TU rep., should have been prepared to be blind sided.
Did not put forward a balanced image of TU.
MB

 

[pcray1231]

The extraction tax is something every state has.

I like the impact fee model much better. Let's perfect that (and I'm open to say it needs some work).

The extraction tax is something every state has, but with the political climate being as it is the "R's" would use it in the general fund, I'm not sure about how the "D's" would use it, hopefully it would fund things like clean up.

They planned to use it for "environmental" funds. But I have 2 problems with that.

1. That's what they say to pass it. The reality could be very different in 20 years. They have the leeway to use it for whatever they want and as long as it's a part of the general fund budget, it's gonna go to whatever is deemed most important at any given time. State in the law where it HAS to go.

2. Does it really make sense to say, oh, ok, gas drilling causes these extra costs. We'll make em pay for it. But, instead of covering those costs, we'll build a park somewhere else. I don't dislike parks. But if they are more important than, say, education, well, fine, budget for that. The gas companies pay corporate taxes just like any other business and that money is supposed to be what builds parks, plus any royalties the government recieves for leasing their land. The EXTRA taxes that they pay, IMO, must be earmarked specifically for the EXTRA costs associated directly to their activities. And should not be allowed to escape that arena.

 

[ebroesicke]

TimRobinsin wrote:
BTW, with all respect to the gentleman from TU who testified here at the hearing. that testimony from TU did not seem very helpful to the cause.

Bryan ( TU guy) is a good guy and I think this was his first time ever making a statement in any sort of venue like that. Tough spot for most anyone on their first time out.

 

[Chaz]

Maurice wrote:

TimRobinsin wrote:

which leads me to question: if the gas company tear up a recently restored stream, do they pay back the local groups that spent years resorting said stream?

I am sure they would have to put it back the way they found it at least.

I doubt that's right, I'm thinking they take the profits and just like the coal industry and oil and gas in the past, they run. That's why the separation tax is what we need, and I don't favor any effort to increase taxes, especially on businesses, but they are planning on selling the gas to the highest bidder and that is why they want to build the keystone pipeline.

 

[Chaz]

pcray1231 wrote:

The extraction tax is something every state has.

I like the impact fee model much better. Let's perfect that (and I'm open to say it needs some work).

The extraction tax is something every state has, but with the political climate being as it is the "R's" would use it in the general fund, I'm not sure about how the "D's" would use it, hopefully it would fund things like clean up.

They planned to use it for "environmental" funds. But I have 2 problems with that.

1. That's what they say to pass it. The reality could be very different in 20 years. They have the leeway to use it for whatever they want and as long as it's a part of the general fund budget, it's gonna go to whatever is deemed most important at any given time. State in the law where it HAS to go.

2. Does it really make sense to say, oh, ok, gas drilling causes these extra costs. We'll make em pay for it. But, instead of covering those costs, we'll build a park somewhere else. I don't dislike parks. But if they are more important than, say, education, well, fine, budget for that. The gas companies pay corporate taxes just like any other business and that money is supposed to be what builds parks, plus any royalties the government recieves for leasing their land. The EXTRA taxes that they pay, IMO, must be earmarked specifically for the EXTRA costs associated directly to their activities. And should not be allowed to escape that arena.

No it doesn't, but that's why the law has to be written to have all the money go to environmental impacts, but I don't believe the 'Rs' will do that, and I'm not sure if the 'Ds' get that either.
Our government sucks right now. That's the big issue.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Politics in the Commonwealth have always been a trainwreck.

 

[fishbaithohaha]

Explain the importance of defeating HB to the reps.

Right now, the money and promises are flowing to their door. Once, HB 1576 passes the money stops but they will face irate voters every single election. Promising to resurrect a defeated HB keeps the money flowing and voters home.

Love the smell of politics in the morning, smells like a hog farm.

 

[JackM]

So you are saying the legislators are scamming the interest groups for contributions? That's a very cynical point of view and dangerous if they are actually considering passing this legislation.

 

[MHanes]

Well I can say one thing we don't vote the smartest people into office. Heffley is clueless on what conservation really is and many could not tell you what a brook trout looks like that serve on that committee is the vibe I got.

 

[pcray1231]

So you are saying the legislators are scamming the interest groups for contributions?

Absolutely. Both sides do it every day.

That's a very cynical point of view.

Given the state of politics, can you blame anyone for being cynical?

All that said, yes, I do agree that this particular bill is a bad one and should fail.

 

[TimRobinsin]

Go to that same video and listen to the story that starts at 1:53:20

The Rep. hits the nail on the head. He mentions that the regulations DEP put on the hatchery were too expensive. Again, their fight is against the DEP regs but instead of going against DEP they are going after PFBC.

Also, I think it is interesting that they view TU as a stocking group. If the shoe fits I suppose. I am a TU member and there are many who believe that TU should be a stocking group. Our rep there missed a couple great chances to point out the great wild trout potential our state has provided we protect our coldwater resources. IMHO

 

[RyanR]

JackM wrote:
So you are saying the legislators are scamming the interest groups for contributions? That's a very cynical point of view and dangerous if they are actually considering passing this legislation.

No, it's a rather factual point of view. Might be hard for some folks in the political machine to fathom that there are those of us out here in voter land that recognize that and our number is growing, albeit slowly.

 

[JackM]

I hope that abject cynicism continues to grow only very, very slowly.

 

[pcray1231]

I think it's already fairly pervasive, Jack. It's simple observation. If you pay attention, you're cynical about politicians.

The problem is that there aren't any alternatives to voting for someone you despise. So you end up voting for someone who claims, and probably does, vote the way you see it on more things than not, even if you know they aren't that sincere about it.

The root of the problem is that they vote by what will get them elected. Even if they know it's dumb, they also know they will not be able to educate their constituency enough to see it, and thus the goal is to avoid positions which are difficult to sell to the public.

And the public is pretty ignorant on most topics, yours truly included. Most of us know the ins and outs on only a couple of issues. That's all that's needed to see how juvenile the talking points on BOTH sides are, very often resulting in unintended consequences, which can be quite the opposite of the intent of the masses who support that piece of legislation. So, on issues that we don't know inside and out, we do realize how dumb we must look to those who do. Yet we vote anyway, and become cynical.

I admire a politician that is willing to stand up for what's right, even if their position is unpopular and seems dumb on the surface. But those politicians LOSE.

Real issues are complicated and nuanced. But we the public go little beyond "Yay for the environment!!!"

 

[JackM]

The cynicism I was noting was the assertion that this display of rule-making procedure was just to gather contributions, rather than an effort to investigate how to make law. And that is why it is a dangerous cynicism.

 

[geebee]

I have to say that as a fisherman, i'm gutted that John Hnager dropped out - frmr Secretary of the PA EPA.

he intended to push an anti-fracking bill that would rule out any fracking in PA.

Hopefully, Tom Wolf will pick up the issue with the same stance,

 

[fishbaithohaha]

Cynical, yes. A distinct possibility, HB is being held hostage until more money flows.

An interesting article about Duke Power, Republicans and NC legislation provides an interesting insight on the making of sausage. A 330 word tweak of a law might shield Duke from extensive fines. It could have easily been Dems.

http://www.newsdaily.com/article/f16478963683b4b73510647fa2b7a388/tweak-to-nc-law-protected-dukes-coal-ash-pits

 

[whheff]

Just wanted to update those of you who are not TU members.
HB1576 is going to be reintroduced and the changes that were made to it are worse than the original.
There may be a vote in committee as early as April 28.
Please contact you state rep and ask them to NOT support this revised bill.
Bill

 

[pcray1231]

No it doesn't, but that's why the law has to be written to have all the money go to environmental impacts, but I don't believe the 'Rs' will do that, and I'm not sure if the 'Ds' get that either.

Note, D primary campaign underway. All 4 candidates support "extraction tax". They vary on the size of the tax, and where the money goes. Not one of them proposes sending a single dime of that money to actually cleaning up any damage from drilling, or even unrelated environmental issues! It's all about funding education and the like.

R's still support "impact fee", where 100% of any and all proceeds go to boosting funding to those who are being directly affected by drilling.

Again, personally, I don't have any issue with saying the impact fee needs to be increased. That maybe we need to re-adjust where the money goes, etc. Nor am I going to deny that R's resist these needed reforms because they're a little too "friendly" with the industry.

But drillers pay regular business taxes like anyone else. Those taxes can and should be used for education, parks, and anything else we want to use them for. If we need more funding, raise the taxes, on everyone, including drillers. Lets make it an honest debate.

When it comes to ADDING additional taxes to drillers over what everyone else pays, though; if the purpose is to make up for the impacts that they cause over other industries, I'm on board. But those additional taxes MUST be put towards alleviating those impacts. If PennDOT has extra road work, fine, give them more money to do the extra road work in those counties. If the DEP has to triple it's inspections to keep tabs on regulation violations, then give them the money to do so. If an accident happens that requires cleanup, yes, absolutely, the drillers should pay for it. If a bunch of out of state roughnecks put extra strain on a rural town police department, yes, the money can be used to help that department.

But to say we're charging you for those impacts, but instead of addressing the impacts, we're going to use every cent of the money to help the Philadelphia school district budget crisis? I mean, wow. How can anyone who claims to be concerned about the environment support something like that?