Not saying they have no impact. Saying the impact fee needs to stay specifically tied to things with a DIRECT AND ASSIGNABLE causes due to drilling, not to a broad statewide fund. My reason for this is that I strongly support the impact fee, but expect the impacts to be greater than the initial fee can cover. The cost of alleviating those impacts has to remain specific in order to keep accurate records, so when an increase in the fee is needed at a future time, it can be adequately justified.
So, if it is found that certain specific streams suffer from something related to drilling activity, and Growing Greener creates a program to alleviate those issues on those specific streams only, then yes, I'd be open to impact fee money going to that specific program. But I wouldn't support fee money from a well in Potter County going towards AMD remediation in Schulykill Cty, or creating a new park in some other location. In fact I'd do what I could to stop it from happening. Sorry.
But again, royalty money, thats a different ballgame. Go after that! Landowners get to keep royalty money and use it for whatever they deem a priority. In this case, the citizens of PA are the landowners. And more, those public lands were created with public $$$ set aside for recreation and enhancing health and outdoor activities. As a member of that public, I suggest that it makes perfect sense to use any proceeds towards recreation and enhancing health and outdoor activities. Like, say, the growing greener fund.