This Bud's For... Who?

A number of folks have pointed out that PU seems to always pick on Republicans--Gov. Ridge, DEP and, last issue, State Sen. William Slocum and State Rep. Jim Lynch (with a swipe at U.S. Rep. E.G. "Bud" Shuster (a.k.a. "Dirty Water") it's always hard to pass up Bud). And a while back we criticized Dave Hess of DEP for making a big deal of an anti-conservation measure introduced by State Rep. Italo Cappabianca D-Erie ( http://www.rayproffitt.org/pu/ pu032098.htm ). Not that the legislation was good (it wasn't and we said so), but we asked if we were going to get similar alerts from DEP on all anti-conservation measures, even those introduced by Republicans? We answered our own question ("no") and so far have been right, over a year later. Dave's first legislative alert was his last. That's OK, Dave. We weren't really banking on DEP becoming a reliable source of info on the General Assembly. In most cases, it's bad form, regardless of party.

But we don't think the criticism that PU only targets Republicans is accurate we regularly go after Federal agencies, and the last time we checked, a Democratic President was still in office. But maybe that is too far removed for people. It does seem like the Federal agencies bend less with the political winds. One can easily picture EPA, for example, like a supertanker (the Exxon Valdez?!): slow to get started, but tough to stop, and requiring a lot of room to change direction. Doesn't matter who the CEO of Exxon happens to be. Picture DEP, on the other hand, as a freighter (the Edmund Fitzgerald?): smaller, hauls less, but the speed and direction are more perceptible (never mind that the direction is often the wrong one).

To cut to the chase, our research on the "More Green Masks" PU [http://www.rayproffitt.org/ pu/pu082099.htm] revealed some pretty interesting stuff on another member of the General Assembly, and we originally wanted to include him in with Sen. Slocum and Rep. Lynch, but frankly, there was so much stuff to report that we felt he deserved his very own PU. And, he is a member of the Democratic Party! Yes, Bud, this one's for you!

We are talking about Rep. Camille "Bud" George D- Clearfield. Bud is the ranking Democratic member on the House Environmental Resources & Energy Committee, and, in fairness, this Bud has been a pretty consistent supporter of environmental issues in the House. For instance, he has been a primary sponsor of anti-SLAPP suit legislation, (SLAPPs are lawsuits filed by companies against activists questioning their proposed activities). Certainly, if we had to choose a Bud, this one's much better than Bud "Dirty Water" Shuster. In fact, the combined conservation efforts of Rep. Shuster, State Sen. Slocum, and State Rep. Lynch don't compare to Bud George's efforts on one issue, anti-SLAPP suits. But this Bud gets carried away sometimes, and we feel compelled to point a couple of particular instances.

Bud has introduced a package of water resources bills into the House [http://www.pahouse.net/george/pr/ h2000release.htm]. Most of them are good. The House and Senate would have done better this session to pay more attention to Bud's "Water Resources Conservation and Management Act" (HB 177) and Bud's attempts to clean up abandoned mine drainage and deal with stormwater runoff ("Watershed Improvement Act," HB 176) than they did to many of the things they fooled with.

Unfortunately, Bud also introduced the "Watercourse Flow Improvement Act" (HB 175) that, to put it succinctly, authorizes spending $50 million in new bond money to dredge and ream our streams.

Here's "Section 2. Declaration of policy." of the Act, in part:

The General Assembly finds and declares as follows:

(1) Fundamental to the health and welfare of the people of this Commonwealth are the land and water resources of this Commonwealth.

So far, so good!

(2) Many miles of waterways in this Commonwealth have diminished flow capabilities because of infiltration of silt and debris. This diminished capacity can cause damage to homes and property due to flooding.

Huh?

(3) The need to make watercourse flow improvements and stream clearance are urgent matters requiring action by the Commonwealth, not only for conservation purposes, but for the protection of the health and welfare of the citizens of this Commonwealth, especially those living in or adjacent to affected areas.

Hold on, Bud! Very few, if any, of our streams have so much "silt and debris" that their removal would make a difference during flood flows. If so much silt is getting into our streams, the proper course should be to stop it in the first place, by encouraging the re- establishment of wetlands and vegetated riparian buffers, and proper land use practices. And the "debris" that he's talking about is often tree limbs and trunks, rocks and gravel that make up the rich aquatic habitat of our streams. How in the world can stream reaming be justified for "conservation purposes" as mentioned in subsection 3?

It seems as if Bud has an affectionate place in his heart for heavy equipment operating in or near water. In 1992, Bud was ordered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Baltimore District) to stop using a bulldozer to fill wetlands adjacent to a creek in Clearfield County. This wasn't something he contracted for he was actually the one on the dozer, pushing dirt into "jurisdictional wetlands" within a few feet of a stream! This was apparently shortly after a newspaper interview in which "water quality" was one of his top priorities. Well, as a state Sierra Club lobbyist said at the time in response to this incident, one of the functions of wetlands is the protection of water quality (Pottsville Republican, August 22, 1992).

One can imagine that if the stream on Bud's property got high enough since 1992, the fill that Bud placed getting eroded and becoming downstream "silt and debris" that then has to be pulled out of the stream! So in 1992, Bud fills in, and in 1999, Bud reams out (through HB 175)! Bud, don't you realize that filling a wetland causes the same type of problem that you claim needs to be resolved through HB 175? We have tried to dam, levee, straighten, and dredge streams, and they are still flooding. Your bill promotes a practice that won't work. We would be better off using the $50 million to buy people out of flood plains.

Maybe Bud just has a thing for internal combustion engines. Bud and two other legislators have recently come out in favor of opening of all un-paved State Forest roads to snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles. Not certain roads, all of them. Apparently the professionals that run the State Forests don't know as much about what roads are suitable for ATV traffic as Bud and his fellow legislators. It would be clearly obvious to anyone, if they had an office in the Capitol, that erosion is never a problem, or that people don't use the State Forests for walks or to find solitude, and unrestricted ATV use might actually interfere with other uses of our forests. It's enough for Bud and his buds that there are a bunch of all-terrain vehicle owners that can't use every single mile of State Forest road. Time for the legislature to step in!

Like we said, while Bud does some good things, he gets carried away sometimes. Contact Rep. Bud George at 430 Spring Street, Houtzdale, PA. 16651, and tell Bud that these are NOT for us:

1. If you have to use your dozer, use it to bury HB 175. Spend the money on fixing our watersheds and flooding will be minimized. Don't ream our streams.

2. Let the professionals that run our State Forests (that is why we pay them) determine which roads are suitable for multi-use. If you feel that more state property needs to be opened to ATVs, open the corridors of the Capitol. Also contact Rep. Mike Hanna at 800-845-7846 and let him know the same thing, as he is also a supporter of unrestricted ATV access in State Forests.

Let your own legislator know the same things.

<<<<END>>>>

return