Moving Susquehanna Valley Forward

In Defense of Quigley

by

John Quigley was forced to resign as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) over a terse email he sent to environmental advocacy groups regarding inaction on key environmental policies.

It’s important to note that Quigley took his role as DEP Secretary seriously and was dedicated to protecting Pennsylvania and Pennsylvanians. In a state where industry has considerable influence over laws and rule making, he was trying to fulfill DEP’s mission to “protect Pennsylvania’s air, land and water from pollution and to provide for the health and safety of its citizens through a cleaner environment.”  He was…doing his job.

Specifically, Quigley had been facilitating the lengthy and tedious process of overhauling Chapter 78, regulations which oversee oil and gas operations, and working to finalize Pennsylvania’s Clean Power Plan–an effort to reduce carbon emissions.  Two lofty goals in a state where natural gas and coal have dominated the energy scene and millions of dollars are spent each year to sway legislators in their direction.

The Chapter 78 revisions have been under works for over five years and began before Quigley was appointed Secretary. The process included two public input periods (drawing nearly 28,000 comments) and twelve public hearings.

The two major objections raised by conservatives in regards to the rules are: insufficient clarification between large-scale and smaller operations and missed filing deadlines. However, it is hard to take even these criticisms seriously when republicans have been working to obstruct the rule-making process long before it was ever near completion.

The new language eventually will go before the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) for final review and approval. The legislature could potentially block the rules though the Governor has the ability to veto that action.

Quigley’s email was sent the day after both House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees passed bi-partisan resolutions repudiating the new regulations and urging IRRC to reject them.

Republican Senator Gene Yaw, majority chair of the senate committee, made the motion to pass the resolution, claiming that the DEP had circumvented the regulatory process.

Senator John Yudichak, a democrat from Luzerne County, supported Yaw’s resolution. Many in the environmental community believe Yudichak was behind the campaign to remove Quigley. Why would a fellow democrat work so hard to remove the governor’s appointee?  It is believed that Yudichak’s loyalty lies with the coal and gas industry in his district. He has been a vocal opponent of stricter oil and gas regulations and also voted to delay Governor Wolf’s Clean Power Plan. Far from an environmental-friendly legislator, he scored only 38% from Clean Water Action’s most recent scorecard.

Quigley was pushing too hard (and by pushing too hard, I mean he was doing what we should expect him to do as DEP Secretary) to finalize regulations that the conservatively controlled legislature has been against all along.  He was putting the health and well-being of the people and the Commonwealth above special interests. He was trying to keep people and communities safe.

Legislators like Yaw and Yudichak do not seem to be too concerned about our water or air; they don’t care about a changing climate…they seem only to be concerned about the profitability of energy companies.

I was very impressed and grateful when Governor Wolf appointed Quigley to serve as DEP Secretary knowing his reputation as Mayor of Hazleton and former Secretary of the Department of Conservation & Natural Resources.

Now, I find myself disappointed. I see the Governor surrendering to a political witch hunt that gives conservatives another opportunity to obstruct good sound environmental policy.

John R. Faraguna is President is a founding member of the Susquehanna Valley Progressives.

Nordic Governments: by and for the people

by

This election season much attention is being given to democratic socialism. The Northern European Nordic countries, specifically Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden, are prime examples of the successes of the Democratic Socialist type of governments.

There is no doubt that, by any measure, democratic socialism works extremely well in the Nordic countries, along with others such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. In comparison to more capitalistic driven states, most, if not all, quality of life issues are substantially better in democratic socialist countries. Economic opportunity, access to health care, the environment, education, crime rates, and most other major metrics of a strong society all rank better in countries using the democratic socialist model. It’s no surprise then that Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are consistently ranked at the top of many “happiest countries in the world” lists.

It would take volumes to attempt to explain how something as complex as democratic socialism (or any other social system) works. However, its basic tenants are fairly simple: a society does best when each of its members are given both the right, and the capability, to succeed, regardless of economic, social, or political standing; and the individual thrives when provided with this opportunity. The “pursuit of happiness” is just a cruel taunt without the actual means to achieve it. So yes, this may require some of the dreaded “redistribution of wealth” ( or what most would call fair, progressive tax rates) we often hear about. But far from being some Stalin-like communism, it simply means that the ones who profit most from the system do their share to ensure that system’s continued well-being. Government regulation in these countries is actually limited (some don’t even have a minimum wage); however, as the government sees to those things that business can’t or won’t (like health care) the individual is free to realize his/her highest potential, further strengthening the society.

Even with all the concern for the overall societal good, there’s no lack of personal initiative or spirit of free enterprise. But unlike in America, where the improbable achievement of mega wealth and the ever present chance of poverty are prime motivators, the democratic socialist sees the chance to be a valuable contributor to society as the reason to work and be productive. Also, short term corporate profits aren’t automatically equated to the long term national good. In other words the desire for wealth has its place, but it’s not everything.

The democratic socialist countries do have their problems however. As the population ages generous pensions will be difficult to maintain; globalization will put pressure on unions and wages; and there is no doubt that taxes, by American standards, are generally high. But any solutions suggested for these problems are more likely to be geared toward the welfare of everyone, and less apt to depend on giving more to the rich and hoping for that elusive “trickle down effect” that never seems to materialize. And it must be remembered that these countries have free, and, compared to us, transparent elections. There are no gulags, commissars, state sanctioned candidates, or secret police. Their leaders are held to high standards with moneyed interests not allowed to influence politics to the extent they do in the U.S. Voter participation is high and the electorate well informed. Indeed, democratic socialist governments are so accountable to their residents, any unpopular polices would quickly be changed. Democratic socialist are every bit as “free” as we are, just more prosperous.

We can learn much from the democratic socialist countries, and many of their principles can be adapted to our country. Given the continued failings of unchecked capitalism and the undeniable achievements of the Nordic style governments, they at least deserve a closer look.

Determined to Stop Reckless Development of Brush Valley

by

With many similarities to the ill-conceived and unpopular plan from fifteen years ago, an initiative to build a prison in the pristine Trout run section of Brush Valley is once again being advanced. And like the original plot, this scheme it is just as, if not more, confusing.

The difference this time is that instead of a Federal prison, County Commissioner Clausi believes Brush valley is the best location to construct a new county prison; a project he has long supported, even before the sudden destruction of the Sunbury county prison.
What remains the same are the facts: Brush valley is an environmental diamond in the rough, whose value as a natural resource far outweighs any need to destroy it; there are many better locations available, (preferably in Sunbury); and as before, the public opposes it.

In an attempt to determine what could possibly be the reason Brush Valley seems to be the ONLY place prisons can be built, the Brush Valley Preservation Association (BVPA) is seeking documents detailing correspondences between Northumberland County and the owner of Brush Valley, Aqua America.  In addition, we’ve requested information concerning the County’s prison insurance policy. These documents are clearly public information, vital in understanding this situation. But, unfortunately, using a strategy that looks like it was torn from a previous administration’s play book, the county is dragging its feet in releasing these records.  We truly hope the county will learn from the failed actions of those previous commissioners, and honor our requests in a timely manor.

And now, most disturbingly of all, it has come to light that an investigation into a possible arson plot at the prison is underway. How such a plot, if real, could be connected with the desire to build a prison in Brush Valley is not yet clear. But even the accusation of arson is deeply troubling.

Yes, the  push to once again waste the taxpayer’s money by needlessly destroying Brush Valley is back, more perplexing than ever. It made little sense before, and even less now.
Fortunately, something else is back: our determination to stop it.

Basic Rights, Basic Necessities

by

“The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all of the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

These are the words of Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.  Former state senator Franklin Cury was the catalyst and author of the amendment. Its intention, in Cury’s own words, was to establish “a legal right to a decent environment under the state constitution” and “effectively change the balance of legal power and give environmental quality (and the human race) at least an even chance in the coming years.”

The devastation our own area had experienced through the unregulated extraction of coal was Cury’s inspiration for the amendment.  Lifeless streams, orange with acid mine drainage, abandoned strip mines, mine fires and huge banks of culm deposited throughout the region…just some of the legacy we all still bear from the golden age of coal. How could the coal industry destroy large supplies of water and acres of land without consequence?

Fast forward several decades and now we are asking how the natural gas industry can be permitted to contaminate water supplies, deforest Penn’s Woods, pollute our air and contribute to the greatest calamity of our time…climate change?

In Pennsylvania, over 7,100 active wells exist. Each of these wells require 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies. In just the few years that the industry has been active, over 35.5 billion gallons of Pennsylvania’s fresh water has been combined with more than 284 million gallons of chemicals (including known carcinogens) and pumped into the ground.  There are numerous communities where residents can not or will not drink their water because of safety concerns.

During the production and distribution of natural gas, our air quality is also threatened through intentional and unintentional releases of methane. Methane has a 20 times more powerful impact on our atmosphere than carbon dioxide. For this reason, gas drilling not only depletes our ozone layer but also exacerbates climate change.

We have been afforded the constitutional right to clean air and water, yet communities in Pennsylvania are finding these very basic necessities of life threatened. Our constitution protects our public natural resources, yet nearly half of our state parks and forests are leased for drilling. The purity and aesthetics of our environment are safeguarded through this amendment yet, thousands of miles of pipelines traverse the state just beneath our forests, farms, rivers and communities.

The Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation (PEDF) has filed a lawsuit in an effort to defend our state parks and forests, ensure the proper investment of Oil & Gas Lease Funds (OGLF) and fortify our environmental amendment.

Governor Wolf’s moratorium on any additional drilling in our state forests is a welcome policy change; if Corbett would have had his way, additional state lands would have been opened up for drilling in an attempt to satisfy budget shortfalls last year. Thankfully, PEDF’s lawsuit halted Corbett’s plans.

The lower courts have ruled against PEDF’s argument regarding OLGF but has reaffirmed the Department of Conservation & Natural Resources is ultimately responsible for the stewardship of our state parks and forests.

Our state constitution ensures the protection of our most basic rights–to breathe clean air and drink clean water. An individual’s constitutional right should trump corporate profits and should be upheld and protected, even if doing so is not the easiest path or even the most popular.

When does a constitutional right become a guaranteed freedom? When will our communities be free from water and air pollution? When will our state parks and forests be free of industrial infrastructure that threaten their pristine nature? When will our Commonwealth serve as a true trustee to our natural resources, safeguarding them for future generations?

It is up to us to ensure that these rights are taken seriously by our elected officials. Let’s stand together and tell our legislators and the governor that they must ensure the protection of these basic rights, our basic necessities.

Interesting Possibilities

by

If the polls can be believed, Tom Wolf will be our next Governor. If so, there may be some interesting prospects ahead for this area.

On Wolf’s website, one of his initiatives in particular, support for renewable energy, stands out as having the potential to positively affect Northumberland and nearby counties.

Lack of good paying employment, caused in part by the demise of the coal industry, has plagued our area for many decades. Past efforts to stimulate the local economy have been ineffectual at best, colossal wastes of tax payer money at worst. But if done correctly, a comprehensive plan to develop renewable technology could provide the boost our area needs and make us a leader in green energy.

While there are as of yet few details on Wolf’s website about just how he would stimulate the alternate energy sector, hopefully they would include the reuse of some of the abandoned buildings and properties in our area, of which many have already been taxpayer subsidized, to produce solar panels, wind turbines, and the ancillary equipment needed to generate clean power.

Workers who’ve lost their jobs in the anthracite industry could have access to retraining, and former anthracite businesses given the opportunity to bid on projects. Vocational training schools, trade unions, and government agencies could coordinate with local suppliers, manufacturers, and installers to educate and train our workforce for the production, installation, and maintenance of clean energy equipment.

Northumberland County has the facilities, the work force, and the drive, what we need now is a plan and the investment.

All of this would, of course, cost money. Whether by subsidies, tax breaks, or other financial assistance, funds would be needed to help get clean energy companies running. As we still do this for dirty fuels and long established, multi-billion dollar companies that provide fewer and fewer jobs, I see no problem with publically helping the burgeoning clean energy field.  So long as any company involved is made to guarantee how many jobs they will create, and at what wage, (unlike our past economic stimulation failures) the benefits should far outweigh the costs.

Also by assuring local schools and other public institutions the availability of solar panels, wind turbines, and other energy saving hardware at a discounted rate, taxpayers may, in the long term, realize a net savings. Our citizens, too, would have access to locally produced products that save them on their utility bills, pumping more money into the area’s economy.

Alternate energy has nearly reached parity in cost with fossil fuels, so when the savings to public welfare, long term unemployment compensation, and the boost to the tax base are added in, such a plan makes even more sense.

It may be premature to speculate about what Wolf will do, or even if he will be elected at all. This may be nothing more than speculation, but there’s certainly no harm in daring to dream about a better future for our area.