Susquehanna River Sentinel: Twenty:One Ratio my Keister

The comments and e-mails have been coming in fast and furious lately. In response to my Republican Rape post, I received an e-mail from a fellow watershed advocate ( Thanks, Michael! ) with a link to a gas industry newsletter (Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania) from 2005 that contained the following comments:

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dealt producers a setback in our efforts to overturn EPA’s
interpretation of the Stormwater discharge rules under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

And this:

We have reported repeatedly over the last several years the importance of resolving the NPDES Stormwater issue. The impact on Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry will be devastating if we cannot resolve EPA’s “power grab by interpretation”. Nationally, a DOE study projects the prevention of development of as much as 3.9 billion barrels of oil and 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. There is little wonder why IOGA has expended so much time, effort, and money to overturn EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act Oil and Gas Exemption.

IOGA will continue to work with the other state cooperating associations and IPAA to seek resolution to this issue. In addition to the litigation, efforts continue to work with EPA to develop a stormwater management approach that protects the environment while reducing the negative impact on oil and gas development. We will also continue to work towards Congressional clarification of the 1987 provisions of the Clean Water Act.

So if you were wondering why PA Senators Mary Jo White and Lisa M. Baker sponsored SB 305...now you know. Considering the number of visits I've had from Harrisburg lately, I'm sure at some point they might even try to eliminate the requirement to post pending legislation online...

Is it recall time yet?

In other news, check out Another Monkey's post about the elimination of funding for the USGS stream gauges on the Susquehanna. Pure and simple, this is plain old stupid. The Susquehanna is one of the most flood prone watersheds in the country. The USGS gauges provide an excellent early warning system to monitor stream flow and predict river crests. In reading some of the quotes in DB's post, I will offer that I think the 20:1 benefit/cost ratio is way too light. Seriously - according to the articles I've read, it costs $2.4 million to maintain the gauges in the Susquehanna watershed. At 20:1, that means that we'd only save $48M in potential losses and/or insurance payouts if we had funding to maintain the gauges? In 1972, Hurricane Agnes cost $1.7 Billion. In 1999, Hurricane Ivan caused $6 Billion in damages on the East Coast. The June 2006 flood was estimated to have caused $100 million in damages to Susquehanna County alone!

In today's $, I think the benefit/cost ratio of the USGS stream gauges is more in the range of 200:1, at minimum. The funding should be approved, post haste. If anyone wants some suggestions on other programs hatched in Washington to cut...send me the proposed legislation and I'll make some recommendations. I'm sure there are quite a few pet projects ( f/k/a earmarks) buried in there.

In closing today's post, I'll share a few pics from a family gathering yesterday in northeastern PA. My father-in-law is turning 83 in a few days, and as 4 out of 5 of his children could get together...the party was on.

Sto lat, Benedict D.!