Dec 19, 2016 5 min read

What’s worse? Check a box.

Poorly written, vague legislation that ultimately becomes law? Elected officials gaming the system? What’s supposed to be helped by law isn’t because the legislation is flawed?

Not a tough choice. Check any one of the three boxes and you would be right. Check all three, which is possible, even likely, and you would have a trifecta.

Case in point — Act 13, the legislation enacted in 2012 to provide funds to Pennsylvania counties and municipalities impacted by Marcellus Shale drilling. Specifically, counties and municipalities are to use the funds, among other things, to pay for road repairs and infrastructure improvements impacted by drillers’ activities. The huge trucks carrying heavy drilling equipment, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more of water and residual waste do a lot more damage to roads than a caravan of full-size SUVs. Drilling impact funds are supposed to fix the roads.

Any natural springs or waterway contaminated by drilling or its waste ought to be mitigated using impact funds. But heck, we don’t even know what chemicals, harmful or not, are used in the drilling process because nothing requires drillers to disclose what chemicals they use to extract natural gas buried hundreds of feet under soil and rock. That in itself is a stupefying.

Other would-be helpful examples of Act 13 funds abound. Yet quality of life issues for ordinary voters/taxpayers, those directly impacted by Marcellus natural gas drilling, clearly aren’t being remedied or enhanced in many instances by impact fees paid by drillers, according to a recent audit of funds by Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale. And a lot of money is involved — more than $150 million of impact fees flowed to western Pennsylvania between 2012 and 2015, years covered in the audit. Considerably more money would had been available if drillers’ fees were based on the volume of natural gas they extract, not the number and type of their well sites. That bizarre arrangement, not addressed in the audit, benefits drillers by reducing the amount of impact fees they pay, and is a separate and legitimate question of how, why and who influenced the passage of Act 13.

The audit raises serious questions about impact funds often used frivolously, inappropriately and with little oversight. Examples in the Dec. 7 article in this newspaper include:

_ $32,600 spent by a township in Washington County on recreational events and holiday celebrations, “including $1,200 for a live performance of an American Idol contestant, $7,500 on fireworks and $4,250 on inflatable party rentals”

_ Greene County officials spent $1.27 million to fix (not build) a county swimming pool

_ a Greene County township spent $251,095 on a park pavilion, gazebo and ball fields

_ municipalities, according to the news report, also “used impact revenues to help balance budgets, pay salaries and other operational expenses”

None of those payments seemingly has anything to do with needed infrastructure repairs resulting from the drilling for gas unless, of course, drilling caused such seismic activity or other unintended consequences that resulted in the need to appropriate funds for those uses. And if that’s true, and it’s highly unlikely, it’s time to re-evaluate Marcellus Shale drilling or suspend it until its real impact is known and scientifically proven.

The recent state audit also reveals is that impact revenue is not only being wasted and misspent but also mismanaged. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, which collects and disburses impact revenues to local and county governments, according to DePasquale, does not monitor how government entities use the funds or even say how the money should be spent. “Right now, we essentially have 37 counties and 1,487 municipalities independently interpreting the flawed language of Act 13,” he is quoted as saying.

The misuse of funds and mismanagement of the agency in charge should shock you. If it doesn’t, it’s because you’ve become immune to the prolonged ineffectiveness and inefficiency of Pennsylvania government statewide, regionally or locally. If so, that’s even more concerning because it says that you’ve become an “I don’t care anymore voter and taxpayer.” You’re throwing up our hands. Giving up. Can’t change how government operates or spends money is what you think.

But you’re wrong. As voters, as taxpayers, you can stop it. You should.

Act 13, as the audit revels, is a good example of what happens when lobbyists have a heavy hand in writing legislation. They work to protect their client, their industry. Not you. Act 13 is a good example of what happens when lawmakers acquiesce to the powerful lobbyists because if they don’t, lobbyists will shut off the financial spigot to finance their next election. Act 13 is a good example of what happens when local elected politicians spend money they didn’t expect to have — and coincidentally don’t have to raise taxes — on what they want because no one questions them.

Act 13 is a good example of a bad law that needs to be changed. If it isn’t changed, and soon, it’s time to change the state lawmakers writing legislation, the agency personnel hired to enforce the law and local officials elected and entrusted to use monies appropriately. Elections have consequences. Remember that.

A resident of Uniontown, Richard Ringer can be reached by email at ringer.mwgroup@gmail.com.