To save the river valley —
we have to act now

[Editor’s note: The following are the remarks of George J. Fluhr, Shohola Township Supervisor, before the Technical Assistance Grant Committee of the Upper Delaware Council on August 12, 2003.]

The Upper Delaware Council exists primarily for two purposes—to protect the river and to protect the property rights along it. That was the compromise of 1986—the management plan. Today both of these purposes are in jeopardy.

In 1978, the Upper Delaware became part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The law, which created the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, stated “certain rivers and their immediate environment must be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

The Constitution of Pennsylvania now says that the people have a right to the preservation of the scenic values of the environment. The Constitution of New York says that the policy of the state shall be to conserve and protect its scenic beauty. Both federal and state governments recognize these values on the Upper Delaware. The Wall Street Journal in 1988 said, “Some environmentalists are heartbroken that neither the park service nor state governments acquired the most scenic parts of the valley. And others are openly skeptical that local officials will be able to protect the Upper Delaware because of demands from their neighbors to develop the land.”

The Interior Department is required to protect the river, and they once knew of only one way to do it and that was confiscation, and that was the plan in the 1970s.

The people of the river valley came up with a better way—the management plan. In essence the management plan says the Upper Delaware Council and local government will protect the river, if the federal government does not confiscate.

It was very difficult to come up with guidelines and ordinances that would do this, but we did. And there are a lot of homes in the corridor that cannot be seen from the river.

The bottom line was we did not prohibit development on the land in the corridor. We regulated it. And it worked. Zoning and state regulations protected the corridor.

But before we take too much credit, there were three other factors that helped make the zoning and state regulations work and protected the scenic values.

1. The topography of the corridor closest to the river made construction that was in compliance, in fact any construction, comparatively very difficult and expensive.

2. Old families and hunting clubs were determined to keep their property and not develop it.

3. There was a lot of land near the corridor that was undeveloped, available, and comparatively easy to develop. Realtors and builders were busy.

What happens now? Technology and money can now make extensive changes in the corridor regardless of topography. Old families and hunting clubs are disappearing, and their successors see opportunities to make money. And the intense growth has left far less land outside the corridor available.

September 11, 2001 marked a new and larger exodus from New York City.

Many people with large amounts of money now have the means and motivation to develop the river corridor. They can comply with zoning and still significantly change the appearance of the land along the river.

If it looks like this is going to happen, the people of the valley may well, once again, face the power of a federal government encouraged by environmentalists, and determined to confiscate property to protect the scenic values.

New Yorkers, Philadelphians, and environmentalists will have their national park. This council will disappear. And the concept of private property and local control along the river will be gone.

Tonight several towns and townships will be asking for funding. I would ask that a priority be given to zoning, and that each applicant for a zoning grant be asked for a commitment to work cooperatively, to avoid duplication in research, to bring in outside consultants including legal experts, and to look for new zoning concepts that will preserve the appearance of the river corridor, while maintaining it as private property. Rather than cutting requests, the council should consider seeking additional funding from outside sources for zoning which will protect the scenic values of the corridor, since the life of the council and the life of private property in the corridor is at stake.