Dingman Township proposes that 142 acres at the I-84/Rt. 6 Interchange become an intensive Resort Commercial Zone, instead of the current more restrictive Neighborhood Commercial Zone.

All of this land sits on top of, or directly upslope from, the delineated aquifer of the Milford Springs (Zone 2 of the Milford Water Authority). You’d think just the opposite should happen here: more restrictive land uses, not less.

No matter what’s built, impervious surface is impervious surface. The EPA states that once 10 percent of an area’s surface is impervious, water degradation begins—and that’s on normal land. This is an extremely sensitive aquifer. For instance, the consulting hydro-geologist for the Source Water Protection Plan (2006) for Milford Springs was particularly worried about a toxic spill on I-84 because the contaminants could travel 3,000 feet to the springs in as little as eight hours.

A second study, “The Sawkill Creek Conservation Plan of 2005,” speaks directly to the RC Zone issue. It concludes that such zoning could have a major impact on the water supply, and recommended updating the current 1992 Sawkill Creek Storm Water Management Plan and Ordinance to current standards.

These updates are exactly what the County Comprehensive Plan calls for. Therefore I believe a moratorium on new development in the aquifer zone is warranted until these updates are in place.

Although the developers who own this land have property rights, these need to be balanced with the “riparian rights” (clean water rights) of the 1,400 and growing Milford Water Authority customers. Dingman Township has a right to balance its tax base. But do they have the right to do this on the backs of another borough’s economic and water needs?

I believe the solution to the competing rights on this special aquifer land is found in Gifford Pinchot’s famous statement, “Conservation means the greatest good, to the greatest number, for the longest time.” A fast-food strip or clean drinking water: which is the greater good?

It was just a little lighthouse on a little spit of land,

It stood there in the eddy and oh did it look grand!

But the NPS said, “This is obstruction, we cannot let it stand!”

They notified the maker that it must be taken down;

They feared that this hindrance would slow the river down.

“It must not be impeded,” they said with snide retort,

And when the people heard of this, they could not help but snort.

“This little lighthouse gave us hope each day,

That no matter how tough things get we soon would find our way.”

And to the lighthouse maker I have just this to say,

“Don’t lose your sense of humor because they didn’t see it your way.”

Art, you’re just what this town needs. A ray of sun, in the midst of rainy days that have become too numerous to count.

Thank you, Art, for trying. Your lighthouse looked just beautiful. It was a perfect fit on that sandbar. A beacon calling folks home, to try again. This town and river really are worth the second chance.

As for the National Park Service (NPS)? I cannot believe they had the audacity to insist you remove it. At dawn and dusk, it was a warning to canoeists that the sandbar was there. It was no more a health hazard than the coliform count in the water. If it had broken up in another flood, it would have been no more a danger than home furnishings, cars, propane tanks, etc. that have washed down the river, as we have all seen, in past floods.

Lighten up, NPS! Being judge and jury on this is not becoming of you.

And to whoever complained of the lighthouse, take a chill pill, calm down and get a life.

Our little town was just beginning to smile again! Thanks again, Art.

As a landowner and avid outdoorsmen, I am appalled that the members of Friends of the Upper Delaware River (FUDR) would mount a lawsuit against the Town of Hancock for clearing the many streams that overflowed their banks and caused major damage to the town’s infrastructure, property and homes. Where were the people of FUDR when the town had a meeting to decide on a plan of action? They too could have voiced their opinion at that time; town meetings are a forum for such issues in most states.

If FUDR had seen the streams prior to the emergency repairs, it would have seen deep ravines barren of vegetation, villages and hamlets filled with mountaintop rubble and roads completely destroyed or impassable. For the town to leave the streams the way they were would have been negligent under the circumstances.

It’s irresponsible on the part of FUDR to have the arrogance to pretend to know what is best for our communities.

According to the Tributary Restoration Plan proposed by FUDR, Hancock would have had to have an extensive study done on the appropriate methods for stream restoration. This plan would have taken over a year or more to research and implement. This catastrophic emergency necessitated immediate action. To wait for these studies to be completed would have been ludicrous and irresponsible.

Is it not ironic that these people, the same people who use the law to promote their agenda when it is convenient for them, are some of the same people who violate the law by trespassing on private property to gain river access?

The money would be better spent on helping to rebuild the town’s infrastructure instead of defending a baseless lawsuit. People, homes and infrastructure should take priority over fish.

By happy chance, my recent subscription renewal to The River Reporter happened to qualify me for a bonus, and I chose a day at Bushkill Falls. As a world traveler, I’ve “collected” the great waterfalls of the world—Victoria, Iguacu, the multiple wonders of Iceland. Somehow I’d neglected to visit a falls only 70 miles south of my home. On the deadline date (August 11) of my award, I drove down for the day and feel I must say “Many thanks!”

This privately operated treasure is well worth national monument status, but the experience couldn’t be improved under park service control. My generous award included not only admission to the awesome gorge, with its well-maintained boardwalks and elaborate cliff-hung stairs affording varied viewpoints of the thunderous 100-foot main falls, but a fine lunch of pulled-pork barbeque and a round of assorted fudge.

Again, thanks River Reporter, for introducing me to this local wonder. I did only the yellow trail this trip but will now return to hike the others. With adult admission at $9 (62 and up $8) and children only $4, this is an ideal family outing. The day I went, following late-August rains, was full-volume flow. Dubbing this “Pennsylvania’s Niagara” may be inaccurate: these are deep-canyon falls, more like Yellowstone. But not to be missed! And I still have two years of your fine publication to look forward to.

On the weekend of August 5, the Cub Scouts held an encampment at a Boy Scout camp in Stokes Forest in the Delaware Water Gap area. On Saturday, former staff members of Camp Cowaw performed the duties of regular staff members.

Much to the delight of all involved, young Cub Scouts, eight to 10 years old, were taught to swim, paddle a canoe, shoot bow and arrows and fire BB guns on a range. Proper safety lessons were learned and practiced.

Attending parents also had a wonderful time, as did the old scouters, who ranged in age from 60 to 88 years. They came from Arizona, Florida, Tennessee, New York, New Jersey and, of course, a large contingency came from Pennsylvania. All were out in the wild with nothing but birds chirping, animals moving about and laughter of young scouts making new and everlasting friendships.

At the campfire, stories were told and singing filled the night air. Peace and fellowship were in abundance. The cubs’ eyes were wide with wonderment. We were a mixed group of race, nationalities and religions: from the United States, Mexico and the Philippine Islands, as it has been in the 58 years that I’ve been in scouting. Attending were priests, ministers, doctors, lawyers, government workers and successful businessmen. For that day, we were all scouts and proud of it.