Contradictions in Toronto policy

To the editor:

On February 12 and again on March 12, Fritz Mayer reported on low-water conditions on Toronto Reservoir. In his report, he referred to two letters from the Town of Bethel to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and from Joseph Klimaszewski, vice-president of operations for Alliance Energy Renewables (AER), to Daniel Sturm, town supervisor.

Klimaszewski’s February 10 letter clearly states that Toronto is a “public reservoir, not a private lake,” in contrast to developer Steve Dubrovski’s promotion of The Chapin Estate as lakefront property. In addition, Klimaszewski states that, “It would seem contrary on the one hand for the town to advocate for increased reservoir elevations to promote recreation, while on the other hand it dedicates the only public road used to access a portion of the reservoir for private use.”

Seven years ago, a gate was illegally erected by Dubrovski, blocking public access (as required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) on town road 62 to the Toronto Dam site. Six years later, there is a stone wall blocking that same access.

During the March 4 town board meeting, a scathing letter from senator John Bonacic, dismissive of all the facts of Klimaszewski’s letter, was read publicly, yet Klimaszewski’s letter to supervisor Daniel Sturm has never been publicly read nor mentioned at a town board meeting. We believe this is a serious and puzzling omission from the public record.

DRBC must take more pro-active approach

To the editor:

I was disappointed that The River Reporter failed to cover the March Upper Delaware Council (UDC) meeting in Narrowsburg. A majority of the meeting revolved around the regulations that the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has, or in this case has not, instituted with regard to gas drilling, the cart-before-the-horse approach.

This discussion was neither pro-drilling nor anti-drilling, but a discussion of what the basin commission plans are for dealing with the gas drilling. So far, the DRBC has taken a reactive approach to drilling, a position that benefits no one.

The DRBC, being a leading regulator, should be taking a proactive attitude. Requiring a company to submit an application that will require additional information, but not knowing what that information will be, is a waste of taxpayer time and money. Again, a reactive approach is forcing the gas companies to look for alternative ways to accomplish drilling methods while not violating the basin commission’s vague language describing the permitting process.

The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), on the other hand, has taken a very proactive approach on the issue of natural gas development. It has streamlined its application process and has partnered with the pertinent state agencies to become an effective regulator.

It’s time the DRBC took a chapter from the SRBC and became a more proactive force in what could be, if done responsibly, an economic boom for an area long deprived of economic vitality, a way of decreasing our dependency on foreign fossil fuels and a bridge to the future use and development of renewable energy sources.

The River Reporter missed an opportunity to inform the public of what the UDC has done for the people of the river valley and how valuable this organization has made itself by asking in-depth questions of those regulatory agencies that affect all the people of the region.

Hancock, NY

[For related stories see “DRBC to find out: What’s in frack fluid? UDC stance sought,” September 11, 2008; “DEP, DEC and DRBC: drilling updates,” January 9; “DEC files notice on Hancock gas well permits,” January 29; and “Rights and regulations,” February 12.]

Your article in the March 26 issue of The River Reporter on gas leases for Damascus Township land gave me great concern.

Our supervisor, Mr. Dexter, is quoted as saying, “We can’t sign any agreement with any vendor unless we go to bid. We would have to get bids from a number of drilling companies and choose the lowest bid.”

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania second-class township code book, Section 2207 paragraph (F), it states, “When the board of supervisors decides to sell or lease any township forest or part thereof, it shall so declare by an ordinance, setting forth all the facts and conditions relating to the proposed action. No ordinance shall be effective until it has been approved by a majority vote of the electorate at the next ensuing municipal or general election.”

Library more important than ever

To the editor:

In these tough economic times, free public library services are more important than ever to Pike County residents. Total circulation at the PCPL system in 2008 was 165,925 items, an increase of 46 percent over the past two years. In fact, circulation has more than doubled since 2000. Last year’s circulation included more than 112,000 books—so yes, people still read—and 53,000 audio books and DVDs, the fastest growing category of items in circulation.

Many of our neighbors in Pike County do not own a computer, and they use the free public computers available in the library. Library research services are more important than ever in the age of the Internet. Googling the name “Gifford Pinchot” will give you almost 300,000 hits. The expert staff at the library can tell you how to winnow the results.

The PCPL also provides patrons with remote access to subscription reference databases that are not available to the public through the Internet. About 125 people per day visit our website, www.pcpl.org, to search our catalog, place a reserve or interlibrary loan request, or access our subscription reference databases.

In 2008, the library launched a Netflix-like pilot Library-by-Mail program that serves Pike County residents who may not be able to regularly travel to the library.

To accommodate the increasing demand on library services, PCPL is implementing a long-range plan to build a new and much needed library system headquarters, and to continue countywide expansion of library services to better meet the needs of all Pike County residents.