Kasunic's bad bill
Recently, I received some very disturbing news from Penn Environment concerning Senate Bill 411 sponsored by state Sen. Richard A. Kasunic of Fayette County. This bill has a backdoor proposal to amend the Environmental Good Samaritan Act's liability protections, which means that the oil and gas industry will be exempt from accidents or spills that can damage property and destroy lives.
And the bill is so vague that it is unclear if fracking companies will even be held accountable under our existing laws if they chose to violate them.
According to the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 27, Natural Resources and the Public Estate, the people have a right to clean air, pure water and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come.
Kasunic's bill takes away our rights and hands them over to the big oil and gas industry. This bill allows for the destruction and the devaluation of our property and has real potential to destroy our water, air and the environment.
A public hearing should have been held before any such bill was even considered.
I urge all Pennsylvanians to contact Kasunic and tell him to abolish this bill in its present form now. And don't be fooled by any excuses. Senate Bill 411 is a bad bill and a bad deal for all of Pennsylvania and for generations to come.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.