ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

2 views on Act 13 ruling I

| Saturday, Jan. 11, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Pennsylvania residents finally have a reason to cheer. The state Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional portions of the reprehensible Act 13, written mainly for and by the gas industry. It allowed drilling almost anywhere — residential areas and near schools, churches, hospitals, etc.

The court acknowledged how the state has a history of environmental degradation by corporate interests, including lumber industry deforestation, mining's water pollution and now the Marcellus shale industry's drilling methods. And the court breathed new life into the state Constitution's Environmental Rights Amendment: the people's right to clean air and pure water.

Gov. Tom Corbett has asked the court to reconsider its groundbreaking decision. He is like a spoiled child who cannot accept that he and his gas buddies were wrong all along.

Since Act 13's enactment, we're seen thousands of Department of Environmental Protection gas violations. We've seen radioactive discharges in our rivers, increased forest fragmentation, water wells ruined, out-of-state workers straining our social and legal fabric and an alarming number of residents sickened by fracking chemicals and air pollutants. Is it any wonder the court warns of the ill effects of drilling?

Those who believe we have nothing to fear from Marcellus marauders need to remove their blinders, do the research and reach the same conclusions many of us have. It is time to rein in the gas industry, slow down the process and initiate a statewide moratorium on Marcellus drilling.

We owe it to ourselves and future generations.

Ron Slabe

Upper Burrell

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.

click me