PA District 16 U.S. Rep. incumbent Smucker is in lockstep with Trump, mindlessly aligned with the Republican caucus.
U.S. Representative Lloyd Smucker’s anti-environmental vote record for Session 1 of the 115th Congress is an aggressive attack on our prospects for a livable planet, see below.
See this link for additional information on these votes.
Candidate Jess King has included concern for the planet and positive actions into her campaign platform.
Candidate Christine Hartman has no information on her campaign website addressing the environment or climate change. (okay, corporate-speak about farmland is there … but Hartman doesn’t get it: times up for traditional economic growth.)
1, 22. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to continue massive incentives for fossil fuel production.
2. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to allow mining in national forest land along rivers and lakes that flow into the Boundary Waters of Minnesota.
3. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to eliminate important incentives for solar wind and electric vehicles.
4. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to allow companies to bypass the environmental review process for timber and logging projects.
7. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to slash funding for the EPA by $528 million and cut funding for land acquisitions by 70%.
8. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to prohibit funding to analyze the social cost of carbon.
9. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to limit the EPA’s ability to curb methane emissions.
10. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to eliminate funding for the EPA’s criminal enforcement division.
11. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to stop the National Parks Service from protecting animals in the Alaska National Preserves.
12. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to reduce EPA enforcement of the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Program.
13. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted on Department of Defense appropriations that included outrageous environmental riders, including weakening the Clean Water Rule to jeopardize the clean drinking water of one in three people without providing an opportunity for public comment or court challenge.
14. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to allow a road to be developed in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness, setting the stage for similar actions to be taken around the country.
15. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to make it easier for gas pipelines to be built.
16. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to delay ozone standards.
17. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to exempt pesticide spraying into waterways from Clean Water Act permitting.
18. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to weaken the EPA Science Advisory Board.
19. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to expose confidential EPA health data.
20. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to reduce the independence of Federal agencies.
21. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to ignore the public benefits of environmental safeguards while considering only the economic costs to industries.
23. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to deregulate methane from 100,000 drilling wells on public lands.
24. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to overturn the Stream Protection Rule that prevented cancer-causing toxic mining run-off from flowing into mountain streams.
26. Your U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker voted to make it easier for Congress to give away public lands.
PA Senate Committee Republicans want all state forests fracked
Issue: A resolution, SR104, endorsed by 8 (R) to 3(D) members of the Senate Energy Committee calls for the end of a 3-yr. moratorium on drilling under state forest land. This would allow for horizontal drilling from wells located outside of the state forests. Call/email State Representative Scott Martin (Lancaster) to let him know his yes vote for the termination of this moratorium as a member of the Senate Energy Committee is insupportable.
Email: Senator Martin, In defiance of DCNR expertise and the State Supreme Court the Republicans on your committee have once again placed extractive industry greed ahead of all else in their vote in favor of SR104 calling an end to the 3-yr. moratorium on state forest land drilling.
You were not elected to serve extractive industries, but to serve the citizens you represent, whose stake as beneficiaries of PA state forests is of much greater significance than profits derived from fracking.
The State Constitution Article 1, Section 27 specifically grants all citizens the “right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation” of the environment.
The DCNR is on record as stating that “both past and present DCNR officials testified that they did not recommend leasing additional public lands for drilling.” And last year the State Supreme Court ruled that royalties from state forests are not to be spent on general budget issues.
Apparently, the 40 percent of state forest that is now available for fracking doesn’t satsify. Despite the fact that fracking has devastating environmental impacts. All wells leak methane – a greenhouse gas with 86 to 102 percent greater impact than CO2 over the next 10-20 years. Fracking chemicals poison water tables and groundwater. The environmental impact of more fracking in state forests cannot be overstated. I urge to you refrain from following your fellow Republicans over a cliff and do independent research regarding the health impacts of fracking on your constituency before casting more outrageous votes.
More than 40 percent of state forest acreage over shale extraction areas is now available for natural gas development through existing leases or privately-owned extraction rights.
This resolution was sponsored by Camera Bartolotta, District 46. Bartolotta shares with Lancaster County’s Ryan Aument and only three others in the State Senate the distinction of zero scores on pro-environment votes for the 2015-2016 term: specifically they voted against regulations to protect the environment and public health from oil and gas operations, despite years of developing new laws with strong public input (SB279); voted no to confirmation of DEP Secretary John Quigley; voted to delay implementation of the state’s Clean Power Plan (SB1195).
Fractracker Alliance details many issues related to continued fracking in Pennsylvania in their report A Hazy Future: Pennsylvania’s Energy Landscape in 2045, published January 10, 2018, including: the average unconventional well required 11.4 million gallons of water in 2017, and 7,857 tons of sand. Longer laterals require more water and sand; a lateral portion of a well in Washington County extended 2.8 miles. Heavy equipment, pipes, chemicals must be trucked to the sites; waste products must be hauled offsite. A 2012 estimate reported 6,790 truck trips for each well. As more sites contain multi-well pads, these numbers are multiplied and extended as each well is developed sequentially. Pennsylvania had 3,733 unconventional well pads as of Nov. 28, 2017, resulting in impacts on 104,500 acres of land.
Article 1, Section 27 is Pennsylvania’s environmental rights amendment, which grants all citizens the “right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation” of the environment.
Historically, these rights have rarely been enforced in the court of law, but the amendment was recently strengthened by a Pennsylvania Supreme court decision in June, which found that all Commonwealth agencies, statewide and local, have a duty to protect the public and its natural resources with prudence, loyalty and impartiality.
Since 2004, at least 4,108 people have reported changes to their drinking water in Pennsylvania alone due to oil and gas development during the fracking boom. Hundreds of families are now gagged by a decade of nondisclosure agreements after they were forced to settle with companies over water contamination that the state would not see remedied. Countless families report illnesses or have had to abandon their homes due to fracking development.
His first year in office, Pennsylvania Representative Christopher Rabb (D-Philadelphia) worked on a bill that would require all oil and gas companies to annually disclose the number of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) they have with residents who claim the company polluted their drinking water.