News

November 29, 2008

Builders opposing Clean Water buffer regs

The proposal is to require at least 100-foot natural buffers on either side of waterways.

“Beside every good stream,” notes the Pennsylvania Campaign for Clean Water on its Web site, “is a good forest.”

The well-known adage regarding the importance of women in developing quality men was customized to support changing state regulations to require at least 100-foot natural buffers on either side of waterways.

The Pennsylvania Builders Association adamantly opposes state-mandated buffers of any size, arguing they would strip power from local governments to regulate land use and from landowners to generate income from the land.

“I don’t think there is anyone who is opposed to the goals enunciated by the Buffers 100 program,” said Grant Gulibon, the association’s regulatory specialist.

“We believe that the one-size-fits-all approach … doesn’t provide the flexibility that is needed on a given development site,” he said.

The program promotes buffers as a free way to clean water, mitigate flood damage, protect habitat and address climate change. It’s found some support on the local level, campaign Chairman Bob Wendelgass noted, with several municipalities from around the state instituting buffer ordinances.

“What we learned in part is that unless everybody does it, you don’t get the results you’re looking for,” said Wendelgass, who represents the national Clean Water Action group.

The campaign wants to see the 100-year flood plain fully vegetated for every stream, or at least 100 feet on either side for all streams and 200 feet for the most important ones. The proposal exempts existing structures and properties where its majority would be within the buffer, Wendelgass said.

The idea, which would affect Chapter 102 of the state code on erosion and sedimentation controls, has been well received in Harrisburg, he said.

Anchors weighing down projects are what the builders association doesn’t want to see.

“It’s not as if builders aren’t already heavily regulated both in pre-construction and now in post-construction” with stormwater management and erosion and sediment control plans, Gulibon said. Buffers are “a portion of the person’s property that’s been taken from the landowner’s benefit without compensation,” he said.

Trapped in the middle are land-use consultants like Ken Klemow, a Wilkes University biology professor.

He believes both sides should be cooperating instead of drawing battle lines.

The buffer would be about the length of a football field with the waterway substituting for the mid-field line, Klemow said.

“It seems like overkill,” he said, adding he would support a 50-foot buffer that can be reduced if it’s proven a lesser buffer would maintain water quality.

It’s unlikely either side would support Klemow’s compromise, however.

Wendelgass said several scientific studies have shown the benefits drop so significantly for buffers under 100 feet that it’s not really worth the effort.

Gulibon said land use should remain exclusively a local decision and greater emphasis should be put on agriculture, where it’s cheaper to rectify water-pollution sources.

Rory Sweeney, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7418.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews