Photo by Joseph Bell
State Representative Matt Gabler (R-Clearfield/Elk) attended last night's meeting and discussed the controversial Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan.

By Joseph Bell
Record Editor, Republican Editor

SPRING CREEK TWP. – State Representative Matt Gabler (R-Clearfield/Elk) attended a Spring Creek Township board of supervisors meeting last night where he addressed heightened concerns regarding the Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan.
The scheme is reportedly aimed at providing comprehensive stormwater management geared toward the preservation of natural stormwater regimes and the restoration of the flood-carrying capacity of commonwealth streams.
"The state has got to do something to squash this," said Richard Wittman, chairman of the board of supervisors for the township. "We're going to be held hostage on this.
"If we don't accept it and vote to stay out of it, they have every means of financially dealing with us."
As Spring Creek Township's population hovers near 250 residents, Wittman indicated during the 70-minute meeting that any additional fees associated with building a new home in the area would scare off any remaining potential builders.
"The other part of that is we're in a low-growth area when it comes to building," Wittman said. "I think over the last two years, we've put in one or two new homes built in Spring Creek Township.
"If this area ever wants to see anything other than rural recreation use, you can't afford the engineering fees that will be piled on these people who have to build these homes."
The supervisors have reportedly yet to officially vote on the plan.
"We have yet to decide how we're going to deal with this piece of legislation when it's handed to us, and it's not going to be handed to us, it's going to be jammed at us by the state," Wittman said. "The county is just the messenger. I urge everybody in the county to call Matt Gabler's office, call Joe Scarnati's office, and tell them 'no,' and see what you can do to put a stop to this.
"It started out in 1978 and it's been over 30 years in the making, and I've heard from several sources that the northwest region is the only region getting teed up on it, and it's probably because it's the only rural area that was never really bothered with. We can't afford it but we're probably going to have to deal with it."
Currently, the township's office complex exceeds 5,000 square feet of arch service, thus creating a problem, according to Wittman.
"This piece of property right now, the way it sits, is over the allotment of arch services that we have," Wittman said. "It's 5,000 square foot arch service, that includes our parking lot, our driveways and our roof services.
"We're already over it and someplace along the line, when this goes through, the township will have to deal with stormwater management, and if we put something else up, another building of some sort, it could add thousands of dollars to the price of the building for something that I think is a bad piece of legislature."
For Gabler, the comments he heard were consistent with those throughout the area since the initial plan was first introduced to municipality leaders.
"The interesting thing about this issue is that both the largest and smallest municipalities don't want it," Gabler said. "The City of St. Marys has a huge problem with this, and Spring Creek Township and Millstone Township also have expressed frustrations with this.
"From the smallest to the largest, and those in between, everyone is having problems with this."
Gabler said he agrees with the opposition of the plan.
"I agree and I don't think the state should be able to, it's one thing to enact a state law but to say that the county will put out a plan and the plan will include an ordinance that the municipalities must adopt in six months, why do we even have a federal system?" Gabler said. "You are elected by the residents of Spring Creek Township to enact ordinances for the township.
"Why on earth is it even remotely legitimate for the state to say, 'here's what our plan's going to be and we're going to require municipalities to pass that,' why are we even there? That's not right."
Gabler has reportedly been working on a piece of legislation to amend Act 167.
"We're looking into whether or not it can be introduced," Gabler said. "It would remove the provision, I believe Section 12 of the Act, which provides for the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) to notify the state treasurer when a municipality denies it.
"I don't want them to be able to hold all your funding hostage just because you don't want to enact an ordinance that puts you between a fiscal rock and a hard place. I do think that's something that has to be done, you can't hold municipalities hostage like that so I am in full support."
Gabler also indicated that he is baffled by the fact that "a piece of legislation enacted in 1978, five years before I was born, could come to light now" and cause so much trouble.
"It's the perfect storm, pardon the pun, with the economy the way it is," Gabler said. "We're seeing increasing costs everywhere.
"I am in full support of (the township's) position and I'd be more than happy to support the gathering constituents."
Gabler also indicated that in regard to regions within the state, some seem to be pressured more than others.
"It's interesting with the northwest region because Clearfield County is not seeing the pressure that other counties are seeing, there is something going on there and I'm not quite sure what this all comes to," Gabler said. "It does seem that the northwestern tier is being hit more rigorously with this right now than a lot of others."