Proposed Amendments to Rules of Practice and Procedure

Submitted By

209 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Katie Muth

11/30/23 @ 5:21 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: CHP PA (Tammy Murphy)

11/30/23 @ 5:00 PM

Concerned Health Professionals of Pennsylvania Comment on the Delaware River Basin Commission proposed changes to their Rules of Practice and Procedure

We, as the Concerned Health Professionals of Pennsylvania (CHP PA) demand greater transparency an...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Louise Usechak

11/30/23 @ 4:44 PM

Dear Commissioners,

I am deeply concerned with the proposed new Rules for the DRBC. As citizens and residents we rely on being able to reach out to our Governors about such issues as protecting our drinking water. In these new regulations the po...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Coralie Pryde (Coralie Pryde)

11/30/23 @ 4:43 PM

Please see attached file.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Suzannah Hadorn

11/30/23 @ 4:16 PM

The people who will be affected by the DRBC Decisions need to be kept informed when there are discussions. They should take part in the process to be able to put forward their concerns and have a voice in the future that will affect us all.

No attachments

Comment From: Jane Joseph Raye Emma Levine

11/30/23 @ 3:28 PM

Delaware Basin Commission
11/30/2023

Dear Commission,

The people that are impacted by DRBC decisions must be kept informed and be allowed to participate in the decision making process. These are our homes. WE do not want our health compromised. We...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Anneke van Rossum)

11/30/23 @ 2:55 PM

This comment letter was submitted yesterday as well by Delaware Riverkeeper Network. We are submitting the same letter but with additional signers. Please find attached a PDF of the comment letter with additional signers.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Norman Starr

11/30/23 @ 2:53 PM

The proposed rule changes give too much power to the DRBC Executive Director, giving him/her the ability to act unilaterally without input from the public or our elected representatives, the DRBC Commissioners. In particular, the use of the subjectiv...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Devon Guyer)

11/30/23 @ 2:23 PM

November 30th, 2023

Amendments to the Rules of Practices and Procedures

Delaware River Basin Commission
25 Cosey Rd,
West Trenton, NJ 08628

Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Delaware Riverkeeper Network's Comments Regarding the Commission's Pr...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Barbara Winner

11/30/23 @ 10:55 AM

The following are important reasons for the proposed Amendments to Rules of Practice and Procedure:

1. Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions an...↓d these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.
2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.
3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.
4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.
5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.
6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

Our voices need to be heard. Our government is based on participation by citizens. We must restore our environment for future generations, and this can be done by listening to the people rather than the corporate dollar!

No attachments

Comment From: Christopher Lish

11/30/23 @ 10:13 AM

Thursday, November 30, 2023

Delaware River Basin Commission
25 Cosey Road
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360

Subject: Reject Proposed Rule Changes because they Threaten Public Input on Environmental Impacts -- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking &...↓ Public Hearing: Amendments to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure

To Delaware River Basin Commission Chair Governor Philip Murphy and DRBC Commissioners:

I strongly urge the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to reject the proposed changes to their Rules of Practice and Procedure. These changes will make public participation in the environmental review process much more challenging. We cannot effectively take part and influence outcomes if the decision-making process is not open and interactive, with all important decisions and the underlying information about them fully disclosed and available for review and comment. I am most concerned about the following issues:

1. Administrative Staff decision-making cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "material," it would open up for more robust review); decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; and the extension for some permits for as many as five additional years.
2. Key Permits will more frequently be given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision-making that undermines government accountability and public trust.
3. Low Bars will be established for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. One million dollars is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director will have the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.
4. The proposed changes will be used by project sponsors to intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. The DRBC is allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.
5. Define the Word "Material." The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking--yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decision-making. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair and especially unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.
6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information. The DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Please do NOT add my name to your mailing list. I will learn about future developments on this issue from other sources.

Sincerely,
Christopher Lish

No attachments

Comment From: Charles Brunner

11/30/23 @ 9:16 AM

I object to the new rules the Delaware River Basin Commission is considering and am appalled that your Vision, Mission and Values of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC or Commission) states that it provides trusted, effective and coordinated ...↓management of our Basin's shared water resources. By allowing the Executive Director, 1 person, having authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed door, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners does not keep in line with your Vision, Mission and Values of this Commission providing trusted, effective and coordinated management. This is unacceptable and should not be allowed. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.
The Extension of Permits without an expiration date is given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust. Remember your Vison, Mission and values that provide trusted and coordinated management which this is not. The Executive Director, One person should not have this much authority.
$1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial. One person should not be making this decision. Remember your vision is to have Public and stakeholder input as stated on your website.
The DRBC should not be allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.
The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decision-making. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made. Remember your "Mission" on your website states Managing, protecting and improving the water resources of the Delaware River Basin Commission which this subjective term is clearly not.

DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records.
The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it! The Public Requires Freedom to Information!
I, Charles Brunner a 32 year employee with ABC TV, I am appalled that other members' of your Commission will vote on this and not adhere to your Compact signed in 1961 by the various states. I respectfully request that you object to these new rules and remember what your Vision, Mission and Values of the DRBC by following Core Values which these changes are not. Thank you

No attachments

Comment From: Steve Alexander-Larkin

11/29/23 @ 10:07 PM

Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily un...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Church

11/29/23 @ 6:15 PM

It is very discouraging to see the DRBC heading away from public input and transparency, rejecting the democratic process, and heading toward a policy that pays no attention to consideration of environmental damage. We live in a Commonwealth; and our...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Seltzer

11/29/23 @ 4:29 PM

1. Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners...↓. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Paltin

11/29/23 @ 4:05 PM

Time to ban fracking! I met people in Kern County CA who can no longer drink their water because of all the fracking there. The changing climate demands we stop this practice also! Renewables, please.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Tracy Carluccio)

11/29/23 @ 12:53 PM

Please find attached a PDF of a comment letter submitted by and signed by 23 organizations and 294 individuals.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: David Guion

11/29/23 @ 12:13 PM

I am writing as a concerned local resident to express my strong objection to DRBC's proposed changes to their Rules of Practice and Procedure. Citizens have long protested the type of clandestine decision-making described in the proposed procedural c...↓hanges. To give a recent example, last year the DRBC Executive Director unilaterally extended approval for the Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal Project without public input, and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. Only when Delaware Riverkeeper Network discovered the approval through a FOIA request was the decision to extend the permit discussed at a public meeting and voted on. This kind of back room action should be prohibited, not codified into DRBC rules. Citizens demand the opportunity for meaningful, informed public participation in DRBC approvals and policies. DRBC decisions directly affect the quality of our drinking water and our air, as well as the diversity and health of the Delaware River and its tributaries, species, habitats, and ecosystems. Communities throughout the entire Delaware River Watershed are affected, and we cannot achieve good outcomes if DRBC decision-making is not open and interactive. The DRBC must disclose its decisions and the information underlying them, and allow for review and comment. DRBC Commissioners must be actively involved in these decisions -- as our elected representatives, they are accessible and accountable to members of the public, and are required to respect our rights and protect the environment for the public good. However, increased transparency and participation are not the intent of the rule-making proposal. In fact, in almost all cases the intent is the opposite. Here are six key problems with proposed amendments by the DRBC: 1. Administrative Staff decision-making cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given authority to make crucial decisions behind closed doors, without public knowledge and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether a change to a project is "material" (if "material," it would be opened up for more robust review); the power to decide what is required in a project application and when an application is complete; and the power to unilaterally extend some permits for as many as 5 additional years. 2. Key permits are given a pass. Permits without an expiration date (like the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal project) are given favored status. The Executive Director would be given exclusive authority to extend such permits, removing public input and relieving the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the aforementioned behind-the-scenes decision-making that undermines government accountability and public trust. 3. A low bar is set for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" expenditure to declare that a project has sufficient investment, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this dollar amount and there are no meaningful criteria for determining what are "substantial funds in relation to a project." The Executive Director alone has the power to decide if funds are substantial. 4. The proposal improperly connects litigation to the extension process. Sponsors of a project can claim that litigation by opposing parties justifies not building or spending sufficient funds on a project that they want extended. This also intimidates the public from litigating when litigation is called for. 5. The terms "Material Change"/"Materially" are used throughout the proposed rule-making. Materiality is not defined. The use of subjective criteria clouds the decision-making process, prevents public understanding, and allows for different interpretations for different projects. We demand that clearly defined standards apply to decisions with which the public must live every day. 6. Citizens will lose access to information. DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules. The FOIA request process would be replaced by a DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects of making a request unaddressed, including forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed -- including whether waiver of fees can be requested, as it can be in the FOIA system. The DRBC must provide a public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable, to assure public access to public records. It is also proposed that the Executive Director will unilaterally determine whether a disclosure of information is in the public interest. This decision does not and should not rest with the Executive Director. I appreciate being given the time and space to voice my opposition to the proposed amendment to rules and practices. Sincerely,David Guion

No attachments

Comment From: Carla Strozzieri

11/29/23 @ 12:12 PM

Proposed Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) rule changes will severely limit public disclosure and participation in the decisions that the DRBC makes regarding the Delaware River, the Delaware River Watershed and our communities. For those living...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Barry Bilger

11/29/23 @ 12:10 PM

No attachments

Comment From: VIncent Strozzieri

11/29/23 @ 12:07 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Raven Strozzieri

11/29/23 @ 11:42 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Sheila Out

11/29/23 @ 8:19 AM

"Material" is a major loophole word. The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Martha Scoppa

11/28/23 @ 8:54 PM

I live in Sullivan County and am very concerned about the proposed rule changes to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). I believe the rule changes will severely limit public disclosure and participation, and even bypass our elected representa...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Charles SanClementi Jr.

11/28/23 @ 6:17 PM

No, to Proposed Amendments to Rules of Practice and Procedure.

No attachments

Comment From: Xavier Castelli

11/28/23 @ 5:44 PM

I strongly oppose the proposed Amendments to the rules of practice and procedure . We should all be more concerned about protecting our environment and regard it to be much more important than the business interests of corporations that are not conc...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kristin Kokal

11/28/23 @ 4:16 PM

The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Annemarie Zwack

11/28/23 @ 2:36 PM

Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These...↓ include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.
Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.
Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.
Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.
Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.
The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Trresa Kehagias

11/28/23 @ 2:28 PM

The DRBC must not restrict the ability for public input. No to proposed alterations towards public participation in DRBC processes.

No attachments

Comment From: Brian Scanlan

11/28/23 @ 2:21 PM

As someone who grew up in New Jersey and spent many happy days along the Delware River in Sandyston Township, New Jersey, I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed rule changes (18 CFR Part 401).

I'm also a former mayor and councilman (Wy...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Jean Emigh

11/28/23 @ 1:41 PM

Please stop this process that undermine the ability of the public to make comments. Some projects are getting a pass and are not subject to public comments. This is a dangerous process and undermines democracy.

No attachments

Comment From: Peter Cutting

11/28/23 @ 1:41 PM

The proposed changes to your Rules of Practice and Procedure are clearly seeking to cut the public's voice out of their decision-making process, allowing for backdoor deals, impeding public access to essential information, and consolidating some of t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Theodore j Weiner

11/28/23 @ 1:29 PM

Dear sirs, I am a New York State,California, european community LICENSED veterinarian who is toatally against the proposed changes ,ammendmants to rules and practices of the drbc . I feel it is vitally important for all public comments be heard and t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Chris Hitchcock

11/28/23 @ 1:05 PM

The proposed amendments to the Rules of Practice and Procedure appear to be designed to grant more authority for the Executive Director to make decisions unilaterally and to make the DRBC's decision-making process less transparent. As a member of th...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Doug Rogers

11/28/23 @ 12:48 PM

I live in Long Eddy. Protecting our local environment is at the top of our list of priorities and we are willing to expend time and energy to do so. We don't want to see any changes that will lessen our ability to have a say over important matters th...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Eugene Wolff

11/28/23 @ 12:28 PM

I adamantly object to the proposed proposed amendments to the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
It's a totalitarianism ploy loaded with ambiguous terms meant to obfuscate back room deals. The exclusion of FOIA allows the Executive Director run the or...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joan Glase

11/28/23 @ 12:18 PM

As someone who lives in the Delaware Valley, I expect the DRBC to be fully transparent in any changes, rules and procedures involving the river basin. Your new proposal explicityly intends to shield the public from certain decisions that will affect...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ellen Gerson

11/28/23 @ 12:16 PM

Please I say no to Proposed DRBC Rule change & keep our waters clean! Make no changes!!!

No attachments

Comment From: Jason Miller

11/28/23 @ 11:33 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Gail Brunner

11/28/23 @ 11:18 AM

Please see attached DRBC comments

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Susan Data-Samtak

11/28/23 @ 11:11 AM

Our rivers are just that-ours. We live here. We have a right to input our opinions on what happens here. We need more sunshine in governmental decisions- not less.

No attachments

Comment From: Ken Gigliello

11/28/23 @ 9:00 AM

Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These...↓ include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Brent Groce

11/28/23 @ 8:40 AM

I live one block from the Schuylkill River. For that reason, I am very interested in decisions that impact rivers and their adjacent communities. What I understand about these rule changes under consideration concern me deeply. We need to protect al...↓l our water resources — fresh and salt water — more than ever. The pressure on these assets the day belong to the entire community cannot be endangered by a few users. Especially when decisions surrounding access and use of these resources are not debated fully and publicly. Below are some of the points of concern I have. Please do not change operating rules and practices in ways that reduce and limit public access to these decisions. And, please do not concentrate the power to make these decisions to a few people who may not be accountable to the entire community.

1. Do not allow Administrative Staff decisionmaking to cut out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Do not allow some permits to be given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Institute a rigorous process for extension of permits for Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Ensure the public is involved in the process and is not disadvantaged in pursuing legal challenges when necessary. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

Thank you,
Brent Groce

No attachments

Comment From: Loki Simmons

11/28/23 @ 8:19 AM

1. Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. Th...↓ese include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years. 2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust. 3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial. 4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended. 5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made. 6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Sandy Commons

11/28/23 @ 1:01 AM

The DRBC has proposed changes to their Rules of Practice and Procedure. These changes are largely carving in stone several of the practices the DRBC already uses when they make permitting and policy decisions. Many of these practices we have proteste...↓d in the past because it has led to bad decisions by the DRBC. Most notably, the DRBC Executive Director unilaterally approved the extension of the approval for the Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal Project last year without any public input and even without a vote or public discussion by the DRBC Commissioners – the Governors of the four watershed states (New York New Jersey, Pennsylvanian, and Delaware) and the Army Corps of Engineers, representing the federal government (President Biden). Only because the community cried "FOUL!" when Delaware Riverkeeper Network discovered the clandestine approval through a Freedom of Information Act request was the secret decision to extend the permit discussed at a public meeting and voted on by the Commissioners. This kind of back room decisionmaking should be overthrown, not memorialized into regulations!

We, as a Coalition of organizations, community groups, and frontline residents from throughout the Delaware River Watershed and beyond, have fought for many years for greater transparency and fair opportunities to provide meaningful and informed public participation in the approvals and policies that the DRBC makes. These critical decisions directly affect the quality of our environment, our drinking water, our air quality, the diversity and health of the Delaware River, its species, habitats, ecosystems, tributaries and communities throughout the entire magnificent Delaware River Watershed. We cannot effectively take part and influence outcomes if the decisionmaking process is not open and interactive, with all important decisions and the underlying information about them fully disclosed and available for review and comment. We also have advocated for the DRBC Commissioners to be hands-on involved and engaged with the decisions that are made as these representatives of our elected government are accessible to us, as members of the public, and they are required to respect our rights and protect the environment for the public good. That is not what this rulemaking proposes to do. In fact, it does the opposite in almost all of its proposed sections.

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Balaban

11/27/23 @ 11:18 PM

These critical decisions, which the proposed amendments impact, directly affect the quality of our environment, our drinking water, our air quality, the diversity and health of the Delaware River, its species, habitats, ecosystems, tributaries and co...↓mmunities throughout the entire magnificent Delaware River Watershed. We cannot effectively take part and influence outcomes if the decision making process is not open and interactive, with all important decisions and the underlying information about them fully disclosed and available for review and comment. We also have advocated for the DRBC Commissioners to be hands-on involved and engaged with the decisions that are made as these representatives of our elected government are accessible to us, as members of the public, and they are required to respect our rights and protect the environment for the public good. That is not what this rule making proposes to do. In fact, it does the opposite in almost all of its proposed sections.

The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

The amendments further grant extension of permits without an expiration date favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

A low bar for the extension of existing projects that haven't been built is also being set by this proposed set of amendements. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

It would also seem that these amendments are an attempt to intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

Additionally, when carefully reviewed it's obvious that the subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rule making – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decision making. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

Equally alarming is the removal of all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from the rules as well as the setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Leah Foster

11/27/23 @ 11:08 PM

Administrative Staff decision making cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. Thes...↓e include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

The sponsors of a project should not be allowed to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively.

No attachments

Comment From: Renee Rule

11/27/23 @ 10:59 PM

Administrative staff decision-making cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. Thes...↓e include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as five additional years.

Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

The low bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

Intimidating the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

Loophole word: "Material". The subjective and value-loaded terms "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rule-making – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decision-making. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Burton

11/27/23 @ 10:21 PM

The PUBLIC needs to be included in the rule making process!

No attachments

Comment From: Donald Schwartz

11/27/23 @ 9:59 PM

Maintain environment and protect every ecological system.

No attachments

Comment From: Mercedes Lackey

11/27/23 @ 9:45 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Darlin McDaniel

11/27/23 @ 9:44 PM

We, as a Coalition of organizations, community groups, and frontline residents from throughout the Delaware River Watershed and beyond, have fought for many years for greater transparency and fair opportunities to provide meaningful and informed publ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jonathan Hartman

11/27/23 @ 9:32 PM

1. Administrative Staff decision making cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioner...↓s. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decision making. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Jeanne Jordan

11/27/23 @ 9:31 PM

I am opposed to this change for several important reasons. I live within a mile of the Delaware River. I am concerned about every aspect of the river and how the DRBC oversees the river. I have participated in hearings in the past and listened to the...↓m. I do not have as much confidence in the commission as I would like to have... and I believe these changes would make things worse.

First,Administrative Staff decision making cuts out the public. The Executive Director would be given far too much authority over important decisions and make them behind closed doors, without the public input and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. Unacceptable!

Secondly, key permits should not be given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket, should not be given willy nilly. The Executive Director would be given being exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This would legitimize the behind closed doors decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust. Unacceptable!

Thirdly,I do not want to see a low bar for the extension of existing projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.Unacceptable!

Fourthly, these proposed changes would intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. The Commissionin would be allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended. Unacceptable!

Fifth Concern, The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rule making – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decision making. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made, especially those of us who live close to the Delaware River. UNACCEPTABLE.

Lastly, it is ridiculous that DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director (such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow.) It is imperative that the DRBC provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. We, the public need something concrete to rely on. The proposal that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest is totally against public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions, but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Unacceptable.

In conclusion,we have the right to any and ALL information regarding the Delaware River and rule changes which undermine transparency would move the DRBC in the WRONG direction! The proposed changes are NOT what the public wants. Reconsider please.

No attachments

Comment From: Melissa Carlson

11/27/23 @ 9:05 PM

I live in the Great Lakes Watershed, and have been involved in hearings on water policy. Open, transparent, international hearings that result in fair policy. This is the way that our government and regulatory agencies are set up in the democratic U...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Leon Pulsinelle

11/27/23 @ 8:52 PM

Please be advised that I am totally opposed to the changes in Practices and Procedures that are proposed and under consideration. The public, in deed has the need to know what's going on and needs have the right to contest any of your decisions. (thi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ronit Corry

11/27/23 @ 8:29 PM

The process needs to be transparent and needs to include the public! 1. Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors...↓, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years. 2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust. 3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial. 4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended. 5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made. 6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Diane DiFante

11/27/23 @ 8:27 PM

All proposed rule changes should go through public review. The goal should be transparency and be subject to public input.

No attachments

Comment From: Nicholas Hunsicker

11/27/23 @ 8:23 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Todd Snyder

11/27/23 @ 8:15 PM

1. Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. Th...↓ese include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Leo Kucewicz

11/27/23 @ 8:15 PM

Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These...↓ include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Carl Prellwitz

11/27/23 @ 7:53 PM

The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Exec...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Gerritt and Elizabeth Baker-Smith

11/27/23 @ 7:49 PM

1. Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. Th...↓ese include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years. 2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust. 3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial. 4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended. 5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made. 6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Joseph Hiss

11/27/23 @ 7:45 PM

Gentlemen of the DRBC--The rule by which you can eliminate public review is just plain WRONG, particularly when you want to approve building an LNG plant, because of the leaks and pollution it would most surely cause! I am writing all the way from W...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Walsh

11/27/23 @ 7:36 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Bretton Little

11/27/23 @ 7:22 PM

Recently, the DRBC Executive Director unilaterally approved the extension of the approval for the Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal Project last year without any public input and even without a vote or public discussion by the DRBC Commissioners – the Go...↓vernors of the four watershed states (New York New Jersey, Pennsylvanian, and Delaware) and the Army Corps of Engineers, representing the federal government (President Biden). Only because the community cried "FOUL!" when Delaware Riverkeeper Network discovered the clandestine approval through a Freedom of Information Act request was the secret decision to extend the permit discussed at a public meeting and voted on by the Commissioners. This kind of back room decision-making should be overthrown, not memorialized into regulations.

First of all, the DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest. This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively.

Secondly, the subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rule-making, yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

Additionally, the Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

Finally, the Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

These critical decisions directly affect the quality of our environment, our drinking water, our air quality, the diversity and health of the Delaware River, its species, habitats, ecosystems, tributaries and communities throughout the entire magnificent Delaware River Watershed. We cannot effectively take part and influence outcomes if the decision-making process is not open and interactive, with all important decisions and the underlying information about them fully disclosed and available for review and comment. The DRBC Commissioners need to be hands-on involved and engaged with the decisions that are made as these representatives of our elected government are accessible to us, as members of the public, and they are required to respect our rights and protect the environment for the public good. That is not what this rulemaking proposes to do. In fact, it does the opposite in almost all of its proposed sections.

No attachments

Comment From: Merilynn Hidalgo

11/27/23 @ 6:18 PM

The administrative staff decision-making cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: NJ State NAACP, Local Branch #... (Keith Voos)

11/27/23 @ 6:12 PM

The NAACP NJ State Conference Local Branch 2089 objects strongly to the amendments to the rules of practice and procedure that the DRWC wishes to make. These changes severely restrict the input that the public is allowed to make in the Commission's d...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Marya Bradley

11/27/23 @ 6:03 PM

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed change to the rule-making process. The proposal is alarming in its high-handed concentration of power in the Executive Director of the DRBC and its elision of the public in highly conseque...↓ntial decisions regarding the fate of the watershed, the River and its many tributaries, the environment, the health of the communities and the habitat and survival of wildlife. The proposal is undemocratic and inimical to transparency and public access to information critical to public oversight of the decisions made and the decision-maker and the processes whereby the decisions were made. This is not acceptable and is not in the interest of the public, the water, the future. I am very concerned by and opposed to the consolidation of power in the hands of the Executive Director and the secrecy of decisions made not only excluding the public but even members of the Commission Board. There is, as well, a devious obfuscation in the use of terms, such as whether a change is "material" or not, which avoids oversight and prevents any kind of transparency. Decisions about projects, proposed changes in a project, about permits and extensions of permits must not be made without informing the public and without adequate time for public questions and comments and subsequently for a public review of any revisions resulting from that process. This is imperative, since the matter of clean water and air and soil is critical to the health of human communities and of the environment as well as of the many species who rely on clean water for their habitat and survival. I strongly urge you to reject this nefariously undemocratic and unscientifically based "stream-lining" of the rule-making process and protocols; it is in essence a dangerous consolidation of power in the Executive Director without oversight or recourse for the stakeholders thereby affected. Finally, I am alarmed by the failure to include any references to the federal Freedom of Information Act in the proposed changes to the rules, and instead, the proposed alternative DRBC system that fails to address many critical aspects of transparency and accountability and accords too much power in the hands of the Executive Director. It is utterly unacceptable that whether a matter is "in the public interest" be up to the sole discretion of the Executive Director; this makes a mockery of transparency and democracy: the members of the whole DRBC must make the determination together and their decisions and the bases of their decisions must be readily available to the public and public scrutiny, with possible recourse by the public to challenge the decisions thereby made. The DRBC must provide a reliable and prescribed public access system that is clear, accessible and affordable to assure public access to public records. I call on you to reject this rule-making proposal as an affront to the public and to democracy and the future generations whose interests will not be served by such a consolidation of power and occlusion of the voice of all the stake-holders.

No attachments

Comment From: Pamela Martin

11/27/23 @ 5:51 PM

I am appalled that the public is being squeezed out of its say in what happens to its own land and waterways. These rule changes are ridiculous and sinister. Carving out a path for unilateral decisions by one person is dangerous to our democracy.

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Chieffe

11/27/23 @ 5:50 PM

The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners.

Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given fa...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Vincent Lampone

11/27/23 @ 4:36 PM

Dear DRBC Friends:

I am writing with regard to 18 CFR Part 401. My interest in the proposed rules comes from the need for greater transparency and fair opportunities to provide meaningful and informed public participation in the approvals and polici...↓es from the DRBC. These critical decisions directly affect the quality of our environment, our drinking water, our air quality, the diversity and health of the Delaware River, its species, habitats, ecosystems, tributaries and communities throughout the entire Delaware River Watershed. We cannot effectively take part and influence outcomes if the decision-making process is not open and interactive, with all important decisions and underlying information fully disclosed and available for review and comment.

In particular, I want to draw attention to the following shortcomings in the proposed rules:

1. Administrative Staff decision-making cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low bar for the extension of existing projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. Furthermore, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. The Loophole Word - "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rule-making – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decision-making. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Freedom to Information Act. DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. Allowing the Executive Director to unilaterally determine whether or not to disclose requested information invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively.

I appreciate your consideration of these points, and strongly encourage your team to revise the proposed rules to ensure greater transparency and public engagement in decision-making.

Warmly,

Vince Lampone

No attachments

Comment From: MARY M REILLY

11/27/23 @ 4:30 PM

Keep public input and public interest part of your consideration. It's also hard to believe that the DRBC can't get the technical expertise to live-stream the proceedings. Keep the dialogue and the discussion open. This affects all of us.

No attachments

Comment From: Virginia Lee

11/27/23 @ 4:12 PM

I am writing as a

- Utah Republican precinct chair (SLC074),

- biologist (BS Biology 1977, University of Utah, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, Secondary Teaching Certificate 1977-1992),

- practicing lawyer (JD 1979, University of Utah),

- membe...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Megan Wilder

11/27/23 @ 3:57 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Eleanor Weisman

11/27/23 @ 3:52 PM

I am writing to oppose the Rulemaking changes that are being proposed. While the new rules might streamline administration, they will also keep the public from having input and even accessing information on the Delaware River and its watershed.

It i...↓s vital to maintain public input on decision making. Please do not give the Executive Director too much authority over many crucial decisions without public feedback and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These decision areas include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

Permits must not be given without public input and Commissioners must review and approve extensions. Please do not legitimize the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

It is important to set a high bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial. This must be changed.

The public must retain the right to litigate a project. Do not allow the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

Please ensure that all wording is explicit and clear in any new rules. The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decision-making. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

The Public must retain the right to Freedom to Information. DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Seltzer

11/27/23 @ 3:26 PM

Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These...↓ include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Dale Tomlinson

11/27/23 @ 3:20 PM

Any curtailment of public access in commission decision-making is an affront to those for whom you work and should be reversed/the proposal killed. You work for the public and their concerns are worth consideration in the full light of day whence you...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Katherine Wright

11/27/23 @ 2:40 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Constance Lorig

11/27/23 @ 2:38 PM

NO RULES that shut down public disclosure and participation in the decisions that the DRBC makes regarding the Delaware River, the Delaware River Watershed and our communities.

OPEN GOVERNMENT!!!

No attachments

Comment From: Stephen Gliva

11/27/23 @ 2:32 PM

Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These...↓ include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years. 2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust. 3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial. 4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended. 5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made. 6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Stephen Gliva

11/27/23 @ 2:31 PM

Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These...↓ include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Marc Silverman

11/27/23 @ 2:29 PM

Rules about public lands should ALWAYS include the public in the decision making process and consider the needs of the public first before private individuals, companies or corporations! No loopholes or leaving out the public interest via open-ended ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lynn Baron

11/27/23 @ 2:27 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Charlotte Jones

11/27/23 @ 2:26 PM

No one is interested in any "back door" deals. Every one affected by any changes in Rules of Practice and Procedure must have a say so..............

No attachments

Comment From: Joseph Basralian

11/27/23 @ 2:19 PM

Your proposals consolidate the power of decisionmaking over the lives of millions of people into an even tinier number of individuals, when you should be doing the opposite: democratizing decisionmaking and making it more transparent to the millions ...↓of lives you are impacting. I find your direction egregious. My read-though is that you are clearly getting even more autocratic in order to keep secretive power for the most powerful corporate stakeholders, and cut-out the public, which is clearly a way to harm the public interest.

Here are a few of my specific objections and reasons:

In your proposal, the Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

You're trying to grant yourself the power to extend permits virtually unilaterally, so that a single permit given once can mutate for years and years without public input. This is really sickening that DRBC would attempt this coup over the public. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director -- with no regular and ongoing accountability to the millions of members of the public whose lives and children he is impacting -- is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

The bar is WAY too low for the sufficient investment hurdler. It's a joke for the powerful corporate interests that you're waiving in for nothing. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

The proposed rules are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended. This is the most crass and authoritarian angle to "blame the victim." You would be punishing the aggrieved party, which is normally THE PUBLIC, for filing suit. This is truly a sickening play by DRBC.

You accept no accountability by adding the words "Material Change" and "Materially" throughout the proposed rulemaking – with NO clear definition or quantification of what Material qualifies as. So, DRBC can define it however it wants in order to advance it's heavily corporate agenda. Your whole new rule system is an authoritarian power play against millions of members of the public whom you should be representing, rather than kicking into the gutter. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking.

An abusive power-grab, you at DRBC want to remove all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director. Total concentration of power and free from the public's scrutiny. The most anti-democratic, anti-people provision of them all? You should be ashamed. How can you look at your children in the eyes. Under your authoritarianism, you want to refuse public review of forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

Your proposals are breaking the public's contract with government. It's an absolute outrageous disgrace and you should be ashamed and disgusted by your actions in proposing this. Stop trying to do an end-around millions of people whose health, lives and livelihood depend on a fair, transparent and more democratic DRBC, not a more authoritarian one. We've fought wars to prevent what you're doing, so don't bring your authoritarian war to us now.

No attachments

Comment From: Bri Marino

11/27/23 @ 2:15 PM

Please do not cut out the public in decision making. The Executive Director should not be given SO much authority. Also, allowing sponsors of a project to use "litigation" as an excuse for extension despite not investing enough feels like it will giv...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tracy S Troth

11/27/23 @ 2:01 PM

1. Administrative Staff decision-making cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissione...↓rs. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Connie Allison

11/27/23 @ 1:50 PM

No attachments

Comment From: jean publie

11/27/23 @ 12:58 PM

govt of the people by the people for the people, not for adminstrativ staff to keep the public in the dark. the public voices are very important to keep a lid on things. those working insider always want things for themselves and keeping th epublci i...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Stephen Dutschke

11/27/23 @ 12:45 PM

1. Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. Th...↓ese include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Paula Shafransky

11/27/23 @ 12:36 PM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.
I believe administrative staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, with...↓out the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.
In addition, key permits is given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.
There is a low bar for the extension of existing projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.
It appears there is an attept to intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.
The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.
Last,the public has a right under the Freedom to Information Act to access any pertinent information. DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Victor Sytzko

11/26/23 @ 11:23 AM

Here are my comments regarding this proposal:

1. Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the publ...↓ic and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

Regards,
Victor Sytzko

No attachments

Comment From: Rosie Starr

11/26/23 @ 10:46 AM

I am a resident and home owner in Wayne County,PA. with a well for water. My life depends on good clean safe drinking water. Our food is sourced locally from farms along the Delaware River Valley. Healthy living depends on clean water.
My opinion on...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ann Kelly

11/25/23 @ 5:59 PM

RE: The DRBC proposal to change the Rules of Practice and Procedure

The Executive Director has already too much power to make decisions behind the cloak of expediency to expedite dirty permits that effect the lives and health of the environment and...↓ all that live not only around the project but ultimately the whole planet. We can't ignore the fast tracking of the dirty fossil fuel projects that have already been approved without public response and input.

We all know that what happens in one part of the world has an impact across the planet. This proposal would codify a procedure that is anti democratic and to even extend a project for five years! There must be greater transparency than less!

The underhanded dealings of dirty fossil fuel projects are not fully vetted and allowing the sponsors of these projects are meant to intimidate and stop any litigations for destruction of health, environment (air, land, water, ecosystems), and property. The decision making must be interactive, with full knowledge and approval from the public and not in the cover of darkness.

Secret "Material" is just a way to hide what substances the public will be subjected to without the knowledge as to what the consequences of these "materials" may have. The public has a right to weigh in on projects that effect the public's health and the environment in general. No one person should have that power, nor any governmental head to make decisions that could effect us all in the long term.

These proposed polices do the opposite of protecting our rights for voicing proposals that will hurt the human right to clean air, water, and land. What has transpired is criminal and what is being proposed is nothing short of tyranny and unilateral power to large corporate companies that only goal is profits over the people, the planet, and the ecology of all living things. We are a part of nature and must learn to live with it, not to extract endless materials. This procedure only rewards the endless extraction that will end not only our species but all life as we know it.

I don't think I am being overly dramatic, for we can see now the results of runaway destruction of local environments in all parts of the world in extreme weather patterns and large scale destruction in all parts of the world including this country alone.

We must stand up to total tyranny of one person making decisions and allow clear public access to ALL the information available that effect us all! This must be a right that the public be fully informed in any decision made in our names by the DRBC.

Thank you,
Ann Kelly

No attachments

Comment From: JoAnn Jahn

11/25/23 @ 10:44 AM

I am opposed to your Rulemaking Proposal. One need look no further than Tocks Island Dam Project to see the need for the public to know what is being proposed. Or look at the SEC's failures and oversights. Or Congress's failure to pass Term Limits. T...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Delaware-Otsego Audubon Soc. (Andrew Mason)

11/24/23 @ 8:12 PM

I am writing on behalf of our organization, with over 300 members including many within our Chapter area within the Delaware River watershed. We are concerned over this proposed rulemaking and the reduced public involvement and transparency it will ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Peri Doubleday

11/24/23 @ 4:18 PM

Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. These...↓ include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years. 2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust. 3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial. 4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended. 5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made. 6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Brandom

11/24/23 @ 3:07 PM

The Delaware River Basin (DRB) is a vital resource for all of Pennsylvania and other eastern States in the USA. Industrial activities in the DRB can easily impact much greater areas. Therefore it must be the case that there is input from the public f...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: C. Martinez

11/24/23 @ 3:20 AM

1. Administrative Staff decisionmaking cuts out the public. The Executive Director is given far too much authority over many crucial decisions and these are made behind closed doors, without the public and without a vote by the DRBC Commissioners. Th...↓ese include: the power to decide whether or not a change to a project is "material" (if it is "materials" it would open up for more robust review); and decisions about the submission of applications for projects, what is required in an application and when an application is complete; the extension for some permits for as many as 5 additional years.

2. Key Permits given a pass. Extension of Permits without an expiration date are given favored status, such as the Gibbstown LNG Export terminal docket. The Executive Director is being invested with exclusive authority regarding extension of permits that removes public input completely and relieves the Commissioners of their responsibility to review and approve extensions. This legitimizes the behind-the-scenes decision making that undermines government accountability and public trust.

3. Low Bar for the extension of Existing Projects that haven't been built. $1M is set as a "minimum" amount expended to decide if a project has been sufficiently invested in, and even that value can be disregarded under certain circumstances. No foundation is provided for this amount and no substantive explanation of what "substantial funds in relation to a project" really means. And, the Executive Director has the power to decide if the amount expended is substantial.

4. Intimidate the public so they won't litigate a project. They are allowing the sponsors of a project to claim that litigation by opposing parties is an excuse that can be used to explain why they haven't built or spent sufficient funds on a project that they want extended.

5. Loophole Word – "Material". The subjective and value-loaded term "Material Change" and "Materially" are used throughout the proposed rulemaking – yet no clear definition is available, only a bureaucratic explanation. This terminology is not easily understandable and clouds objectivity in decisionmaking. It allows for varying interpretations for different projects, which is unfair, including unjust for the public who must live every day with the decisions that are made.

6. The Public Requires Freedom to Information! DRBC is removing all references to the federal Freedom of Information Act from its rules and is setting up an alternative DRBC-centric system that leaves many aspects unaddressed or in the hands of the Executive Director, such as forms, reason for denial, and how costs will be assessed fairly, including if a waiver of fees can be requested like other agencies allow. The DRBC must provide a prescribed public access system that is clear, user-friendly, and affordable to assure public access to public records. The public needs something concrete to rely on. And it's proposed that the Executive Director determines whether or not to disclose requested information, deciding unilaterally if a disclosure is in the public interest! This invests unfair control over the information in an administrator who may not even be qualified to make such legally important decisions. The public needs to take part in DRBC decisions but without access to information, we can't do that effectively. Information is power and we have a right to it!

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]