LETTER: Why won't House bill have moratorium?I’d like to assure Rep. Kelly I don’t need him apologizing to anyone for me (R-E, March 9). I certainly didn't mean only the Albrechts when I wrote “Anyone who thinks all of these (sand) areas are adequately regulated is undereducated.” I meant anyone.
By: Larry Sonnek, The Republican Eagle
To the Editor:
I’d like to assure Rep. Kelly I don’t need him apologizing to anyone for me (R-E, March 9). I certainly didn't mean only the Albrechts when I wrote “Anyone who thinks all of these (sand) areas are adequately regulated is undereducated.” I meant anyone.
He’d be surprised to know that I spent over 20 minutes in a delightful conversation with Mr. Albrecht before writing my letter, but I sincerely apologize if they took personal offence. I continue to stand by the premise of my letter although the correct date of “The Price of Sand” is March 22 at the Sheldon Theater.
Rep. Kelly indicated I am partisan, stated incorrect facts, didn't contact him and “can only imagine.” Here are facts.
1) I voted for members of both parties last election.
2) He didn't identify my “incorrect facts”.
3) I did call him (March 1).
I hoped to have a dialogue with him when I phoned his office Friday before I sent in my letter on Monday. He never responded.
4) Regarding the silica issue: for two years, I’ve logged hundreds of hours on this issue, often spending over 20 hours a week. I've been to dozens of township, county and city meetings on the subject. I've talked to numerous regulatory officials. I attended all three hearings on Sen. Schmidt’s bill. I've talked to other legislators regarding the issue.
Having indicated that, I’ll be delighted to have his office provide additional, pertinent information.
He’s correct in commending the McIlraths. They've been untiring in their efforts regarding responsible regulation of silica mining. If he rereads their letter he’ll understand their central theme is the need for a “three-legged stool.” My letter asked him for “a one-year moratorium, a comprehensive study and subsequent laws” — the three legs.
Instead of explaining why his pending legislation doesn't have even two of the legs, he deflected the attention from inadequate legislation and attacked me. Instead of criticizing me, he’d have better served his constituents by answering my question. Why doesn't his legislation include a moratorium to halt mining until a generic environmental impact statement can be done?