Coalition for Responsible Growth
and Resource Conservation (CRGRC)

Who We Are

The Coalition for Responsible Growth & Resource Conservation (CRGRC) is a non-profit organization based in Lycoming County and formed in early 2007. Its Board has representatives from a local businesses, a local historical society, local watershed associations, scientists and individuals experienced in Pennsylvania's political process.

It is supported by numerous organizations and individuals dedicated to responsible growth and the conservation of our natural resources. The name, Coalition for Responsible Growth & Resource Conservation (CRGRC), was carefully chosen to reflect the philosophy of its founding members that there can and must be a balance between economic growth, development of land and protection of all natural resources. CRGRC favors development that is consistent with and supported by local, state and federal land use planning and environmental regulations. This is Smart Growth. Click here for more about Smart Growth >>>

CRGRC views our natural resources as not just environmental, although environmental resources are an important component. Natural resources encompass also what is agricultural (farmland, forests & aquatic), cultural (historical & archeological), scenic and recreational (motoring, viewing, birding, fishing, hunting, hiking, camping & biking).

Government-industry covenants should allow businesses, in consultation with regulators and the public, to craft the most effective and efficient strategies to meet broad national environmental goals through market-based limits and incentives that harm neither the economy nor the environment. Additionally, such consultations should take into consideration narrower, local or regional environmental goals – particularly when sensitive ecosystems or environmental resource areas are concerned. These include – but are not limited to - flood plains, prime agricultural lands, riparian areas, wetlands, places that support endangered or threatened species, sites of historic and/or archeological importance.

As for the question of what constitutes "responsible growth," that is a moving target. To some extent each proposed development needs to be evaluated when it's placed before a municipality for approval. There are, however, some guidelines to be applied in all cases.

Taxpayers have invested a lot of money into a county plan for future development, and the county planning staff has invested a huge number of hours in delineating growth areas where there would be minimal environmental impact and where development infrastructure (roads, sewers, water, etc.) are in place or planned. They have worked hard with representatives of individual municipalities to understand and sign onto the county plan. Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania final decisions about land development proposals rest with the individual municipality.

Far too little public input goes into decisions about development. Despite the work of our county planners, advice from municipal engineers and solicitors, many times supervisors are overwhelmed and make inappropriate decisions about land development plans. This makes such a municipality a prime target for a developer interested only in a financial return. Montour Crossing is a prime example.

CRGRC would like to see a more pro-active view to land development decisions. This starts with municipal zoning that protects sensitive ecological areas and important environmental resources. Each municipality should also assess its land from the perspective of available brownfields. County-wide there are a lot of areas of brownfields that could be rejuvenated with new development. This would not increase impervious surfaces, and in other ways would be more environmentally sensitive than building on "new" land.

Proposals for development need to be assessed from the perspective of economics. There is a tendency to build beyond the economic carrying capacity of a population base. The county planners can help municipalities assess new land development plans with this issue in mind. Municipalities need to pay more attention to the county development plans and rely more on the consultant services of the county planning offices.

One of our current concerns is that the plan for Montour Crossing is not consistent with these regulations enacted to protect our residents and taxpayers or the environment. The basic plan for Montour Crossing - if it were not being built on a floodplain - is not a bad one. Though, it could, however, be improved by including more environmentally-friendly construction. The real issue is its location.