When the debate was raging over whether to allow casino gambling in Pennsylvania, Harrisburg touted the significant local property tax relief that state taxes imposed on that industry would provide.

With so many entities getting their hands into that gambling tax revenue, the actual relief that Keystone State property owners receive from the casinos is considerably less than what gambling proponents promised.

Now Gov. Tom Corbett, in revealing more details about the kind of fee he hopes to impose on the Marcellus Shale industry, has provided a picture that, if it follows the gambling experience, should be met with uneasiness by municipalities that could be affected by the drilling.

What the governor told a radio interviewer the other day deserves close attention by not only local government officials, but by the taxpayers whose money keeps their communities running.

On the one hand it was encouraging to hear Corbett say that money from the fee he wants to impose will be used primarily to compensate drilling communities for the negative impacts they incur, such as road damage from heavy-truck traffic. But what he went on to say raises the question of whether, with Corbett’s desire to direct some of the money beyond affected communities, enough will be left to repair all of the damage emanating from the Marcellus drilling.

Communities shouldn’t be thrust into the position of having to pick up the tab because of Harrisburg’s desire to distribute the money to other areas.

For example, Corbett believes a portion of the fee collected by the state should be directed to environmental cleanups, possibly beyond the scope of the Marcellus drilling. He also wants to allocate some of the money to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency.

Both of those uses might sooner or later be regarded by state government as a tempting means to ease some of the pressure on state finances, even if impact fee money weren’t thrown directly into the general fund money pot.

Adding more Marcellus Shale impact fee money to PEMA and environmental cleanup could pave the way to lower allocations from the state budget — thereby benefiting the general fund.

State residents shouldn’t be overconfident in Harrisburg’s ability to handle the drilling money as intended — as an insurance policy against damage that might be incurred.

To the governor’s credit, he said he would not support any money from the impact fee helping to support the state’s general budget, but there’s no guarantee what a future administration and new Legislature might do.

With state residents having seen casino revenue falling far short of what they had anticipated to ease their property tax burdens, they should be equally suspicious about the revenue that could be flowing from Marcellus Shale drilling.

If the impact fee money isn’t earmarked in a way that truly addresses future repair needs — or the money-allocation process is overburdened by red tape — the fee advocated by Corbett could have as little impact in repairing drilling-related damage as the casino revenue has had on reducing property owners’ local real estate tax bills.