Contact CBICC

The Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County has been involved in encouraging Nestle to site a water bottling plant in Centre County, purchase public water at $4.75 per thousand-gallons and export the water for private sale at about $7,500 per thousand-gallons. (See, for example, E-mail 12E-mail 13Email re Jan. 4 meetingE-mail 17. No minutes were kept for these meetings, despite the presence of elected and appointed government officials. 3.23.18 N. Corman RTK Letter3.23.18 N. Corman RTK Affidavit)

CBICC is also promoting the project at its website landing page.

If you’d like to let CBICC leaders and members know what you think of the plan, and CBICC’s use of taxpayer funds to support it (through municipal annual dues for CBICC “government” memberships), you can comment at CBICC’s Facebook page.

For reference, here’s a list of CBICC executives and board members:

  • Vern Squier, President & CEO
  • Jennifer Myers, Vice President, Economic Development
  • John Sepp – PennTerra Engineering, Board Chairman
  • Bob O’Donnell – SCASD Superintendent, Board Vice-Chairman
  • David Gray, PSU Vice President for Finance and Business, Board Secretary
  • Bill Kelly, Baker Tilly, Board Treasurer
  • William Joseph, First National Bank
  • Betsy Dupuis, Babst Calland
  • Mark Morath, Hospitality Asset Management Co.
  • Cristin Long, McQuaide Blasko
  • OJ Johnson, OJ Johnson Consulting
  • Tom Fountaine, State College Borough Manager
  • Ted McDowell, Ameriserv Bank
  • Barb Bowker, PSECU
  • Tammy Gentzel, Centre County United Way
  • Richard Makin, Central PA Institute for Science and Technology
  • Michael Pipe, Centre County Commissioner
  • Adam Brumbaugh, College Township Manager

April 18 – Watershed Forum

Please find attached a flyer related to the April 18, 2018 watershed forum.

This forum is being convened by the Spring Creek Watershed Commission, and facilitated by a Penn State Law environmental mediation class being taught this semester as a Sustainable Communities Collaborative project.

As noted in the flyer, the goal for the forum is to better understand participants’ perspectives on current water-related topics; what they might imagine for the future; how we might get from the present to the future; and how people might wish to engage in watershed planning.

By using facilitated breakout groups to allow people time to really discuss these topics, the watershed forum will help start a longer watershed planning process being conducted by the Spring Creek Watershed Commission.

Details for the April 18, 2018 forum are below, and in the attached flyer.

  • Wednesday, April 18, 2018, 6:30–8:45 PM (light refreshments will be served)
  • Central Pennsylvania Institute of Science (CPI), 540 N Harrison Rd, Bellefonte, PA (parking is free)
  • RSVP online to ensure we have enough seats, handouts, and food

All are welcome to participate in the discussions; please feel free to invite others who may also be interested.

In addition, interested people are invited to learn more about the Spring Creek Watershed and to participate in an online discussion forum through a program called “Placespeak.”

The vision of Placespeak is to allow people to make a meaningful impact on the communities in which they live, work and play. Penn State has paid for a subscription to this program to allow more people to participate in the discussions; to register and participate, see

Let me know if you have questions, and in the meantime, many thanks for helping spread the word.

Lara Fowler

Senior Lecturer, Penn State Law
Assistant Director for Outreach & Engagement
Penn State Institutes of Energy and the Environment

Andrew McKinnon Remarks to Ferguson Township Supervisors – April 2, 2018

Liability for water contamination: who will pay?

On April 2, the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the Steckler Petition:

“We, the undersigned, believe the Harter and Thomas Wellfields have been put unnecessarily at risk to pollution by the selling of Penn State University land, at Whitehall Road, to the Toll Brothers Developers, in order to build student housing, to be known as “The Cottages at State College.” Since the acreage being developed is directly upland of these wells, and the geology is known as karst topography, the likelihood of runoff, regardless of detention and infiltration basins, seems probable as we enter into an era of extreme weather events due to Climate Change.

Therefore, we respectfully request Ferguson Township require written confirmation, prior to construction, that PSU and Toll Brothers are to be held financially responsible, in perpetuity, for any pollution to these wells directly attributable to the Cottages Development. And that the residents/taxpayers/rate-payers of Ferguson Township would not bear the financial burden should our water be rendered polluted by this development, which was pushed forward unguided by the Precautionary Principle and despite citizens concerns and actions of dissent.”

Ferguson Township Resident Andrew McKinnon presented the following remarks:

Against widespread public opposition to the Cottages development, Penn State has chosen to forge ahead with plans to develop 44 acres of prime farmland and breathtaking scenery while placing the State College water supply at risk.  These are resources rightfully allocated to the public trust, but Penn State not only insists on destroying the landscape but also claims it has no liability in the event the water is contaminated. This hands off position – essentially a “have our cake and eat it too” attitude – that is, we’ll accept all the benefits of development but assume none of the risks, must be confronted.

In this spirit I would like to briefly describe the hydrogeological risks to the State College water supply posed by the Cottages development in order to emphasize that Penn State and its developer, Toll Brothers, must be held financially accountable if activities associated with the site pollute our drinking water.

I have a B.S. in Geology and worked for 12 years in hydrogeology in the Centre Region.  It is well known that the Nittany Valley is underlain by fractured carbonate rock, that is, limestone and dolomite, and the primary way that water flows through such rock is via fractures and conduits.  Surface evidence of this karst terrain is in the form of caves, sinkholes and other closed depressions, as well as fracture traces, which are usually seen as linear features on aerial photographs.

The Cottages is to be located in the Zone 2 wellhead protection area, and therefore in the recharge zone, for the Thomas and Harter wellfields that supply two thirds of the drinking water for State College.  The site lies about one mile upgradient from the Thomas wellfield and one and a half miles upgradient from the Harter wellfield. Dye trace studies suggest that water, and thus water borne contaminants, could travel 300 or more feet per day from the site to the wells, thereby potentially reaching them in a matter of weeks.  Potential contaminants from the site include oil, gasoline, grease, glycol, deicing agents, chemical spills, and coliform bacteria.

A prominent fracture trace has been mapped on the site.

Portion of Figure 3, p. 76, 2007 State College Borough Water Authority Source Water Protection Report – Dashed lines are fracture traces. Diamonds are sinkholes. Triangles are public water wells.

Part of it manifests as the swale that runs across the site downslope from Whitehall Road.  This swale is quite close to where the basins for stormwater captured from the site have been placed.  Because of the way such basins are constructed, such as through compaction of soils and therefore decreasing the number of natural pores in the soil, contaminated stormwater could become channeled and enter the swale, percolate downward into the groundwater system, and flow southeast toward the Thomas and Harter wellfields.

Alternatively, stormwater could flow into existing sinkholes (several have been mapped in the vicinity of the site) or create new sinkholes and enter the groundwater system.  Indeed, the significant alteration of topography and soils at the site through grading, increasing the amount of impervious surfaces, and channeling of stormwater flow increases the risk of sinkhole formation, providing direct avenues for contamination to enter the subsurface.  Finally, risk is elevated because even if the soils on the site are not altered through compaction or other disturbance, they are generally thin in this area and therefore have limited filtration capacity. Also, the depth to bedrock is shallow, allowing contamination to reach the groundwater system relatively quickly.

In conclusion, I am concerned that activities associated with development or operation of the Cottages puts our drinking water at risk.  This is in addition to the guaranteed destruction of open space, farmland, and scenery enjoyed by residents, many of whom may have come to the area because of these natural attractions.  Unfortunately, it may be too late to save the land, but at least we can save our water. I respectfully ask you to hold Toll Brothers and Penn State accountable for any degradation of our drinking water.

Additional reporting in April 8, 2018 Bailiwick News – 4.8.18 Bailiwick News (PDF)


David Roberts Rebuttal to Dan Hawbaker Advertisement

By David Thomas Roberts, Resident, Benner Township

I wish to respond to Dan Hawbaker’s paid advertisement in the Centre County Gazette, published April 5, 2018 (p. 4) regarding Nestle’s proposed water bottling plant.

I was born in Centre County in 1952 and I am also concerned about the direction we are heading.

I do not own a large construction company and I do not stand to gain a large contract to build Nestle’s bottling plant.

However, I am a well-informed citizen with serious concerns about the move to extract large volumes of water from the Gatesburg karst limestone aquifer for commercial gain.

Hawbaker’s statement that “segments of the County are relying on emotion, opinion, and careless rhetoric” – to describe what is actually an attempt at healthy debate by concerned public citizens with many relevant questions – is less than ingenuous.

Hawbaker himself stated a few opinions and may be using careless rhetoric.

Impacts on Logan Branch are key

Hawbaker repeated a statement from Nestle that they will withdraw an equivalent of only three tenths of one percent of the water flowing through Spring Creek as measured at the Milesburg US Geological Survey stream gauge. There is truth in that statement. However, that statement is very misleading.

The real impact will be to Logan Branch, which is a gaining stream that receives its baseflow from cold water springs that are fed through fissures in the Gatesburg limestone formation.

Stream baseflow studies in the Susquehanna River Basin Commission’s 1997 report indicate the groundwater baseflow into Spring Creek averages 88% of the stream’s total flow. Similar average baseflow of 88% may be assumed for Logan Branch. Therefore, any reduction of the groundwater baseflow to Logan Branch will have significant impact on the total flow of water in Logan Branch.

Median stream flow in the lower Logan Branch near Bellefonte is highest during March, at about 140 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, during summer months the Logan Branch stream flow is only about 60 cfs or less.

Logan Branch stream flows at Pleasant Gap range from about 50 cfs to 15 cfs. This evidences the fact that Logan Branch gains a large amount of flow as it progresses toward Bellefonte.

The minimal testing done for the Spring Township Water Authority (STWA) “Cerro Well/PW-2” – the well producing the water Nestle proposes to bottle and export – was done during March, when Logan Branch is at its highest.

No testing has been done (or if it’s been done, it hasn’t been released to the public) during hot summer months with low water levels, when brook trout in local waterways are endangered by temperature exposure above 70° Fahrenheit (F).

The groundwater baseflow from the Gatesburg aquifer provides inflow of 50° F cool water, maintaining the habitats critical for brook trout to survive.

Logan Branch data from the Navitus stream gauge at the old Cerro Plant – now Titan Energy Park – and at the ClearWater stream gauge closer to Bellefonte, are cited in the STWA hydrology report for the Cerro Well/PW-2, prepared by Jim Casselberry.

The Casselberry study reported water levels of about 0.5 feet at the Navitus gauge and about 1 foot at the ClearWater gauge. The water depth in Logan Branch increases by a factor of two between these two gauges, which fairly well bracket the potential impact area to baseflow caused by water withdrawal from well PW-2, indicating there could be significant impact to Logan Branch stream levels.

I must emphasize again, there has been no baseflow evaluation of Logan Branch in the published STWA/Casselberry reports.

Comparisons with prior large-scale withdrawals

In his Gazette piece, Hawbaker repeated another statement from Nestle: that Nestle will only use a quarter of the water Corning-Asahi once used. Again, there is truth in this statement and again, it’s very misleading.

Corning withdrew water from large defined surface springs, as did Cerro Metals.

Nestle, however, proposes to withdraw water from a large-bore 650-foot-deep well: much larger and more than twice as deep as most local wells.

The effect of water withdrawal from karst limestone aquifers is notoriously difficult to determine due to fractures, channels, caves, and underground rivers. Deep karst limestone wells with large rates of water withdrawal have a definite effect on the hydraulic gradients within an aquifer, and these changes in the natural water flow can have unexpected and dramatic effects on surface springs and the baseflow of water into gaining streams.

Very little to no significant test data has been made publicly available to enable a serious public determination of the impact that the withdrawal of 260 million gallons of water per year – or more – from the Gatesburg aquifer will have on Logan Branch’s baseflow and the native brook trout that depend on the cold water habitats the karst limestone springs provide.

The Casselberry hydrology report certainly does not address this question.

There are recognized and established techniques and methodologies to make critical impact assessments of water withdrawal from aquifers that supply water to gaining steams such as Logan Branch. These assessments are not a usual part of local hydrology studies, but they should be if we wish to determine the true impact of consumptive water use in our local aquifer and surface stream systems.

Natural resources are limited

Hawbaker stated he believes Centre County has “vast natural resources.” Yes, Centre County has resources that have helped make Pennsylvania the Keystone State.

However, many of those resources are now depleted. I live in Valley View Village, a few miles from the well under discussion, and within a stone’s throw of huge pits that once held valuable limestone. That limestone is gone, the jobs are gone, and we are left with huge dangerous pits hundreds of feet deep.

We once had iron, copper, and valuable timber. Those “vast resources” are now also gone. All natural resources are limited.

Economic impact of fishing industry

Hawbaker further stated that the economic impact of the Nestle plant is important, but he made no mention of the economic impact to the local fishing industry if Logan Branch overheats in the summer or runs dry in a prolonged drought due to a reduction in baseflow.

The beauty of our natural limestone gaining streams and our native brook trout population is one of the big attractions to residents and to retirees thinking of moving to Happy Valley.

Responsible resource management

Hawbaker also stated that “Utilized properly and responsibly, these resources can continue to support individuals, families, and communities in Centre County.”

I agree with him completely.

The proper and responsible utilization of our resources is exactly what hundreds of local citizens are calling for.

Claims about public opinion

I don’t see where Hawbaker has found a majority of people in favor of the Nestle plant.

However, I have seen more people than can fit in a local water authority meeting room, all very opposed to the Nestle plant.

Water rights

Hawbaker remarked that “Nestle waters would…not independently own or control any water rights.”

But there are many communities in the United States and around the world that have challenged Nestle’s control of water rights when they found their wells and their streams running dry, and immediately ran up against Nestle’s huge staff of corporate lawyers who have convinced many courts that Nestle does control water rights.

Nestle wants to withdraw over twice as much water as the Spring Township Water Authority currently withdraws. STWA withdraws about 120 million gallons of water per year for local use. Nestle will withdraw over 260 million gallons of water per year for consumptive use. There is a significant difference.

At 650 feet deep, the new Cerro Well/ PW-2 that Nestle wants to use is the biggest and deepest well around and is about 50 feet deeper than the STWA Carles Well/PW-1.

Most local private wells are about 300 feet deep or less. If wells or streams start running dry, Nestle will not stop pumping water, since they are in a billion dollar per year water bottling business.


If my statements seem to be “relying on emotion, opinion, and careless rhetoric,” then shame on me.

If the County rushes ahead to approve the Nestle plant without a thorough public vetting and a thorough and critical analysis of impact, then shame on all of us.

Institutional Memory

The Voices article published at the start of the fight to keep high-density development out of the Slab Cabin Run watershed, and the updates that followed.

2015 Updates

2016 Updates

2017 Updates

2018 updates were mostly written by Katherine Watt, except between Feb. 2016 and May 2017, when they were written by Smita Bharti.

March 27, 2018 Attorney Letter to Spring Township Water Authority

3.27.18 Attorney Letter to STWA

Dear Authority Members:

Please note that we represent residents of Spring Township and the Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition in connection with the above-referenced matter. We understand that the Authority is in the process of negotiating an agreement with Nestlé that would convert public resources to Nestlé.

Based on the information available, there is significant concern that the Authority’s contemplated action would be in violation of the Authority’s obligations under Pennsylvania law. Among these obligations are the Authority’s duties under Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (“the Environmental Rights Amendment”), which provides, in part, as follows:

“…Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

The Authority is bound by these duties to the same extent as other Pennsylvania agencies and officials. Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013)(Robinson II), and Pennsylvania Envtl. Def. Found. v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017)(PEDF). Indeed, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained,

“Trustee obligations are not vested exclusively in any single branch of Pennsylvania’s government, and instead all agencies and entities of the Commonwealth government, both statewide and local, have a fiduciary duty to act toward the corpus with prudence, loyalty, and impartiality. See Robinson Twp., 83 A.3d at 956–57; see also Pa. L. Journal, 154th General Assembly, No. 118, Reg. Sess., 2269, 2271 (1970).”

PEDF, 161 A.3d at 932 n.23 (emph. added); id. at 940 (Baer, J., concurring).

The water resources that are the subject of the Authority’s contemplated agreement are clearly among the resources protected under the Environmental Rights Amendment. Robinson II, 83 A.3d at 955, 975 (noting that at a minimum, the “public natural resources” protected include “not only state-owned lands, waterways, and mineral reserves, but also resources that implicate the public interest, such as ambient air, surface and ground water, wild flora, and fauna (including fish) that are outside the scope of purely private property”).

The Environmental Rights Amendment “requires each branch of government to consider in advance of proceeding the environmental effect of any proposed action on the constitutionally protected features.” Robinson II, 83 A.3d at 952.

We understand that residents have sought information concerning the proposed agreement, only to be met with delays and denied full access. Please note that, in addition the requirements of the Sunshine Act and Right to Know Law, you have constitutional obligations to promptly provide full information concerning this matter. Robinson II, 83 A.3d at 983 (noting trustee’s “duty of gathering and making available to the beneficiaries complete and accurate information as to the nature and amount of the trust property), citing In re Rosenblum’s Estate, 459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158, 164–65 (1974) (citing Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 173) (right of access to trust records is essential part of beneficiary’s right to complete information concerning administration of trust; right of inspection has independent source in beneficiary’s property interest in trust estate); see also Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 173 cmt. c (“[B]eneficiary is always entitled to such information as is reasonably necessary to enable him to enforce his rights under the trust or to prevent or redress a breach of trust”).

Please be guided accordingly.

Jordan B. Yeager, for Curtin & Heefner LLP

Report from March 28, 2018 Spring Township Water Authority Board Meeting

From Kelli Hoover – Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition President

The Terms of Agreement that was passed around the room at the STWA meeting last night is NOT the Terms list the STWA voted on. It is an alternative vision written by a member of the NVEC as an ideal agreement that would include profit sharing with the public.

The Terms list APPROVED by the Spring Township Water Authority Board on February 28, 2018 as a non-binding agreement between STWA and Nestle is attached below.

As you can see, the approved Term Sheet gives the power to Nestle to breach the agreement with limited ability of STWA to terminate the agreement if that occurs.

It also  has no termination date, and it states that Nestle can take water up to the permit for Well-2 (PW-2, the Cerro well), which is permitted at 499,000 gallons/day, which is also the maximum allowed pumping rate for all wells combined (well 1 and well 2), according to the SRBC and DEP permits.

STWA Board Chairman Doug Weikel indicated last night that the STWA board is interested in the proposed Nestle contract because STWA needs the money to maintain the water system and fix leaks that have plagued them for many years.

We know from review of STWA minutes, that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has been commenting on STWA water loss rates from leaks since at least 2006.

STWA customers should ask Weikel and the other STWA board members:

1) How much would STWA need to raise rates to keep the water supply as a public resource for the residents and not sell water to Nestle? Would the rate be $5/1000 gallons? What would it take to fix leaks and maintain a healthy water supply without Nestle?

2) Will you hold a public hearing where you lay out transparently and clearly exactly what STWA is proposing as the agreement with Nestle?

Doug Weikel complained last night about a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts by opponents.

If STWA doesn’t tell the public what the facts are, there will be misinformation.

So post the well testing data for PW-2 online and make it free to the public and tell us the plan in detail.

They still have not done this and then wonder why people are skeptical of their motives and their plans.

Thanks to those who came last night. There were about 100 people there!

Similar info, by Katherine Watt, NVEC Vice-President

Standing room in the room, spilling out into the hallway.

I couldn’t see anything or hear very well, but I think the main info learned is that the water authority can’t afford to fix the leaks in their distribution system causing them to lose up to 30% of their water using ratepayer funds at current rates ($4.75 per thousand-gallons), so that’s why they immediately ran with Nestle’s proposal when Nestle came to them just after Halloween 2017, as the water authority was finalizing a decade-long process of drilling and permitting a second public well to be used as a backup source of supply (PW-2) for their existing customer base.

I don’t think the water authority board has ever notified their customers about the estimated total cost to repair the leaks in the system, the estimated rate per thousand-gallons that would enable those repairs to be done by the current ratepayers, or given the customers the opportunity to shoulder those higher rates in order to protect their water from privatization by Nestle or other bottling corporations.

The information about the rationale for the proposed Nestle contract suggests that a sensible resolution shouldn’t be too hard to reach.

We need to establish three things:

  1. How much money does STWA need to make those repairs?
  2. Are STWA ratepayers willing to pay to fix their own system and thereby keep Nestle out?
  3. How much are other people in Centre County willing to kick in to help Spring Township – and other similarly cash-strapped water systems – and thereby help keep Nestle and other bottling companies out?

It’s also interesting from a large trend perspective.

Municipal authorities were created in Pennsylvania to overcome taxpayer resistance to higher taxes for public services, back in the 1960s and 70s, by making a new revenue-generating scheme whereby “taxpayers” become “ratepayers,” paying money for public services operating like private businesses.

A shell game, to be sure.

Cue Phase 3.

Decades of underinvestment in public infrastructure…flat or declining household incomes, off-shoring and automation of jobs…flat or declining income and property tax revenue for municipalities and flat or declining revenue for rate-funded municipal authorities…inflation in costs for materials to repair the broken pipes, roads, buildings, bridges…

In come the private corporations to “help,” by offering to extract and export crucial public water resources, buying it at $4.75 per thousand-gallons, and selling it on the private market at $7,500 per thousand-gallons.

No-to-Nestle Campaign Updates – March 25, 2018

Our Community Our Water: Citizens speak out against Nestle Water’s proposed agreement with Spring Township Water Authority

  • What: Spring Township Water Authority meeting
  • When: March 28, 2018 at 7 pm
  • Where: 1309 Blanchard St., Bellefonte


Concerned Citizens of Pleasant Gap:

Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition


A legal team got together and has consulted with an attorney to represent us as we go forward with legal options for stopping the Nestle water extraction and bottling plant plans. The same attorney helped Kunkletown, PA in Eldred Township find a legal solution to get Nestle out of their community before they could get started, which took two years of litigation.


Door knocking continues today and tomorrow 1-5 pm in Spring Township to obtain petition signatures to say NO to Nestle, recruit volunteers and answer questions community members might have. If you are interested in helping, please contact Courtney Morris at or Lynne Heritage at


Volunteers needed! Can you volunteer to lead or serve on a team to help with the following efforts?

  1. Volunteer recruitment: Coordinate phone calls to people who signed up to volunteer at one of our events and ask them how they’d like to help.
  2. Data entry: Enter names and contact information for people in Spring Township that have signed the No to Nestle petitions into a Google spreadsheet (like using Excel).
  3. Door Knocking: A Spring Township resident who can organize people to knock doors in their Spring Twp neighborhood asking for petition signatures and/or drop flyers.
  4. Public information flyers: As time passes and new events occur, we need someone who can design new handouts to provide information to residents.


Lynne is ordering No to Nestle yard signs and will get them out to people who have signed up for a yard sign or want one in the future. They will cost about $5 per sign.


Source documents from Right to Know requests and other public sources can be found at the following link:

documents are roughly organized by source as listed in the right sidebar.


We strongly encourage residents of Spring Township to talk with your supervisors and/or Water Authority Board members in person to tell them how you feel about the plan to allow Nestle to take over as Primary user as one of your wells.

This will affect you whether you are a water customer or a private well owner, especially if you live in Spring Township, Bellefonte Borough or Potter Township.

Also, the Centre County Commissioners have been involved in facilitating Nestle’s plans and they need to hear from you as well if you are not happy about this. You can contact any of the people on this list below and get a meeting. It works best to have two or three people go together. Contact info below.

You could also write them a letter.


Email for all supervisors:

Spring Township Supervisors

  • Terry Perryman, Chair
  • David Capperella, Vice chair
  • Frank Royer

Spring Township Water Authority:

  • Doug Weikel, Chair – 1109 E. Springfield Drive, Bellefonte
  • Larry (Teko) Palchak – 602 Pine Ridge Circle, Bellefonte
  • Gary Catalano – 173 Arbor Bluff Drive, Bellefonte
  • Jason Martin – 141 Arbor Bluff Drive, Bellefonte
  • Nathan Barnhart – 105 Limestone Drive, Bellefonte

Barnhart is the one who abstained from voting on the non-binding Terms agreement at the February 28, 2018 STWA meeting, saying he did not have enough information since he is new to the board.

Benner Township Supervisors:

  • Randy Moyer, Chair
  • David Wise, Vice-Chair
  • Mark Capriani

Centre County Commissioners:

  • Mike Pipe, Chair
  • Mark Higgins –
  • Vice-Chair Steve Dershem –


Write a letter to the Editor of the Centre Daily Times, the Gazette, or other news source. Terry Melton is leading that effort and can help you with how to submit a letter and even write a draft for you to edit and submit. Contact her at


Attend and let your voice be heard during public comment period at meetings, or just come to support those who are there to speak against Nestle.

PLEASE attend the March 28 meeting of the Water Authority. The Spring Township Water Authority may vote on the Agreement with Nestle at that meeting and we need to be there to speak against it or at least support those who do.

The event on April 18 is also important. Lara Fowler is an expert in water law and will be mediating discussion among key stakeholders about the Nestle proposed water extraction plan.


All addresses in Bellefonte or Pleasant Gap

  • Wednesday, March 28, 7 pm, Spring Township Water Authority –Spring Township Building, 1309 Blanchard Street
  • Monday, April 2, 7 pm, Spring Township Board of Supervisors – Spring Township Building, 1309 Blanchard Street
  • Wednesday, April 18, 6:30 – 8:45, Water Resource Public Forum – Forum of stakeholders organized by
Spring Creek Watershed Commission. Moderated by Lara Fowler, PSU Law School. Location: Central PA Institute of Science and Technology 540 N. Harrison Road, Pleasant Gap
  • Wednesday, April 25, 7 pm, Spring Township Water Authority –Spring Township Building, 1309 Blanchard Street
  • Monday, May 7, 7 pm, Spring Township Board of Supervisors –Spring Township Building, 1309 Blanchard Street

Above information as 2-page PDF: 3.25.18 No to Nestle Update