In-depth update

NOTE: These issues will likely be on public meeting agendas for the COG General Forum on May 29, and the State College Borough Council on June 4.


SCBWA May 17 easement vote, UAJA financial/legal liability for public water contamination, and the power to make things better. – 5.21.18 Bailiwick News (PDF)

Continuation from 5.1.18 Bailiwick News and 5.7.18 Bailiwick News

UAJA Ratepayers On the Hook

UAJA insurance policy, received from Cory Miller on May 18, in response to RTK request May 15.

KW requested:

  1. Complete, unredacted each entity’s insurance policies, including any and all provisions voiding said policies if the insurer can prove misrepresentation, fraud and/or non-disclosure of risks and/or risk factor reports by the insured entity to the insurer, and/or negligence and/or gross negligence on the part of the insured party during engagement in project siting, design, review, endorsement, approval, permitting, financing, construction, operation and/or maintenance.
  2. Emails, letters, reports, meeting minutes and all other written records relating to legal identification of responsible party and assignment of financial liability for potential public water contamination related to a sewage pump station, sewage transmission pipelines and/or stormwater basins to be located on or adjacent to facilities and/or land owned and controlled by [the public entity] – such records created, transmitted by and/or received by your public entity between Jan. 1, 2015 and the present.

Re: Question 1, Cory Miller, UAJA Executive Director, provided the insurance policy:

UAJA Package Policy SEL 12-31-17

Re: Question 2, Miller replied:

“UAJA is always responsible for any environmental impact of any sewer infrastructure that we own.  To my knowledge, there are no records of the type requested, since who is responsible was never in question. ..UAJA will be the owner of all of the sewer mains within the development, and thus assumes all liability for those facilities. That does not include the customer service lines from the main to each building.  Those are owned and maintained by the property owner.  Thus, UAJA has no liability for those customer service lines.”

Gist:

UAJA and its ratepayers will be liable for any and all contamination of SCBWA water wells resulting from a sewage system malfunction, starting at the point where sewage enters the gravity mains on the TB and WRRP site from the small customer lines going to the residential units and the WRRP bathrooms.

TB and WRRP will be responsible for those individual customer lines, but UAJA will be liable for any incidents involving the gravity mains taking sewage to the pump station, for the pump station and wet well themselves, and for the force main taking the sewage up the hill, along Whitehall, to Stonebridge and on to the treatment plant.

More detailed analysis of the policy language: Bailiwick News, May 21, 2018

3-3 tie at SCBWA

Result of vote at State College Borough Water Authority May 17 meeting, on a motion to approve the easement requested by Toll Brothers, was a 3-3 tie, which had the effect of simply taking the issue off the table again. SCBWA did not grant the easement, so Toll Brothers currently does not have permission to install a sewage line on SCBWA land.

Votes to approve the easement were cast by Jeff Kern, Emory Enscore and Jason Grottini.

Votes to deny the easement were cast by Rachel Brennan, Bill Burgos and Bernie Hoffnar.

Gary Petersen was absent.

The motion could be reintroduced at an upcoming meeting, in June at the earliest.

More details to follow via Bailiwick News edition.

Concerned citizen digs into Toll Brothers sewage planning claims

Concerned citizen writes:

I read the most recent post regarding the upcoming SCBWA meeting and something got my attention.

The number of wastewater gallons referred to in the article (47,950 gallons per day/gpd) seemed a little suspicious to me given that the limit for DEP approval without public notice is 50,000 gallons.

I spent a few hours digging around and have determined that Toll Bros. left out a few key factors in their calculation, namely their outbuildings, offices, and swimming pool.

According to the UAJA updated flow rate sheet, the following amounts should have been included in the application to DEP:

Additional buildings including clubhouse and pool maintenance building equal to 19,499 sq. ft. according to the proposed plan.

UAJA counts one EDU per 3,000 feet of building = 6.5 EDU

If the clubhouse has showers, there should be an additional 2 EDU added.

Office space that employs fewer than 10 people should be included as 1 EDU.

The swimming pool should be calculated at 2 EDU per filter (I could not find information on the number of filters) but there is also a hot tub so probably two or more filters involved. In addition to the 2 per filter, swimming pool EDUs are added for the average number of patrons x 10 gpd.

There is an outdoor bar which, I assume has a water supply but I couldn’t find any info on how that would be calculated by UAJA.

The number of 5 bedroom units is total b.s. as the joint authority calculates all EDUs the same regardless of number of bedrooms.

This is very convenient for Toll Brothers.

These additional EDUs may or may not add up to 50,000 but either way, if their application is incorrect, it should be brought to the attention of the DEP.

The DEP website states that it will not review the applicants information for accuracy and relies on the truthfulness of the applicant. I think we all can agree that Toll is less than trustworthy.

I am attaching a few screen shots from my research.

Further:

The amount of gpd (175) that was used for calculation is coming from the UAJA rate sheet which is used to calculate utility cost.

However, Pennsylvania code calculates the rates of wastewater usage much differently.

For the purposes of building a new sewer or septic, the calculations are 100 gpd per person plus additional for out buildings, swimming pools, etc. [Editor’s Note: The citation is to state law for on-lot sewage systems, not connections to regional sewage treatment systems. Act 537 covers community wastewater treatment rules.]

This number – 1oo gpd –  is consistent with many other communities [i.e. Pittsburgh] and with the EPA estimate.

Here is the breakdown of units at The Cottages:

  • 1 bedroom apartments = 0
  • 2 bedroom = 17
  • 3 bedroom = 35
  • 4 bedroom = 126
  • 5 bedroom = 90

I would not put it past Toll Brothers to increase the number of high bedroom units knowing that no matter how many bedrooms, they are only required to count each apartment as 1 EDU….for the purposes of billing.

Now, considering that college students typically double and even triple up on occupancy and that PA code requires calculating 100 gpd of wastewater usage per person…the math is scary.

At 1,093 people, which is the total number of bedrooms, they are already at least double the volume of wastewater usage than what they reported to DEP. [1,093 x 100 gpd = 109,300 gpd to Cottages + WRRP sewage pump station, wet well and high-pressure force main]

If their bedrooms become double occupancy (very likely that many of them will) The Cottages sewer pump and new pipeline will need to handle 218,600 gallons of wastewater per day.

A pump that is built to handle just a fraction of that, only 47,950 gpd, doesn’t stand a chance.

And with no contingency plan in place in case of failure…you know the rest.

SCBWA board meeting Thursday at 4 p.m.

The State College Borough Water Authority board is likely to vote on an easement request submitted by Toll Brothers/PennTerra on Thursday, May 17 at 4 p.m. at 1201 West Branch Road. Public attendance and comment welcome.

Context information below.


Three risk assessments, five Right to Know requests, three DEP Sewage Planning Module documents, 28 facts and probabilities, with caveats, and three costly contamination scenarios.

Three risk assessments:

Five Right to Know requests, asking for:

  1. Complete, unredacted [SCBWA/UAJA/Ferguson Township/CRCOG/CRPRA] insurance policies, including any and all provisions voiding said policies if the insurer can prove misrepresentation, fraud and/or non-disclosure of risks and/or risk factor reports by the insured entity to the insurer, and/or negligence and/or gross negligence on the part of the insured party during engagement in project siting, design, review, endorsement, approval, permitting, financing, construction, operation and/or maintenance.
  2. Emails, letters, reports, meeting minutes and all other written records relating to legal identification of responsible party and assignment of financial liability for potential public water contamination related to a sewage pump station, sewage transmission pipelines and/or stormwater basins to be located on or adjacent to facilities and/or land owned and controlled by [the public entity] – such records created, transmitted by and/or received by your public entity between Jan. 1, 2015 and the present.

Three DEP Sewage Planning Module documents from 2015:

28 facts and probabilities, with caveats:

  1. The Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors, on November 16, 2015, granted final approval to a Planned Residential Development (PRD) land development plan for construction of a1,093-bed Cottages student housing development, on roughly 46 acres of land then owned by Penn State, but now owned by State College Apartments LLC.
  2. The approved Cottages land development plan did not include a sewage management system for the 1,093 students to be housed at the site.
  3. All but 5.5 acres of the 46 acres were, since 2004, zoned Multifamily Residential (R-4) and, as of November 16, 2015, all but 5.5 acres of the 46 acres were zoned PRD (Planned Residential Development). The remaining 5.5 acres were not made part of the PRD plan, but instead remain outside the PRD and remain zoned Rural Agricultural (RA).
  4. The Cottages development was designed with two large stormwater detention basins sited on those 5.5 acres that are not included in the Planned Residential Development zoning, and are zoned Rural Agricultural, but are still part of the parcel-complex owned by State College Apartments LLC.
  5. The municipal zoning violation – stormwater detention basins as a primary use on RA land – was the subject of a lawsuit (land use appeal) filed by Nittany Valley Water Coalition in December 2015. The Ferguson Township approval was overturned in July 2016 by Centre County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jonathan Grine. Judge Grine’s ruling was reversed in May 2017 by Pa. Commonwealth Court. The Pa. Supreme Court declined a petition for appeal in November 2017.
  6. Under the Terms and Conditions of the Cottages PRD approval by Ferguson Township on November 16, 2015, an executed Stormwater Management Agreement was to be signed and on file before approval of the PRD. As of April 9, 2018, Ferguson Township had no executed Stormwater Management Agreement on file.
  7. Under the Terms and Conditions of the Cottages PRD approval by Ferguson Township on November 16, 2015, sections regarding responsibility for stormwater management facilities refer only to facilities “within the PRD.” However, the two main stormwater management facilities (large detention basins) are located on 5.5 acres that are not “within the PRD.” This strongly suggests that the private owner of the Cottages PRD land (State College Apartments LLC) and their successors are not legally responsible for the maintenance, operation and damages from failure of the stormwater detention basins and resulting public water contamination.
  8. The Centre Region Parks & Recreation Authority submitted a Land Development Plan (LDP) to Ferguson Township for the Whitehall Road Regional Park several years ago. The LDP was withdrawn after several years of delays. There is currently no active LDP submitted to or under review by Ferguson Township. The CRPRA is currently working on design, permitting and construction plans to present to the Centre Region Council of Governments General Forum at General Forum’s late-May meeting.
  9. The WRRP land development is to be funded by taxpayers, through the Centre Region Council of Governments General Forum by way of the CRCOG Parks Capital Committee, through the Centre Region Parks & Recreation Authority, through a Fulton Bank loan.
  10. The Cottages land development is to be funded by private investors, through Toll Brothers, doing businesss as Springton Pointe, doing business as “State College Apartments LLC,” which was incorporated in Delaware on December 13, 2017, through registered agent “The Corporation Trust Agency,” headquartered at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, along with about 285,000 other shell corporations as of 2012, according to the New York Times: (“How Delaware Thrives as a Corporate Tax Haven,” June 30, 2012).
  11. After incorporation on December 13, 2017, State College Apartments LLC closed a transaction with Penn State University on December 21, 2017, purchasing the 46 acres for $13.5 million. The deed transfer was recorded December 22, 2017. It’s possible that State College Apartments LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary shell corporation of Penn State University formed to protect Toll Brothers from the financial risks of additional project delays; the names of the directors are not public information.
  12. PA-DEP and UAJA have both approved a “sewage planning module” related to the Cottages + Whitehall Road Regional Park sewage pump station and force main (i.e. uphill) sewage conveyance pipeline. As of February 2015 documents, the sewage pump station, wet well and pipeline were intended to process 46,900 gallons per day of raw sewage from the students living in the Cottages (268 EDUs @ 175 gpd), and 1,050 gallons per day of raw sewage from visitors to the Whitehall Road Regional Park (6 EDUs @ 175 gpd).
  13. The Cottages + WRRP Sewage Pump Station is not proposed to be constructed on private land owned by State College Apartments LLC.
  14. The Cottages + WRRP Sewage Pump Station is proposed to be constructed on public land owned jointly by Centre Region Council of Governments and Ferguson Township – on a portion of 100 acres slated for WRRP development, which is zoned Rural Agricultural (RA).
  15. It is possible – nay, likely – that the Cottages + WRRP Sewage Pump Station and sewage conveyance pipeline – with a combined capacity of 47,950 gallons per day, of which 2% is for park visitors and 98% is for Cottages residents – will be included in a forthcoming Land Development Plan submitted by the Centre Region Parks & Recreation Authority to Ferguson Township for the Whitehall Road Regional Park development.
  16. The Borough of State College has the sewage capacity and has in the past indicated a willingness to accept up to 1,050 gallons per day of WRRP sewage through a gravity (downhill) line conveying the public, park visitor sewage along Whitehall Road to an interceptor near the intersection of Waupelani and Whitehall and from there to the UAJA treatment plant off Shiloh Road.
  17. The Borough of State College has in the past indicated an unwillingness to accept the 46,900 gallons per day of student sewage from the Cottages, preferring to reserve large volume private-development sewage capacity for Borough development, rather than expend it on Ferguson Township development.
  18. Apparently sometime after the Pa. Supreme Court declined to review the Nittany Valley Water Coalition case in November 2017, and the present, the Centre Region Parks and Recreation Authority issued a letter to State College Apartments LLC/Toll Brothers/Springton Pointe and/or the project engineer, PennTerra Engineering, consenting to State College Apartments LLC siting the Cottages + WRRP Sewage Pump Station and associated pipeline on the public land owned jointly by CRCOG and Ferguson Township for the future public park.
  19. Ferguson Township was not notified of the CRPRA planned action or given an opportunity to review or approve the consent action taken by the Parks Authority board.
  20. There is no DEP public notice requirement for sewage systems proposed to increase sewage flows by less than 50,000 gallons per day.
  21. State College Apartments LLC/PennTerra will site, design, fund and construct the Cottages + WRRP Sewage Pump Station and force main conveyance pipeline.
  22. After construction, UAJA will own, operate and maintain the Cottages + WRRP Sewage Pump Station and force main conveyance pipeline.
  23. By email May 10, 2018 in response to a question about “the contingency plan if a sinkhole opens under or near the extra-large wet well at the Toll Brothers pumping station, and breaches the holding tank” upslope and near the two main SCBWA public drinking water supply wellfields (Harter and Thomas) UAJA Director Cory Miller replied: “UAJA does not have a contingency plan for a sinkhole opening under or near this pump station, or any other pump station.”
  24. By email May 11, in response to a question about “the contingency plan if a sinkhole opens under or near the extra-large wet well at the Toll Brothers pumping station, and breaches the holding tank” upslope and near the two main SCBWA public drinking water supply wellfields (Harter and Thomas), SCBWA Director Brian Heiser replied, “There is a plan to address sinkhole issues on the approved Cottages site plan. SCBWA would not necessarily shut down wells because of a sinkhole. Each case would be evaluated as needed.”
  25. State College Apartments LLC is currently seeking an easement from the State College Borough Water Authority board to construct the 4,200-foot force main sewage pipeline uphill and across the edge of 60 acres of SCBWA-owned land fronting Whitehall Road, along Whitehall Road to Stonebridge Drive. The easement would nullify a conservation deed restriction placed on the 60-acre parcel when Penn State sold it to SCBWA in 2008.
  26. All three parcels are topped by thin agricultural soils, underlain by bedrock and fragile – sinkhole and fracture-prone limestone karst
  27. A numbered drainage tributary (intermittent stream No. 23045) to Slab Cabin Run crosses all three parcels: the 46-acre Cottages parcel-complex (R-4 + RA-zoned), the 100-acre WRRP RA-zoned park parcel and the 60-acre SCBWA RA-zoned conservation parcel.
  28. The SCBWA board is likely to vote on the easement request on Thursday, May 17 at 4 p.m. at 1201 West Branch Road.

Three contamination scenarios:

Who will pay the costs of any public contamination resulting from the Cottages + WRRP land developments?

Scenario 1 – Pump station, wet well and force main completed, UAJA begins operations, sinkhole forms under wet well or wet well otherwise malfunctions due to poor siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance; raw sewage enters Harter Thomas wells, public water is contaminated, wells are shut down temporarily or permanently.

Scenario 2 – Pump station, wet well and force main completed, UAJA begins operations, pipeline conveying sewage across SCBWA land to Stonebridge Drive breaks or malfunctions, due to poor siting, design, construction, maintenance and/or operations, raw sewage enters Harter and Thomas wells, public water is contaminated, wells are shut down temporarily or permanently.

Scenario 3 – Stormwater basins completed, Toll Brothers or their successor begins operations/maintenance, sinkhole opens under basins or stormwater basins otherwise malfunction and overflow due to poor siting, design, construction, maintenance and/or operations; unfiltered runoff enters Harter and Thomas wells, public water is contaminated, wells are shut down temporarily or permanently.

Documents

Update – Sewage management planning for Toll Brothers development

State College Borough Water Authority preparing to vote on Toll Brothers April 2018 application for easement to construct sewage pipeline across SCBWA-owned, deed-restricted land. 

5.7.18 Bailiwick News (PDF)

The State College Borough Water Authority (SCBWA) Source Water Protection Committee will be reviewing a Toll Brothers easement application during a closed meeting on Tuesday, May 8.

The full SCBWA board will be voting on the easement application during a public meeting on Thursday, May 17.

Concurrently, Centre Region Parks and Recreation Director Pam Salokangas is preparing to give a status update on the Whitehall Road Regional Park (WRRP) planning process at the May 29 Centre Region Council of Governments (COG) General Forum meeting…

As today’s edition went to press, Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition was preparing a memo to the SCBWA Source Water Protection Committee supporting long-term reduction of public water contamination risks through two proposals.

First, NVEC will propose that the water authority board require – in exchange for SCBWA granting the easement – a legally-binding commitment by UAJA (as the operator of the sewage treatment facilities) and by Penn State, Toll Brothers and Ferguson Township/COG (as owners of the land in the immediate vicinity of the pump station) to forego any and all additional land development in the Zone 2 recharge areas apart from The Cottages and the Whitehall Road Regional Park Phase 1 plan.

If the water authority does not obtain such concessions, the SCBWA board’s action to approve the easement, coupled with the large capacity of the currently-designed sewage treatment facility, exposes the Harter and Thomas wells to the significant and cumulative risks of additional development in the recharge area, while undermining the intended purpose of the 2008 protective covenant.

Second, NVEC will propose that the water authority work with Ferguson Township, Centre Region Council of Governments, and the Centre Region Parks & Recreation Authority to reassign ownership of two parcels, so that the Whitehall Road Regional Park Phase 1 plan can be constructed on a portion of the more level, 60-acre parcel fronting Whitehall Road (currently owned by SCBWA).

If the swap were successful, the sloped, lower 100 acres currently owned by COG and Ferguson Township would be conserved for passive uses and sourcewater protection through reforestation, pollinator plantings, grassland carbon capture, and other ecologically restorative land uses.

Such a land swap has the potential to protect more fragile, more sloped land from excavation, grading and paving, while creating a regional opportunity to strengthen the regional growth boundary…

Partial Transcript – April 19, 2018 SCBWA Meeting

April 19, 2018 SCBWA meeting, transcript excerpts

5.1.18 Bailiwick News (PDF)

At the regular meeting of the State College Borough Water Authority on April 19, 2018, the authority board discussed two topics of particular relevance to community efforts to protect public water supplies at the Harter and Thomas wells and Slab Cabin Run – the focus of a grassroots citizen campaign that is now entering its fourth year.

One of the topics was the proposed Whitehall Road Regional Park, and the other was a proposed easement the water authority may grant to Toll Brothers to install a pipe across deed-restricted SCBWA land to convey sewage from a Penn State student housing development and the park to the University Area Joint (Sewer) Authority treatment plant off Shiloh Road.

Following is a transcription of two sections of the meeting video produced by C-Net.

The first section starts just after a presentation by Centre Region Parks and Recreation Director Pam Salokangas about the proposed Whitehall Road Regional Park, running from roughly minute 46 to minute 60. The second section runs from roughly 1:12 to 1:53. [Editorial notes in brackets.]…

Gary Petersen, SCBWA Board Member

And Cory, if for some reason we had some type of a failure at that site, how do you folks handle that and how quickly is the response?

Cory Miller, UAJA Director

Depends on how fast somebody calls us and lets us know that it’s happening. We do have notification at the pump station, so if we see a drastic change in pressure coming out that’s going through the SCADA [Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition] system, through the, it’s just like your water pumps, so if we see a drastic change in pressure we know something’s wrong out there.

So somebody would get out there. It’s about a 20-minute drive from the plant, for somebody to get out there.

Keep in mind the wet well also has capacity in it. There’s storage capacity in the wet well that we have required and actually overdesigned, so that there’s enough capacity in there so that we have time to deal with these things. So if the force main breaks, we can shut off the force main, shut off the pumps, and fill it into the wet well and simply truck the sewage out of there while we’re working on the force main.

So there should not be a significantly long period of time where you would have sewage going into the ground and into the aquifer. We should be able to detect that pretty quickly, meaning, within an hour or two after it starts. That’s how quick we should be able to fix it meaning stop it, stop the flow, then go out and assess what broke. Did the pipe split? Did a joint fail? Did somebody hit the pipe?

Gary Petersen

So from your experience, with these kinds of failures, you can respond pretty quickly. Has there been any long-term damage, or any damages from past failures? Or is it something we’re overreacting to?

Cory Miller

So, force mains, in the engineering world there’s no such thing as 100% foolproof. There’s always a risk. So a good example of the risk in what happens is our Scott Road pump station. So it’s another long force main coming up from Pine Grove Mills. That force main has broken. It failed at a joint and it failed at another spot where it wasn’t a joint. So we had two opp–, two times where that pump station failed.

It was diagnosed relatively quickly. The first time it took a little bit longer because it was in the middle of a snowstorm and we couldn’t find the spot. We knew something was going on but we couldn’t find it. It took a little bit longer but during that period of time we were hauling the sewage up the hill. So we had pump trucks hauling it up there.

The second time we noticed it fairly quickly because again, we noticed it on the SCADA system, that the pressure at the pumps was way out of whack. Why was it out of whack? The only reason it can be out of whack is because something stuck in the line or the line broke. So we found it and fixed it.

Those — that line also happens to be within your Zone 2 wellhead contribution area.

Jeff Kern, SCBWA Board Chair

Right. Exactly.

Cory Miller

And that is not the type of pipe that – it is the PVC pipe. So that’s why we think it’s better with the HDPE pipe. If we had that one to do all over again we would be putting in HDPE pipe…

Reminder – Spring Creek Watershed Commission Forum Tomorrow

Spring Creek Watershed Commission Forum on Understanding and Stewarding Water Quantity and Quality in the Spring Creek Watershed 

Date/Time/Location for Facilitated Forum:

Overview:

The Spring Creek Watershed Commission offered to convene a forum on understanding and stewarding water quantity and quality in the Spring Creek watershed. The purpose of this forum is to bring people together to identify issues and think about what the future might look like for the Spring Creek watershed. This initial forum will help set the stage for additional work in 2018 and beyond on a watershed plan for Spring Creek.

All are welcome; if you are planning to attend, please RSVP online to ensure we have enough seats, handouts, and food.

This will be a facilitated forum led by Professor Lara Fowler and her law students who are enrolled in an environmental mediation course at Penn State Law. They will be conducting a series of interviews in advance of the forum; if you are interested in talking with them, please contact Lara Fowler at lbf10@psu.edu.

Draft Agenda (subject to change):

6:30 PM – Welcome, Pledge of Allegiance- Denny Hameister, Chair, Spring Creek Watershed Commission

6:40 PM – Purpose of forum, review breakout group process- Lara Fowler, Penn State Law

6:50 PM – Facilitated breakout groups- facilitated by Penn State Law students

  1. What issues or challenges do you see for the future of the Spring Creek watershed?
  2. What is your vision for Spring Creek watershed in 10-15 years?
  3. What steps might be needed to get from where we are now to where you would like the watershed to be in the future?
  4. What does watershed planning look like to you, and how do you or others want to be involved in the watershed?
  5. Other?

7:50 PM – Report back from breakout groups, discussion

8:30 PM – Discussion of next steps

8:45 PM – Wrap up

Opportunity to Participate Online Through Placespeak

In addition, we have created a way for people to participate in these questions through Placespeak.

Follow the instructions for creating a profile and logging into the discussion.

Contact information and data gathered through this online process will be used only to invite you to further discussions and to inform the Watershed Commission’s future watershed planning process.

Nestle not taking over Spring Township PW-2

Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition & Sierra Club Moshannon Group Press Release

April 17, 2018  – Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition and the Sierra Club Moshannon Group wish to thank our community for standing with us against Nestle Waters’ proposed plan to take millions of gallons of water from our aquifer and ship it out of the Spring Creek Watershed. Nestle reported yesterday that “… we have decided not to proceed with STWA [Spring Township Water Authority] Well 2 and instead to continue to look for sources elsewhere.”

Nestle’s decision is a victory for democracy.

If Nestle should attempt to take water from our aquifer elsewhere in Centre County, we will be there to fight back.

Contact: Terry Melton, NVEC, 814-883-8154, terrymelton321@gmail.com


Eric Andreus’ Press Release

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Andreus,Eric,Breinigsville, NWNA T&P MID Springs <Eric.Andreus@waters.nestle. com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018, 4:31:01 PM EDT
Subject: Nestlé Waters project update

Good afternoon,

Over the past year, Nestlé Waters has revised the process of how we approach sourcing spring water. Guided by our new Siting Framework, we approached the Spring and Benner Township community much earlier in our due diligence process than we typically have in the past. At the same time, we continued to conduct our due diligence and water source evaluation.

We have spent the last few months in the early stages of our thorough scientific review to evaluate whether Spring Township Water Authority Well 2 had the potential to become a water source for our Deer Park® brand. As part of that review, we consider many factors, including the quality and taste of the water, what the science tells us about the hydrogeology and sustainability of the site, the local watershed, the logistics of transporting the product to the market, and much more.  Our rigorous process means that we evaluate far more potential sources than we ever decide to use. The majority do not meet our needs.  At this point in the process of considering the source, we have decided not to proceed with STWA Well 2 and instead to continue to look for sources elsewhere.

We sincerely appreciate that many people in the community welcomed us so warmly and embraced our proposed project. This support is one of many reasons that Centre County remains a leading candidate in our search for a third Pennsylvania bottling factory location, with 50 jobs and an initial investment of $50 million.

We remain optimistic that we can find a source here in northern Centre County so that we can bring jobs and investment to the area in the near future. We will continue to be available in our Centre County office and by phone and email, and we hope that residents who know about other potential spring sites we should consider will reach out to us.

Please feel free to reach out to me in the coming days and weeks. We remain hopeful that there will be another opportunity to do business in this community in the future, and I look forward to continuing to work with community leaders to make that happen.

Sincerely,

Eric Andreus, P.G., Natural Resource Manager, Deer Park Natural Spring Water, Nestle Waters North America


Centre Daily Times