Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan – Update

6.25.18 NVEC SCWAP Press Release (PDF)

PRESS CONTACT: David Roberts, Working Group Chair, Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition Working Group for Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan (SCWAP), 814-769-0550, nvec2018@gmail.com

Position Statement: Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan

Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition strongly supports the Spring Creek Watershed Commission’s efforts to update and complete a Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan. An early phase of this integrated watershed management plan was last updated in 2003. [2003 Spring Creek Watershed Plan – Phase 1 Report (PDF); 2.6.17 Spring Creek Watershed Plan Executive Summary (PDF)]

We further strongly encourage all interested watershed stakeholders to participate in the Commission’s Tuesday, July 10, 2018 meeting to kick off the process of updating and completing the Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan, to be held at 6:30 p.m. at the Calvary Baptist Harvest Fields building at 150 Harvest Fields Drive, Boalsburg. (Entrance is via Discovery Drive off Business Route-322).

Spring Creek Watershed Commission asks participants to register by Tuesday, July 3.

Summary:

The Spring Creek Watershed needs an integrated watershed management plan[1], defined by the international Global Water Partnership as: “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.”

Regional and municipal governments and authorities were established to protect public health and safety, including protection and conservation of public water resources.

But recent public disagreements, incursions of development into sensitive, protected areas, aging infrastructure with excessive water loss, and a lack of cooperation between townships demonstrate the urgent need for a science-based regional watershed management plan.

The current actions by the Spring Creek Watershed Commission present a great opportunity for our communities and our representatives to work together to craft an enforceable watershed management plan.

Open and inclusive public involvement is key to project success.

Our understanding is that drafting, adoption and enforcement of a Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan is a multi-phase, multiyear process in which public and stakeholder information and discussion sessions are crucial, bringing people together to discuss, analyze, and resolve water use issues and challenges. Stakeholders include decision-makers and key water advocacy organizations, and the public includes everyone living in the watershed.

Phase 1 – Includes public meetings to clarify our community understanding of the entire system – public water supplies and natural aquatic systems – as one integrated system; to study and evaluate water system risks from land development and from climate-driven impacts; to develop general action plans to protect and conserve existing water resources from further degradation; and to develop action plans – including a water budget – designed to measurably improve and restore streams, wetlands, aquatic ecosystems and water-dependent terrestrial populations, including but not limited to humans.

Phase 2 – Includes development of specific “green” and “blue-green” infrastructure projects[2]; funding mechanisms for those infrastructure projects; and adoption of the final Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan by the participating municipalities and municipal authorities such as the State College Borough Water Authority and the University Area Joint (Sewer) Authority.

Phase 3 – Includes updating municipal codes with enforceable legislation and policies – such as zoning code updates and stormwater management ordinance updates – to implement the Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan at the municipal and municipal authority level.

Some aspects of a watershed plan will be enforceable as soon as the regional plan is adopted by the participating municipalities and municipal authorities, and before adoption of specific implementing local regulations, through state oversight of local development proposals by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA-DEP) under legislative statutes.

For example, a complete, adopted regional Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan would be considered “Local Planning” under Act 537, related to sewage management, which requires all proposed sewer projects to serve existing and proposed land development projects to be assessed for consistency with local planning.  Similarly, the interstate Susquehanna River Basin Commission would likely refer to a complete, adopted Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan when evaluating consumptive use permit applications such as the Nestle bottling facility proposed earlier this year.

Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition therefore asks for citizen support and engagement in the drafting and adoption a regional Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan; in the drafting and adoption of appropriate local municipal legislative and regulatory plan-implementing actions; and in oversight and enforcement of the adopted plan and implementing legislation by local, county, state and inter-state governmental agencies in the years to come.

Our Water is Vulnerable

Centre County has limited, vulnerable water supplies.

The need to protect and conserve our public water resources is growing more urgent from the real threats we face including:

  • Risk of depletion of local water supplies and lowering of water tables
  • Increased potential for groundwater contamination
  • Projections of drought, flooding and other severe weather effects of climate change. For example, droughts reduce the available water stored in the aquifers, heat surface waters and reduce stream flow.  Flooding scours streambeds, damages infrastructure, destroys aquatic habitat, and transports contaminants into water supplies.
  • Development upon sensitive aquifer recharge areas
  • Fragile health of Spring Creek water basin
  • Loss of forested water recharge areas
  • Degradation of riparian stream systems
  • Reduction of flow to named and diffuse fresh water springs
  • Reduction of gaining stream inflow
  • Increased groundwater withdrawals
  • Reduction of cold water habitat for native trout
  • Increased surface and stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces
  • Growing wastewater treatment needs
  • Aging infrastructure

Centre County will continue to face demands to tap our water resources and proposals to expand development into sensitive and fragile watershed areas.

State and local water-protection laws and systems are weak

The Pennsylvania Constitution states that:

“The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. 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.” (Pa. Constitution, Article I, Section 27).

However, our water laws are mostly based on old common law precedents and common law court decisions with few statutory provisions from our state legislators.

These common law precedents did not envision the impacts, challenges and opportunities presented in the 21st Century.

In addition, Pennsylvania generally follows the “American Rule” on water use. However, “The American rule is not designed to deal with conflict between competing users or with drought conditions. Its provisions usually mean that those with the deepest wells and most powerful pumps get the most water.” (State Water Plan, 1976; Weston, 1990).

The 1996 League of Women’s Voters PA water law summary identified a number of problems with Pennsylvania’s laws including:

  • no mechanisms to address potential problems for our future water needs
  • no guarantee that our water rights will continue undiminished
  • no provision for resolution (other than litigation) of competing water uses
  • no provision for increased per capita demand for water
  • no provision for conservation of water
  • no provision for dealing with increase of conflicts during droughts
  • a fragmented system of water management.

Our local existing water management plans are also weak and unenforceable. Centre County has around 48 separate water authorities with independent water management systems and decision-making policies.

Municipal code provisions are fragmented across township boundaries and are failing to function as representative of the general public good with regard to our water resources, which are physically shared across political boundaries.

How a Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan can help.

An integrated watershed management plan will provide an equitable, science-based framework for towns and municipal authorities within the Spring Creek Watershed to manage these threats and to implement the decision-making processes necessary for the conservation, protection, and beneficial use of our public water into the next century.

A successful integrated water plan is a pathway forward and the means for our government representatives to make fair, common sense decisions while considering the water needs of all local stakeholders – including human and other terrestrial animal populations and aquatic ecosystems.

Ideally, the plan will protect our water while helping to avoid potential disagreements between the public, businesses, and our local decision-makers on water management issues.

The benefits of a strong, clear, enforceable regional Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan – and local implementing legislation – include:

  • Availability of fresh, potable water for Centre County’s many and diverse needs
  • A clear approval mechanism for water use
  • Integration of water management across township and municipal boundaries
  • Protection and conservation of watershed basins
  • Proper management of public water resources
  • Equity for shared stakeholders
  • Funding mechanism for infrastructure maintenance and expansion,
  • Restoration and improvement of currently degraded natural aquatic habitats
  • Preservation of recharge areas
  • Increased tourism revenues
  • Enhancement of community recreational opportunities
  • Science based monitoring systems to measure benchmarks and progress
  • Plans to counter potential drought and flood conditions
  • Clearly defined and established goals
  • A mechanism to assure abundant water resources for the next 50 years.

For more information or to get involved with NVEC’s work supporting a Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan, please contact David Roberts, Working Group Chair, NVEC Working Group for Spring Creek Watershed Integrated Management Plan, at the contact information listed above.

[1] For a general overview of integrated water management, check out this page at AmericanRivers.org.

[2] From Wikipedia: Green Infrastructure or blue-green infrastructure refers to projects that help “solve urban and climatic challenges by building with nature. The main components…include stormwater management, climate adaptation, less heat stress, more biodiversity, food production, better air quality, sustainable energy production, clean water and healthy soils, as well as the more anthropocentric functions such as increased quality of life through recreation and providing shade and shelter in and around towns and cities.”

For a lengthy list of additional informational resources, please download the full press release PDF document: 6.25.18 NVEC SCWAP Press Release

IMPORTANT WATERSHED MEETING JULY 10 in BOALSBURG

The Spring Creek Watershed Commission invites watershed stakeholders to the first of several stakeholder’s meetings to begin the update for the Spring Creek Watershed Plan Management Plan, “Our Challenges and Direction for the Future.”

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 10th, from 6:30 to 9 PM at Calvary Harvest Fields in Boalsburg.

The goal of this update is to examine The Spring Creek Watershed Plan Phase I Final Report — 2003 Spring Creek Watershed Plan – Phase 1 Report (PDF); 2.6.17 Spring Creek Watershed Plan Executive Summary (PDF) — to delete obsolete information, refresh and upgrade data, add new relevant information, incorporate government roles in addressing watershed issues that create legislative mandates and municipal undertaking relevant to preserving and improving the quality of the Spring Creek Watershed. (Emphasis added)

Spring Creek Watershed Commission values community input on this integrated watershed management plan and hopes many community members will attend. 

Details on how to register will be forthcoming in the next couple of weeks.

In the meantime, please mark this meeting on your calendars.

Spring Creek Watershed Commission is  looking forward to valuable community input and asks people to please reach out via email to springcreekwatershedcommission@gmail.com  with any questions or concerns.

Please come to the meeting with a general understanding of the Phase I report.

EDITOR’S NOTE: 

The Executive Summary is an excellent history of the project, compiled by Bill Sharp in February 2017, explaining that the watershed management planning process stalled in 2003 due to lack of funding and community engagement.

With renewed community engagement thanks to the Toll Brothers/PSU attack on the SCBWA Harter-Thomas wellfield recharge areas along Whitehall Road, and the Nestle approach to the Logan Branch sub-basin for water extraction, bottling and export, now is a great time to push the plan forward to create stronger community tools for protecting water.


Executive Summary:

The Spring Creek Watershed Plan Phase 1 Final Report: Our Challenges and A Direction for the Future

Compiled by Bill Sharp, Chair, Spring Creek Watershed Association, February 6, 2017 and reviewed by core members of the Association.

The Spring Creek Watershed Plan was a project of the Spring Creek Watershed Commission. It was funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, facilitated by ClearWater Conservancy and supported by the Centre County Commission. It was compiled by two full-time ClearWater watershed staff and a Project Management Team. It was completed in 2003.

The list of major stakeholders involved included: ClearWater Conservancy, the Centre County Planning Office, the Centre Regional Planning Agency, University Area Joint Authority, the State College Borough Water Authority, the fourteen individual municipalities, the Spring Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Centre County Conservation District, The Pennsylvania State University, and others.

The stated objective of this phase of the Watershed Plan was “to distill numerous existing plans, research, and data into a clear and concise statement of the challenges facing the watershed and recommend ways that its citizens can meet these challenge in the future.”

The Project Team chose a focused approach resulting in a Challenge – Solution Matrix and supporting narrative. The Matrix sought to identify water resource challenges, potential solutions and in separate columns:

  • Solutions already studied, with referenced publications listed in appendices.
  • Solution needs to be further developed.
  • Opportunity to solve past problems.
  • Opportunity to solve future problems.

The four major components of the Matrix include:

  • Surface water with two main sections: Natural drainages and engineered drainages. Engineered drainage is tied directly to increasing developing and rising population.
  • Groundwater also has two components: Recharge and discharge related to a karst environment.
  • Water supply: Understanding the implications maintaining clean and plentiful drinking water and the challenges of wastewater treatment. Beneficial Reuse was highlighted as a concept that links treatment and consumption by recharging the aquifer.
  • Land Use decisions effect the potential quality of our water resources. There are also existing issues from past decisions that need to be addressed.

The Phase I report includes a narrative section for each of these four major components. Each section presented a number of challenges and potential solutions.

Water Resource Monitoring Project (WRMP):

Since 1998 the Spring Creek Watershed Community has been monitoring the Spring Creek watershed according to a protocol designed by a committee of local water resource experts. This effort continues to the present day. The WRMP has been a mainstay for the greater Watershed Community[1].

A Look to the Future:

Authorization of an effective implementing agency and ensuring sustainable funding will be instrumental in addressing the watershed’s challenges and ensuring the protection of all the interrelated components of our water resource system.

There are four appendices:

  1. Spring Creek Watershed Plans and Studies (17 listed to date of report).
  2. Watershed Plans and Integrated Water Resource Plans from other Watershed (22 items). A location map is provided for plans located in Pennsylvania.
  3. Watershed Related Studies and Resources (16 items)
  4. USGS Conceptual Model Report (Page blank: To be attached as a separate document).

In summary, the Project Team reported that the Phase I study was an important learning experience that “led to a change in overall watershed planning philosophy and the methods that the community will employ to carry out the next steps of the Spring Creek Watershed Planning and Implementation process.”

This was the Matrix.

A vision for continuing the planning and implantation process was outlined (for 2004). The Project team recommended:

  1. Project Selection: The Spring Creek Watershed Commission to prioritize and select the projects to advance to completion as Phase 2 of the Watershed Plan[2].
  2. Implementation: May require additional research, planning, communication, development of tools or processes, identification of funding source and project partner, and most critically, the project’s implementation in the watershed.
  3. Communication: Proposed that the Spring Creek Watershed Community (now Spring Creek Watershed Association) be made “the vehicle to facilitate communication of watershed issues and coordinate watershed-based projects.” It noted that there was currently staffing located at ClearWater Conservancy. It also noted that members of the Spring Creek Watershed Community were already exploring more efficient and effective ways to reach out to watershed stakeholders, evolving from the current Springs & Sinks publication and the website.

Two additional phases were planned:

  • Phase II: Watershed Plan Development (January 2004 – June 2005
  • Phase III: Watershed Plan Implementation (Beyond 2005)

Closing Notes:

DEP discontinued funding for the project. Administrative support for the Watershed Community declined after 2003. The last issue of Spring & Sinks was published November 2003 and discontinued due to lack of funding. The Water Resources Monitoring Program has continued to maintain files of documentation related to the watershed but there has been relatively less reporting of this activity.

The 2003 Watershed Plan document represented the culmination of nearly eight years of work by committed stakeholders in the Spring Creek Watershed Community under the leadership of the Spring Creek Watershed Commission.

Since then there has been a remarkable amount accomplished by major stakeholders which the Spring Creek Twentieth Anniversary Celebration Project (2016) documented and made public.

The Phase I Plan is a sound foundation document. However, thirteen years have lapsed since the completion of this project. Economic development and population in the watershed has actually increased beyond forecast and is expected to continue. Financial and administrative support have been lacking to continue development of the Plan and provide systematic management of the watershed.

With the hiring of Spring Creek Watershed Conservation Coordinator (Lexi Orr) by the Watershed Commission, a degree of administrative capacity has been restored and interest is building to move forward on the Watershed Plan.

[1] “Watershed Community” refers to not only the Watershed Commission and Association and ClearWater Conservancy but also to all entities that have an active interest in managing Spring Creek water resources.

[2] A list of priorities was developed by the Watershed Commission at a public meeting in March 2004.

Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition Summer Projects

NVEC SUMMER PROJECTS

Info from June 1, 2018 NVEC meeting

NVEC has established five working groups for Summer 2018 projects, with one or two point people for each.

Readers interested in getting more information and/or helping with these projects, please email our main address: nvec2018@gmail.com

The five projects are:

a) Stormstown/Halfmoon Township small area plan (threat to convert 1,000+ acres of farmland to housing.

b) Toll Brothers/Whitehall Road Regional Park issues – see below for some short updates.

c) Nestle fight – tracking whether and where Nestle makes additional attempts in Centre County.

d) Regional Integrated Water Resource Management Plan development and advocacy.

e) Right to Know workshop and possible “Environmental Regulations as they Affect Centre County Issues” workshop – see below for more information about the latter.

BRIEF TB/WRRP UPDATE

At the June 1 meeting, NVEC also had a discussion about Toll Brothers, Whitehall Road Regional Park, and sewage management.

Dave Stone announced that State College Borough Council would be discussing the sewage management options at their Monday, June 4 meeting and that it would be helpful if people came to either speak or support speakers, who would be asking Borough Council to vote to direct Borough staff to engage in discussions with developers about conducting a capacity study related to sending the sewage to the Waupelauni/Whitehall intersection in State College, rather than the Stonebridge/Whitehall intersection in Ferguson Township.

This is related to the issue of how having the large pump station below the proposed WRRP opens up the whole valley for additional development, and trying to prevent that.

We also discussed the need for NVEC reps to ask the State College Borough Water Authority board during public comment:

1) What will be the effect on water customer rates of the TB/WRRP developments? and

2) How much volume of water does SCBWA anticipate the TB/WRRP project will consume?

The second question is related to the varying estimates of the sewage volume to be managed by the new pump station. Estimates range between about 48,000 gallons per day (used by TB and accepted by UAJA and DEP) and 220,000 gallons per day, depending on the calculation formulas used. The highest estimates use 100 gpd per person, and assume that many students will double-up to have two students occupy some of the 1,093 bedrooms TB plans to construct.

At the June 4, 2018 State College Borough Council meeting, council discussed the issues, and then voted 4-1 to approve a motion by Evan Myers directing staff to reach out to all relevant parties (Toll Brothers, UAJA, SCBWA and/or Ferg. Twp.) to find out, as a preliminary question, whether Toll Brothers is interested in exploring the possibility of running the sewage pipe the shorter distance to State College collection system at Waupelauni and Whitehall instead of running it more than a mile to the UAJA collection system in Ferguson Township at Stonebridge and Whitehall.

The proposed conversations with TB might also include the question of whether TB is willing to pay up to $175,000 or so to conduct a capacity study for the State College Borough sewage collection and conveyance system (the pipes) and, if it turns out capacity expansions are necessary, whether TB would pay for those.

Borough Council did not allocated any funding. It was mostly a matter of directing staff to find out where TB stands on the issues.

  • Votes in favor: Myers, Engeman, Lafer, Murphy.
  • Votes against: Dauler
  • Absent: Brown and Barlow.

Many NVEC members and/or non-member supporters showed up to speak or support speakers, including Dorothy, Don, Bernie, Dave Stone, Scott, Art, Karl, Mark H., Dee, Heather, and others.

For readers interested in watching the discussion and vote on C-Net, it ran from approximately 7:55 to about 8:35 p.m.

STATE & FEDERAL REGULATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO CENTRE COUNTY ISSUES

At the June 1 NVEC meeting, Mark Huncik gave a presentation about two Centre County air quality case studies he’s been involved with, over the last seven years or so.

One case study is the West Campus Steam Plant at Penn State, and its conversion from coal to natural gas/lowering of the emissions stacks/planned addition of electricity generation CT/HRSG boilers at the same time as a construction boom in high-rise apartment buildings in downtown State College.

Long story short, the combination is degrading local air quality by bouncing emissions from the plant off the high-rises and onto the ground in a few “hot spots” downtown.

The other case study is updates and expansions at the UAJA wastewater treatment plant near the Nittany Mall, and their relationship to odor complaints at new housing developments in that area as development moves closer to the sewage treatment facility while the volume of sewage increases with more development in the whole Sewer Service Area (high-rises downtown plus sprawl in the suburbs) and bump-outs of the Regional Growth Boundary.

Dave Stone also explained how Penn State is simultaneously planning a $40-$50 million expansion of the University Drive PSU sewage treatment plant to handle more sewage flow from campus, without reference to odor and air quality impact assessments in the areas around the PSU sewage plant.

NVEC decided to organize some public workshops on “Local, State and Federal Environmental Regulations & How they Affect Centre County Environmental Issues,” to educate the community more about the air quality issues Mark works on, along with water and land issues.

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 Public Well 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

Contacting 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