Post by lifesaver on Nov 15, 2013 9:10:12 GMT -5
This was on the front page of yesterday's Times. Posting the article here in case you missed it. Note the bolded statements and comments. 
Now, I have no opinion one way or the other about the pipeline, but I damn sure want everyone to see two people who will try to do everything in their power to prevent progress in our county. What's really hilarious is that these two buffoons were part of the group whose one argument against the casino was LACK OF WATER. And hey geniuses, as far as I know a chicken is an animal and therefore a farming operation with chickens could be defined as agricultural, and BTW lack of adequate water supply was argued as an issue here as well. Rant over.
Critics testify against 'big pipe' proposal
BY JIM HALE Times Staff Writer | Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:07 am
Eight speakers offered fiscal, political, and environmental arguments against a proposal to interconnect the Gettysburg and York water systems Wednesday afternoon during a hearing convened by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC).
Speakers asked the SRBC to reject or delay consideration of a proposed "big pipe" that would link the York Water Company and Gettysburg Municipal Authority (GMA). The former draws from Codorus Creek in the Susquehanna watershed, while GMA's area drains partly into the Potomac River basin.
No one spoke in favor of the proposal during the 75-minute session at the state Capitol in Harrisburg. It was attended by SRBC staffers and Andrew Zemba, Pennsylvania's second alternate member of the SRBC, which may make a decision Dec. 12 in Annapolis, Md.
"If you were a ratepayer in Gettysburg right now, would you want to pay for water you didn't need?" Al Ferranto asked, testifying on his own behalf and not in his role as a Cumberland Township supervisor.
Those who testified repeated numerous facts and contentions, including:
- GMA's current capacity exceeds peak use.
- Current GMA ratepayers should not be asked to underwrite "speculative" future development.
- The GMA board does not include representatives from Cumberland and Straban townships, though a potential board expansion is pending.
- Joint planning efforts among the borough and the two townships are just beginning and need time to work.
- Less expensive alternatives such as increasing water storage capability are possible
- Additional development is incompatible with Adams County's economic mainstays of heritage tourism and agriculture.
- The SRBC should hold a hearing during evening hours in Adams County so more residents can speak.
The proposal is "insane" in terms of water quality and conservation, said York City Council member Michael Helfrich, who was not testifying for the council, but as "riverkeeper" for the Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna.
"It's preposterous, the exact opposite of any kind of water conservation we're trying to promote," Helfrich said, adding that officials told him Codorus Creek's water was orange recently because its flow was too low to dilute industrial pollution. Reducing the flow further by diverting water to the GMA would make no sense, he said.
Sue Naugle testified that, as a GMA board member, she cast the lone vote in June against renewing the big pipe application initiated in 2006. In the intervening years, she said, the housing boom crashed, a casino for Adams County was rejected, and well capacity was increased. The GMA system's capacity is 3.5 million gallons per day (GPD), she said, the "safe yield" to be expected from wells and Marsh and Rock creeks is nearly 2.9 million GPD, peak use is 1.7 million GPD, and average use is 1.2 million GPD. Even during this summer's 150th battle anniversary there were no problems, she said. The big pipe's multi-million cost would be borne by ratepayers who are primarily in the landlocked borough, while significant development is only possible in surrounding townships. The proposal has "huge consequences" for the borough and townships, Naugle said, and local officials need more time to study the matter collaboratively. She is also a Gettysburg Borough Council member, but was not speaking for that body.
It's not just "anti-development rabble-rousers" who are concerned about development that could "engulf" the county's historic and agricultural "identity," said former Highland Township Supervisor Joe Breighner, who noted that 75 percent of the county's voters approved a bond issue for land preservation in 2008. He warned against "subsidizing future land speculation" because "if you build it, they will come."
Newly elected Cumberland Township Supervisor James Paddock said his successful campaign included his expertise as a landscape architect and land planner to balance development and the area's small-town, agricultural character. Also citing the 2008 bond issue vote and other preservation efforts, Paddock said the county's people are "oriented to protect" the land rather than see "urban sprawl" "detract and degrade" it, he said.
Cumberland resident Charles Skopic called the big pipe "a solution for which there is no present or foreseeable problem" and recommended that the SRBC let the proposal lie dormant for another seven years, or at least until inter-municipal planning efforts now underway have a chance to reach completion. Whatever happens to a historic site like Gettysburg will reflect on the nation and state, Skopic said, urging the SRBC to "think about future generations."
Pat Naugle, who testified before the SRBC on the previous big pipe application in 2007 and is a member of water-related advisory panels, noted that a state-mandated critical area resource plan for the watersheds of Marsh and Rock creeks recommends water importation as an option. However, he said, the plan also includes many other recommendations such as groundwater protection ordinances, local well construction standards, and land preservation easements that ought to be considered first. He noted that Adams County is actually ahead of the rest of the state in terms of local water planning, and said such foresighted "stewardship" is a better option than the proposed water diversion.
Helfrich echoed Naugle. "Ten years ago, I would not have imagined Adams County would be this forward-thinking in their water planning," Helfrich said. "As a rural county, this is some of the most advanced planning for water resources that I've seen throughout the commonwealth." Helfrich also expressed concern that the big pipe would facilitate development that would increase runoff and damage water quality. He too called for the SRBC to "take a step back" and allow more time for study.
Paul Kellett said he is no "treehugger" but a real estate agent and developer in Adams County who opposes the big pipe because, according to his extensive calculations, GMA could serve another 10,000 homes with its current capacity. For far less money than the big pipe would cost, he said GMA could maintain "water independence" and guarantee itself a steady supply even in times of low creek flow by constructing a storage reservoir. He also said approving the proposal in order to support potential development rather than to provide for demonstrated current need would "set a dangerous precedent" for the SRBC.
The application approved by the GMA board in June would permit it to import up to 2 million gallons GPD from York, with purchases to begin at 125,000 GPD and increase according to need. In addition to addressing growth, Utilities Manager Mark Guise said in June, the additional supply would also provide reserve capacity should problems or increased regulation affect wells or Marsh Creek. The interconnection could also facilitate reduced use of wells, allowing natural replenishment of the aquifer that feeds them, he said.
Building the pipeline could cost $2.5 to $3 million, resulting in a 20- to 30-year bond issue and the addition of perhaps $10 to the average quarterly bill, Guise told the Gettysburg Borough Council's Public Works Committee in July. In addition, he said then, the logical route of the pipeline along U.S. 30 matches the likely location of development that would contribute to increased demand. York would build westward from the New Oxford area, GMA would build eastward from near Cavalry Field Road, and the two would meet near the boundary of Straban and Mount Pleasant townships near Kilpatrick Road, Guise said, estimating GMA's portion at three miles.
Last month, the GMA board took tentative procedural steps toward expanding its membership from five to seven. A vote is possible when the board meets Monday at 6 p.m. at the GMA offices at Middle and Sixth streets. The townships expressed interest in gaining representation in early 2012. The borough county asked the GMA board to expand in November 2012.
The SRBC will accept written comments from the public until Nov. 25, either at www.srbc.net/pubinfo/publicparticipation.htm or by mail or fax to Richard Cairo, General Counsel, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N. Front St., Harrisburg 17110. The fax number is 717-238-2436.
The SRBC includes representatives of Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and the federal government.
BY JIM HALE Times Staff Writer | Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:07 am
Eight speakers offered fiscal, political, and environmental arguments against a proposal to interconnect the Gettysburg and York water systems Wednesday afternoon during a hearing convened by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC).
Speakers asked the SRBC to reject or delay consideration of a proposed "big pipe" that would link the York Water Company and Gettysburg Municipal Authority (GMA). The former draws from Codorus Creek in the Susquehanna watershed, while GMA's area drains partly into the Potomac River basin.
No one spoke in favor of the proposal during the 75-minute session at the state Capitol in Harrisburg. It was attended by SRBC staffers and Andrew Zemba, Pennsylvania's second alternate member of the SRBC, which may make a decision Dec. 12 in Annapolis, Md.
"If you were a ratepayer in Gettysburg right now, would you want to pay for water you didn't need?" Al Ferranto asked, testifying on his own behalf and not in his role as a Cumberland Township supervisor.
Those who testified repeated numerous facts and contentions, including:
- GMA's current capacity exceeds peak use.
- Current GMA ratepayers should not be asked to underwrite "speculative" future development.
- The GMA board does not include representatives from Cumberland and Straban townships, though a potential board expansion is pending.
- Joint planning efforts among the borough and the two townships are just beginning and need time to work.
- Less expensive alternatives such as increasing water storage capability are possible
- Additional development is incompatible with Adams County's economic mainstays of heritage tourism and agriculture.
- The SRBC should hold a hearing during evening hours in Adams County so more residents can speak.
The proposal is "insane" in terms of water quality and conservation, said York City Council member Michael Helfrich, who was not testifying for the council, but as "riverkeeper" for the Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna.
"It's preposterous, the exact opposite of any kind of water conservation we're trying to promote," Helfrich said, adding that officials told him Codorus Creek's water was orange recently because its flow was too low to dilute industrial pollution. Reducing the flow further by diverting water to the GMA would make no sense, he said.
Sue Naugle testified that, as a GMA board member, she cast the lone vote in June against renewing the big pipe application initiated in 2006. In the intervening years, she said, the housing boom crashed, a casino for Adams County was rejected, and well capacity was increased. The GMA system's capacity is 3.5 million gallons per day (GPD), she said, the "safe yield" to be expected from wells and Marsh and Rock creeks is nearly 2.9 million GPD, peak use is 1.7 million GPD, and average use is 1.2 million GPD. Even during this summer's 150th battle anniversary there were no problems, she said. The big pipe's multi-million cost would be borne by ratepayers who are primarily in the landlocked borough, while significant development is only possible in surrounding townships. The proposal has "huge consequences" for the borough and townships, Naugle said, and local officials need more time to study the matter collaboratively. She is also a Gettysburg Borough Council member, but was not speaking for that body.
It's not just "anti-development rabble-rousers" who are concerned about development that could "engulf" the county's historic and agricultural "identity," said former Highland Township Supervisor Joe Breighner, who noted that 75 percent of the county's voters approved a bond issue for land preservation in 2008. He warned against "subsidizing future land speculation" because "if you build it, they will come."
Newly elected Cumberland Township Supervisor James Paddock said his successful campaign included his expertise as a landscape architect and land planner to balance development and the area's small-town, agricultural character. Also citing the 2008 bond issue vote and other preservation efforts, Paddock said the county's people are "oriented to protect" the land rather than see "urban sprawl" "detract and degrade" it, he said.
Cumberland resident Charles Skopic called the big pipe "a solution for which there is no present or foreseeable problem" and recommended that the SRBC let the proposal lie dormant for another seven years, or at least until inter-municipal planning efforts now underway have a chance to reach completion. Whatever happens to a historic site like Gettysburg will reflect on the nation and state, Skopic said, urging the SRBC to "think about future generations."
Pat Naugle, who testified before the SRBC on the previous big pipe application in 2007 and is a member of water-related advisory panels, noted that a state-mandated critical area resource plan for the watersheds of Marsh and Rock creeks recommends water importation as an option. However, he said, the plan also includes many other recommendations such as groundwater protection ordinances, local well construction standards, and land preservation easements that ought to be considered first. He noted that Adams County is actually ahead of the rest of the state in terms of local water planning, and said such foresighted "stewardship" is a better option than the proposed water diversion.
Helfrich echoed Naugle. "Ten years ago, I would not have imagined Adams County would be this forward-thinking in their water planning," Helfrich said. "As a rural county, this is some of the most advanced planning for water resources that I've seen throughout the commonwealth." Helfrich also expressed concern that the big pipe would facilitate development that would increase runoff and damage water quality. He too called for the SRBC to "take a step back" and allow more time for study.
Paul Kellett said he is no "treehugger" but a real estate agent and developer in Adams County who opposes the big pipe because, according to his extensive calculations, GMA could serve another 10,000 homes with its current capacity. For far less money than the big pipe would cost, he said GMA could maintain "water independence" and guarantee itself a steady supply even in times of low creek flow by constructing a storage reservoir. He also said approving the proposal in order to support potential development rather than to provide for demonstrated current need would "set a dangerous precedent" for the SRBC.
The application approved by the GMA board in June would permit it to import up to 2 million gallons GPD from York, with purchases to begin at 125,000 GPD and increase according to need. In addition to addressing growth, Utilities Manager Mark Guise said in June, the additional supply would also provide reserve capacity should problems or increased regulation affect wells or Marsh Creek. The interconnection could also facilitate reduced use of wells, allowing natural replenishment of the aquifer that feeds them, he said.
Building the pipeline could cost $2.5 to $3 million, resulting in a 20- to 30-year bond issue and the addition of perhaps $10 to the average quarterly bill, Guise told the Gettysburg Borough Council's Public Works Committee in July. In addition, he said then, the logical route of the pipeline along U.S. 30 matches the likely location of development that would contribute to increased demand. York would build westward from the New Oxford area, GMA would build eastward from near Cavalry Field Road, and the two would meet near the boundary of Straban and Mount Pleasant townships near Kilpatrick Road, Guise said, estimating GMA's portion at three miles.
Last month, the GMA board took tentative procedural steps toward expanding its membership from five to seven. A vote is possible when the board meets Monday at 6 p.m. at the GMA offices at Middle and Sixth streets. The townships expressed interest in gaining representation in early 2012. The borough county asked the GMA board to expand in November 2012.
The SRBC will accept written comments from the public until Nov. 25, either at www.srbc.net/pubinfo/publicparticipation.htm or by mail or fax to Richard Cairo, General Counsel, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N. Front St., Harrisburg 17110. The fax number is 717-238-2436.
The SRBC includes representatives of Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and the federal government.
Now, I have no opinion one way or the other about the pipeline, but I damn sure want everyone to see two people who will try to do everything in their power to prevent progress in our county. What's really hilarious is that these two buffoons were part of the group whose one argument against the casino was LACK OF WATER. And hey geniuses, as far as I know a chicken is an animal and therefore a farming operation with chickens could be defined as agricultural, and BTW lack of adequate water supply was argued as an issue here as well. Rant over.
