Southern York County Life

When Warren Braverman made a comment at the last East Hopewell Twonship meeting, Martha Miller told him he did not represent the Township because we only had one hundred and eighty some people at the meeting.  Could we please have a large turn out on Oct. 6th? 8)

To Bonnie:

Over 1200 people from East Hopewell and Hopewell Townships have signed a petition stating they are against this hog operation. Unfortunately, only a small percentage will ever show up at a meeting. Does that mean the others do not have a voice?

It appears that the comment made at the last meeting means just that. I guess electing “supervisors” to represent you does not mean anything unless you are “there” at the meeting. I guess representative government does not exist at the township level.

Hmmm… then what do we have?

We have supervisors that are controlled and manipulated by a lawyer. Other townships seek second opinions regarding this attorney. We have supervisors that are afraid of being sued if ACRE passes, therefore, they choose inaction. We have supervisors that are ignoring the facts on health, safety and welfare and demanding “proof”.

What more can we give them? We have been giving them the same “proof” that was submitted into evidence in state testimony last year. We have been giving them proof from other states as well. You don’t have to be an educated scientist to understand these reports. Did they even listen to the testimony given to them regarding water at the last meeting? This all came from real studies conducted by authoritative sources (the same stuff they asked for).

They obviously seem to think the Marsteller hydrology report is sound. Why can’t they accept the other data that refutes the study?

In the end, they will be sued no matter what decision they make. In my opinion they are trying to decide which course of action will give them the best defense - not what course of action is right for the citizens of the township.

We just mailed out newsletters asking people to make a pledge to our legal defense fund. SRACA intends to pursue legal action against the township if they allow this plan to pass. We are asking the community to join our ranks and together we will fight this effort. None of us can do this alone - the costs are too high and a combined effort gives us a much better chance of victory.

So I guess it comes down to this: Be sued by one angry farmer or a 1000 of your neighbors and friends. 

The East Hopewell Township Supervisors have determined incorrectly that calculations are acceptable to determine the availability of water resources in the township.

Calculations are fine for sand and gravel but generally useless in other aquifers. In a sand and gravel aquifer uniformity is assumed therefore a theoretical formula is acceptable.

“Availability
The availability of ground water in the area depends on the capacity of the rocks to store and transmit water. An estimate of the transmissive and storage characteristics of the rocks is generally made by test pumping a well and measuring the discharge from the pumped well and the effect of pumping on the water level in one or more nearby observation wells. Frequently the observed data are the substituted in to one of the equations of well hydraulics (Ferris and others, 1962; Bentall, 1963; Walton, 1962), which is then solved for the appropriate aquifer properties. This approach was not followed in the present study, as the simplifying assumptions made in deriving the equations of well hydraulics are generally not satisfied in the aquifers of the study area. Transmission of water in these aquifers occurs through secondary openings such as fractures and solution cavities and is usually dissimilar to flow through a uniform porous medium.”
P31, Water Resource report 42, 1977, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Arthur A. Socolow, State Geologist.

The area referred to is the Wissahickon Aquifer. The area extends from the Maryland line on the south, the Susquehanna on the east, to Red Lion in the north and streaches west to the west end of Manheim Township.

“ECS, Ltd. used professional judgment and past experience in similar settings when considering the selection of available data to be used in this study.”

ECS, Ltd. Wrote the hydrology report for Marsteller. ECS used hydrologic budget equation and/or water balance equation. These are the equations referred to in the study.

ECS made an incorrect assumption that the Muddy Creek Drainage Basin (not the size a factor in the equation ) is uniform, and it isn’t. Flow, porosity, and permeability cannot be assumed to be uniform. However, ECS admits that no on site study was attempted nor requested by Marsteller. A proper study would prove to be very expensive.

On the practical side, I doubt the supervisors or their solicitor would recognize the above theory or the logic.

When Warren Braverman made a comment at the last East Hopewell Twonship meeting, Martha Miller told him he did not represent the Township because we only had one hundred and eighty some people at the meeting.  Could we please have a large turn out on Oct. 6th? 8)

Bonnie,
I couldn’t agree more, we need to see 300-400 or more people at the next meeting. This is NOT OVER and if the supervisors see a continued decline it will take some of the pressure off of them, we need to keep the pressure up and NEVER GO AWAY. I emplore everyone to show up the October meeting and every meeting thereafter and maybe the supervisors will get the message that the majority of the people who are active in this community do not want these types of operations all over our township. :!: 

I just posted an interesting article on the SRACA website ( http://www.sraca.org ). It is from the 9/20 edition of Business Week and it is titled “Wal-Mart of Meat”.

It is about Tyson’s and their plans to expand their business. In the article, it mentions how the only one making any money from these operations are the meat packers and that the consumers are never seeing any of the savings.

You can read the article by looking under the “In the Press” section of our website. 

I just posted an interesting article on the SRACA website ( http://www.sraca.org ). It is from the 9/20 edition of Business Week and it is titled “Wal-Mart of Meat”.

It is about Tyson’s and their plans to expand their business. In the article, it mentions how the only one making any money from these operations are the meat packers and that the consumers are never seeing any of the savings.

You can read the article by looking under the “In the Press” section of our website.

I read the article when it first appeared in Business Week. Nothing surprising in the article.

Call me strange if you wish, but ever since that incident several years ago when a mentally impaired employee at the strong urging of two co-workers was caught having sex with a dead turkey at the Tyson Plant, the name Tyson is a turn off. Fortunately the turkey was pulled and never made it to the supermarket, according to Tyson Foods. From that point after I vowed to never purchase anything bearing the Tyson Foods label yet alone consume any product produced by that company.

Twp. Supervisors Group Rejects Gov. ACRE Program
For immediate release!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Press Release from:
Quality of Life and Local Control Caucus of Township Supervisors
665 Mower Road
Chambersburg, PA 17201

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PSATS’ BOARD REJECTS RENDELL ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH “ACRE” BOARD EMPOWERED TO OVERTURN LOCAL ORDINANCES DEALING WITH FACTORY FARMING AND LAND APPLIED- SLUDGE

Harrisburg (9/28) - On Monday, September 28th, at an Executive Board meeting of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS), Township Supervisors rejected the Rendell Administration’s proposal to establish a Board of political appointees empowered to nullify local Ordinances adopted to deal with corporate factory farming and the land application of sewage sludge.

Early reports circulating of the meeting relay that the Executive Board will not support the proposal for the Board unless the Board is “advisory” only, and not given the power to make law. Under the current Rendell Administration proposal, the Agricultural Review Board would be granted the power of a court, to make binding legal decisions concerning the legality of Ordinances adopted by rural communities to control factory farms and sludge.

Over one hundred Township governments have adopted Resolutions opposing the creation of the Board. They have been joined by at least one County Democratic Party, several Democratic State Senator candidates, at least one County Association of Township Officials, the Pennsylvania Farmers Union, several environmental groups, and thirty rural community organizations.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Also see “Communities, not state, should be in control,” by Thomas Linzey, in the Philadelphia Inquirer, at:

http://www.macon.com/mld/inquirer/news/opinion/local2/region/9685887.htm

# # #

i found newsletter from sraca in mailbox and have some questions. i do not know why i received it. i never signed petition. i have read sraca’s web site and this web site. i have been to township meetings and sraca meetings. i guess every townshp resident got one because my name is postal patron.

from newsletter...why didn’t your attorney fight the plan last meeting or say anything? mr. o’connor is not my attorney or the attorney for anyone who signed a petition. he is the attorney for sraca...6 people who hired him to represent them and only them. what immense legal advise was left to give 6 people when newsletter says he spoke with townshp solicitor before the meeting...plan is not new plan plan is revised plan no legal grounds to base argument.

what are names of experts sraca reviewed marsteller water study with?

sraca opens membership to public for money. members can elect board of directors to make decisions for them. who elects officers? 6 people have made all decisions from first day with out asking any input from public.  people who signed petition oppose hog farm does not mean they agree with every decision sraca has made or makes.

no difference in being member except cost $100 sraca now wants more money $100,000?????? is attorney’s name cochran and not o’connor? name attorney who is going to get the $100,000 who is he representing for all that money o.j. simpson?

To Explorer:

We have asked for people’s ideas, thoughts and opinions at meetings, via our website, through postings here, etc. Many have shared them with us.

Petition: We are not representing that the people that signed the petition agree with our stance. We have simply stated that the petition indicates that roughly 1200 people oppose this operation. 

Membership: You do not have to pledge anything to be a member. It would be nice and what we showed in the letter was an example of how the powere of people coming together could benefit the many. The pledge is to show what type of funds we might have available to take this to a higher level if needed. No specific attorney chosen for that fight yet because it would depend on whether it is fought at the state or federal level. It would be up to the elected board to chose one (or more as needed). As for electing officers, just like in any corporation, the board of directors elects the officers.

The reason we mentioned Mr. O’Conner and why he didn’t fight the plan was because many supporters of our efforts came to us and asked that question.

Since you seem to be so full of negatives, why don’t you make some suggestions as to what you would like to see? If you don’t oppose this operation or others like it, then what is your point?

Is Hatfield the one contracting with Marsteller?

When is the election for supervisor and where can I find details on who can run, etc. ,etc.

To e45taz1:

As far as we know and from letters from Hatfield/Clemens/Country View, they are not contracting with Marsteller at all. There are others out there but so far, the others we have spoken with have indicated they are not interested.

As for supervisor elections, I believe one seat is up for grabs next year. For details, contact the township secretary, Martha Miller at the township office, 993-6529 during the day.

Alex

I think it is telling that the supervisors have decided that since the number of people attending the meetings has declined that the issue isn’t being protested enough.  They have sat behind those tables and listened at least 4 or 5 times already and seen the number of people who are concerned.  Kind of reminds me of the Balto city court system.  Criminals request lots of postponements and end up off the hook because either the witnesses or the police officers get tired of showing up time after time.  Doesn’t mean they are less guilty, just that the system wore the “good guys” down.
Not every person is available for every one of these meetings.  That should not mean our opinions are not counted, especially if we have made our opposition clear already.

As for supervisor elections, I believe one seat is up for grabs next year. For details, contact the township secretary, Martha Miller at the township office, 993-6529 during the day.

There is one supervisory seat up for re-election next year. The term would not begin until January 2005.

Wouldn’t you agree Alex that Martha has more than enough on her plate at the moment than to be bothered with phone calls about elections which is not part of her job responsibility?

I think it is telling that the supervisors have decided that since the number of people attending the meetings has declined that the issue isn’t being protested enough.  They have sat behind those tables and listened at least 4 or 5 times already and seen the number of people who are concerned.  Kind of reminds me of the Balto city court system.  Criminals request lots of postponements and end up off the hook because either the witnesses or the police officers get tired of showing up time after time.  Doesn’t mean they are less guilty, just that the system wore the “good guys” down.
Not every person is available for every one of these meetings.  That should not mean our opinions are not counted, especially if we have made our opposition clear already.

In my opinion, I honestly don’t think the supervisors think this way at all. They are fully aware of how many residents are against this proposed operation. They are fully aware that not everyone can attend every township meeting due to their work schedule. They have made themselves available to residents via telephone calls from residents to their homes. Hopefully the calls were made during a respectful time. Residents can also convey their concerns via letter to the township supervisors.

I’ve attended every meeting since the introduction of this issue. The complaints for the past 3 to 4 months have been the same. Nothing new has been said as far as residents concern. If you check the township meeting minutes you will understand. The minutes are repetitious. The township supervisors and the planning commission members have acknowledged everyone who has ever raised their hand to voice their concern. I don’t think there is much more than can do as far as taking into consideration residents concerns than they have done already and continue to do.