Eldred Township supervisors this week addressed issues related to Nestle's plan for water extraction in the area.

Chairwoman Mary Anne Clausen reada statement prepared by the township's special counsel, attorney Jordan Yeager, that said the township will not oppose the requests to intervene. The township "will not actively defend the ordinance."Clausen started the discussion by reminding the residents present that there is ongoing litigation related to the township ordinance, which was changed to permit water extraction in the light industrial zone."We have been advised by our special counsel not to make any statements or answer any questions related to the litigation," Clausen said.Yeager, of the firm of Curtin & Heefner, was hired in January to represent the township on issues pertaining to water extraction."We have serious concern about the process leading to the adoption of the ordinance and are concerned that the proper procedures were not followed," Clausen said.The statement says the decision will lie with the courts.The suitThe township was recently sued over a 2014 change to the township zoning ordinance that changed where "water extraction and bottling" would be a permitted use. The change opened the door to allow Nestle Waters N.A. to apply for a permit to extract up to 200,000 gallons of water a day from property owned by resident Ricky Gower.The residents have been in an uproar since the change, and Nestle's presence became common knowledge in early 2015.On Dec. 17, 2015, township residents Clint and Donna Deihl, Arlene Dunkelberger and Paul and Lisa Lomonaco filed an appeal of the zoning changeagainst the township, alleging that the ordinance adopted on May 1 was not the ordinance that was proposed and advertised before the meeting.Since the suit was filed, an additional 100 residents have filed to intervene in the case. Gower, the owner of the property where the water extraction would take place, has also intervened in opposition to the appeal.On two occasions last year, Clausen attempted to put the ordinance back into the hands of the township's planning commission to re-evaluate just where water extraction should be a permitted use. Clausen's motions died for a lack of a second.Clausen and newly elected supervisor JoAnn Bush have scheduled a public meeting to determine if the ordinance should be revised. The meeting, originally scheduled for Feb. 17, has been changed to 7 p.m. March 16 at the Kunkletown Volunteer Firehouse.Water expert firedThe board voted to fire current "water expert" Phil Getty and hire Matthew Mulhall to advise the township on matters relating to hydrogeology. Mulhall is employed by M2 Associates of Hampton, New Jersey."The change was recommended by our special counsel," Clausen said. "He has worked with Mulhall in the past and he recommended we hire him.""I concur with the decision," said supervisor Sharon Solt. "But I will note that Getty was getting paid something like $94 or $95 per hour. Mulhall is $150 per hour, and that is more than we budgeted for."Clausen said she too was concerned with the cost, but that with over 100 residents intervening in the appeal, this is clearly something that the residents are concerned about.Water extractionThe zoning hearing board is set to hear the opening of the Nestle special use permit hearings at 7 p.m. on Feb. 24 at the Kunkletown Volunteer Firehouse. Residents and township will have an opportunity to present witnesses and expert testimony as to any adverse impact the proposed water extraction will have on the township.It is expected that there will be a series of hearings on the matter before the board renders its decision.The board also appointed Annette Heist as the second alternate to the zoning board.During public comments related to the water extraction subject, nonresident Don Moore addressed the residents.Moore said residents were concerned about costs associated with defending against Nestle's application, but added that it was the "experts, the solicitors, etc., who let this happen in the first place."Moore said his review of the application filed by Nestle showed that Nestle was in the township as early as 2012, way before the change in the ordinance that permits water extraction at the sight."I suggest that someone with standing ask Nestle during the hearing, 'Did you know that you were not a permitted use under the ordinance in 2012?'"