Lower Milford Township

The Curative Amendment Hearing to allow operating a quarry in Lower Milford Township continued in February. The witness for Geryville Materials was asked to clarify his testimony over the past few years by Supervisor Wright. There were several items that were clarified including economic benefits to Lower Milford Township, particulate control during mining operations, and movement of product from the quarry.

• Economic Benefits

Mr. Wolf, the Geryville Materials witness, indicated that several economic benefits would accrue from the quarry operation. He indicated that many peripheral services such as landscaping, blasting, and other services would probably be contracted to other parties. The items listed were not currently available for hire by Lower Milford Township residents at this time. It would seem that this would add to traffic and attendant requirement for police services without a commensurate benefit to the Township. It is possible that such a service could be started in the Township but it does not have a high probability when one could consider the start up costs and potential market.

He indicated that 18-20 people would be hired for the quarry. In the permit application, Mr. Wolf indicated that approximately $67000/year in federal, state, and local taxes would be generated. If we assume that 20 people would be hired from the Township and look at the tax tables for federal income tax, one can see that the average worker would be paid about $28000/year or about $15/hr. This is far below the $42000/year (or $23/hr) the average hourly rate for males in the Township. One can draw the conclusion that the Township would have a poorer population if a quarry were started or more probably most of the workers would come from less affluent regions. Put another way, the Township would realize about $2800/year in earned income taxes or a benefit of less than $0.80/resident per year. Similarly, the School District will get a similar amount of tax money. This would not even come close to covering the cost of educating even one child from this group of 20 employees living in Lower Milford Township. Clearly, the concern is that the Township residents would lose money if workers lived in the Township.

• Particulate Control

Supervisor Wright asked Mr. Wolf to clarify how they would control particulate that would be entrained into the air during mining operations, blasting and trucking operations. The sole method mentioned was spraying the dust source with water or water containing surfactant. The testimony provided several inconsistencies:

The road would be asphalt to keep dust down and make it easier to clean the dirt. This seems to be inconsistent with the statement that water sprays control particulate. If so, how does the road get dirt several hundred feet from the source of particulate?

Spraying with water was normally adequate for particulate control according to testimony. Yet there were alternatives to look at, if not. This would indicate that there is some question of the adequacy of particulate control. Also, surfactants, especially ionic surfactants that would presumably be used, have issues with adverse effects especially to the water supply.

• Trucking

Mr Wolf indicated that many of the trucks hauling stone would be independent contractors. This means that if violations of law occur, one could not get an injunction or remedy from the quarry operator. One would have to find, and sue a number of individual operators, many of whom probably do not have the resources to pay for any significant judgment against them. One should expect the Township to sustain significant legal costs to protect its residents.