Pennsylvania American Water to repaint big tank in Clarks Green
Pennsylvania American Water's eight tank projects statewide for 2025 include repainting two in Northeast Pennsylvania, the company announced Monday.
The NEPA tank locations, gallon capacity and cost to rehabilitate include:
Clarks Green, Lackawanna County: Off Glenburn Road and Highland Avenue, a 300,000-gallon tank; $288,000. This location has two tanks; the white one closer to Highland Avenue is the one that will be repainted, according to PAW spokeswoman Susan Turcmanovich.
Coolbaugh Twp., Monroe County: Along Highview Terrace in A Pocono Country Place, 400,000 gallons; $429,000.
These two projects are part of a $6.2 million tank infrastructure investment plan for 2025 throughout the state that involves repainting seven water tanks and constructing one new tank. The announcement coincided with an annual Infrastructure Week observation, PAW said.
Rehabilitation involves inspecting, sandblasting and repainting tanks to extend their service lives and help protect water quality. New paint forms a protective barrier that prevents steel from rusting and impacting water quality. During tank rehabilitation work, customers should not experience effects on their water service, PAW said.
'Storage tanks are a critical part of our distribution system infrastructure,' said Tony Nokovich, vice president of engineering at Pennsylvania American Water. 'Tanks provide system capacity to residential and commercial customers, along with adequate pressure and fire protection. Maintaining and rehabilitating tanks extends their service life and is more cost-efficient than replacing them.'
The other five repainting project locations, tank capacities and project costs include:
Butler Twp., Butler County: 250,000 gallons; $630,000.
Neshannock Twp., Lawrence County: 300,000 gallons; $530,000.
Neshannock Twp., Lawrence County: 1.1 million gallons; $720,000.
White Deer Twp., Union County: 503,000 gallons; $507,000.
White Twp., Indiana County: 200,000 gallons; $1.7 million.
The company also will construct a 208,000-gallon storage tank in Fairview Twp., York County, at a cost of $1.4 million, to increase capacity, deliver reliable service and provide fire protection there.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Indicators 2025: Regional economy persists while facing multiple challenges
Jun. 8—WILKES-BARRE — Jill Avery-Stoss, president at The Institute, said this week that recovery from the pandemic has been relatively swift. According to The Institute's Annual Indicators Report, areas such as GDP, income and unemployment have all shown signs of strength and resilience. This has led to a tightening labor market, with the region approaching full employment by 2024. Despite these improvements, however, Avery-Stoss said challenges persist — especially in sectors like health care, which face ongoing workforce shortages. Avery-Stoss says that many strategies are needed to address workforce needs. These strategies involve talent recruitment and retention, developing career pathways starting in middle school, and removing barriers to participation in the workforce. "Issues such as limited access to childcare and transportation, as well as housing insecurity, interfere with the ability to secure a job and keep a job," Avery-Stoss said. Historically, Avery-Stoss said NEPA has had higher unemployment and slower economic growth compared to state and national averages. Though wage levels are beginning to climb, rising living costs — particularly for housing and food — continue to put pressure on households. "Poverty remains a pressing concern in the region," Avery-Stoss said. "Approximately one in five households in the region report incomes below $25,000 — an amount insufficient to cover basic living expenses. Even those who live above the official poverty line may struggle to meet basic needs, increasing the demand on social services and charitable organizations." Avery-Stoss said trade policies, such as tariffs, also pose significant risks to the regional economy. As of the time of the report, a 90-day hold on tariffs had been implemented, but economic activity related to imports and exports, was slowing. "Any prolonged downturn in these areas could lead to reduced economic output, higher unemployment, and falling tax revenues, affecting businesses and public services," Avery-Stoss said. More specifically: As of the most recent data, unemployment rates are low — 3.7% in Lackawanna County, 4.2% in Luzerne County, and 3.8% in Wayne County. Over 70% of households in Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties rely on wages, with Wayne County slightly lower at 66.6 percent. Households also rely on Social Security and retirement income, with small percentages depending on cash assistance. Per capita income is growing, but remains lower than the state average across all three counties. Wayne County had the highest growth in aggregate personal income between 2022 and 2023, outpacing the Commonwealth. Job growth has outpaced population growth, which signals economic expansion. "This growth can only continue if the region maintains a sufficient working-age population, and if the region can accommodate the workforce in terms of housing, health care, and other needs," Avery-Stoss said. Health care and social assistance are the largest employment sectors in Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties. In Wayne County, government jobs are most prevalent. "NEPA's economy is in a state of moderate growth, but structural challenges persist," said Avery-Stoss. "Wages are increasing, but not enough to offset living costs for many residents. The labor market is tight, yet access to good jobs is hindered by systemic barriers. Future economic resilience will depend on coordinated workforce development, social infrastructure investment, and proactive responses to global economic shifts." Reach Bill O'Boyle at 570-991-6118 or on Twitter @TLBillOBoyle.
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Newsweek
Permitting Reform Can Ensure a Lasting Manufacturing Renaissance
For manufacturing to continue growing our economy, creating jobs and developing the best products in the world, the United States must update its permitting laws and procedures. Permitting delays and associated costs make it harder for manufacturers to compete and win in the global economy. To fulfill President Donald Trump's plan to build America into a manufacturing powerhouse, permitting reform needs to go hand-in-hand with the administration's industrial strategy, which also includes tariffs on steel, tax cuts, and deregulation. Construction workers are pictured. Construction workers are pictured. Getty Images Bold actions are needed to fix the generational difficulties of building in the U.S. The administration has taken strong steps to alleviate the issues, such as the permitting technology action plan and the move to drastically cut approval times for energy projects. However, this requires a comprehensive, whole of government approach. The solutions must come from Congress and the administration to ensure certainty that cannot be wiped away with a new administration. Any reforms should do the following: —Ensure Regulatory Certainty Constantly shifting regulations are a nightmare for compliance and raise costs for all manufacturers. For instance, under the prematurely revised particulate matter (PM2.5) standard, the compliance level shifted from a tough but achievable number to an aspirational goal that is impossible or implausible for manufacturers to achieve. If the revised standard remains, economic growth will stall, as under the revised standard, the naturally occurring background levels of airborne particulate matter may put much of the country into non-attainment, meaning no construction permits will be issued. Manufacturing thrives on certainty, ensuring that regulations are achievable and stable helps manufacturers plan long-term and make positive investment decisions. —Streamline the Paperwork and Process Obtaining permit approvals for critical infrastructure projects often takes years. Before the 2023 debt ceiling deal, the White House Council on Environmental Quality issued a report stating that environmental impact statements, which are mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), took on average four and a half years. The mandatory studying of potential environmental impacts under NEPA takes longer than building a new steel mill. Streamlining the permitting process and reducing the endless required studies can ensure America is able to take advantage of incoming investment opportunities. —Reform Litigation and Case Review NEPA is the most litigated federal environmental statute. There are few limits to who can sue and when they can sue, which can dramatically delay the time to begin construction. Tightening limits on who can litigate and expediting review of cases is vital to ensuring swift adjudication. Putting a stop to endless delay tactics through the courts will help more projects break ground and bring much needed economic growth. —Create an Approval "Shot Clock" Manufacturing depends on access to our nation's plentiful natural resources. However, restrictions on the development of these resources are hindering our ability to strengthen domestic supply chains and making manufacturing more reliant on raw material imports. The National Mining Association reports that Australia and Canada, two countries with environmental protections that are arguably more stringent than those in the United States, have mine permitting processes that last two to three years on average, whereas in the U.S. the permitting process averages seven to 10 years. Creating a shot clock for approvals can dramatically expedite much needed projects. —Expand One Federal Decision One manufacturer reported lengthy delays of up to an entire year for the issuance of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers due to the failure of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete the informal consultation required for confirming no adverse project impacts under the Endangered Species Act. For an entire year, potential workers sat on the sidelines and a community lost out on economic opportunity waiting on informal paperwork that should not have taken longer than 90 days to complete. Having a single point of contact for all federal permitting decisions can ensure that no project waits years for an agency without primary jurisdiction to act. Permitting affects every aspect of our lives—from our economic security to our national security. If we fail to modernize existing processes, we risk falling behind international competitors. However, if we create lasting solutions that make the federal process more efficient, we can make America a global manufacturing powerhouse again. Philip K. Bell is president of the Steel Manufacturers Association. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court changes the game on federal environmental reviews
Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game. Whether the effects are good or bad depends on the viewer's perspective. Either way, there is a new interpretation in place for the law that is the centerpiece of the debate about permitting – the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies to document and describe the environmental effects of any proposed action, including construction of oil pipelines, renewable energy and other infrastructure projects. Only after completing that work can the agency make a final decision to approve or deny the project. These reports must evaluate direct effects, such as the destruction of habitat to make way for a new highway, and indirect effects, such as the air pollution from cars using the highway after it is built. Decades of litigation about the scope of indirect effects have widened the required evaluation. As I explain it to my students, that logical and legal progression is reminiscent of the popular children's book 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie,' in which granting a request for a cookie triggers a seemingly endless series of further requests – for a glass of milk, a napkin and so on. For the highway example, the arguments went, even if the agency properly assessed the pollution from the cars, it also had to consider the new subdivisions, malls and jobs the new highway foreseeably could induce. The challenge for federal agencies was knowing how much of that potentially limitless series of indirect effects courts would require them to evaluate. In recent litigation, the question in particular has been how broad a range of effects on and from climate change could be linked to any one specific project and therefore require evaluation. With the court's ruling, federal agencies' days of uncertainty are over. On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court – minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had recused himself – decided the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the first major NEPA dispute before the court in 20 years. At issue was an 85-mile rail line a group of developers proposed to build in Utah to connect oil wells to the interstate rail network and from there transport waxy crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas and elsewhere. The federal Surface Transportation Board reviewed the environmental effects and approved the required license in 2021. The report was 637 pages long, with more than 3,000 pages of appendices containing additional information. It acknowledged but did not give a detailed assessment of the indirect 'upstream' effects of constructing the rail line – such as spurring new oil drilling – and the indirect 'downstream' effects of the ultimate use of the waxy oil in places as far flung as Louisiana. In February 2022, Eagle County, Colorado, through which trains coming from the new railway would pass, along with the Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision in federal court, arguing that the board had failed to properly explain why it did not assess those effects. Therefore, the county argued, the report was incomplete and the board license should be vacated. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the agency had failed to adequately explain why it could not employ 'some degree of forecasting' to identify those impacts and that the board could prevent those effects by exercising its authority to deny the license. The railway developers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether NEPA requires a federal agency to look beyond the action being proposed to evalutate indirect effects outside its own jurisdiction. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a ringing, table-pounding lecture about courts run amok. Kavanaugh did not stop to provide specific support for each admonition, describing NEPA as a 'legislative acorn' that has 'grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' He bemoaned the 'delay upon delay' NEPA imposes on projects as so complicated that it bordered 'on the Kafkaesque.' In his view, 'NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents.' He called for 'a course correction … to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense.' His opinion reset the course in three ways. First, despite the Supreme Court having recently reduced the deference courts must give to federal agency decisions in other contexts, Kavanaugh wrote that courts should give agencies strong deference when reviewing an agency's NEPA effects analyses. Because these assessments are 'fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry … (c)ourts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.' Second, Kavanaugh crafted a new rule saying that the review of one project did not need to consider the potential indirect effects of other related projects it could foreseeably induce, such as the rail line encouraging more drilling for oil. This limitation is especially relevant, Kavanaugh emphasized, when the effects are from projects over which the reviewing agency does not have jurisdiction. That applied in this case, because the board does not regulate oil wells or oil drilling. And third, Kavanaugh created something like a 'no harm – no foul' rule, under which 'even if an (environmental impact statement) falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agency's ultimate approval of a project.' The strong implication is that courts should not overturn an agency decision unless its NEPA assessment has a serious flaw. The upshot for the project at hand was that the Supreme Court deferred to the board's decision that it could not reliably predict the rail line's effects on oil drilling or use of the oil transported. And the fact that the agency had no regulatory power over those separate issues reinforced the idea that those concerns were outside the scope of the board's required review. Although Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have reached the same end result and upheld the agency permit, her proposed test is far narrower. By her reading, the federal law creating the Surface Transportation Board restricted it from considering the broader indirect effects of the rail line. But her finding would be relevant only for any federal agencies whose governing statutes were similarly restrictive. By contrast, Kavanaugh's 'course correction' applies to judicial review of NEPA findings for all federal agencies. Though the full effects remain to be seen, this decision significantly changes the legal landscape of environmental reviews of major projects. Agencies will have more latitude to shorten the causal chain of indirect effects they consider – and to exclude them entirely if they flow from separate projects beyond the agency's regulatory control. Now, for example, if a federal agency is considering an application to build a new natural gas power plant, the review must still include its direct greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the climate. But emissions that could result from additional gas extraction and transportation projects to fuel the power plant, and any climate effects from whatever the produced electricity is used for, are now clearly outside the agency's required review. And if the agency voluntarily decided to consider any of those effects, courts would have to defer to its analysis, and any minor deficiencies would be inconsequential. That is a far cry from how the legal structure around the National Environmental Policy Act has worked for decades. For lawyers, industry, advocacy groups and the courts, environmental review after the Eagle County decision is not just a new ballgame; it is a new sport. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: J.B. Ruhl, Vanderbilt University Read more: Why the federal government must act cautiously on fast-tracking project approvals Will faster federal reviews speed up the clean energy shift? Two legal scholars explain what the National Environmental Policy Act does and doesn't do Supreme Court could narrow the scope of federal environmental reviews, with less consideration of how projects would contribute to climate change J.B. Ruhl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
