The Upper Pottsgrove Journal raised serious questions following the Board of Commissioners’ July 6 vote to advance a 119-home development along the Kummerer Road corridor—questions that were quickly and publicly dismissed by Commissioner Elwood Taylor as “fake news.”
At the center of the dispute is the project’s water supply. The Journal reported that the development would rely on commercial groundwater wells, raising concerns among residents that sustained pumping could lower the water table and negatively impact private residential wells across Upper Pottsgrove and neighboring communities.
Commissioner Taylor responded on social media with an unequivocal denial, writing in all caps that “NONE OF THE PROPOSED NEW HOMES WILL HAVE PRIVATE WELLS OR RELY ON GROUNDWATER,” and characterizing resident concerns as being “foisted” upon those anxious about their water supply. He further addressed residents’ concerns with groundwater-related issues as “red herrings” in what many residents have described as his typical dismissive attitude toward those who interfere with his personal agendas.
However, project plans discussed in a public meeting indicated the use of commercial wells—systems that draw from the same groundwater sources as private wells. The Journal also pointed to the nearby Pottsgrove Hunt development, previously supported by Taylor, which similarly relies on commercial groundwater wells.
As the exchange continued, Taylor ultimately had to concede that the development would, in fact, be supplied by local commercial wells—an acknowledgment that directly contradicts his earlier public statements. The episode raises broader questions about whether the Board’s decision was influenced by false, inaccurate, or incomplete information presented at a critical moment.
Residents familiar with similar developments warn that such projects often involve drilling deeper, higher-capacity wells that can, over time, depress the local water table—potentially leaving nearby private wells diminished or dry. In some cases, homeowners are then left with little choice but to connect to the very systems that affected their water supply.
Beyond the water issue, residents have also criticized the process itself. Multiple speakers at the July 6 meeting requested that the vote be tabled to allow proper notice to affected homeowners and time for meaningful public review. That request was denied by Commissioners Taylor, Leach, and Robinson.
According to attendees, Board President Albert Leach openly stated he did not want to delay the vote—even briefly—because additional residents might attend and oppose the project. Yes, he actually said that, commented one resident. The vote proceeded regardless.
Residents argue the timing was no coincidence. The matter was scheduled immediately following the Fourth of July holiday, with limited detail provided to the public—circumstances that effectively minimized awareness and participation. Despite this, local party leaders from both the Democrats and Republicans worked together and mobilized to bring attention to the as many residents as they could ahead of the meeting.
The situation now presents a clear question: did members of the Board vote to advance a significant development based on information that was false and, by subsequent admission, incorrect?
If so, many residents believe that the remedy is straightforward. They strongly suggested that the July 6 vote should be vacated or rescinded. That the Board should formally re-notice the matter, provide full and accurate disclosure of the project’s impacts, and hold a properly advertised public meeting—or meetings—allowing residents a fair opportunity to review, ask questions, and be heard.
Anything less, they believe, risks reinforcing the perception that this vote was rushed through under conditions designed to limit public scrutiny.
The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to meet again on July 20. Additional reporting on this matter is expected. See the full board meeting schedule on the front page, left-hand side. The Journal would like to thank the several residents who contacted us concerning this article.