With winter well established in Centre County, last summer's drought might be the last thing on anyone's mind. But higher food prices, water problems and a drop in local wildlife population remind residents of just how dry the summer of 1988 really was.

According to John Merrit of the Penn State meteorology department, precipitation amounts for last summer were only one inch below normal. However, most of this came during the later half of the summer.

Total precipitation was only .34 inch between June 9 and July 16 -- "five weeks crucial to the growing season," Merrit said.

June and July were also the hottest months in central Pennsylvania, with a total of 35 days with temperatures of 90 degrees or above, Merrit said.

This meant a lower crop yield for farmers and higher food prices for consumers, said George Greaser, a University professor of agricultural economics.

"Because of the drought, food prices have increased by about 2 percent in addition to the 4 percent increase brought on by inflation," Greaser said.

Prices will probably not go down anytime in the near future, he said, because of the cost of labor and transportation.

"Only about 29 percent of the food dollar actually goes to the farmer, with the rest paying for labor and transportation," Greaser said. "The prices of those things will just keep going up."

The drought also greatly affected the water supply in State College, said Paul Fisher, spokesman for the borough's water authority.

"Last summer's drought probably accounts for 95 percent of the problems we're having with water now," Fisher said. "(The) closing of our reservoirs and the reliance on well water have contributed to the problem."

Normal rainfall for the rest of this year could bring the level -- known as the "water table" -- back to normal, Fisher said. In December, the water table did rise somewhat, but Fisher attributed that to the University's winter break, which caused substantial reductions in water use.

Wildlife population in the region was also affected by the drought. The most significant change was in the waterfowl population, said Margaret Brittingham, a wildlife specialist for the university.

"There has been a substantial reduction in the nesting areas for many of the area waterfowl," she said. "This will affect the breeding populations for many years and reduce the number of young born each year."

Brittingham would not speculate on the extent of waterfowl population reduction, but said it would take at least three drought-free years for the numbers to reach their normal level.

Deer populations were also hurt by the drought, said Joe Wilker, a State College conservation officer.

"Because of a lack of succulent vegetation in wooded areas, the deer have a tendency to wander into yards, gardens and farmlands," he said.

This has made the deer more vulnerable to accidents and hunters, Wilker said.

"The hunter who stayed close to farmland was probably more successful," he said.