Alcosan sues Western Westmoreland Municipal Authority over trailer-court consumption
Two regional sewage authorities are about $95,000 apart on how much money is owed for treatment of sewage from a North Huntingdon mobile-home court over a five-year period.
The dispute, which now is in Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court, pits Alcosan against the Western Westmoreland Municipal Authority, or WWMA, because of the underreporting of a meter reading of water consumption from residences in the Wallace Trailer Court from April 2007 to May 2012.
Officials of Alcosan, which provides sewage service for a drainage basin that includes parts of North Huntingdon and Penn Township, say the authority owes $103,782 since 2007 because of the underreporting of 27 million gallons of water by the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County, or MAWC, according to a lawsuit Alcosan filed on May 3.
The MAWC provides the water service for the residences. Its manager could not be reached for comment.
In a November letter to Alcosan, WWMA Solicitor John Campfield said the estimates used to calculate a $103,782 invoice were “unreasonable.” At that time, WWMA officials said they owed $9,131 and mailed a check to Alcosan for that amount.
Campfield said he could not comment because he had not yet received a copy of the lawsuit.
The Western Westmore-land Municipal Authority serves 16,000 customers in Irwin, Manor, North Irwin and parts of North Huntingdon, Penn Township and Hempfield.
Chris Foreman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8671, or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.