ShareThis Page

Trib editorial: PWSA board hikes rates, conflict remains

| Sunday, Nov. 12, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
Andrew Russell | Tribune-Review

It's business as usual for the board of the deeply indebted, profoundly troubled Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority. It just imposed hikes totaling 56 percent over the next three years on blameless ratepayers but did nothing to resolve its fundamental conflict of interest.

That conflict stems from four board members being on the city payroll and all seven having “direct or indirect ties to the city,” as state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale noted regarding his recent PWSA performance audit. Yet the board unanimously OK'd those rate hikes without acting to resolve that conflict, even with the PWSA's consulting firm recommending — later the same day — that the PWSA be restructured as a nonprofit public trust independent of politics and city government.

The board also did nothing about that conflict's most glaring manifestation: the gusher of free water that benefits 400 city-owned properties under a 1995 agreement — up to 600 million gallons annually, worth at least $6 million a year. Or about the PWSA's continuing inability to enforce a provision allowing it to offset that water's cost if the city uses more than 600 million gallons in a year. That inability stems from PWSA's lack of a complete list of city-owned properties getting free water, 90 percent of which lack water meters.

When more money's needed to fix decades of neglect, the board is quick to soak ratepayers. But ratepayers' interests are far down the list when it comes to correcting the board's obvious conflict. Sadly, that's PWSA business as usual.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.