Vandergrift, move forward on sewers
Published: Thursday, May 2, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
I appreciated the article “Vandergrift officials unhappy with $8.2M loan for sewer project” (April 26) and want to respond with some critical details about this project.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has mandated Vandergrift borough update its sewer system, which currently overflows into the Kiskiminetas River during heavy rains, to bring it into compliance with wastewater standards. Failure to do so will result in continued higher rates for borough residents from the Kiski Valley Water Authority due to noncompliance with state and federal mandates.
The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment (PENNVEST) board announced last week it will provide a $2.68 million grant and an $8.2 million loan to support the second phase of the borough's sewer system project.
As a past local public official — I served on Pittsburgh City Council — I know you have to take a tough vote to do what is right. If the borough council believes it can get a better financial deal than PENNVEST's offer, then I hope it can obtain one.
I hope the council will take the lead from the Vandergrift Improvement Program, Penn State and the Westmoreland Conservation District and move forward to reduce stormwater overflows.
Sen. Jim Ferlo
The writer represents Vandergrift in the state Senate.
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.
- ACA deserves support
- Hunt where the deer are
- Handled it well
- About time for Gilpin
- Harming, not improving
- Remember Pearl Harbor
- Fuel tax increase
- CNG fueling sustainability
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Us & them
- Thanks to our veterans