| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Analyze water, not royalties

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Letter to the Editor
Tuesday, June 17, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding Rich Cholodofsky's news story “Westmoreland County authority hires drilling auditor to oversee shale royalties” : Instead of hiring an auditor, the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County should consider hiring a lab chemist and the appropriate analytical equipment to monitor and verify the quality of its water to assist in the prevention of a Charleston, W.Va., type of event here.

To read that it has 37 Marcellus shale gas wells on its Beaver Run Reservoir property — some located 300 feet from our reservoir — is alarming and should be a source of major concern to all 120,000 customers/households that are dependent on that source of water. Based upon the fact that a typical Marcellus well needs to be re-fracked (using many hazardous chemicals) every three to five years, the inevitable will occur.

I assume this fracking will eventually increase authority revenues by 10 percent, and if one assumes that $8 million input is divided among all 120,000 customers, that would result in a savings of $66 per year ($5.50 per month) per customer. As noted, this would not be reflected in a reduction of current bills but would slow down future increases.

This sounds great, but if one looks at the potential downside, the costs that would have to be borne by each customer would be significantly greater if we lose our water supply for any length of time. Be forewarned that this type of industrial production should not be tolerated in a watershed — even if it brings in a few extra bucks.

Lou Pochet


The writer is a retired chemist.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Wolf’s budget better
  2. ATI ‘ate its own’
  3. Trump: Stealing the thunder
  4. Inspiration on ice
  5. Narcan’s risks
  6. Indians true victims
  7. International hurt USW locals
  8. Improve diabetes education
  9. Sickened by politicians
  10. Trucking’s case for 18-year-olds
  11. Much to explain