Bill creates state receivership for PWSA

Costa to introduce legislation this week

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

HARRISBURG — State Rep. Dom Costa, D-Stanton Heights, intends to introduce legislation this week that would add yet another level of oversight to Pittsburgh’s troubledwater and sewer authority.

The bill, if it passes, would create a state receivership that would have oversight of PWSA, much like the Act 47 coordinators have the ability to approve the city’s budget and, therefore, how it invests money and prioritizes certain issues.

“I want the same thing for PWSA,” said Mr. Costa.

This latest piece of legislation adds yet another wrinkle in the ongoing debate about who should fix PWSA’s many woes and how they should go about doing it. Already, some have said they fear a state receivership could lead to a new set of problems.

Deborah Gross, a Pittsburgh councilwoman who also sits on the PWSA board, said she finds the idea of a state receivership “somewhat alarming on face value.”

“This isn’t the city budget — this is about public health,” she said.

PWSA has struggled to curb its lead levels and to restore key equipment that has gone decades without much attention. It has an agreement with the state to replace more than 1,300 lead service lines by next summer and plans to multiply spending on system improvements overthe next several years.

But just about every public official in Allegheny County agrees there’s still a lot of work to be done.

Mr. Costa said he envisions a system in which a state receivership would work in tandem with the state Public Utility Commission to help oversee improvements to PWSA.

The state House is expected to vote Monday on a bill that would give the PUC oversight of PWSA, and the bill seems likely to pass. It was sponsored by House Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods, and has support from Minority Leader Frank Dermody, D-Oakmont. The bill already made it out of the House once, and the Senate made only minor tweaks when it passed the bill late last month.

The bill is a good one, Mr. Costa said, and he expects to vote for it.

But, he said, “I just don’t think it’s gonna be enough. I just don’t believe it’s going to work the way we want it to work.”

The bill, in its current form, would place PWSA under PUC oversight starting in April. PWSA would work with the PUC to establish billing rates and would have roughly six months to submit a compliance plan, which the PUC would review to ensure it meets standards for providing “adequate, efficient, safe, reliable and reasonable service.”

Mr. Costa said the receivership — whose makeup would be approved by the governor and Legislature — would be involved more frequently.

“Things pop up every day,” he said. With a receivership, “that person would be day-to-day in the business, making sure they were complying with everything.”

The mayor’s office has not commented on whether they like the idea of creating a state receivership, saying they are focused now on completing a consultant’s study of PWSA and reviewing any suggestions that come out of that process.

Steve Steckler, chairman of the Infrastructure Management Group, which was hired to do that review, said he has concerns about both bills — calling PUC oversight “premature” and fretting a state receivership could complicate some financial maneuvers.

“If one or both of them were enacted, we’re not sure it would be the best thing for PWSA,” he said. “We might end up with conflicting authorities trying to exercise control over PWSA and the city could do nothing about that, because all of those things would be outside the city’s control.”

He prefers the idea of establishing a temporary trustee at the city level that would “put PWSA under even more of a microscope than it is now.”

Mr. Costa is skeptical about whether keeping such a position at the city level is the wisest decision, noting that PWSA’s problems have grown over the years, spanning severaladministrations.

“Let’s put it this way: The city level has it right now,” he said.

But others worry that the state might not be best equipped to handle such issues either. Ms. Gross, the Pittsburgh councilwoman, pointed out that the system in Flint, Mich., was under state supervision as lead levels rose to alarming levels.

“We want to not repeat mistakes that have been made elsewhere when local control is removed around something,” she said.