Pittsburgh controller cautions against privatization of PWSA |

Pittsburgh controller cautions against privatization of PWSA

Megan Guza
Megan Guza | Tribune-Review
Pittsburgh Controller Michael Lamb addresses the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority during a press conference Thursday, Oct. 11, 2018.

Pittsburgh Controller Michael Lamb on Thursday applauded the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority’s steady improvements under the control of the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission and warned against calls to privatize the water authority.

Peoples Natural Gas has proposed creating Peoples Water and developing a public-private partnership with PWSA.

Lamb said improvements at the water authority could have happened without PUC oversight but didn’t.

“Their oversight has brought a new focus to finance and customer service and to long-term planning, and it’s forced the PWSA to set ambitious but achievable goals,” Lamb said during a press conference. “I didn’t expect this, but the PUC oversight has set the PWSA on the course toward becoming a much more effective and efficient organization.”

He said the authority’s expanding online communications and customer service efforts, as well as an increased number of capital projects.

“They’ve done significant steps in lead line replacement this year and last year, so they’re getting there as well,” he said regarding water quality. “They’re not there yet, but they’re getting there.”

State lawmakers in 2017 passed legislation that placed the authority under PUC control in an effort to address PWSA’s chronic problems.

Lamb said talks of privatization are “misguided and premature,” and he tried to dispel what he called myths surrounding the push to privatize.

The first is the idea that PWSA’s debt problems will inhibit investment and improvement – the idea that the authority has so much debt that they cannot take on any more.

“That’s just a false statement,” Lamb said, noting that the authority’s credit rating is actually better than the city’s.

He also said the idea that a private water service is going to be established, “so we might as well just invite them in and work with them,” is a false narrative.

“It’s not an accurate description of what’s going on,” he said.

Lamb’s comments come a week after three water and sewer experts similarly urged city council to be cautious in considering privatization and private-public partnerships.

“When it comes right down to it there are only two ways that a private company can make a profit running a public service: raising prices or cutting costs,” said Bill Henry, a Baltimore city councilman, told council members last week. “Raising prices is raising the cost of water to your constituents, while cutting costs means either reducing worker pay and benefits or reducing services, the brunt of which usually falls on low-income and communities of color.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter @meganguzaTrib.

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.