Robert Powelson: Experts, not activists, should be included in water conversation |

Robert Powelson: Experts, not activists, should be included in water conversation

Robert Powelson

A Sept. 27 article in the Tribune-Review described
“experts” urging Pittsburgh City Council to be cautious when considering privatization for the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority. It is a stretch to describe two of these individuals as “experts,” when really they are
representatives from activist organizations.

These so-called “experts” are from organizations seeking to prevent communities from learning all of the available solutions to the water challenges they face. These organizations are fundamentally opposed to water companies, believing that only the government should be involved in the provision of water services, even when the government has failed to do so adequately. A prime example is the disaster in Flint, Mich., which would not have happened if a private company had run the system.

These activists ignore the vast amount of data demonstrating that drinking water quality violations occur significantly less often in water systems owned and operated by water companies, as opposed to public water systems. A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that drinking water quality violations occur 24 percent less often nationally for regulated water companies than publicly owned systems. Further analysis looking just at Pennsylvania found that figure to be 37.4 percent less often in the commonwealth. When it comes to providing safe and reliable water service, it is crystal clear that water companies are leading the way.

The article reports that rates were also a topic of discussion at the September public meeting. The single biggest driver of rates is infrastructure investment. The six largest private water companies in the U.S. cumulatively invest nearly $2.7 billion annually in their water systems. Compare that figure with the total $2.3 billion appropriated in 2017 for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and you’ll start to get a picture of water companies’ strong commitment to infrastructure investment.

As former chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, I’ve seen firsthand what happens when water systems are mismanaged or necessary infrastructure investments are delayed. Data shows that water rates are going up at the same rate — about 7 percent per year — for both government-run and private water utilities as responsible utilities make the necessary infrastructure investments. Responsible utilities ensure that their rates cover the full cost of providing water services instead of trying to keep rates artificially low by deferring investments or using other municipal funds to subsidize rates.

Stronger compliance record. A record of strategic infrastructure investment. Unparalleled water system expertise. These are all significant benefits of working with a water company, but benefits I am sure Pittsburgh City Council heard nothing about in the meeting. That’s why Pittsburgh would be better served if it brought in actual experts, not activists, for this important conversation.

Robert Powelson is president and CEO of the
National Association of Water Companies.

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.