ShareThis Page
Kerr’s Westermoreland water defense all wet |
Letters to the Editor

Kerr’s Westermoreland water defense all wet

| Monday, May 23, 2016 9:00 p.m

Regarding Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County resident manager Christopher Kerr’s letter “ Westmoreland water a bargain” : Kerr failed to disclose he is also part owner of the company Utilishield that provides insurance for MAWC waterlines. He profits from the growth taking place at the authority. How can Kerr serve as an independent manager serving the public interest and also as an owner of a private company benefiting from the decisions made on behalf of ratepayers?

Kerr’s excuse for jacking up our rates 25 percent in 2013 and 25 percent this year is simply that everyone else is doing it so why not us? That’s unacceptable.

In regard to his “regional approach,” he can use pollution as a reason we are paying more as his excuse. But anyone with common sense can clearly see a correlation between our rates going up and the number of new systems MAWC is purchasing on our dime. And what’s happened to the millions of dollars in natural gas royalties from the Marcellus shale wells?

It’s all about MAWC’s pockets, not the ratepayers, regardless of how Kerr is spinning the issue.

Hope Pospisil


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.