The People Demand It!

4 Responses to “One Water Authority?”

1. Ron
   December 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm

   How about we hold Millcreek to the same code enforcement standards as Erie? For instance, you don’t need permits to do roof work, plumbing or electrical work yourself in Millcreek, but an Erie residents needs to jump through hoops just to reshingle their roof. Yes, it’s to make sure that the job is done correctly and safely, but shouldn’t Millcreek be held to that same standard? What keeps some guy in Millcreek from doing a hack-job on electrical wiring or doing a maze of plumbing that has an improper connection to the waste gas pipe?

2. Jim
   December 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm

   The whole topic of water authorities is a difficult one to understand, and even harder to evaluate as there is so little credibility attached to any of the players.

   The Erie water authority is a relatively new authority, formed after the decades of the Tullio administration and the annual pillaging of the old water department revenue to balance city general fund budgets, with a cost of long term deferred maintenance to the system.

   When the authority was formed, a lot of people thought that finally we would see the benefit of regionalism take hold and the water authorities of Erie, Millcreek and Fairview merge into a single entity, allowing the leveling out of water rates charged in the area. That, of course didn’t happen, and the Erie authority sells bulk water to Millcreek at a premium, who then also resells at a premium to the Fairview authority, which increases retail charges all along the line. Imagine a water intensive industry looking at property in the Fairview industrial park at I-90 and route 98 comparing their potential water and sewer costs for locating there compared to Millcreek or Erie. If suitable property in one of those municipalities is not found the region loses the potential business and related jobs.

   There is no reason why any water customer should not be able to purchase water from the take point authority at a reasonable rate. However under the current situation, authorities, like Fairview for example, which did not rob their water revenue for general municipal revenue, and paid their build out costs as they went are repaid for their good business practice with significantly higher retail costs. How backward is that? Meanwhile the city benefits by charging higher rates to the suburbs and lower rates in the city, so in effect the suburbs help subsidize the cost of the deferred maintenance in the city system caused by the years of raiding revenue.

   Interesting that once Millcreek made noises again, about exploring the possibility of having their own take point and system, the city authority finally got interested again in discussing at least a city Millcreek merger. Serious? Who knows. But would it have happened without Millcreek at least talking about their own system? I, for one, doubt it, regardless of what is said or written about the matter.

   I remember years ago, when Tullio personally made a presentation to the west county urging them not to develop a system of their own, and I see what has happened since that time. I listened to Bagnoni’s comments regarding the suburbs, not withstanding Tullio’s marketing to them, and personally, I believe the only thing the city wants from the suburbs is more of their money.

   I see this as no different than the arts council or zoo. The city gets the benefit of some new money, through gaming, and immediately cuts their funding to these regional assets, thereby negating the benefit of the new money to those operations.

   To gain new attitudes, new practices are required.

3. Mikey Z
   December 5th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

   I was at a large fire in Millcreek last year and not able to open an Erie water department hydrant because the caps were rusted shut. If they take over the rest of the Township I hope that the same doesn’t happen to the rest of the hydrants

4. Jim
   December 8th, 2008 at 8:53 am

   I take it the fire department doesn’t exercise the hydrants.