Major City's Drinking Water
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Dallas County Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
ENGLISH LI
Subject
English
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
9
Uploaded by MateOysterPerson905
Step 1: Predict and preview
After reading the title and glancing over the text, what do you think the text will be about? What do you understand about the text from the title? What do you know already about this topic? What questions do you have about the text?
Step 2: Read, summarize, and annotate
As you read the article, use the Track Changes function to annotate the text below as follows:
Summarize
. Type your one sentence
summary (paraphrase) of the paragraph in the box. Summarize every paragraph in the essay. Group short paragraphs of the same topic together for summarizing.
Annotate
. Use the following key to annotate your text:
Highlight the main ideas of paragraphs, including the thesis
Underline
supporting details or interesting quotes/facts/ideas
Bold
any counterarguments.
Step Three: Answering questions about the text
After you have finished reading and annotating the text, answer the following questions. 1.
Who is the audience and how do you know? Provide at least three quotes that support your answer.
2.
What is your response to this reading? What did the article add to your knowledge or understanding of this topic?
This Major City’s Drinking Water Was Fine. Then Came the Private Water Company.
“They will come in, rape your water company, and leave with money bags.”
J U L I A L U R I E
This summer, 81,000 homes in Pittsburgh received a worrisome letter about their water. The local utility “has found elevated levels of lead in tap water samples in some homes,” it said. Seventeen percent of samples had high levels of the metal, which can cause “serious health problems.”
“They cut our laboratory in half,” said a former Pittsburgh water quality director. “We would have been researching like crazy this lead corrosion problem to see how to correct it.”
The situation was bad enough to attract the attention of Marc Edwards, the Virginia Tech professor who helped expose the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. “The levels in Pittsburgh are comparable to those reported in Flint,” he said in an interview with local TV station WPXI.
This was surprising because until this year, Pittsburgh’s lead levels had always been normal. So what happened?
First, a bit of background: In 2012, the city faced a dilemma. Though it had clean water, its century-old water system desperately needed repair. And its utility, Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, was plagued by administrative problems. Residents complained of bad customer service and unfair fees. After a series of poor financial decisions in the 2000s, PWSA was hundreds of millions of dollars in debt.
Pittsburgh isn’t alone: Public utilities around the country are trying to make ends meet with dwindling public funding and increasingly outdated infrastructure. Many, like Pittsburgh, turn to private management companies to help out.
Pittsburgh’s utility called in Veolia, a Paris-based company that consults with utilities, promising “customized, cost-effective solutions that reflect best practices, environmental protection and a better quality of life.” Veolia consults or manages water, waste, and energy systems in 530 cities in North America, with recent contracts in New York City, New Orleans, and Washington, DC. Last year, the company, which operates in 68 countries, brought in about $27 billion in revenue.
Pittsburgh hired Veolia to manage day-to-day operations and provide an interim
executive team, helping the utility run more efficiently and save precious public dollars. Under the terms of the contract, Veolia would keep roughly half of every dollar the utility saved under its guidance.
Under the leadership of Jim Good, a Veolia executive serving as interim director, PWSA began making sweeping changes—and they seemed to be
working: Within a year, call waiting times for concerned customers dropped by 50 percent. Thanks to new fees for commercial buildings, new customers, and other assorted changes, the utility saved $2 million.
According to a 2013 article in the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
, Veolia changed PWSA’s culture, too: Instead of traditional top-heavy management, Good checked in with employees over pizza and burgers every week. At a staff barbecue in 2012, “I told them that we were there to work with the employees as
their partners,” he later told the
Post-Gazette
. “I provided assurances that there wouldn’t be any layoffs and that together we could achieve anything.”
But by the end of 2015, the utility had laid off or fired 23 people—including the
safety and water quality managers, and the heads of finance and engineering, according to documents obtained through a Right-to-Know request. The PWSA laboratory staff, which was responsible for testing water quality throughout the 100,000-customer system, was cut in half. Stanley States, a water quality director with 36 years of experience at the utility (employees referred to him as “Dr. Water”) was transferred to an office-based job in the research department. Frustrated with the move, he retired.
Good maintains that not all staffing decisions were made by Veolia, which was in a consulting rather than management role when the layoffs occurred. Any suggested staffing changes had to be approved by the board, he said.
As the lab staff shrank, PWSA made major changes to its water treatment system. For decades, the city had been adding soda ash—a chemical similar to baking soda—to its water to prevent the pipes, many of which are lead, from corroding and leaching into the water. (Lack of corrosion controls caused lead to leach into the water in Flint.) In 2014, PWSA hastily replaced soda ash with another cheaper corrosion control treatment, caustic soda. Such a change typically requires a lengthy testing and authorization process with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, but the DEP was never informed of the change. Nearly two years later, as news spread about the disaster in Flint, the utility switched back to soda ash.
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto puts the blame for the treatment change squarely on Veolia, saying the company never informed the utility’s board or the city. Veolia denies responsibility for the change, saying it “did not and would not
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
prioritize cost savings ahead of effective corrosion control methods or water quality.”
Veolia “catastrophically failed and customers have received grossly inaccurate and at times outrageously high bills,” Pittsburgh citizens said in a class-action lawsuit against the company.
What is certain is that this spring, the state’s DEP cited the utility for breaking state law and ordered immediate lead testing.
Tests this summer—the first since 2013—found that the city’s lead levels had crept up and, for the first time on record, exceed federal standards. Seventeen percent of homes had levels above the Environmental Protection Agency’s action level of 15 parts per billion.
Many suspect that the change in water treatment chemicals led to the jump in lead levels; the city is currently conducting an internal investigation into the matter.
Stanley States, the former water quality director, believes the staff cuts almost certainly played a role. Lead levels first crept up in 2013 because of a previous change in treatment chemicals, though they didn’t exceed federal standards. But
without a fully staffed lab, says States, the matter wasn’t addressed. “They cut our laboratory in half,” he said. “We would have been researching like crazy this lead corrosion problem to see how to correct it.”
But Pittsburgh citizens’ complaints about Pittsburgh’s water goes beyond quality—it’s also extraordinarily expensive. In 2013, a year after Veolia was hired, the water board approved a 20 percent rate increase over four years; by 2017, the average residential water bill will be $50 per month—triple the average Midwest cost, according to the
Guardian.
Soon after, customers began complaining that their bills were coming erratically
and appeared to charge for water residents hadn’t used. One vacant property owner was charged for using 132,000 gallons of water in one month—that’s about how much a family of four uses in a year. “You don’t know if it’s going to come in, whether it’s late or not, how much it will be, a Pittsburgh retiree told
Truthout
. “Then you get it and there’s a late charge.”
In May of 2015, a group of Pittsburgh customers filed a class-action lawsuit against the utility, Veolia North America Water, and the accounting company keeping track of PWSA bills, alleging that new water meter readers installed in 2013 “catastrophically failed and customers have received grossly inaccurate and at times outrageously high bills”—including increases of nearly 600 percent. “PWSA is acutely aware that the billings are wrong but do not hesitate for a moment to issue ‘shut off’ notices and then arbitrarily turn off water service,” read the complaint. PWSA and Veolia declined to respond to the allegations.
Last December, facing the class-action lawsuit, a state citation for changing corrosion controls, and mounting debt, Pittsburgh terminated its contract with Veolia. All told, PWSA had paid Veolia $11 million over the course of the contract.
Earlier this month, the utility announced it was suing the company. According to a press release, Veolia “grossly mismanaged PWSA’s operations, abused its positions of special trust and confidence, and misled and deceived PWSA as part of its efforts to maximize profits for itself to the unfair detriment of PWSA and its customers.”
Pittsburgh isn’t the first municipality to sue Veolia this year. In April, Massachusetts officials sued Veolia, which was managing Plymouth’s sewage treatment facility, for allowing 10 million gallons of untreated sewage to spill in
and around the town’s harbor last winter.
Two months later, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette charged Veolia with fraud and negligence for failing to discover Flint’s enduring lead contamination problem after the city hired the company in 2015 to consult on water quality.
“Veolia stated that the water, quote, was safe,” Schuette told NPR. “Veolia also callously and fraudulently dismissed medical and health concerns by stating that, quote, some people may be sensitive to any water.”
“I can’t sit here and point to anything tangible to show the positive legacy of the contract we had with Veolia,” said the Pittsburgh mayor’s chief of staff.
In many cases, critics point to a pattern of Veolia saving utilities money through
quick fixes—while ignoring bigger problems. In a phone interview, Kevin Acklin, the chief of staff for Pittsburgh’s Mayor Bill Peduto, pointed out that Veolia’s earnings are directly tied to the utility’s short-term savings. “They had the incentive under the contract to not make capital investments in property, planning, and equipment—to basically not fix the pipes when needed, to pass off those costs to other agencies, including the city and private homes,” he alleged. “Ultimately they were fiduciaries for the public authority, but they also served the business needs of a large multinational corporation.”
Veolia denies responsibility in both Plymouth and Flint, saying the leak in Plymouth came from a pipe failure that was out of its control, and that the contract in Flint was limited to looking at another chemical called TTHM.
In the case of Pittsburgh, Veolia maintains that PWSA’s board of directors retained control over the authority over the course of the three-year contract. “Veolia met its obligations and fulfilled the requirements of our contract in a fully transparent manner,” wrote a Veolia North America spokeswoman in an email. “We stand behind the work performed on behalf of PWSA.”
Yet Pittsburgh leaders can’t help but notice that the city’s utility is arguably even worse off than it was when it hired Veolia four years ago, with a depleted bank account—half of all earnings are directed to serving debt—and pipes that are still a century old. “The authority is in a pretty precarious financial situation right now, and I can’t sit here and point to anything tangible to show the positive legacy of the contract we had with Veolia,” says Acklin.
A former PWSA employee was more blunt about it. When asked how to advise utilities considering contracting with Veolia, he warned, “They will come in, rape your water company, and leave with money bags.”
Chat GPT
Step 1: Predict and Preview
From the title, it seems the text will discuss issues with a city's drinking water after the involvement of a private water company. The phrase "rape your water company" suggests a negative impact. I know from the title that there's a problem with the drinking water in a major city due to the actions
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
of a private water company. I don't have specific details yet, and I wonder about the nature of the issues and how common this situation is.
Step 2: Read, Summarize, and Annotate
Summaries:
1.
The introduction mentions elevated lead levels in Pittsburgh's tap water, catching the attention of a water crisis expert, Marc Edwards.
2.
Background on Pittsburgh's water system issues, leading to the city hiring Veolia for management and cost-saving solutions.
3.
Veolia's role in making operational changes, improving customer service, and saving money, but also staff layoffs and cultural changes.
4.
Changes in water treatment under Veolia's management, including a shift in corrosion control chemicals without informing authorities.
5.
Pittsburgh Mayor blames Veolia for the water treatment change, and citizens file a class-action lawsuit due to inaccurate bills.
6.
State's DEP cites the utility for breaking laws, and lead testing reveals elevated levels exceeding federal standards.
7.
Suspicions that changes in water treatment and staff cuts contributed to lead problems. Citizens also face high water bills.
8.
A class-action lawsuit against the utility, Veolia, and an accounting company for inaccurate bills.
9.
Pittsburgh terminates the contract with Veolia, sues the company, and faces financial and infrastructure challenges.
10.
Other municipalities suing Veolia for different issues, and criticism of Veolia's pattern of prioritizing short-term savings.
Step 3: Answering Questions
1.
Who is the audience, and how do you know? Provide at least three quotes that support your answer.
The audience appears to be the general public, policymakers, and those involved in water utility management. Quotes:
"81,000 homes in Pittsburgh received a worrisome letter about their water."
"Pittsburgh isn’t alone: Public utilities around the country are trying to make ends meet..."
"In a phone interview, Kevin Acklin, the chief of staff for Pittsburgh’s Mayor Bill Peduto..."
2.
What is your response to this reading? What did the article add
to your knowledge or understanding of this topic?
The article provides a detailed account of how private water management (Veolia) can have detrimental effects on a city's water system, with a focus on Pittsburgh. It highlights issues of lead contamination, financial mismanagement, and the potential negative impact of outsourcing critical services to private companies. This adds to my understanding of the challenges and
risks associated with privatizing essential public services like water management.
ChatGPT Response
Julia Lurie's article, "This Major City’s Drinking Water Was Fine. Then Came the Private Water Company," sheds light on the detrimental impact of private management companies on public utilities, using Pittsburgh's experience with Veolia as a case study. The narrative exposes a troubling pattern of cost-cutting measures that compromised the quality of drinking water and exacerbated financial challenges for the city's water authority.
The article begins by describing the initial dilemma faced by Pittsburgh in 2012, with a century-old water system in need of repair and a financially strained public utility, Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA). Turning
to private management, Pittsburgh hired Veolia, a global company that promised customized solutions reflecting best practices. The arrangement aimed to make the utility more efficient and save public dollars, but it had unintended consequences.
Under Veolia's management, PWSA underwent significant changes, including
staff layoffs, culture shifts, and alterations to the water treatment system. While some improvements were noted, such as reduced call waiting times and cost savings, the long-term impact on water quality and infrastructure proved detrimental.
The article highlights that Veolia's focus on short-term savings led to critical oversights, such as the abrupt change in water treatment chemicals without proper authorization, potentially contributing to elevated lead levels. The city's decision to switch back to soda ash after news of the Flint water crisis suggests a lack of transparency and accountability in the management process.
Pittsburgh's water quality issues were compounded by erratic billing practices, with residents facing inexplicably high bills for water they hadn't used. A class-action lawsuit ensued, alleging catastrophic failures in the new water meter readers installed by Veolia. The financial strain on residents and
the city further fueled discontent with the private management arrangement.
The article concludes by highlighting Pittsburgh's termination of the contract with Veolia in December 2017, citing mismanagement, financial burdens, and a lack of positive legacy. The subsequent lawsuit against Veolia accuses the company of abusing its position of trust, misleading PWSA, and prioritizing profits over public welfare.
The case of Pittsburgh serves as a cautionary tale, prompting questions about the role of private management in public utilities and the need for robust oversight. Lurie's narrative urges readers to scrutinize the motives and practices of private companies entering partnerships with public entities,
emphasizing the potential risks to both water quality and financial stability.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help