Keep Pittsburgh Water Public–Using Your Voice in the May 20th Election

What is the ballot referendum?  

On May 20th, Pittsburgh voters will get to decide whether they want to keep their water systems public. The question will be displayed on the ballot as follows:  

“Shall the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter be amended and supplemented by adding a new Article 11:  RIGHT TO PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS, WASTEWATER SYSTEM, AND STORM SEWER SYSTEMS, which restricts the lease and/or sale of the City’s water and sewer system to private entities?” 

Voting YES is a vote for public water. Voting YES would add an amendment to the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter and protect our water systems from privatization.  

Voting NO would fail to protect Pittsburgh water systems from privatization by rejecting the proposed Home Rule Charter Amendment. 

The effort to place this question on the ballot was community-led by the Our Water Table Coalition. The referendum has received broad support by Mayor Gainey, Pittsburgh City Council, Pittsburgh Water (former known as Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority), Fair Shake Environmental Legal Services, and more. 

Who can vote? 

Anyone who resides in the City of Pittsburgh and is registered to vote!  

Independents, Greens, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, etc. can all vote for ballot measures! Unlike a normal primary election, party affiliation does not matter! 

Check your voter registration here: Voter Registration Status  

• Note: many people are taken off the registration list after a Presidential Election so be sure to check! 

Not sure where to vote? Check here: Polling Place Information 

Why is it important?  

Water is a human right, and we should protect water as a public resource rather than allowing it to become a commodity for profit. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania has seen an increase in efforts to privatize our water in recent years. According to Food and Water Watch, 1 in 3 Pennsylvanian’s are served by a private water system, as compared to the national average of 1 in 10.  

Privatized water systems have been shown to cause an increase to water rates. In Pennsylvania, some residents have seen price hikes as high as 100%, forcing families to bear another financial burden on a service that is essential. Both their rates and management practices are influenced by their pressure to report profitable margins to shareholders and investors, rather than simply being held accountable to the customers they serve. 

Image sourced from Food & Water Watch, Water Privitization: Facts and Figures

By contrast, public water systems are directly held accountable by the public. It gives the city more control over the water supply and as a result is more transparent. Public water systems have lower rates, more reliable, and are more likely to make long-term investments in supporting public health.  

Why now?  

Pittsburgh has faced efforts to privatize over the years. Most notably, Pittsburgh’s water systems were previously managed by a private company, Veolia. In 2016, their contract was terminated after Pittsburgh residents experienced widespread issues and a lawsuit was filed. Former Pittsburgh Mayor Peduto stated, “It is clear Veolia cared more about their bottom line than providing residents with the high-quality water and customer service they deserve.” The same private company, was sued for allegations of “fail[ing] to properly identify corrosion control treatment issues, which exacerbated and prolong[ing] the water crisis” in Flint, Michigan. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Legislature shows little signs of reigning in the privatization efforts across the state. 

We cannot let Pittsburgh fall victim to the increasing privatization of Pennsylvania’s water systems.  While the current Board of Pittsburgh Water is committed to maintaining operations as a public entity, there are no laws that would prohibit future Board members from selling the water system to a private company. Passing this ballot referendum would ensure that the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter prohibits privatization of our water and sewer systems and preserves public ownership.

How can you support? 

Individuals  

• Sign-on to endorse 

• Share this blog on social media 

• Make a plan to vote and ask five of your friends to come vote 

• Request a mail-in ballot and vote from the comfort of your home 

• Join the Pittsburgh United’s Our Water Table Coalition for efforts to raise awareness about the ballot referendum  

Organizations  

• Share general awareness that the question will be on the ballot   

• Note: Non-profits can conduct unlimited non-partisan get out the vote and voter registration drive efforts.* 

• Sign-on to endorse 

• Note: Non-profits can support ballot initiatives! There are some limitations, such as the expenditure limitations and expenses may be subject to reporting requirements. To learn more about non-profits and ballot initiatives see our previous blogpost here: Tips for Navigating an Election Year as a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit — Fair Shake Environmental Legal Services.* 

• Share this blog on social media  

Fair Shake Environmental Legal Services is a 501(c)(3) non-profit law firm and we endorse passage of this ballot referendum. At Fair Shake we believe all people and communities should have access to the tools of change, and that everyone has the right to make decisions about the air, water, and land where they live, work, and play. Our organizational decision-making is guided by ensuring our work supports community-led efforts that promotes environmental justice outcomes.  

The efforts to place this referendum on the ballot have been community-led by the Our Water Table Coalition. We believe protecting public access to water is an environmental justice issue because too often marginalized communities face systemic barriers to clean and affordable water. Our team provided assistance in navigating the ballot referendum process and chose to endorse this referendum because ballot referendums have the opportunity to play a unique role for communities that are seeking to protect environmental rights, as well as for direct democracy and community-driven decision-making.  

"I am grateful to have the chance to support this community-driven ballot referendum, especially at a time when public services and environmental justice are under attack. This initiative not only reflects our shared commitment to affordable, safe water but also demonstrates the power communities have to create change.” Brooke Christy, Fair Shake Equal Justice Works Fellow, sponsored by Fenwick & West LLC. 

*Disclaimer: Navigating electoral advocacy as a 501(c)(3) is not always easy but we hope these tips are helpful for those interested. All the information provided is for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. This is merely intended to address questions that our Fair Shake team is frequently asked. If you have questions or concerns, we encourage you to reach out to our Fair Shake team! We provide legal services on a sliding-scale and have experience serving as general counsel to non-profit organizations. Other resources that may be helpful for nonprofit organizations:  

• IRS: Fact Sheet 

• Non-profit Vote: Staying Nonpartisan: Permissible Election Activities Checklist 

• Alliance for Justice: Practical Guidance: Nonprofit Voter Assistance Series 

• Alliance for Justice: Ballot Measure Toolkit 

• Fair Shake: ‘green-light’ and ‘red-light’ lobbying and advocacy activities for 501(c)(3)’s 

It’s Time to Face the Music: Harms of Noise Pollution and the EPA’s Ineffective Regulation

By Isabella DiCosmo, Fair Shake Legal Intern

We live in a loud world where noise is all around us. While there is noise we enjoy, like music, there is noise that can hurt us – noise pollution. National Geographic defines noise pollution as “any unwanted or disturbing sound that affects the health and well-being of humans and other organisms.” Common contributors of noise pollution are road traffic, planes, garbage trucks, construction, manufacturing processes, and leaf blowers. While we cannot see it, noise pollution has very real effects on human health and the environment.

In addition to the more obvious side effects, like hearing loss, noise pollution also contributes to the exacerbation of cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes, sleep disturbances, stress, mental health and cognition problems (like memory and attention deficits), and childhood learning delays. These harms compound in environmental justice communities. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses the phrase “health disparities” to describe this occurrence. The CDC defines health disparities as “preventable differences in the burden of disease, injury, violence, or in opportunities to achieve optimal health experienced by socially disadvantaged racial, ethnic, and other population groups, and communities.”

As for the environment, noise pollution interferes with animals’ ability to use sound for purposes of communicating, navigating, finding food, attracting mates, and avoiding predators. Noise pollution harms animals both on land and in the sea by disrupting sonar and echolocation.  Natural sounds (from biological sources as opposed to anthropological sources) have been found to reduce pain, lower stress, improve mood, and enhance cognitive performance.

While noise pollution poses a substantial threat to human health and the environment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charged with regulating it has been largely inactive under its Congressional authority to do so within the Noise Control Act of 1972 (NCA). Under the NCA, the EPA is given the authority to identify and regulateproducts that are “major sources” of noise. The NCA also leaves the primary responsibility of noise control to state and local governments, while recognizing that federal action is needed for major noise sources in commerce.

An advocacy organization recently filed a citizen suit against the EPA, asserting that the agency has failed to perform a variety of responsibilities Congress assigned to it under the NCA. These duties include the duties to review, revise, and supplement published noise criteria and published information on safe levels of environmental noise, identify and regulate major sources of noise, develop low-noise-emission products, designate products and promulgate labeling regulations, coordinate and consult regularly with federal agencies and report on their noise control programs, and assist state and local governments in developing effective noise control programs.

The suit relies on studies documenting noise pollution health risks. More updated noise pollution regulations will benefit the public, as they will be better protected against the harms noise pollution causes. Additionally, coming into compliance with new, updated regulations puts a burden on industry. Industry members, including manufacturers of products such as personal listening devices, outdoor power equipment, and transportation technologies, will have to pay the cost of compliance. For example, in the aircraft industry, the compliance costs to modify and retest airplane engines range from $1 million to $3 million per engine. However, the cost of noise pollution in the aircraft industry alone is about $72 million. The compliance cost seems like a small price to pay for the protection of people’s hearing and reduction of harms to the environment.

Benefits of the Water Works Dam Removal Project in Warren, Ohio

Warren, Ohio, a small city located in northeast Ohio, is currently at the center of a massive project striving to improve poor environmental conditions, specifically water quality, in Eastern Ohio. The Water Works Dam removal project is part of a greater project called the Mahoning River Corridor Revitalization Plan, developed by the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments. This project’s mission includes ecological improvements, restoration efforts, expanding recreational amenities, and enhancing economic development opportunities regionally and within communities according to the Limited Environmental Review of the Water Works Dam Project. Before finalizing the plan in 2021, Eastgate engaged with numerous townships and communities along the river via outreach and meetings to make certain that community members’ voices were heard throughout the project’s development. The Mahoning River Corridor Revitalization Plan identified and located nine low-head dams along the Mahoning as priority dams for removal. Of the nine, the Water Works dam, located in central Warren, is the fifth dam scheduled to be removed.  

     There are various reasons why these dams along the Mahoning are in urgent need of deconstruction. First, many of these dams were initially built to power the steel mills and industry that had once heavily occupied Warren during the early and mid-20th century. These dams restricted the river of its natural, free-flowing currents and created lake-like conditions that disrupted fish migration, worsened water quality and water contamination, and decreased biological diversity which requires cleaner and healthier aquatic habitats. Second, once the dams are removed and the river’s conditions begin improving, the Mahoning River Corridor Revitalization plan includes support for the formation of community well-being establishments. Such establishments include commercial and recreational districts as well as pedestrian trails, and these establishments will be built with the goal of fostering healthier relationships between community members and the river. Resources and descriptions of potential support systems for the development of these establishments have already been organized by Eastgate and can be found on their website. 

     The Water Works dam is scheduled to be removed by December 2023 with the total cost of the removal expected to be $3,225,500. As the Limited Environmental Review states, the project is to be funded by the Ohio EPA through its Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program (WRRSP) and the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments. To learn more about the Warren Water Works Dam removal or the Mahoning River Corridor Revitalization Plan, visit the Eastgate Council of Governments website or the Mahoning River Corridor Revitalization project website. 

By Ha Min Jeong, Fair Shake Community Democracy Program Intern