+ All Categories
Home > Documents > ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have...

ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have...

Date post: 25-Jul-2020
Category:

Documents
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Download Report this document
Share this document with a friend
56
ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008
Transcript
Page 1: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

ALLEGHENY COUNTY ndash May 9 2008

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Welcome by Board TAC EOrsquos

What can you expect

In the next two hourshellipbull An overview of the task forcebull A video and verbal overview of our regionrsquos

water-related problemsbull Overview of southwestern Pennsylvaniarsquos

current institutional systembull Exploration of multi-governmental collaborationbull Public input on problems and regional models

Task Force Background

Over the last decade several regional studies have provided extensive information on our regionrsquos water and sewage problems

These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems

The Regional Water Management Task Force was formed to begin achieving consensus on action steps

Dr Jared Cohon

RepresentationScope

Diverse high-level representation from 11 southwestern Pennsylvania counties Appointed with input from county commissioners

and state legislators Chair ndash Dr Jared Cohon

President Carnegie Mellon University

Vice Chair ndash Dr Angelo ArmentiPresident California University of Pennsylvania

15 additional members from throughout the region

Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania

Mission

Solving our regionrsquos water-related problems in a way that best serves our citizens

bull Protect the publicrsquos health ensure environmental sustainability provide for the regionrsquos economic vitalityand avoid costly regulatory actions

Institutional not technical projectbull Public engagement to determine consensusbull Implementation

Our water seems finehellip

The region has madegreat strides BUThellip

Southwestern Pennsylvania continues to face one of the

worst combinations of water problems in the nation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Show the videohellipDVD copies are available and this video can be viewed on our webpage

Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IndustrialMetals

IndustrialMetals

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

70rsquos 90rsquos

Source Analysis of USGS data monitoring

DrinkingWater

Standard

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Some of you are thinking our rivers are clean especially compared to the way they were when you were growing up13Well in certain respects they are cleaner Thanks to federal legislation in the early lsquo70s most forms of industrial pollution are no longer a problem in our rivers And a lot has been done to eliminate sewage contamination as well Remembering as recently as the rsquo50s most sewage went straight into the rivers untreated1313However we still have some work to do1313Data Taken From Three Sites 13 Allegheny New Kensington 13 Monongahela Braddock13 Beaver Beaver Falls1313Each data point represents the mean of samples taken in the given year13 Metals - 9 different metals sampled 30-35 total samples per site per year13 F Coliforms - 4 samples per site per year

Problems Sewage

An urban problembull combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problembull malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 2: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

What can you expect

In the next two hourshellipbull An overview of the task forcebull A video and verbal overview of our regionrsquos

water-related problemsbull Overview of southwestern Pennsylvaniarsquos

current institutional systembull Exploration of multi-governmental collaborationbull Public input on problems and regional models

Task Force Background

Over the last decade several regional studies have provided extensive information on our regionrsquos water and sewage problems

These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems

The Regional Water Management Task Force was formed to begin achieving consensus on action steps

Dr Jared Cohon

RepresentationScope

Diverse high-level representation from 11 southwestern Pennsylvania counties Appointed with input from county commissioners

and state legislators Chair ndash Dr Jared Cohon

President Carnegie Mellon University

Vice Chair ndash Dr Angelo ArmentiPresident California University of Pennsylvania

15 additional members from throughout the region

Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania

Mission

Solving our regionrsquos water-related problems in a way that best serves our citizens

bull Protect the publicrsquos health ensure environmental sustainability provide for the regionrsquos economic vitalityand avoid costly regulatory actions

Institutional not technical projectbull Public engagement to determine consensusbull Implementation

Our water seems finehellip

The region has madegreat strides BUThellip

Southwestern Pennsylvania continues to face one of the

worst combinations of water problems in the nation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Show the videohellipDVD copies are available and this video can be viewed on our webpage

Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IndustrialMetals

IndustrialMetals

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

70rsquos 90rsquos

Source Analysis of USGS data monitoring

DrinkingWater

Standard

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Some of you are thinking our rivers are clean especially compared to the way they were when you were growing up13Well in certain respects they are cleaner Thanks to federal legislation in the early lsquo70s most forms of industrial pollution are no longer a problem in our rivers And a lot has been done to eliminate sewage contamination as well Remembering as recently as the rsquo50s most sewage went straight into the rivers untreated1313However we still have some work to do1313Data Taken From Three Sites 13 Allegheny New Kensington 13 Monongahela Braddock13 Beaver Beaver Falls1313Each data point represents the mean of samples taken in the given year13 Metals - 9 different metals sampled 30-35 total samples per site per year13 F Coliforms - 4 samples per site per year

Problems Sewage

An urban problembull combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problembull malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 3: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Task Force Background

Over the last decade several regional studies have provided extensive information on our regionrsquos water and sewage problems

These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems

The Regional Water Management Task Force was formed to begin achieving consensus on action steps

Dr Jared Cohon

RepresentationScope

Diverse high-level representation from 11 southwestern Pennsylvania counties Appointed with input from county commissioners

and state legislators Chair ndash Dr Jared Cohon

President Carnegie Mellon University

Vice Chair ndash Dr Angelo ArmentiPresident California University of Pennsylvania

15 additional members from throughout the region

Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania

Mission

Solving our regionrsquos water-related problems in a way that best serves our citizens

bull Protect the publicrsquos health ensure environmental sustainability provide for the regionrsquos economic vitalityand avoid costly regulatory actions

Institutional not technical projectbull Public engagement to determine consensusbull Implementation

Our water seems finehellip

The region has madegreat strides BUThellip

Southwestern Pennsylvania continues to face one of the

worst combinations of water problems in the nation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Show the videohellipDVD copies are available and this video can be viewed on our webpage

Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IndustrialMetals

IndustrialMetals

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

70rsquos 90rsquos

Source Analysis of USGS data monitoring

DrinkingWater

Standard

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Some of you are thinking our rivers are clean especially compared to the way they were when you were growing up13Well in certain respects they are cleaner Thanks to federal legislation in the early lsquo70s most forms of industrial pollution are no longer a problem in our rivers And a lot has been done to eliminate sewage contamination as well Remembering as recently as the rsquo50s most sewage went straight into the rivers untreated1313However we still have some work to do1313Data Taken From Three Sites 13 Allegheny New Kensington 13 Monongahela Braddock13 Beaver Beaver Falls1313Each data point represents the mean of samples taken in the given year13 Metals - 9 different metals sampled 30-35 total samples per site per year13 F Coliforms - 4 samples per site per year

Problems Sewage

An urban problembull combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problembull malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 4: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Dr Jared Cohon

RepresentationScope

Diverse high-level representation from 11 southwestern Pennsylvania counties Appointed with input from county commissioners

and state legislators Chair ndash Dr Jared Cohon

President Carnegie Mellon University

Vice Chair ndash Dr Angelo ArmentiPresident California University of Pennsylvania

15 additional members from throughout the region

Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania

Mission

Solving our regionrsquos water-related problems in a way that best serves our citizens

bull Protect the publicrsquos health ensure environmental sustainability provide for the regionrsquos economic vitalityand avoid costly regulatory actions

Institutional not technical projectbull Public engagement to determine consensusbull Implementation

Our water seems finehellip

The region has madegreat strides BUThellip

Southwestern Pennsylvania continues to face one of the

worst combinations of water problems in the nation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Show the videohellipDVD copies are available and this video can be viewed on our webpage

Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IndustrialMetals

IndustrialMetals

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

70rsquos 90rsquos

Source Analysis of USGS data monitoring

DrinkingWater

Standard

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Some of you are thinking our rivers are clean especially compared to the way they were when you were growing up13Well in certain respects they are cleaner Thanks to federal legislation in the early lsquo70s most forms of industrial pollution are no longer a problem in our rivers And a lot has been done to eliminate sewage contamination as well Remembering as recently as the rsquo50s most sewage went straight into the rivers untreated1313However we still have some work to do1313Data Taken From Three Sites 13 Allegheny New Kensington 13 Monongahela Braddock13 Beaver Beaver Falls1313Each data point represents the mean of samples taken in the given year13 Metals - 9 different metals sampled 30-35 total samples per site per year13 F Coliforms - 4 samples per site per year

Problems Sewage

An urban problembull combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problembull malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 5: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania

Mission

Solving our regionrsquos water-related problems in a way that best serves our citizens

bull Protect the publicrsquos health ensure environmental sustainability provide for the regionrsquos economic vitalityand avoid costly regulatory actions

Institutional not technical projectbull Public engagement to determine consensusbull Implementation

Our water seems finehellip

The region has madegreat strides BUThellip

Southwestern Pennsylvania continues to face one of the

worst combinations of water problems in the nation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Show the videohellipDVD copies are available and this video can be viewed on our webpage

Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IndustrialMetals

IndustrialMetals

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

70rsquos 90rsquos

Source Analysis of USGS data monitoring

DrinkingWater

Standard

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Some of you are thinking our rivers are clean especially compared to the way they were when you were growing up13Well in certain respects they are cleaner Thanks to federal legislation in the early lsquo70s most forms of industrial pollution are no longer a problem in our rivers And a lot has been done to eliminate sewage contamination as well Remembering as recently as the rsquo50s most sewage went straight into the rivers untreated1313However we still have some work to do1313Data Taken From Three Sites 13 Allegheny New Kensington 13 Monongahela Braddock13 Beaver Beaver Falls1313Each data point represents the mean of samples taken in the given year13 Metals - 9 different metals sampled 30-35 total samples per site per year13 F Coliforms - 4 samples per site per year

Problems Sewage

An urban problembull combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problembull malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 6: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Mission

Solving our regionrsquos water-related problems in a way that best serves our citizens

bull Protect the publicrsquos health ensure environmental sustainability provide for the regionrsquos economic vitalityand avoid costly regulatory actions

Institutional not technical projectbull Public engagement to determine consensusbull Implementation

Our water seems finehellip

The region has madegreat strides BUThellip

Southwestern Pennsylvania continues to face one of the

worst combinations of water problems in the nation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Show the videohellipDVD copies are available and this video can be viewed on our webpage

Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IndustrialMetals

IndustrialMetals

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

70rsquos 90rsquos

Source Analysis of USGS data monitoring

DrinkingWater

Standard

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Some of you are thinking our rivers are clean especially compared to the way they were when you were growing up13Well in certain respects they are cleaner Thanks to federal legislation in the early lsquo70s most forms of industrial pollution are no longer a problem in our rivers And a lot has been done to eliminate sewage contamination as well Remembering as recently as the rsquo50s most sewage went straight into the rivers untreated1313However we still have some work to do1313Data Taken From Three Sites 13 Allegheny New Kensington 13 Monongahela Braddock13 Beaver Beaver Falls1313Each data point represents the mean of samples taken in the given year13 Metals - 9 different metals sampled 30-35 total samples per site per year13 F Coliforms - 4 samples per site per year

Problems Sewage

An urban problembull combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problembull malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 7: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Our water seems finehellip

The region has madegreat strides BUThellip

Southwestern Pennsylvania continues to face one of the

worst combinations of water problems in the nation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Show the videohellipDVD copies are available and this video can be viewed on our webpage

Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IndustrialMetals

IndustrialMetals

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

70rsquos 90rsquos

Source Analysis of USGS data monitoring

DrinkingWater

Standard

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Some of you are thinking our rivers are clean especially compared to the way they were when you were growing up13Well in certain respects they are cleaner Thanks to federal legislation in the early lsquo70s most forms of industrial pollution are no longer a problem in our rivers And a lot has been done to eliminate sewage contamination as well Remembering as recently as the rsquo50s most sewage went straight into the rivers untreated1313However we still have some work to do1313Data Taken From Three Sites 13 Allegheny New Kensington 13 Monongahela Braddock13 Beaver Beaver Falls1313Each data point represents the mean of samples taken in the given year13 Metals - 9 different metals sampled 30-35 total samples per site per year13 F Coliforms - 4 samples per site per year

Problems Sewage

An urban problembull combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problembull malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 8: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IndustrialMetals

IndustrialMetals

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

70rsquos 90rsquos

Source Analysis of USGS data monitoring

DrinkingWater

Standard

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Some of you are thinking our rivers are clean especially compared to the way they were when you were growing up13Well in certain respects they are cleaner Thanks to federal legislation in the early lsquo70s most forms of industrial pollution are no longer a problem in our rivers And a lot has been done to eliminate sewage contamination as well Remembering as recently as the rsquo50s most sewage went straight into the rivers untreated1313However we still have some work to do1313Data Taken From Three Sites 13 Allegheny New Kensington 13 Monongahela Braddock13 Beaver Beaver Falls1313Each data point represents the mean of samples taken in the given year13 Metals - 9 different metals sampled 30-35 total samples per site per year13 F Coliforms - 4 samples per site per year

Problems Sewage

An urban problembull combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problembull malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 9: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Problems Sewage

An urban problembull combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problembull malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 10: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams

hellipand by failure

By designhellip

Presenter
Presentation Notes
When it rains there is not enough system capacity in the sewers to handle both rainwater and sewage and so these overflows happen It happens even in sewers that were meant to only carry sewage from our homes because the pipes leak and let rainwater in When there is more sewage than the pipe can carry it will dump out anywhere it can sometimes we can see it at manhole covers and streams sometimes we canrsquot see it because itrsquos underground But either way sewage is getting out

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 11: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 12: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1631

2 Ohio 1378

3 New York 1032

4 Indiana 876

5 Illinois 742

6 West Virginia 681

7 Missouri 451

8 Kentucky 288

9 Massachusetts 278

10 Michigan 262

Communitieswith CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS

1 Southwest 763

2 Northeast 349

3 Southeast 211

4 North Central 125

5 South Central 118

6 Northwest 65

TOTAL 1631

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pennsylvania has more such sewer overflows than any other state and Southwestern Pennsylvania has nearly half of the overflows in Pennsylvania13The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) alone has more overflows than any sewer system in the country13

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 13: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region

15

4131917

622 72

14022

1 0

Number of CSOsby County

Communitieswith CSOs

States with the MostCombined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS1 Pennsylvania 16312 Ohio 13783 New York 10324 Indiana 876

Southwest PA 7635 Illinois 7426 West Virginia 6817 Missouri 4518 Kentucky 2889 Massachusetts 27810 Michigan 262

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But itrsquos not just Allegheny County -- there are almost as many sewer overflows outside of Allegheny County as inside it

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 14: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just how often are our sewers overflowing1313In Allegheny County the Health Department issues warning against human contact with our rivers when the sewers are overflowing during the summer recreational season 1313 Between 1994 and 2002 warnings were issued about 1 out of every 3 days13 In the last three summers warnings were issued about 1 out of every 2 days Let me say that again Over the last three years the health department issued warnings against contact with the rivers because of raw sewage contamination for over 50 of the summer recreation season Not industrial pollution Sewage pollution

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 15: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Chart1

Allegheny County Health Department CSO WarningsMay 15 - September 30
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 16: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

advisories graph

03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 17: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

riveradvisories

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 41
Total 110 689 50
0
May 16
june 30
july 31
aug 31
sept 30
138
Page 18: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

riveradvisories

Percentage of Unsafe Days Allegheny County May 15-Sept 30

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 19: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ndash 600+ Each Year

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 20: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Westmoreland

Washington

Somerset

Lawrence

Indiana

Greene

Fayette

Butler

Beaver

Armstrong

Allegheny

300000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewershellip

Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A large number of people in the region arenrsquot on public sewers even in Allegheny County Most of them use on-lot septic systems which are fine if they work properly13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 21: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania Black (centralized WWTP) gray (on-site systems)

white (ldquootherrdquo eg cesspools straight pipes)

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 22: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most of our soil does not support the use of traditional septic systems

LimitedUse

Slight orNo Limitation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
But in southwestern Pennsylvania our topography soils and high water table make it difficult for conventional on-lot septic systems to function properly and so thousands of them are failing and leaking untreated sewage into groundwater and surface waters

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 23: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly

into streets or streams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Even worse than inadequate public sewer systems and failing septic systems are wildcat sewers ndash pipes that go from the homes directly to the ditch out front or the nearby stream13This is not a stream ndash this is raw sewage flowing in front of these houses a half hour drive from downtown Pittsburgh

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 24: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

Water Sam ples V iolat ing Safe Contact Standardsfor Fecal Coliform E coli 2006

Presenter
Presentation Notes
While we are not alone in having sewage contamination problems we have what may be the worst such problems at least in the Ohio River Basin and perhaps the entire country

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 25: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Problems Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000 PArsquos median yearlyflood damage was $95 million $44 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984 Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 26: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

September 2004

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 27: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage

2800 of 4000 miles of PArsquos AMD degraded streamsare located in the Ohio River basinMoreover northern West Virginia has 1100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 28: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Only some of our problemshellip

Sewage AMD and stormwater are only three ofour regionrsquos many problemsOthers include water main breaks aging

infrastructure industrial pollutionhellip In a recent task force poll 49 of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the regionrsquos water problemsHolistic approach needed

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We cannot separate all of these issues and confront them completely independently13Read the framing paper

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 29: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Why should we care

Water does not recognize human or political boundariesbull Affects all of our regionrsquos residents bull Urban and ruralbull Regardless of age sex race or income level

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 30: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Why should we care

Significant costs of inactionbull While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease our current situation is extremely vulnerablebull Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructurebull State and federal regulatory actions which will lead to

even greater costs With aging infrastructure our problems will only get worse The status quo is at best untenable ndash

bull Neither safe economically beneficial nor legal for us tocontinue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 31: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets

Recreation

Tourism

EconomicDevelopment

NationalSecurity

Quality of LifePittsburgh

Kittanning

Beaver

Ohiopyle

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rivers have been a key element of our regionrsquos economy for many years and they are increasingly becoming key to the regionrsquos quality of life

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 32: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

These important problems must beconfronted aggressively

butsignificant obstaclesexist to fixing them

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 33: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $80 billion New sewer systems $05 billion

Septic system upgrades $05 billion

Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTUREAMD AND STORMWATER MONIES

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem will require billions of dollars of investment to address Even spread out over the next decade thatrsquos a huge amount But we have invested significant money

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 34: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes (eg education welfare roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care)

Water and sewage system funding through direct user expenditures with less state or federal monies

bull Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
people are paying for this one not experienced as a user fee

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 35: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Malfunctioning Septics

Surface Water IntakeGround Water IntakeCSO Outfalls

The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh

Morgantown

Water Quality ProblemsDownstreamhellip

hellipAre Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities Countiesand States

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The problem is complex ndash this is a portion of the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh and Morgantown WV13The EPA presently has enforcement actions in the works against ALCOSAN (the sewage treatment provider for 83 communities including the City of Pittsburgh) to get it to shut down its overflows to try to meet water quality standards13But the water quality coming into the ALCOSAN service area is already bad from the overflows upstream (as far away as Morgantown) the failing septic tanks and the wildcat sewers 13Obviously we canrsquot solve the water quality problem around Pittsburgh just with actions taken in Pittsburgh or even in Allegheny County We need a regional approach

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 36: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible

11 Count ies601 M unicipalit ies268 Authorit iesM any other jurisdict ions1140300 Households

Presenter
Presentation Notes
One of the reasons this problem has persisted is that so many organizations and people are responsible When you realize that every municipality has primary responsibility for sewage regulation and that every homeowner in the region owns part of the sewage treatment system you can see that the problem is not likely to get solved on its own13 An outside group of development experts were brought in recently to assess development opportunities in the region This photograph here is what they used to describe how they saw municipal cooperation in our region

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 37: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Number of Authorities by County

47

19

28

12

29

12 1210

24

30

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Alleg

heny

Arms

trong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ce

Some

rset

Washi

ngton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 38: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 39: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
Page 40: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Number of Authorities

47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Page 41: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Page 42: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Page 43: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Page 44: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Page 45: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Page 46: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Page 47: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

CSOs

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Page 48: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Number of People per Authority

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 49: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 50: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
Page 51: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Page 52: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet2

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Page 53: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

People per Authority

272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Page 54: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Page 55: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Square Miles per Authority

Number of Square Miles per Authority
155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Page 56: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Page 57: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

PENNVEST

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Page 58: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

CSOs

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Page 59: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Number of Square Miles per Authority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alleg

heny

Armstr

ong

Beav

er

Butle

r

Faye

tte

Gree

ne

Indian

aLa

wren

ceSo

merset

Washin

gton

Westm

orelan

d

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 60: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

River Advisories

Percent of Boating Season Unsafe Allegheny County(May 15-Sept 30)
91 (125 days)
03333333333
03623188406
02391304348
05144927536
04927536232
06014492754
07898550725
09057971014
0347826087
04057971014

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Page 61: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet 1

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny County CSO River Advisories 1997-2006
Year Advisories Days Length of Season Percent Unsafe
1997 12 46 138 33
1998 10 50 138 36
1999 11 33 138 24
2000 13 71 138 51
2001 15 68 138 49
2002 13 83 138 60
2003 8 109 138 79
2004 6 125 138 91
2005 11 48 138 35
2006 11 56 138 41
Total 110 689 50
Page 62: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Number of Authorities

Number of Authorities by County
47
19
28
12
29
12
12
10
24
30
38

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Page 63: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet2

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of authorities
Allegheny 47
Armstrong 19
Beaver 28
Butler 12
Fayette 29
Greene 12
Indiana 12
Lawrence 10
Somerset 24
Washington 30
Westmoreland 38
Page 64: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

People per Authority

Number of People per Authority
272694893617021
38101052631579
6479
145069166666667
51256551724138
33893333333333
74670833333333
94643
33342916666667
67632333333333
97366578947368

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Page 65: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet3

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Number of People per Authority
Allegheny 1281666 47 272694893617021
Armstrong 72392 19 38101052631579
Beaver 181412 28 6479
Butler 174083 12 145069166666667
Fayette 148644 29 51256551724138
Greene 40672 12 33893333333333
Indiana 89605 12 74670833333333
Lawrence 94643 10 94643
Somerset 80023 24 33342916666667
Washington 202897 30 67632333333333
Westmoreland 369993 38 97366578947368
Page 66: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Square Miles per Authority

155361702128
344210526316
155464285714
657166666667
272448275862
479916666667
69125
3605
4505
2857
269105263158

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Lawrence
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Page 67: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Sheet4

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Number of Square Miles per authority
Allegheny 7302 47 155361702128
Armstrong 654 19 344210526316
Beaver 4353 28 155464285714
Butler 7886 12 657166666667
Fayette 7901 29 272448275862
Greene 5759 12 479916666667
Indiana 8295 12 69125
Lawrence 3605 10 3605
Somerset 108120 24 4505
Washington 8571 30 2857
Westmoreland 10226 38 269105263158
Page 68: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

PENNVEST

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Estimated PENNVEST Expenditures 1997-2006
Allegheny 95280000
Armstrong 53371000
Beaver 70476000
Butler 65844000
Fayette 99452000
Greene 36805000
Indiana 44034000
Lawrence 44259000
Somerset 78543000
Washington 76784000
Westmoreland 154135000
TOTAL 818983000
Page 69: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

CSOs

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
CSO Outlets by County
Allegheny 413
Armstrong 18
Beaver 17
Butler 0
Fayette 72
Greene 2
Indiana 22
Lawrence 1
Somerset 15
Washington 76
Westmoreland 127
Total 763
Page 70: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so wellDeteriorating infrastructure

bull Average age is increasingbull Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans consent orders tap in

restrictionsAging workforce

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Low rates can mean less matching funds and usually when you solve the problems rates go up significantly

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 71: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Cooperation Takes Many Forms As a region we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized on

However sometimes we pay a cost Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

bull Water is a multi-municipal problem Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

bull Not about losing identity or voice Task Force does not have a preconceived solution but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceedbull because we all live downstreamhellip

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 72: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Regional approaches can workhellip

Examples in the region bull Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)

bull Bundles investments to get best funding solving serious problemsenjoys economy of scale

bull Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)bull Efficiently interconnected water systemsbull Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage

bull 3 Rivers Wet Weather Incbull Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 73: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Regional approaches can workhellip

Other metro areasbull Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)bull Minneapolis-St Paul (Metropolitan Council)bull Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)bull Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 74: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

Efficiencybull Operations and managementbull Shared equipment technology and personnel

Moneybull Greater access to fundingbull Coordinated investment

Equitybull Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basisbull Stabilized appropriate and common feesbull Shared planning regarding future water decisionsbull Upstreamdownstream Long term sustainability

Regulatory Relief

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Consistent standards for septic systems

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 75: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations 4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Wersquove seen regional cooperation in SWPA in other regions and wersquove discussed how it might help us here

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 76: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 77: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Model A ndash Regional Planning

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

bull Recommendations on sewage service areas which problems should be addressed first and by which meanshellip

Per capita tax to support planning functionsNo specific enforcement power

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Planning vs operations infrastructure

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 78: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing

ldquoSouthwestern PA Regional Water Districtrdquo Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion Local and regional water plans required

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 79: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county basis Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership andor operations to

authority would be permissible Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 80: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

ldquoSWPA Water Management Advisory Committeerdquobull Include participation from all local regional state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving Could occur under current situationhellip

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 81: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaborationGovernance of each model could be established in any

number of ways Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on watersewage issuesData collection and analysis of water and water systemsAdvocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 82: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importancebull Efficiencycostbull Environmental protectionsustainabilitybull Accountabilitybull Leadershipbull Securitybull Equitybull Regional Competitivenessbull (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 83: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water planningmanagement in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planningand management in the region

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 84: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Task Force

Timeline and Plans

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 85: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Questionscomments

Ty Gourley Project Managerdtg9pittedu

412-624-7792 (W)412-721-5142 (C)

wwwioppitteduwaterSign up for our email distribution list

Additional public meetingsindividual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 86: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US

Drought Status in April 2002

Drought Area

Drought Watch Area

Presenter
Presentation Notes
People in other parts of the country and even other parts of Pennsylvania are increasingly experiencing shortages of water Southwestern Pennsylvania has not -- in fact we are rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as having the most reliable watershed in the entire nation

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life
Page 87: ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008 Welcome by …...water and sewage problems. These efforts have consistently recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our rivers are a central part of who we are in southwestern Pennsylvania Pause for public input on problems being faced1313What would we be without our rivers They give is our13 Historical significance The original gateway to the west the confluence of the three rivers played an instrumental role in the development of our country13 Industrial heritage The American and international industrial revolution flourished here because of our abundant water and transportation access13 Modern identity The three rivers are a symbol of Pittsburgh nationally and internationally13 Basis for future economic growth As industry tourism and agriculture remain at the center of our economy and natural aesthetics and quality of life become increasingly important in business and talent attraction our rivers give us the basis for future economic growth
  • Slide Number 1
  • What can you expect
  • Task Force Background
  • RepresentationScope
  • Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania
  • Mission
  • Our water seems finehellip
  • Water Quality has Improvedbut Many Problems Remain
  • Problems Sewage
  • Sewage Overflows From SewersInto Our Rivers and Streams
  • Slide Number 11
  • SW PA Has Among the WorstSewage Overflow Problem in the US
  • Sewage Overflows ExistThroughout the Region
  • Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact4 Out of Every 5 Days
  • Slide Number 15
  • Another Sewage Problem On-lot septic system malfunction
  • Slide Number 17
  • hellipbut most of SWPA is Unsuitablefor Conventional On-lot Systems
  • Thousands of Homes HaveNo Sewage Treatment At All
  • SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin
  • Problems Flooding and Stormwater
  • Slide Number 22
  • Slide Number 23
  • Problems Abandoned Mine Drainage
  • Slide Number 25
  • Slide Number 26
  • Only some of our problemshellip
  • Why should we care
  • Why should we care
  • Water is One of Southwestern PArsquosGreatest Regional Assets
  • Slide Number 31
  • Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs
  • Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult
  • The Causes of the ProblemsAre Complex and Regional
  • Over 1000 Different Entities and1100000+ Homes Responsible
  • Number of Authorities by County
  • Number of People per Authority
  • Number of Square Miles per Authority
  • Some of these entities are doing wellhellipand some not doing so well
  • Cooperation Takes Many Forms
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • Regional approaches can workhellip
  • How multi-municipal collaboration might help us
  • Models for Input
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Model A ndash Regional Planning
  • Model B ndash Regional Planning and Financing
  • Model C ndash WatershedCounty Operations and Planning
  • Model D ndash Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration
  • Mix and Match Components
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Phase II Goal
  • Slide Number 53
  • Questionscomments
  • SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the US
  • Water is Vitalto our Quality of Life

Recommended
ALLEGHENY RIVER The Allegheny River rises in north central ...

ALLEGHENY RIVER The Allegheny River rises in north central ...

Documents

Allegheny Technologies

Allegheny Technologies

Documents

ALLEGHENY TRAIL FOREST

ALLEGHENY TRAIL FOREST

Documents

RCED-90-57 Water Pollution: Serious Problems Confront ...

RCED-90-57 Water Pollution: Serious Problems Confront ...

Documents

Confront challenges in life

Confront challenges in life

Career

County of Allegheny - Allegheny County | Always …apps.county.allegheny.pa.us/BidsSearch/pdf/6783.pdfcounty of allegheny . rich fitzgerald . county executive . department of administrative

County of Allegheny - Allegheny County | Always …apps.county.allegheny.pa.us/BidsSearch/pdf/6783.pdfcounty of allegheny . rich fitzgerald . county executive . department of administrative

Documents

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States · 2018. 1. 8. · Petitioners “personally confront” HB 1523. In any event, Petitioners “personally confront” do HB 1523. They confront

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States · 2018. 1. 8. · Petitioners “personally confront” HB 1523. In any event, Petitioners “personally confront” do HB 1523. They confront

Documents

North Allegheny Style Manual - North Allegheny School District

North Allegheny Style Manual - North Allegheny School District

Documents

Last ESM Attended in 2014 - Center for Dirt and Gravel ......Allegheny Corapolis Boro, Allegheny Bolea, Rudy 2901 04/30/2014 412-264-3002 Allegheny Glassport Boro, Allegheny Bradley,

Last ESM Attended in 2014 - Center for Dirt and Gravel ......Allegheny Corapolis Boro, Allegheny Bolea, Rudy 2901 04/30/2014 412-264-3002 Allegheny Glassport Boro, Allegheny Bradley,

Documents

CURRENT THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WHICH CONFRONT OUR … Theological Problems... · CURRENT THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WHICH CONFRONT OUR CHURCH The purpose of this study is to point up and

CURRENT THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WHICH CONFRONT OUR … Theological Problems... · CURRENT THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WHICH CONFRONT OUR CHURCH The purpose of this study is to point up and

Documents

ACT 32 PSD CODES - Jordan TaxCODE ACT 32 PSD CODES ALLEGHENY NORTH TAX COLLECTION DISTRICT 71 ALLEGHENY VALLEY SD 7101 ALLEGHENY CHESWICK BORO 710101 ALLEGHENY HARMAR TOWNSHIP 710102

ACT 32 PSD CODES - Jordan TaxCODE ACT 32 PSD CODES ALLEGHENY NORTH TAX COLLECTION DISTRICT 71 ALLEGHENY VALLEY SD 7101 ALLEGHENY CHESWICK BORO 710101 ALLEGHENY HARMAR TOWNSHIP 710102

Documents

Introduction to Most Serious Problems: The IRS Must ... High Quality Taxpayer Service in the Twenty-First Century Legislative ... Problems: The IRS Must Confront Challenges to . ...

Introduction to Most Serious Problems: The IRS Must ... High Quality Taxpayer Service in the Twenty-First Century Legislative ... Problems: The IRS Must Confront Challenges to . ...

Documents

Raport Confront Ro

Raport Confront Ro

Documents

Diagnosis - Allegheny County

Diagnosis - Allegheny County

Documents

THE ALLEGHENY - nrs.fs.fed.us

THE ALLEGHENY - nrs.fs.fed.us

Documents

Great Allegheny Passage

Great Allegheny Passage

Documents

The Allegheny News

The Allegheny News

Documents

Psychical Research and Survival - rait.airclima.ru · €€€€€€€€€ PSYCHICAL RESEARCH has to proceed on scientific lines. The chief of the many problems which confront

Psychical Research and Survival - rait.airclima.ru · €€€€€€€€€ PSYCHICAL RESEARCH has to proceed on scientific lines. The chief of the many problems which confront

Documents