Oct 7, 2022 5 min read

East Dunkard Water Authority is facing a possible $225,000 civil penalty by the state Public Utility Commission, and its customers are unhappy they’re now facing a surcharge to pay for ongoing problems with the troubled water provider.

The water authority in southeastern Greene County reached the proposed settlement with the investigative arm of the PUC on Sept. 26 for providing water to five neighboring communities since 2011 without regulatory approval.

The process is now under review by an administrative law judge, who will offer a recommendation to the PUC’s board of commissioners for them to make a final ruling on what, if any, civil penalty East Dunkard should face. There is no timeline on when a final decision will be made.

But East Dunkard is wasting no time in trying to collect money for the potential civil penalty, which it agreed through the proposed settlement to pay by September 2023, although there are options for that date to be pushed back. The water authority and its board of directors sent a letter to customers Sept. 1 alerting them of the issue and announcing there will be a $16.07 monthly surcharge for 10 months beginning in November. The letter states the water authority agreed to the proposed settlement out of fears that litigation through the courts could costs millions of dollars.

The letter goes on to say that its “customers are paying the price for something that happened years ago,” and that the civil penalty will place a burden on its ratepayers.

“All avenues have been exhausted but the PUC was not agreeable,” the letter states. “The PUC is supposed to help and support customers not put undo hardships on them.”

David Vukmanic, who just recently moved to Dilliner, was dumbfounded when he received the letter and saw the monthly surcharge he’ll have to pay for the civil penalty.

“A lot of us live on a fixed income, with everything going crazy,” Vukmanic said of the rising cost of living. “I didn’t even live here. How could I be fined for something I didn’t do? It’s like paying (someone else’s) traffic tickets.”

Phone messages to East Dunkard Water Authority’s office near Dilliner and its Washington-based solicitor, Megan Patrick, were not returned Thursday. PUC spokesperson Nils Hagen-Frederiksen said he could not comment on the proposed settlement because it remains in litigation and has not yet been finalized.

It was not known if the surcharge was being applied to all 1,600 customers in the system or just to people living in Dunkard Township. It’s also unclear why the water authority plans to begin charging customers the monthly fee immediately when the settlement still has not been approved by the PUC’s five-person board.

The PUC’s Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement opened an informal inquiry into the water authority in September 2020 over whether it expanded services to communities beyond Dunkard Township without authorization in 2011. Portions of Cumberland, Greene, Monongahela, Perry and Whiteley townships have been receiving East Dunkard’s water since that time without a “certificate of public convenience” from the PUC, according to investigators.

Stephanie Wimer, the senior prosecutor for the PUC’s BI&E, wrote that the five communities had “unreasonable service” over the past four years when faced with water quality issues, but that they had no recourse since there was no mechanism for those townships to oversee the East Dunkard’s board. She noted that the original civil penalty her office was seeking could be up to $500,000, so the lower amount was considered a compromise.

“These ‘outside customers’ lack the ability to vote for the officials who manage the municipal authority, and the officials who manage the municipal authority are not beholden to ‘outside customers’ for their power,” Wimer wrote in the settlement.

East Dunkard wrote in its response that supervisors in the five townships individually approved the partnership with the water authority earlier this year, meaning any financial penalty is no longer warranted since the issue has been resolved. However, in contrast to the letter it sent to customers last month, the authority wrote in the joint petition with the PUC that it believes the settlement is a “fair and reasonable outcome” for its previous transgressions.

“The foregoing terms and basis for entering into this Settlement are the result of balanced compromises of the interests of both parties in this matter,” the authority wrote in its response. “The Authority believes that approval of this Settlement is in the public interest.”

State Sen. Camera Bartolotta, R-Carroll, and state Rep. Pam Synder, D-Jefferson, wrote separate letters to the PUC recently asking for it to consider removing any financial penalty from the settlement, although they both acknowledged this week that the situation is out of their hands.

East Dunkard’s board of directors met Thursday night to discuss a variety of issues, including a planned meeting between the water authority’s general manager and First National Bank to set up an account to hold the money for the civil penalty. It was not known how the surcharge money would be reimbursed to customers if the PUC’s board of commissioners eliminated the monetary penalty from the settlement.

The proposed settlement allows East Dunkard to ask for a delay in the payment deadline if it can show that it is using the money to make improvements to its facilities after ongoing water quality issues have plagued the system in recent years. There were two boil water advisories earlier this year due to water quality issues at East Dunkard’s treatment plant.

State Department of Environmental Protection records show the regulatory agency has issued 20 violation notices to East Dunkard since July 2021 for various problems with its plant and water distribution system.