Mapping Stakeholder Relations: Water Pollution in Pittsburgh
By Team Autopoiesis: Kimberly Blacutt, Bea Maggipinto, Jocelyn Morningstar, Deeya Parikh, & Max Shim
This article documents our second assignment, “Mapping Stakeholder Relations” for the 2024 Transition Design Seminar taught by Terry Irwin and Gideon Kossoff at CMU. Our team will be tackling the wicked problem of water pollution in Pittsburgh for the duration of this class and will see how it connects to other wicked problems in Pittsburgh and beyond. By mapping stakeholder relations we aim to understand who the stakeholders related to water pollution in Pittsburgh are, and what their hopes and fears are. Ultimately, this assignment will serve as a proposal for actual research because for this assignment we will not be directly engaging with stakeholders and instead will be carefully speculating on what their hopes and fears might be through desktop research.
How does water pollution affect Pittsburgh?
In our previous research, where we mapped the wicked problem of water pollution in Pittsburgh, we learned that Pittsburgh faces formidable challenges when it comes to dealing with water pollution as it affects public health, the environment and the economy simultaneously. The city’s industrial legacy, coupled with aging water pipe infrastructure, has led to significant water quality issues that directly and adversely impact the health of the city’s residents, especially pregnant women and children. Water pollution is also harming local aquatic ecosystems and contributing towards a loss of biodiversity. Economically, addressing water pollution demands substantial investments in treatment and infrastructure upgrades, escalating costs for residents, businesses, and future generations. Moreover, water pollution undermines Pittsburgh’s quality of life and reputation. Despite ongoing efforts to enhance water quality through infrastructure improvements and regulatory compliance, water pollution remains a critical concern for the city, requiring sustained focus and resources. Identifying the key stakeholders involved in addressing water pollution in Pittsburgh reveals potential disagreements or conflicting needs among these groups, underscoring the complexity of resolving this issue.
Stakeholder Mapping Method
We began our stakeholder mapping exercise by considering who the primary stakeholders were. To help figure this out, we asked: Which group is most adversely affected by this wicked problem? Which group has a lot of power and privilege and may be indifferent about its resolution? Which groups have the power to help solve the problem? And finally, which groups might be benefiting from the problem and would not want to see it resolved? We began listing stakeholder groups based on these questions and speculated on the mindset characteristics of those groups.
The first groups we considered were those that were most adversely affected by the problem, under which we included human and non-human stakeholders. We thought Pittsburgh Residents from lower socioeconomic classes; young children, and pregnant women were the most impacted human groups; but we also wanted to include non-human groups like the aquatic creatures in the Allegheny and riparian plant and animal life.
We then considered that wealthy Pittsburgh residents that live in areas where the water quality is good and lead pipes are not an issue might not be as invested in having the problem solved as those who are directly affected by the problem. Next, we speculated that the groups that might be best situated to tackle the problem could be organizations of residents who could advocate and demand rights to quality water; local Pittsburgh media organizations, which could communicate the and emphasize the problem as well as elevate the voices of community leaders and affected residents; and finally, authorities like the PWSA which is a group whose mission is “to support our region by protecting public health and the environment through the delivery of safe and reliable water services with a commitment to future generations.”
Finally, we considered which groups might be benefitting from the water pollution problem in Pittsburgh, even if it was indirectly. For these groups we considered entities who might be sell products for water treatment; Pittsburgh industries that discharge toxic materials; cost-cutting water management consultancy groups — such as Veolia; fracking companies and shareholders; and providers of bottled water.
Next, we had a brainstorming session where we considered the ways in which systems of oppression[5] are connected to water pollution in Pittsburgh and its most vulnerable stakeholders. We consider Systems of oppression because they may cause, underpin, or exacerbate conflicts in stakeholder relations. One of our main takeaways from this session was realizing that the plan to replace the problematic pipe infrastructure is phased. Not all the lead pipes throughout Pittsburgh are to be replaced simultaneously. So, we wondered which neighborhoods might be getting their pipes replaced first and why? What politics were at play in those decisions? These questions remain to be answered, but it was by considering the power dynamics at play that we were able to ask it.
Once we had considered the power dynamics between our stakeholder groups, we mapped our stakeholders across a “power spectrum” to understand which groups had the most power and which had the least. We mapped “Industries that discharge toxic materials” as our most powerful group since these industries are large, wealthy and provide services and materials that are economically valued. These industries are primarily concerned with profit and job creation which is what government bodies are also in favor of. Next, we listed the PSWA, an entity which wants to make profit but also wants to make things better for residents. Following PWSA, we listed lower income communities — because we think that they have less monetary and political power to renovate their infrastructure and ensure water quality standards. As the least powerful group, we listed the riparian and aquatic life along the Allegheny River — this group doesn’t have a voice in decision making.
Finally, we felt ready to make a more specific map of the stakeholder relations related to water pollution in Pittsburgh. We decided to pick four specific stakeholder groups that fell along the power spectrum that we had previously identified. We chose to specify the stakeholder groups so that we could get specific and more accurate when we listed their hopes and fears. The stakeholder groups we chose to map are: Shell petrochemical plant, Arlington community, Club shell (Pleurobema clava), and PWSA. We will further describe these stakeholder groups in the sections that follow.
Defining the Stakeholders Involved
We chose four specific stakeholders that we thought were representative of the wide range of affected groups related to water pollution in Pittsburgh as a starting point for this stakeholder relation map. We describe each stakeholder group and our speculations about their mindset below. The groups we selected are: Shell corporation, the Arlington community, Club shell (Pleurobema clava), and PWSA. Other more general stakeholder groups we identified are: Low income Residents, Pittsburgh Land Wildlife, High income residents, PGG, Rivers wildlife, Land wildlife, Politicians, Pittsburgh council, Bottled water brands, Waterways: the three rivers, Freshwater, Water treatment sellers, Construction firms, Tourism Agencies
The Arlington Community
Pittsburgh has several disadvantaged communities, including Arlington, situated south of the Monongahela River. We take this neighborhood as an example of stakeholders representing these communities that are particularly vulnerable within the city, but there are many others that face similar problems. We chose this particular community by observing two maps: the map of neighborhoods in need [2], and the PGH2O map of planned work for renewal of lead pipes [3]. By overlapping these two maps, we notice that Arlington is one of the most disadvantaged areas in Pittsburgh and one that largely does not have any data about the status of its pipes containing lead. Data shows an increase in criminal activity in the area, a low rating in schools and low employment opportunities, as well as ranking very low as a commutable district in the city. We envisioned a few struggles the community is facing related to water pollution in the city:
- Tap water in Pittsburgh is contaminated with lead and PFAS, and the city is occasionally issued with boil water advisories. Buying bottled water to sustain from drinking tap water can be too expensive for low-income households.
- Polluted tap water can cause severe or long-term health issues that residents might not be able to afford to pay bills for.
- House owners might not be interested or might not be able to afford changing lead pipes or installing expensive filtering systems.
- The community might be segregated and not properly represented in courthouses to defend their rights, in particular, the human right to clean water.
These are only some examples of the struggles the community faces, but certainly some examples of pressing ones in this context. We also envisioned what the community is hoping will improve in their neighborhood and in general for its residents:
- Having their human right of access to clean water for drinking and sanitation respected.
- Improvements in salaries and the job market in the area in general, including more public transport for commuters.
- A need for the council and the government to be more proactive in safeguarding residents’ health, acting to protect their rights with policies and laws regarding water pollution.
- PWSA to be more reliable in providing clean tap water.
Arlington’s residents’ struggles and hopes entangle, of course, with other stakeholders’ visions. An important one to note, for example, is the desire for an improvement in the job market, which coincides with that of highly polluting companies like Shell being secure job providers. A lack of other opportunities perpetuates the growth of such companies and their impact on local water pollution. The balance of the ecosystems in the rivers and the community are also intertwined as contaminated molluscs eaten by fish might be a health hazard in the food chain. Legal and political representation is also an issue that affects this community. This is an issue shared with other stakeholders, especially non-human ones that don’t have such representation at all — or it would need to be created by a group of experts that understands their needs.
This summary of struggles and hopes is assumed by the team without having lived in the area or having interviewed the residents. If this mapping were in a real-life context, it would be important for these stakeholders to be invited to voice their concerns personally.
The Club Shell mussel (Pleurobema clava) — is a species of freshwater mussel that resides in rivers. They are a federally protected endangered species that can be found living in the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh. The Club Shell prefer to live in a habitat of loose sediment or gravel where they are able to bury themselves a couple of inches below the ground. They are endangered because they need clean water to live and due to water pollution like industrial and agricultural waste that settles into their habitat their living conditions are less than ideal.
Pittsburgh has a diverse water system that is made up of 3 rivers, the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio. In these rivers are a diverse community of species that rely on this water as their habitat. We will be using the Club Shell found in the Allegheny as a representation of living creatures that reside within the rivers to demonstrate how they are affected by water pollution. As we cannot hear from the actual mussels themselves, we will be inferring and making assumptions based on our own research; however, this summary would need to be assessed by ecologists and biologists who know the “best interest” of these species more in-depth, knowing how they are affected by water pollution in their ecosystem.
As with much human-caused pollution, the effects go directly into the environment and harm innocent wildlife that do not even reap the benefits of why this pollution is happening. The same goes for the Club Shell mussel in the Allegheny River. Here is what we propose the fears and struggles of the Club Shell mussel to be:
- Afraid that their habitat will never be safe again, since the sediment that they reside in acts as a reservoir for metals and radioactivity.
- Chemicals released from fracking decades ago are still being found in their shells, which could continue to impact their health and cause health-related issues in the future.
- They don’t have a voice in the decision-making process that would help to keep the water and therefore their their environment clean.
- Being on the bottom of the food chain means that if consumed pollutants will enter the food chain and affect the health of their predators, which could lead to unbalanced ecosystems and loss of biodiversity.
- Many freshwater mussels have gone extinct due to water quality and with most of the 49 species of mussel in the Allegheny being endangered, there is a fear that the Club Shell could too go extinct [1].
These are only some of the main concerns the Club Shell mussels might have from the poor quality of water that they live in. We are also able to infer some of the desires that the mussel might have for the future:
- Having biodiversity maintained in their ecosystems so different species can thrive.
- They can act as bioindicator species that help residents have a way to determine is the water quality is improving or not.
- They want to live into adulthood so that they can produce offspring that is healthy and will keep their species and habitat in the Allegheny alive.
- As one of the mussels’ main purposes in life is to help clarify the water they live in, they want the pollution to get to a minimal level that their efforts with actually make an impact.
- They want to act as an educator to help engage Pittsburgh residents and have them understand the importance of clean water by creating a spotlight on the negative impacts of water pollution.
The fears and desires of the Club Shell mussel have interesting connections to those of the other stakeholders. The worry that the toxic water will impact their health and their children is similar to that of the Arlington community. As well as, the hopes that they can be guaranteed safe water. The hope of PSWA to be able to be a reliable source of clean water for future generations connects to the mussels’ fear that they will go extinct in the future if the situation does not change. Shell Petrochemical has a hope of finding alternatives to fracking which aligns well with the mussels’ fear chemicals from fracking are going to have long-term and long-lasting negative impacts on their habitat and health.
Shell Petrochemical Plant — The establishment of the $6bn Shell fracking establishment in northwest Pittsburgh has caused detrimental ramifications while also proving to be a supremely profitable investment. While on a mission to establish itself as a leading supplier of oil and energy, Shell’s activities, its hydraulic fracking activities in particular, have resulted in widespread and long-lasting impacts on Pittsburgh’s water supply. However, given Shell’s seemingly bottomless financial repository, it continues to bypass environmental mandates, such as regulatory limits on toxic gas emissions and the use of harmful chemicals in its wastewater, by means of financial settlements.
Shell Corporation, within the context of Pittsburgh’s water pollution crisis, represents a pivotal industrial stakeholder whose operations have a profound impact on our other selected stakeholders, i.e, the PSWA, the residents of the Arlington Community, and the Club Shell molluscs found in the Allegheny River. As an energy giant involved in activities such as fracking, Shell proves to be a powerful economic engine, driving not only regional growth but also providing employment. Shell’s hydraulic fracking activities, both in terms of the quantity of water used in the process and the chemicals that subsequently leach into the general and groundwater supply, positions Shell as a focal point in the conversation about Pittsburgh’s water pollution crisis. We have considered Shell to be the stakeholder group with a lot of power, one that perhaps causes, exacerbates or keeps the problem stuck, and stands to gain if it is not resolved, or has no interest in seeing the water pollution crisis resolved.
Given its economic stewardship and environmental degradation role, Shell’s activities are placed at an interesting nexus. Here are the hopes and desires we imagined for Shell, some either positively or negatively interconnected with the other stakeholders:
- We hope to progress together by providing more and cleaner energy solutions.
- We believe that rising standards of living for a growing global population are likely to continue to drive demand for energy, including oil and gas, for years to come.
- We hope to maintain our leadership in the market and meet our annual revenue predictions.
- We wish to become the primary oil/energy supplier to the counties along the East Coast.
- We want to provide good stable jobs to the local community.
- We hope to find alternatives to the PFAS used for fracking oil.
- We hope to provide millions of people with the energy needed to sustain high-quality lifestyles.
- We hope to facilitate a diverse working community.
However, Shell too faces fears and concerns regarding its fracking activities:
- We are concerned that regulatory changes may impact our operations and necessitate costly upgrades to our existing infrastructure.
- We are concerned that our services won’t be needed if people get their energy from alternative sources; we will become obsolete.
- We fear that activism and negative public sentiment could lead to unfair demonization of our industry.
- We will be blamed for being a major contributor to not only water pollution within Allegheny County but also for exacerbating climate change.
- We are concerned that our activities could have an impact on the environment of which we will learn of only years from now.
Shell’s activities reverberates across different levels of stakeholders, while putting some at a disadvantage and others in a more beneficial standing. From residents of lower socio-economic neighbourhoods worried about receiving water that is free from pollutants, to perpetuating the decline of molluscs in the Allegheny River from their continued release of chemicals that embed themselves into the sediment-rich habitat of the Club Shells, while simultaneously employing thousands and combating regulatory changes alongside the PSWA.
The Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA) — is a municipal entity established in 1984, tasked with overseeing the water treatment and distribution systems in Pittsburgh. This authority was created with the primary goal of ensuring that Pittsburgh’s water system adheres to the stringent requirements set forth by federal and state laws, guaranteeing the provision of safe drinking water. The PWSA is dedicated to serving the Pittsburgh region by safeguarding public health and the environment. It achieves this through the reliable delivery of water services, coupled with a steadfast commitment to the well-being of future generations.
In the 1980s, when the PWSA was formed, its main function was to manage a $200,000,000 capital improvement program that was designed to renew the aging water system infrastructure. [6] From its inception the PWSA was billed by the City of Pittsburgh for any back-office services they used, and their employees remained on the City’s payroll. [9] Additionally, in 1995, the PWSA and the City formed a new agreement in which the PWSA would lease the city’s water infrastructure for “an upfront payment of $101,400,000 million.” From here on, the PWSA has been accruing more and more debt, and those high debt levels have obstructed their ability to execute their mission, which is “to support our region by protecting public health and the environment through the delivery of safe and reliable water services with a commitment to future generations. We provide drinking water services to approximately 85,000 customers, sewer services to 116,000 customers, and stormwater services to all Pittsburgh residents and businesses.” This mission is hampered because the authority is not able to make all the necessary investments it needs to improve and repair infrastructure.
One way to increase income for the PWSA is to charge residents more for the water services PWSA provides. This approach, however, is understandably met with resistance and disapproval from residents, and of course this has disproportionately adverse effects on lower income residents who may suffer from both poorer water quality and higher water consumption prices.
Here are the hopes and desires we imagined for the PWSA:
Hopes:
- We hope to create separate pipes for sewage and rainwater runoff (CSS).
- We hope to ensure a safe working environment for employees, the safety of our infrastructure assets and the safety of millions of gallons of water delivered to customers every day.
- We hope to sustain and improve our performance by making decisions that will impact Pittsburgh positively for the next 100 years.
- We hope to support our region by protecting public health and the environment through the delivery of safe and reliable water services with a commitment to future generations.
- We hope to transform Pittsburgh’s water system while being recognized by customers as a trusted service provider.
- We hope to expand our consumer base and get more paying customers by marketing our water to other communities outside of the City of Pittsburgh service area.
- We hope that our rate filing will be approved because we need it to support ongoing infrastructure improvements, provide needed resources to meet more stringent environmental and regulatory requirements and address increasing energy and chemical costs related to inflation.
Fears:
- We fear that each year, when water and wastewater tariffs are submitted to the PA PUC for review and approval, our tariffs do not pass.
- We worry that our performance and improvement do not show progress every year and our customers do not feel satisfied with our service.
- We worry that our financial resources are not put into effective and efficient use.
- We worry about our massive debt and how we are going to deal with that moving forward. In 2022, we were carrying $1.084 billion in debt. [7]
- We fear litigation that will put us further into debt and lose favor with residents.
- We fear that we have been doomed since our institution’s formal inception in 1984. The city created us to keep the water system’s future profits but unload its future debts. As Mayor Bill Peduto said, PWSA “was never set up to succeed […] It was set up to save the City of Pittsburgh from having to raise taxes.” [8]
- We fear that our proposal to increase water rates will be challenged because we need that income to run and modernize our operations, and to deal with our debt.
Finally, we want to consider what points of contention or synergy exist between PWSA’s hopes and fears and those of the other groups we examined. We learned that the PWSA wants to charge residents larger amounts for their services because they need this money to run their operations, but residents are adversely affected by this, especially in poorer areas. We wonder, would residents’ taxes be higher if their charges from PWSA were lower? How different would things be if PWSA received more of its income from taxes instead of directly from residents? Our team thinks this problem is related to other wicked problems like economic inequality and lack of social security infrastructures. For points of synergy, we understand that the PWSA, Allegheny aquatic life (like the club mussel), and Pittsburgh residents, all would benefit from having cleaner water in Pittsburgh. Clean water is needed to support healthy living and environment in the Pittsburgh area where different species can thrive.
Conclusion and Insights
Unpacking the interests, power, and impacts of the stakeholders closely involved with the water pollution crisis in Pittsburgh unveiled several distressing yet thought-provoking interdependencies amongst our selected stakeholders — Shell Corporation, PSWA, the residents of Arlington, and the Club Shell mussels that inhabit the Allegheny River.
- The systemic approach towards a phased replacement of lead pipes perpetuates inequalities and leaves certain stakeholders — in this case, the residents of Arlington, at greater risk
- The cost of infrastructure improvements and the economic burden of water treatment are often passed on the the residents through utility bills, creating a tension between the necessity of the improvements and the affordability of the services
- Shell’s unrestrained release of chemicals beyond the emission guidelines will further stress the Club Shell mussels, potentially leading to their extinction.
- In the current dilemma of leaning towards environmental betterment or profit from fracking, the stakeholder with the larger fund seems to be deciding the direction.
- Shell and PSWA’s adherence of regulations, whether it is to do with the elimination of PFAs in the fracking of oil or re-structuring of the combined sewer system, has a direct impact on the health of the residents residing in lower socio-economic neighborhoods.
Through our exploration, we learned of and discovered a number of other stakeholders who are also impacted by or contribute to the water pollution crisis in Pittsburgh such as Pittsburgh Plate Glass, Bottled Water companies, Tourism Agencies, and construction companies.
Citations
[1] Kristina Marusic. (2020, Nov 5) “Fracking Chemicals Dumped in the Allegheny River a Decade Ago Are Still Showing up in Mussels: Study.” EHN, www.ehn.org/chemicals-from-fracking-in-pennsylvania-polluting-freshwater-mussels-2602333500.html.
[2] The Pittsburgh Neighborhood Project. (2024, February 15). Pittsburgh neighborhood need map. https://pittsburghneighborhoodproject.blog/2022/11/18/pittsburgh-neighborhood-need-map/
[3] Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority. (2022, August 30). Lead map. Community Lead Response. https://lead.pgh2o.com/your-water-service-line/planned-water-service-line-replacement-map/
[4] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations
[5] Irwin, T., & Kossoff, G. (n.d.). Social relations. Transition Design Seminar CMU. https://transitiondesignseminarcmu.net/classes-2/mapping-stakeholder-relations/#1609456905233-577db33a-0912
[6] Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority. Our History | Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority. (n.d.). https://www.pgh2o.com/about-us/mission-vision-and-core-values/our-history#:~:text=Back%20in%20the%201980s%2C%20the,treatment%20plant%20and%20distribution%20system.
[7] Belser, A. (2024, February 20). Right to know request reveals that PWSA paid $1 million to raise Pittsburgh Water Bills. NEXTpittsburgh. https://nextpittsburgh.com/latest-news/pwsa-paid-1-million-to-raise-pittsburgh-water-bills/
[8] Morrison, O. (2021, November 10). How PWSA ended up with so little money and so much work still to do. PublicSource. https://www.publicsource.org/pwsa-ravenstahl-murphy/#:~:text=The%20city%20was%20trying%20to,from%20having%20to%20raise%20taxes.”
[9] Allegheny Institute. (2017, December 13). A new chapter begins in the long running PWSA Saga. Allegheny Institute for Public Policy. https://www.alleghenyinstitute.org/new-chapter-begins-long-running-pwsa-saga/
