Long Island residents serviced by Liberty Utilities are expressing outrage over the company’s proposal to increase rates, in some areas by nearly $30 per month. On the North Shore, Glen Head resident and water activist Agatha Nadel said the proposed increase would add hundreds of dollars a year to customers’ bills while efforts to transition to public ownership continue to drag on.
Liberty filed a request with the New York State Public Service Commission “to help maintain the delivery of safe, reliable water while balancing customer affordability through responsible control,” according to a notice posted on the utility company’s website in May.
For customers in Liberty’s Sea Cliff service area, the proposed rate change would increase monthly bills by an average of just under $27, or nearly 30 percent, according to Nadel. That amounts to over $320 per year, she said, with customers who use more than 8,000 gallons of water per month potentially facing even higher increases.
“I was honestly outraged and sickened, but really not surprised,” Nadel said. “This will never end until they’re gone,” she added, referring to Liberty. “It’s never going to end.”
Nadel, who has spent nearly 13 years advocating for a transition to public water service, argued that residents should not face additional increases while negotiations over a public takeover remain unresolved.
“Liberty’s rates are already too high,” Claudia Borecky, co-director of Long Island Clean Air Water Soil, an advocacy group based in Merrick, said in written testimony submitted to the PSC on Sept. 29.
Borecky, a Merrick resident and a Liberty customer, has led opposition to private water providers in her community for decades. Public water providers are eligible for state and federal grants that help fund equipment and infrastructure upgrades. Liberty, as a private company, must also pay property taxes on its facilities, costs that are passed on to customers in their water bills.
Those expenses, Nadel said, contribute to an inequity between residents served by private water companies and those served by public systems. “We’re paying more taxes because we’re paying taxes through our water bills that those with public water don’t pay,” she said.
Liberty has asserted that the proposed increase would support infrastructure improvements, including iron removal, lead service line replacements and water main replacements. The company also plans to establish treatment programs for the synthetic chemicals PFAS and PFOA, known as “forever chemicals.”
“Our proposed investments represent what is necessary to maintain and improve our system,” Deborah Franco, president of Liberty’s New York water branch, said, “and we remain committed to managing expenses responsibly while continuing to provide safe, reliable service.”
Nadel questioned whether customers should continue paying for those improvements, noting that residents have already been charged for treatment infrastructure intended to remove contaminants. She also criticized proposed spending on information technology and cybersecurity, pointing to $9 million in state funding that Gov. Kathy Hochul made available to public water providers on Long Island.
Liberty customers, Nadel said, are not eligible for the same grants, leaving them to shoulder expenses that public systems can offset through outside funding.
The proposed increase would also allow Liberty to establish customer programs, including expanded forgiveness of overdue balances for eligible customers and the elimination of electronic payment transaction fees.
The PSC suspended Liberty’s initial request in June, extending the public comment period and deferring the matter to Oct. 30. With the deadline approaching, customers and advocacy groups are urging the commission to reject the proposal or reduce its impact.
Nadel said she has lost faith in the public comment process after taking part in previous rate cases and public hearings. Hundreds of residents submitted comments during earlier proceedings, she said, but customers continue to face the likelihood of rate increases.
For years, ratepayers have pushed for a public takeover of Liberty under the Water Authority of North Shore and the South Nassau Water Authority, public entities created by Hochul in 2021. But Nadel said that delays in providing startup funding and a lack of sustained pressure from local officials have hindered the effort.
Next month marks five years since Hochul signed legislation establishing the water authorities, with Nadel adding that the transition should be further along by now. She also argued that the longer the transition takes, the more expensive it could become for residents, particularly if additional tax burdens emerge as other utility facilities are decommissioned.
The state should do more, Nadel said, to ensure that the transition moves forward, rather than leaving a relatively small group of residents to shoulder the costs of private water service. “We can’t afford to not get this done,” she said.
Borecky said that Liberty’s proposed increase would also affect schools, fire departments, libraries and parks that rely on the company’s water service. Fire departments in Liberty’s territory may pay more than $1,000 per year to maintain a single fire hydrant, she said, compared with less than $80 for departments served by public providers.
In her written testimony, Borecky urged the PSC to consider the “substantial burden” the increase would place on customers. “Ratepayers should not be required to finance costs that may ultimately benefit a private corporation and its shareholders,” she said, “particularly when public water systems are negotiating to purchase a system for which ratepayers are already being charged for improvements.”
When the Herald went to print, the PSC was scheduled to hear arguments from Liberty, advocates and residents opposed to the rate increase on Nov. 2. That hearing has been rescheduled to Dec. 2. A time and venue have not yet been announced. The commission could reach a decision at the hearing, amend the proposal or defer it again.
To review the proposal and public comments, or to submit a comment, visit Documents.DPS.NY.gov and search Case No. 26-W-0358.
