Chester Receiver Files Recovery Plan Modification; Seeks Financial Information From Chester Water Authority and Restructuring of CWA Board
Chester, Pa., (Oct. 28, 2025) – The Receiver for the City of Chester today filed a Recovery Plan Modification in Commonwealth Court under Act 47 in an effort to preserve the value of the Chester Water Authority (CWA) in light of CWA’s announcement of a 14% rate increase and to address the current unconstitutional composition of CWA’s board.
Specifically, the filing seeks the Commonwealth Court to order CWA to provide financial information in light of the newly announced increase for CWA ratepayers effective Jan. 1, 2026. The filing also seeks to properly reconstitute CWA’s board to consist of five members appointed by the City of Chester. This would restore the City’s historic appointment authority and address what the filing contends is an unconstitutional 2012 statutory change that uniquely altered governance of the CWA. The board currently has nine members, with three each appointed by the City of Chester, Chester County and Delaware County.
The filing is made pursuant to 53 P.S. § 11701.703(e). Under Act 47, the Court may hold a hearing within 30 days and “shall confirm” the modification within 60 days unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it is arbitrary, capricious, or wholly inadequate to alleviate the fiscal emergency.
Review of CWA Finances and Recent Rate Action
The Receiver seeks financial information commonly considered as part of rate increases to understand the drivers of the newly announced 14% rate increase and CWA’s stated “serious challenges,” including issues referenced in recent credit-rating actions and CWA’s own communications to customers. The review would focus on commonly evaluated rate-setting inputs (revenues, expenses, capital needs, etc.) to protect ratepayers—particularly Chester residents—and preserve the value of a key public asset during the City’s ongoing bankruptcy.
“The public deserves clarity,” said Vijay Kapoor, Receiver for the City of Chester. “A financial review will help everyone understand what is driving this increase, whether costs are being appropriately managed, and how to protect the long-term value of the system for customers and for the City.”
The Receiver emphasized that the plan modification does not seek to block CWA from adjusting rates, but rather seeks transparency and information to protect ratepayers and preserve the value of CWA.
The CWA’s Unconstitutional Board Structure
The filing also asks the Court to confirm that CWA’s board be reconstituted to five members, all appointed by the City of Chester under the Municipal Authorities Act, by finding that the 2012 Act 73 amendment (codified at 53 Pa. C.S. § 5610(a.1)) is unconstitutional special legislation that uniquely targeted CWA and the City of Chester. According to the filing, that 2012 change improperly stripped the City—CWA’s original incorporator in 1939—of its longstanding appointment power and created a board structure that applies to no other similarly situated authority in the Commonwealth.
According to the filing, that 2012 change improperly stripped the City—CWA’s original incorporator in 1939—of its longstanding appointment power and created a board structure that applies to no other similarly situated authority in the Commonwealth. Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, laws designed to affect a single locality, so-called special legislation, are prohibited.
The Receiver’s filing explains that Act 73 was written with extraordinarily narrow criteria—so narrow that only CWA could meet them. The law applies solely to a single-municipal water or sewer authority that provides service in at least two counties and has physical water or sewer projects in more than two counties. CWA alone meets that description because, while it serves customers in Delaware and Chester Counties and has projects in those counties, a portion of its Octoraro Reservoir extends into Lancaster County, even though it does not provide service in Lancaster County. That geographic quirk, the filing argues, was deliberately used to craft a “class of one” which effectively and unconstitutionally amended state law for one city and one authority, the very definition of special legislation..
The filing seeks to correct that inequity and restore Chester’s rightful governance authority consistent with how every other single-municipal authority in Pennsylvania is structured.
“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires like entities to be treated the same,” Kapoor said. “The 2012 change carved out a one-off governance model for the Chester Water Authority that does not exist anywhere else. Returning to a standard, lawful structure clarifies accountability, stabilizes governance, and puts to rest needless uncertainty around control.”
Legal and Procedural Context
Act 47 grants the Receiver jurisdiction to address a distressed municipality’s authorities where necessary to protect public assets and effectuate recovery. Today’s modification continues that approach: It adds two targeted initiatives and leaves all other previously confirmed plan provisions in place. If directed by the Court, the Receiver will compile a restated plan reflecting all confirmed provisions.
Next Steps
According to Act 47, the Court may hold a hearing within 30 days of the filing and must rule within 60 days of the filing. Any additional actions, if warranted, would be presented in accordance with Act 47 and the Court’s orders.
About the City of Chester Receivership
Chester has been under various forms of state oversight for nearly three decades and under receivership since 2020. The Receiver’s mandate under Act 47 is to stabilize municipal finances, preserve essential services, and return the City to long-term sustainability.
###