Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Salt Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, watershed group urge Pittsburgh to move Route 51 salt-storage site away from Sawmill Run
Summary
Speakers from Watersheds of South Pittsburgh told City Council the planned Route 51 salt-dome storage beside Sawmill Run threatens aquatic life and infrastructure; they said demolition began without consultation and urged the city to relocate the facility out of the floodplain.
Lisa Werder Brown, representing Watersheds of South Pittsburgh, told the City Council on May 18 that siting a salt-storage facility next to Sawmill Run and Route 51 would harm aquatic life and reverse decades of local stream-recovery work. "Siting a salt facility next to a freshwater stream is not a great idea," she said, noting the watershed group counted more than 400 fish at two sites in a recent survey after finding zero fish in 2016.
Caitlin Mitchell, a Westwood resident and staff member at Watersheds of South Pittsburgh, said demolition work on the Route 51 salt-storage site moved forward without notice and that she first learned of heavy machinery at the site from a March 25, 2026, social-media post by Councilor Corey O'Connor. Mitchell said a city official, identified in her remarks as Chief of Staff Dan Gilman, had said runoff from the site would be routed "into the Pittsburgh water system via inlets in the road and not into the creek," which she called a misunderstanding because the stormwater system discharges to the stream and chloride is not removed by wastewater treatment and ultimately contributes to the Ohio River Basin.
"Common sense tells us to move salt storage as far from water as possible," Mitchell said, adding that bio-retention ponds intended to buffer stormwater can become less effective as soil saturates with salt and require ongoing maintenance. She urged council members to visit the site on a stream walk with Watersheds of South Pittsburgh.
The two speakers described recent investments involving multiple agencies and partners, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, city planning, PennDOT and regional water authorities, and said the Route 51 corridor has suffered long-term disinvestment that magnifies environmental risks. They pressed council to relocate the storage out of the floodplain rather than maintain it at its current location.
The council did not take action on the comment during the meeting. Several technical questions raised by the speakers — including where stormwater from the site is routed and what chloride mitigation steps will be used — were highlighted for follow-up but not resolved in the hearing.
