It would be better for the Butler Area Sewer Authority to have an appeals board that is not the authority itself. Appeals of BASA decisions should be heard by an impartial body.

Accomplishing that would require finding people qualified to weigh property owners' challenges to the findings of "rain tests" that are planned for the Deshon and Westwood III housing plans under what initially is to be a pilot program.

But it would seem having an appeals body that is totally separate from the authority — or at least having a majority of members not connected with BASA — would make the authority less vulnerable to court challenges.

Such legal challenges likely would have the undesirable effect of delaying fixes to problems that the tests detect.

Court challenges also could delay what would seem to be BASA's ultimate goal — making the rain testing applicable to the entire BASA service area.

BASA is under state order from the Department of Environmental Protection to remove groundwater and stormwater from the sanitary sewer system. The decision to pursue pressure testing of lines has been a source of angst to people whose neighborhoods are regarded as contributing significantly to BASA's infiltration problems. Now rain testing has been added to residents' uneasiness.

The rain testing involves applying a significant amount of water to a property to determine basement leakage and whether sump pumps are illegally tied to the sanitary sewer system.

While removing infiltration is necessary, those affected by the various tests and orders have a right to consideration of their objections to alleged findings by someone not directly affiliated with the authority — to avoid what might be perceived to be conflict of interest on the authority's part.

The authority's current appeals plan unfortunately ignores that conflict-of-interest issue.

Of course, in either scenario — a separate appeals board or the BASA board serving in that capacity — property owners would have the right to take their cases to court. However, the costs tied to that pursuit, including attorney fees, would serve as a deterrent to some people who might have genuine bases for fighting a ruling requiring them to make costly repairs to their properties.

People, some of whom have limited finances, shouldn't be shackled into taking repair action before both sides in the dispute are satisfied — or it is adjudged — that the authority's order to the property owner is correct.

The prospect of the authority serving as judge, as well being the beneficiary of orders, works against having property owners feel comfortable that they've been treated fairly when legitimate reasons for dispute and appeal exist.

More thought should have been given to the appeals process before now.

But there are other concerns as well, and those were aired at Tuesday's BASA board meeting.

For example, Butler Township Commissioner Donna Druga argued that BASA doesn't have the legal authorization to enter people's homes nor to cause any damage to property by dumping large amounts of water on it.

Meanwhile, Cindy Davis, township zoning and code enforcement officer, expressed concern about the authority making homeowners dig up their basements because of small amounts of water.

George Shockey, an authority member, last month argued that he didn't support forcing people to go to great expense to remove water from under their houses.

The bottom line is that the authority must comply with state orders, and eliminating sewage overflows at pumping stations is a goal of those orders.

Eliminating stormwater infiltration would curtail the overflows.

But the process of achieving compliance must be fair.

A part of achieving compliance is having an acceptable appeals process in place to help resolve disputes. The current plan is worthy of second-guessing.