WASHINGTON - Rep. Louise Slaughter is calling for an investigation into the Monroe County Water Authority’s “excessive” spending on federal lobbying by a former New York congressman and others.

The Fairport Democrat is seeking a state audit of the Water Authority’s federal lobbying expenditures between 2004 and 2016, totaling more than $2.7 million — about half of which went to the D.C. law firm where New York’s former GOP Rep. Tom Reynolds worked as a lobbyist on the account, starting in 2011. The total amount is more than any other “comparable entity," similar in size or needs, spent on lobbying during that period, according to Slaughter.

Slaughter says her office had almost no contact with the firm, Nixon Peabody, even though more than 80 percent of the Water Authority’s residential customers and nearly all of its major commercial customers are located in the 25th District, which she serves. (Note: At least part of the period in question was before the last redistricting, when Slaughter picked up more of Monroe County than she previously represented. Nixon Peabody also has a large office in Rochester.)

The cost, value of services received in return and choice of lobbyist suggests the need for further examination on behalf of customers “who have ultimately footed the bill for these questionable activities,” she wrote to state Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli in a July 14 letter provided exclusively to the Democrat and Chronicle.

“The most reasonable conclusion I can draw is that the Monroe County Water Authority’s lobbying contract was a do-next-to-nothing patronage job,” she wrote. “This multimillion-dollar giveaway paid for by local ratepayers is a situation that demands appropriate oversight from the State Comptroller in the form of an audit.”

Slaughter’s request is “under review,” according to Brian Butry, spokesman for the Comptroller’s Office.

Reynolds did not respond to several requests for comment. And Nicholas Noce, the Water Authority’s executive director, declined to comment.

“Because your e-mail indicates a possible government investigation, our legal counsel has advised us to refrain from commenting on your proposed story,” he wrote in an email.

Noce added that the Water Authority’s contract with Nixon Peabody ended July 31, 2016. The Water Authority did not retain Holland & Knight, the D.C. firm where Reynolds began working in March 2017, or any other lobbyists.

Between 2011 and 2016, Nixon Peabody provided federal lobbying support on federal legislation and regulatory matters, Allison McClain, a spokeswoman for the firm, wrote in an email. She wrote that the firm was hired after responding to a request for a proposal. She did not address Slaughter's complaint.

Reynolds, then of Clarence, Erie County, served in Congress from 1999 to 2009; he represented parts of Western New York, including part of Monroe County.

His firm took over the contract in 2011 from Bruce Fennie, whose multiple public-sector clients in Monroe County attracted media attention in 2010.

In her detailed, four-page letter, Slaughter writes that the Water Authority became Nixon Peabody’s highest-paying client, spending more on the firm’s services than Goldman Sachs. Between 2011 and 2016, the Water Authority paid the Nixon Peabody firm $1.38 million, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Slaughter notes that the Water Authority also spent $408,850 lobbying the state government between 2007 and 2016.

“It’s a very peculiar arrangement,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a Washington citizens' advocacy group. “I have not seen a water authority spending money on lobbying activity like this before.”

Slaughter's staff members compiled a database of every water-related agency they could find with a registered lobbyist and compared their spending. Most other water agencies with registered lobbyists are in Western states that have experienced historic droughts or have other significant federal water resource issues, Slaughter wrote.

“MCWA spent more than all but a few of them while facing nothing comparable to the historic situations facing the western water authorities,” she wrote. “By any measure, MCWA appears to be an outlier with respect to the amount of money it has directed to federal lobbying.”

Slaughter’s staff began digging into lobbying disclosures for the Water Authority and other water agencies nationwide because they were surprised by the Nixon Peabody lobbyists’ lack of contact with her office. Slaughter wrote that she is aware of only one letter on MCWA letterhead that Nixon Peabody forwarded to her office in October 2015 and one meeting with her staff in May 2016, years after the firm began charging the Water Authority for its services.

Federal records show that the Water Authority was awarded more than $493,000 between 2009 and 2012, but most of that funding — $481,000 — was an Environmental Protection Agency grant awarded in 2011, according to USAspending.gov. The other money came from Department of Veterans Affairs contracts.

Fennie’s disclosure forms included lobbying on clean air and water issues and appropriations, while the Nixon Peabody reports included lobbying on appropriations, chemical security legislation, clean water and the Water Resources Development Act.

Slaughter, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Rules, wrote that she does not recall hearing from Nixon Peabody about appropriations bills or the Water Resources Development Act.

While it’s possible the authority did not properly oversee its expenditures, Slaughter wrote, it’s “equally, if not more, plausible” that the authority is perpetuating its history of “rewarding well-connected individuals with jobs and lobbying contracts.”

“These facts suggest a situation in which Monroe County Water Authority took $2.7 million from its customers and has little work to show for it,” she wrote. “This invites the question of how these conditions were allowed to persist for so long.”

NGaudiano@Gannett.com

Nicole Gaudiano is a correspondent with USA TODAY Network's Washington Bureau.

Editor's note: A Nixon Peabody lawyer represents the Democrat and Chronicle on First Amendment cases.