Housatonic Water Works’ manganese-infused brown water was recently featured in a front-page article in The Boston Globe, causing quite the stir. Not sure “all press is good press” applies here, but one can hope that having New England’s paper of record shine a light on (certainly not through) our ongoing water saga will have positive ripple effects. While the article does not break new ground, it did offer a laughable quote from Jim Mercer, who lamented that the situation has been challenging “because we’re looking to do something quickly.”
Mr. Mercer, thoughts and prayers—we all know how hard this must be for you.
The Boston Globe recounted the familiar story—worried families concerned about neurotoxicity, the system’s aging pipes, and steep rate hikes—but overlooked another critical issue. Stockbridge, joined by Great Barrington and West Stockbridge, sought to hold HWW accountable for a key commitment made in its April 2024 Settlement Agreement with the Attorney General’s Office. There, HWW agreed to seek lower-cost financing for construction of the greensand filtration system called for in Phase 2:
The Company and the Towns shall work cooperatively to investigate the availability of grants or alternative financing to support the capital projects. If commercially reasonable lower-cost financing or grants are obtained to support the projects, customers shall receive the benefit of the savings which shall be reflected in the Company’s compliance filings.
Despite its commitment to explore financing alternatives, HWW notified the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) on January 24 that the greensand filtration system has been delayed until at least mid-2026. The reason? According to HWW, its “lenders have declined to finance the Company’s capital projects until the Board of Health’s Order is definitively invalidated or rescinded.” HWW further stated that “the Company’s long-time lender is awaiting resolution of this issue before issuing financing.”
Seeking lower-cost financing was a material provision of the Settlement Agreement. For major infrastructure projects, financing costs are substantial—and ultimately borne by ratepayers, not the utility. HWW needs to borrow nearly $13 million to finance current projects, and borrowing costs are not trivial. The difference in financing rates can mean as much as a $55-per-month increase to ratepayers’ bills—on top of what is already the highest average water rate in the state.
By informing the DPU and Attorney General Andrea Campbell that it was sticking with its high-cost long-time lender, HWW effectively admitted it was in breach of the Settlement Agreement’s requirement to seek alternate financing. While minor breaches may not always warrant enforcement, financing costs were a material condition of the Settlement Agreement that directly impact ratepayers. As the other contracting party—and the only entity with legal standing to enforce the agreement—one would expect (well, I certainly expected) the attorney general to act swiftly to hold HWW accountable.
Rather than enforcing the financing provision to get Phase 2 on track, the Attorney General’s Office has instead abdicated its responsibility to protect HWW ratepayers. The attorney general’s position? If HWW does not obtain low-cost financing, on here, the Attorney General’s Office stated that HWW acts at its peril:
[T]he Settlement was designed specifically to allow after-the-fact scrutiny into the Company’s efforts to finance and construct the capital projects needed to bring adequate water quality to the Company’s customers. The Company—not the ratepayers—bears the risk of cost disallowance should its efforts be found imprudent.
Of course, we know that is a hollow argument designed to avoid accountability. Attorney General Campbell is never going to jeopardize the financial stability of thinly capitalized HWW and risk disrupting water service. This is the regulatory equivalent of saying, “Now is not the time to discuss gun control,” all while knowing the “right time” will never come. It is not just kicking the can down the road; it is kicking it off a cliff.
To HWW ratepayers, the attorney general’s message is clear: “Let them eat cake.” To HWW, despite its ongoing breach of the Settlement Agreement, the message is just as clear: “Have at it.” The attorney general might as well be saying that it is just the substitute teacher—warning that HWW will face consequences when the real one returns. Except, of course, there is no other teacher. Instead, the attorney general handed HWW a blank check to do what it does best: nothing.
The Attorney General is quick to tout lawsuits against the Trump administration and other high-profile efforts—moves that conveniently align with next year’s election cycle. But protecting the 850 HWW families will not make headlines, so that responsibility has clearly been pushed aside. If the attorney general views the HWW ratepayers’ safety as a lesser priority, perhaps a phone call might serve as a reminder: (617) 727-2200.
Absent a course correction, at least South County will have its own opportunity at the ballot box next year to show the attorney general exactly what it feels like to be ignored. While HWW faces no consequences for its inaction, the attorney general should remember ignoring a community comes with significant consequences.
Survey Monkey Question
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Will the attorney general’s failure to uphold the Settlement Agreement influence your vote in next year’s election?”
Survey Monkey Results
Here is the result of the following recent survey question: “Should Berkshire County school districts enter into a Regional Tuition Pricing Agreement based on the actual cost of educating students in the districts?”
As of publication, 84 percent of respondents said “yes.”
