Waiters need not kick off a meal with a solemn rundown of water options. No one is unfamiliar with the choices. It is always fluoridated tap (get it while it lasts!) for me, but asking for it often comes with a side of silent judgment—as if I have just signaled that I will not be ordering the truffle-crusted, 180-day dry-aged Wagyu. That is true of course, but entirely unrelated to my enjoyment of tap water. Really, the only time we should have a serious discussion about water is when dining in Housatonic or if the Housatonic River is the water source. Which brings me to water worth considering.
On January 24, Housatonic Water Works (HWW) notified the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) that implementation of Phase 2—the manganese greensand filtration system agreed to in its Settlement Agreement with the attorney general—would be delayed a year. Anyone familiar with HWW’s turbid water likely knows that Phase 2 is the long-delayed project meant to turn HWW’s brown water clear.
HWW’s failures are predictable, but even by its standards, this reversal was stunningly swift. The ink was barely dry on its manganese greensand filtration remediation pledge before it was renounced. Another Lucy, Charlie Brown, and football moment—hope yanked away yet again. Have you no sense of decency, HWW? Or is ratepayer suffering just another line item in your financials?
HWW asserts that Great Barrington’s appeal of the Berkshire Superior Court’s Preliminary Injunction—blocking the town’s Board of Health from enforcing its August 2024 order to distribute bottled water, among other things—has impeded its ability to finance Phase 2. According to HWW, its “long-time [commercial] lender” refuses to finance Phase 2 until the appeal is resolved. By its Notice (read: ransom note), HWW is warning the DPU that if Housatonic wants to see clean water again, the town must drop its appeal.
The absurdity of HWW’s Notice lies in its excuse: HWW blames delays on something it had explicitly agreed not to do in the Settlement Agreement—limit exploration of financing choices to its longtime lender. This commitment was critical to the three towns (Great Barrington, Stockbridge, and West Stockbridge) served by HWW because higher financing costs directly increase capital project expenses borne by ratepayers. Here is what HWW allegedly agreed to do in the Settlement Agreement—but did not:
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.
Alternate financing was a key, negotiated provision of the Settlement Agreement. Stockbridge, in particular, pushed HWW to seek lower-cost financing to counter the multiplier effect of financing expenses. Under the Agreement, HWW is guaranteed a 9.5 percent return on equity, meaning the higher the capital project costs (including increased financing costs), the more HWW’s shareholders earn from ratepayers. Typical for HWW, a lose-win situation: Ratepayers lose due to higher interest costs and inflated equity payments, while HWW shareholders bank profits.
None of this was lost on local leaders. At the behest of Stockbridge Select Board member Patrick White, on February 5, Stockbridge responded to HWW’s Notice, calculating the actual cost to HWW ratepayers resulting from higher cost financings and noting the “perverse profit incentive [for HWW] to find excuses not to find the best rate available”:
[T]he ratepayers will bear the cost if the Company does not seek lower-cost financing as required. Borrowing at a private rate versus a lower-cost public rate (such as from the State) would have real implications for customers’ bills. . .. [A]n eventual note of $12.8 million (as evidenced by the Company’s ten-year capital plan) financed at 7% versus 1% results in a $55 per month increase in the monthly rate paid by ratepayers after this work. With the built-in profit of 9.5%, Selectman [Patrick] White has calculated that every extra dollar on the monthly cost to ratepayers results in an extra $1,000 in annual profit to the owners.
On February 13, State Rep. Leigh Davis (D – 3rd Berkshire District) wrote to the DPU, copying the attorney general, to “urge the DPU to immediately review HWW’s compliance with the settlement order and assess the feasibility of rolling back Phase 1 rate increases until HWW demonstrates measurable progress or refunds customers.” The same day, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) advised HWW that by February 18 it must “provide written confirmation that the filtration equipment was ordered by the February 15th date … and that the construction of the filtration equipment is on schedule in accordance with the Plan and MassDEP’s October 8th Unilateral Administrative Order.”
The following day, Great Barrington joined Stockbridge in protesting HWW’s inaction. When contacted, the following additional comments were received:
- Great Barrington Select Board Chair Steve Bannon: “I would like to see the Attorney General’s Office enforce the requirement that HWW must seek the lowest cost-loan as possible. What is most important is that we continue to work towards an agreement so that the Housatonic Water Works customers get clean and safe drinking water. To that end, those customers should not have to pay an exorbitant amount to get safe clean drinking water.”
- Stockbridge Selectman White: “Stockbridge recognizes this phased settlement with Housatonic Water Works was crafted not by the DPU but rather by the Attorney General’s office. Although Stockbridge filed in the DPU docket as a response to the Company’s revelation of the Phase 2 delay, the real question is whether the Attorney General will enforce her own Office’s Settlement Agreement. In terms of advocacy, this must be a two-pronged strategy.”
HWW has good grounds to be dismayed by Town Counsel David Doneski’s ill-advised appeal of the well-reasoned Superior Court Preliminary Injunction. As stated previously in these pages, the court’s order is unassailable, making it transparent that the town’s appeal is more press release than sound strategy. Still, the appeal is pretext for HWW’s breach of the Settlement Agreement. HWW agreed to take action that would greatly benefit its ratepayers. Same song, different day—HWW once again failed to act in the best interest of those it serves. Wash and repeat (just not with HWW water).
The towns and ratepayers can carp about HWW’s latest egregious inaction, but only the attorney general has standing to enforce the Settlement Agreement. The Attorney General’s Office was slow to respond to HWW’s 2023 DPU filing seeking to nearly double rates, and when it finally did, it granted much of what HWW sought. In return, it secured an important concession: HWW’s commitment to seek lower-cost financing. The attorney general must act—now. Ratepayers cannot afford another delay, another broken promise, or another year of brown water.
Survey Monkey Questions
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll:
- “Should the Attorney General enforce the Settlement Agreement provision requiring HWW to seek alternative financing for the Phase 2 greensand filtration system?”
- “Should Great Barrington dismiss its appeal of the Superior Court’s Preliminary Injunction to remove an alleged obstacle to implementation of Phase 2?”
Survey Monkey Results
Here is the result of the following recent survey question: “Would you support a town bylaw requiring vacant commercial property owners to keep their buildings secure and inaccessible to unauthorized persons?”
As of publication, 94.74 percent of respondents said “yes.”
Days Great Barrington has wrongfully withheld Community Access Fees: 352
