Watery war of words: Springfield leaders take umbrage at measure reshaping water commission

WAMC Northeast Public Radio | By James Paleologopoulos

Published November 13, 2026 at 3:11 PM EST

Holding dueling press conference this week, two sides argued for (Left: State Senator Jake Oliveira) and against (Right: State Representative Carlos Gonzalez) expanding the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission's board of commissioners.

A war of words over water is playing out in western Massachusetts.

Lawmakers and town leaders in parts of Hampden County say they want fair representation for communities served by the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission. Legislation to address that is in the works – but leaders in Springfield are not happy about it.

If you live in lower, central Hampden County, chances are your water comes by way of Springfield.

Or rather - for the most part - reservoirs outside the city. It’s also largely treated outside the city as well, but much of that infrastructure, which stretches from Blandford to Ludlow, is thanks to moves made by Springfield almost 200 years ago.

Overseeing that infrastructure now is the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission – an “independent, public and regional utility,” overseen in-part by a three-person Board of Commissioners.

But how fairly that board represents non-Springfield communities has been a point of contention.

“Today, three commissioners, all appointed by the mayor of Springfield, make decisions affecting ratepayers throughout our region. Communities outside of Springfield contribute to the commission's operating costs, help pay for major infrastructure improvements and share in the financial consequences of the decisions that are made,” said Hampden, Hampshire and Worcester State Senator Jake Oliveira Monday. “But those communities have no direct representation on the appointment of commissioners responsible for the governance of the system.”

Speaking at the IBEW 7 building in Springfield with leaders from towns like Longmeadow and Agawam – Oliveira made his case alongside Hampden and Hampshire State Senator John Velis.

For years, the mayor of Springfield has been able to appoint who serves on the board, which, in turn, approves customer rates, major capital projects and other vital facets of a multi-town, multi-reservoir system serving about 250,000 people.

Officials like current Mayor Domenic Sarno argue that’s the price of doing business – the city and its water department were responsible for much of the system’s development, including reservoirs in Ludlow, Blandford and Granville.

Nowadays, it’s the SWSC overseeing said system – created in 1996. In a recent Facebook post, then-Mayor Mike Albano called its creation a way of freeing the system from the “yearly pressures of municipal budgeting.”

Given different situations in different towns, many surrounding communities have long been customers to the SWSC, but after years of buying in and dealing with rate raises, critics like Oliveira have been calling for reform.

“That system has evolved - the investments have grown, the financial responsibilities are shared across many communities,” the senator said, still fresh off of advocating for Quabbin communities seeking regional equity in Boston. “Our approach to governance and accountability needs to recognize that reality. The question isn't whether Springfield should continue to lead - the question is whether a regional utility should continue to operate without meaningful representation from the communities helping to sustain this.”

The Ludlow Democrat says language in a state environmental bond bill that’s in conference committee could very well solve that – creating three new commissioner seats, appointed by a special advisory board that would, hopefully, lead to more regional representation.

The section also gives Springfield another commissioner appointed by the mayor, creating a board of seven.

"It's all about just giving the communities that participate and purchase our water and/or wastewater services from Springfield Water and Sewer a voice," Agawam Mayor Christopher Johnson told WAMC on Monday, Nov. 9, 2026. "... a seat at the table so that we can... one, have maybe some input and two, have a better understanding of their operation because it's a major part of all of our budgets. It drives our water and sewer fees that our residents and businesses are charged ... and we really need a voice in that process."

But, the section has become the target of a Springfield-centric push to strip the language. According to Oliveira, Monday’s press conference was prompted, in-part, by a late-stage lobbying effort to kill the section, including a letter expressing concerns from Sarno.

Days later, a press conference was held at Springfield City Hall Thursday – complete with Sarno and much of the city’s House delegation.

“We built this thing. We own this thing. We assume all the risk – they assume none,” the mayor said, invoking the days of Springfield buying the “Springfield Aqueduct Company” in the 1840s and building infrastructure from there. “For them now to say ‘We want a piece of the action here,’ bringing nothing to the table… they're contractual customers… and now, you want to become owners of this without putting any type of skin in the game. We're adamantly opposed to this.”

That point was echoed by state representatives Bud Williams, Orlando Ramos and Carlos Gonzalez – all adamant that, by going through the legislature instead of dealing directly with the city, reformers were bypassing the city while undermining Springfield’s own role in the system’s history.

“I know that, in 1996, there was a change in the contractual ways of overseeing the water department… but one thing is clear… the city of Springfield will still have the authority and the rights to appoint the board members of that water commission - that was clear,” said 10^th Hampden State Representative Gonzalez.

“You can't change that … most of the individuals that are fighting for these changes have moved from Springfield - most of the folks that are fighting for this same issue: not one of them have I found that lives in Springfield today,” he continued. “The suburbs will not dictate what Springfield is able to do,” he continued.

"We have our city council subcommittee meetings - it's open to the public. I have not seen any representatives from any of these communities come and talk about what's going on with the issues with the water," said Springfield City Council President Tracye Whitfield Thursday, Nov. 13, 2026. "You can come talk about the issues, bring some solutions and even come communicate on what you're asking for right now. I don't think that is the appropriate way to try to bogart your way into a commission because that's what they're doing."

Throughout the press event, Sarno insinuated that, by broadening the board, there could be a risk of political fights ensnaring the SWSC. The mayor went as far as to point to water crises in Flint, Michigan, and Jackson, Mississippi, as examples of water overseeing bodies going awry.

When asked by WAMC what the immediate consequences of passing the bond bill as written would be, Gonzalez jokingly told the Pioneer Valley Bureau Chief “look into my eyes – is this going to pass or not?”

The bond bill containing SWSC changes – “An Act to build resilience for Massachusetts communities” – is still being debated by a conference committee that was appointed in July.

In a lengthy statement sent to WAMC, the office of State Senator Jake Oliveira reiterated that the aforementioned reforms were focused on representation and not calling Springfield’s role and reputation into question.

He also reiterated that a significant amount of the SWSC’s expenses are covered by funds from non-Springfield communities, which include Agawam, Southwick, Westfield, West Springfield, Chicopee, Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, Wilbraham and Ludlow.

WAMC notes that Springfield is, by far, the largest of the ten communities served, and that not all communities are both drinking water and wastewater treatment customers.