"This is our water. You're not taking it."
That was the sentiment from Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno Thursday, at a press conference opposing a measure to expand the board of the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission.
Sarno was joined by Springfield City Council president Tracye Whitfield and state representatives Carlos Gonzalez, D-Springfield; Orlando Ramos, D-Springfield; and Bud Williams, D-Springfield. They're also supported by Rep. Angelo Puppolo, D-Springfield; and Rep. Brian Ashe, D-Longmeadow, Gonzalez said.
The group takes umbrage with language included in the state legislature's environmental bond bill, which would transform the makeup of the water utility's leadership. Currently, the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission is helmed by a three-person board, all appointed by Sarno and all Springfield residents. An amendment in the bond bill would shift that to a seven-person board, with four representatives from Springfield, and three from among the 9 other communities the utility serves, like Agawam, Ludlow and West Springfield.
The opposition coalition argued the amendment didn't factor in the financial burden taxpayers in Springfield took on to build out the water system in the first place, and positioned the measure as a means for communities surrounding the city to "take control" of infrastructure they did not pay for.
"Springfield taxpayers built this system," said Rep. Ramos. "We built it without any help from the suburbs. We built it without any help from the surrounding communities. And it's an investment that we've been making for generations."
"We foot all the bills, we pay all the money," said Rep. Williams. "They want to come to the table? You come to the table with your checkbook and pay your way into a corporation to get some kind of ownership, so you can have a say in this situation."
The measure as it stands does not require the communities who would receive representation on the board to pay any additional fees to the commission, which was largely decoupled from the city of Springfield by state law back in 1996.
Sarno said that cities and towns who receive water from the commission are customers by contract, and that that relationship does not mean those communities should be able to make decisions on how the utility operates.
"They are customers, just like your businesses. You have customers that purchase or get things from you," he said. "They don't have a stake in ownership whatsoever."
The initial amendment to change the commission's leadership structure was filed by state senator Jake Oliveira of Ludlow. In a letter to the conference committee where the bond bill now sits, he argued that residents in surrounding communities have just as much of a financial stake in the utility as residents in Springfield.
"These communities are not merely purchasing water without contributing to the infrastructure that
delivers it," Oliveria wrote. "Their residents help finance the system’s ongoing operations and capital investments. While purchasing services does not confer an ownership interest, the absence of municipal ownership should not preclude reasonable representation in decisions affecting their financial obligations."
Springfield City Council President Tracye Whitfield said she felt the measure undercuts city leadership, and that discussions to change how the utility is managed should have come before local officials instead of being tucked into state legislation.
"To sneak something into the Boston legislative means of getting on the commission is not the appropriate way," Whitfield said. "They could have came and had a simple conversation with us, and then maybe an agreement could have been made, or maybe not."
The local leaders opposed to the change have vowed to knock the measure out of the bond bill during it's stint in that conference committee. They have to act fast: the committee has an early January deadline to move the bill forward.
