Springfield leaders oppose plan to add regional water board seats

Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno, City Council President Tracye Whitfield and other city leaders called for lawmakers to reject a proposed expansion of the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission board at a Nov. 12 press conference at City Hall. The proposal remains part of the Mass Ready Act negotiations; it had not taken effect as of reporting published Nov. 13.

Four of seven seats would remain mayoral appointments i

The commission is currently overseen by three members appointed by Springfield’s mayor. Under the proposal, the board would grow to seven: the mayor would appoint four members, while a regional advisory board would appoint three.

That would add four seats, increasing the board’s size by about 133%. The mayor’s four appointees would hold 4 of 7 seats, or about 57%, and retain a majority. The plan would give regional appointees a role without giving them a majority of the board.

The Springfield Water and Sewer Commission serves about 250,000 people across 10 communities. Its customers do not all receive both drinking-water and wastewater service.

Supporters, including State Sen. Jacob Oliveira, say communities outside Springfield contribute to operating costs and infrastructure and should have a voice in decisions affecting them. Springfield officials argue that the city built and financed the system and oppose changing its governance through state legislation. They have also said local officials should have been involved in discussions about the change.

The proposal would not change the board now i

Would the proposal immediately change customers’ rates or service? No. It concerns board composition; the current three-member, mayor-appointed structure remains in place while the bill is pending.

The House and Senate versions of the Mass Ready Act were before a conference committee for reconciliation. The Massachusetts Municipal Association reported that the committee’s deadline to issue compromise language was Jan. 5, 2027; the House and Senate would then consider the final report. As of Nov. 13 reporting, the committee’s final language and the chambers’ votes were still pending.