GREAT BARRINGTON, Mass. — Tensions between a local water company and town authorities are simmering over water quality issues and regulatory authority, highlighting a clash that could have implications for public health policy. At the center of the dispute is Housatonic Water Works Co., which has been directed by the town’s Board of Health to improve its water quality or face stringent corrective measures.
During a public hearing conducted via Zoom, Robert Cox, an environmental lawyer representing Housatonic Water Works, argued that the local board doesn’t possess the authority to impose such measures because of federal preemption under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This act gives regulatory power exclusively to state departments and, through them, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Under a draft order still in discussion, the Board of Health demands that the water company undertake independent testing and provide daily deliveries of 5-gallon water jugs to the roughly 800 affected households and businesses. The proposal is partly in response to persistent complaints about water discoloration due to manganese, a problem often exacerbated during the summer months.
The town’s persistence stems from concerns raised by residents, who are feeling the pinch from both the poor water quality and a rate hike that took effect on August 1. The state-approved increase is meant to fund a $4.5 million overhaul intended to resolve ongoing water quality issues. Despite local grievances, according to a Department of Public Utilities spokesperson, this rate hike will proceed irrespective of any appeals.
Besides the increase in rates, residents were told that elevated manganese levels — said by Housatonic to be due to climate change — are mainly aesthetic concerns rather than health risks, per Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) guidelines. However, many locals are dissatisfied with these characterizations, underlining that the discoloration creates a less appealing and potentially undrinkable water supply.
Notably, Cox underscored that the proposed local measures, such as mandated delivery of water jugs and random testing times, exceed the board’s authority. In contrast, James Mercer, the co-owner and Treasurer of Housatonic Water Works, assured that the company adhered strictly to both state and federal regulations, conducting regular testing to monitor water quality indicators like turbidity and chlorine levels.
Mercer also addressed conflicts of interest concerns by explaining the reason for water testing at his father’s residence — the other co-owner — as a matter of logistic convenience rather than nepotism, allowing unbiased lab technicians easy access for sampling.
Disputes about the extent of local versus federal oversight in public utilities illuminate broader issues of governance and the layered complexity of public health regulations. As the situation in Great Barrington unfolds, it highlights the ongoing challenges small towns face in balancing public health, regulatory compliance, and community relations.
The ongoing public hearings and the spirited debate they’ve generated underscore a critical dialogue about responsibility and authority in managing essential resources. The issue also underscores the delicate balance required to manage aging infrastructure’s needs against residents’ immediate needs for clean and safe drinking water.
As this situation develops, the outcome could set precedents for how similar disputes are managed elsewhere, potentially influencing national policies on water regulation in small communities.