When water began gushing into the newly established Quabbin Reservoir in 1939, the resulting water supply tore apart the Swift River communities in favor of providing clean, consistent water to eastern Massachusetts, according to the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The four disincorporated towns — Dana, Enfield, Greenwich and Prescott — disappeared from the map.
Yet, the residents of Dana, Enfield, Greenwich and Prescott were not the only people impacted by the Quabbin Reservoir’s establishment. The towns surrounding the current reservoir also lost land and regional connections when the water supply was formed. A bill currently in the Massachusetts Legislature is seeking to provide greater compensation for the sacrifices of the residents in these towns.
In early 2023, twin bills in the Massachusetts Legislature were brought forward by state Rep. Aaron Saunders (D-Belchertown) and state Sen. Joanne Comerford (D-Northampton) to address ways to balance Quabbin watershed towns’ sacrifices with the benefits they provide the state, Saunders told Reminder Publishing. He highlighted that the seven towns that encompass the Quabbin Reservoir receive few benefits for their protection of the water supply, which supports 40% of the state.
“Something needed to be done to balance the value that they provide,” he stated. Of the seven towns — Belchertown, Hardwick, New Salem, Pelham, Petersham, Shutesbury and Ware — five are located within Saunders’ district. Four are in Comerford’s district.
Currently, the Quabbin-adjacent towns receive funds from payments in lieu of tax agreements with the state, Saunders said. Within these agreements, towns receive funds based on the value of their land located above the high-water mark. However, the towns are not eligible to receive compensation for water drawn from the reservoir, he explained. Furthermore, the Quabbin and its required infrastructure restricts additional economic opportunities for the towns in the area.
A step toward regional equity
Comerford and Saunders’ original bill, S.447 and H.897, respectively, proposed six components to address these inequalities. Although the second draft of the bill, S.2812, modified these components, it maintained the primary benefits. This draft was reported on June 10.
The first benefit in the updated bill is the creation of the Quabbin Host Community Development Trust Fund, which allots funds to the Quabbin towns for “municipal service, public safety and development needs,” as stated in the bill. The fund would be overseen and regulated by the secretary of energy and environmental affairs.
In the earlier drafts of the Quabbin watershed bill, it stated that five cents per every 1,000 gallons taken from the reservoir would be placed in the Quabbin Host Community Development Trust Fund.
However, the June 10 draft replaced this language with direction that the Department of Conservation and Recreation would set the rate of compensation based on the amount of water draw from the reservoir.
Utilizing this system, the trust fund would provide more financial support to the Quabbin towns without overtaxing the residents who receive water from the reservoir, Saunders explained. He stated that the five-cent surcharge in the original bill would only cost eastern Massachusetts residents an additional six cents on their tax rate, calling it a “very reasonable” impact. In total, the surcharge would give the Quabbin towns about $3.5 million each year, he said.
Similarly, the Quabbin watershed bill also expands the town’s current PILOT agreements to allow payments based on the town’s total acreage, rather than only land above the high-water mark, Bill S.2812 states.
In addition to financial benefits, the bill addresses representation in the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, the governing body for the Quabbin Reservoir. It notes that all members of the board should have a term limit of 12 years, except the secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
Finally, if passed, the bill would require the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the communities located in the Connecticut River Basin, Chicopee River Basin, Millers River Basin and Westfield River Basin, as stated by the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
This evaluation would assess the possibility of utilizing Quabbin water for the surrounding towns, including notifying them of any obstacles or potential benefits, Saunders explained. He emphasized that water availability to the towns was an important factor to economic growth, housing and other considerations.
Is the bill enough?
To gage the region’s view on this bill, Reminder Publishing reached out to the five Quabbin towns in its coverage area to ask whether the bill’s potential benefits were enough compensation for its present and past sacrifices. Their responses were mixed.
In Pelham, Finance Committee Chair John Trickey was firm: the bill’s benefits are not enough to compensate the historical cost. While the town’s PILOT payment of $376,000 is “very beneficial” to the town, Trickey empathized that the town’s losses to the Quabbin were steep. He highlighted the loss of land at the town’s eastern side as well as the transportation and economic routes that were cut off near Amherst Road and Route 202.
If the bill was passed, Trickey told Reminder Publishing that additional financial support from the bill would be welcomed and utilized to address road maintenance and improvement to infrastructure, such as schools.
In Ware, Town Manager Stuart Beckley was less certain about the bill’s impact. Annually, Ware receives about $360,000 across two PILOT payments which are “very helpful” and partially incorporated in the general budget, he stated. “The state and the legislators who look after the Quabbin, I think, are careful to honor the purpose of the Quabbin as well as the history of the towns that were flooded,” Beckley said, noting that the state had “been respectful.”
When asked about the bill’s benefits, Beckley explained that the additional available funds could be used to improve the town’s aging water infrastructure. If the town received more representation in the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Beckley stated that Ware would advocate for more infrastructure improvements for Quabbin towns and a further review of how Quabbin towns could be connected to the reservoir. Yet, despite these possible benefits, he noted that the bill provided “very little detail” and stated that more information needed to be shared with the towns on the uses and regulations of the trust fund.
Looking forward, the path to passing the Quabbin watershed bill is still ongoing. To be finalized, the drafted bill would need to be approved by both the House and Senate, which may not occur during this legislative session, Saunders stated. Yet, he emphasized that he and the bill’s other supporters would continue to push it forward.
“We spend a lot of time discussing the four towns lost,” Saunders said, stating that while the towns’ historical sacrifice should be remembered, it was important not to “overlook the enduring impact on the region as a whole.”
