PELHAM — A preliminary report showing how the 12 communities in the Quabbin Reservoir watershed might be able to get potable water from the resource falls short of a comprehensive study being sought by legislators representing the Quabbin region.

Even though Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, said Wednesday that she doesn’t consider the feasibility study provided to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority sufficient, its contents still can set the stage for moving forward with legislation that she and Rep. Aaron Saunders, D-Belchertown, filed in the last session on Beacon Hill, seeking better compensation for communities for their roles in protecting the Quabbin and possibly giving them access to Quabbin water.

“The resulting study findings are not as comprehensive as anyone of us would want them to be,” Comerford said, explaining that Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rebecca Tepper encouraged the study be done following a visit to the Quabbin, at Comerford’s invitation, in October 2023.

“For me, the study is flawed, but it’s also an opportunity for us in western Massachusetts to have concerns addressed, town by town, about what is needed, and listen to what people are saying,” Comerford said.

The four aspects of the legislation called “An Act Relative to the Quabbin Watershed and Regional Equity,” which was reported favorably out of committee in the last session, are:

■Increasing the payments in lieu of taxes to towns for watershed areas to include land under the Quabbin.

■Reconfiguring the MWRA’s board of directors to better represent the region by adding two more people from western Massachusetts.

■Creating a $35 million community fund from which Quabbin communities can draw money.

■Advancing the potable water study for the four westernmost counties.

Understanding the region’s water supply vulnerabilities, such as private wells affected by forever chemicals contamination, and alternatives that could include the Quabbin, would be part of a comprehensive study, which is essential, and “needed now and into the future,” Comerford said.

“We need just recompense and solutions for drinking water for our families and communities,” Comerford said. “The state has never understood the needs of potable water for western Massachusetts. Instead, all the focus has been on MWRA expansion in eastern Massachusetts.”

Comerford points to legislative efforts last year to include a $1 billion project to expand the MWRA service area to more cities and towns around Boston in the $5.16 billion housing bond bill, which never came to fruition. The MWRA is a public authority established by the Legislature in 1984 to provide wholesale water and sewer services to 3.1 million people and more than 5,500 large industrial users in 61 metropolitan Boston communities.

Currently, 180 million gallons per day go from the Quabbin to the eastern part of the state, yet the reservoir, built in the 1930s on top of four towns, Dana, Enfield, Greenwich and Prescott, could yield 300 million gallons per day, according to Comerford.

In an interview with State House News Service when the preliminary study was announced, Colleen Rizzi, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for MWRA, said a study for a larger geographic area, including more cities and towns in western Massachusetts, could happen at a later time.

“I think the staff is viewing this as the good first step,” Rizzi said.

Study provides alternatives

The preliminary study, at 24 pages, outlines various ways to bring Quabbin water to watershed towns.

The Southwest Intake concept would cover Pelham, Belchertown, Ware and Ludlow and serve 25,500 people. At a cost of $170 million in 2029 money, the project would feature two elevated water storage tanks, a booster station, 19 miles of transmission mains and 2 miles of distribution mains.

The West Intake plan would cover New Salem, Wendell, Shutesbury and Orange, and serve 7,000 people. At a cost of $215 million in 2029 money, this would feature seven water storage tanks, a pump station, five booster stations, 17 miles of transmission mains and 10 miles of distribution mains.

The Northwest Regional Groundwater Supply project would cover New Salem, Wendell and Shutesbury, and serve 550 people. At a cost of $112 million, this would feature three elevated water storage tanks, one booster pump station, 9 miles of transmission mains and 10 miles of distribution mains.

Feedback from towns

The various Quabbin communities all had an opportunity to offer feedback this winter, including from officials in Pelham, Shutesbury, Belchertown, Wendell, Orange, New Salem, Ware, Ludlow, Hardwick, Barre, Petersham and Phillipston, in advance of a follow-up meeting that will go over the preliminary report.

Pelham Planning Board Chair Judith Eiseman was among those taking a lead in reaching out to other Quabbin region towns, encouraging their officials to pay attention to what the study says, even if it is broad and not specific, as well as to write comments and provide testimony in favor of the state legislation.

Eiseman said her concerns with the preliminary report included insufficient time for consultants to do the report, no understanding of the financial issues the towns are facing and lack of criteria to evaluate needs.

A response letter from the Pelham Selectboard suggests better payments from the state should have been in the study.

“The MWRA relies on Quabbin watershed towns to safeguard water quality for eastern Massachusetts, yet the study does not account for their vital contributions. Meaningful evaluations should reflect the unique conditions of each community and propose fair compensation for their stewardship.”

That letter also takes the study authors to task for having only one information session in April and one meeting with officials in November. “Pelham protects multiple watersheds and prioritizes forest and wetland preservation over commercial development. Its Watershed Protection Zoning Bylaw (in place since the 1980s) and reliance on septic systems highlight the town’s proactive approach,” the letter reads.

The Shutesbury Selectboard took up its response to the feasibility study at a late January meeting. At that meeting, Chair Rita Farrell said that what struck her is the study shows it would cost millions of dollars for infrastructure to provide water to just 70 Shutesbury households. “The likelihood of this happening is pretty obscure,” Farrell said.

But Farrell added that the consultants didn’t identify the unique characteristics of Shutesbury, and that the $35 million community fund called for in Comerford’s and Saunders’ legislation is of more interest to the town. That consultants for the report didn’t do any engagement with the town during the study is another problem.

Belchertown Town Manager Steve Williams also was writing a letter in response. During a Selectboard meeting on Feb. 3, Williams echoed many of Eiseman’s concerns, particularly those about MWRA’s limited coordination with the 12 impacted towns, and the study’s failure to consider Belchertown’s water infastructure, like a water treatment plant on the Belchertown and Ware boundary.

“We know the (Belchertown) Water District’s wells are starting to reach capacity,” Williams said during a Selectboard meeting on Feb. 3. “If we don’t work with the Water District to correct this, it is going to limit our ability to build new homes and redevelop the State School area, because we need to have water.”

Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.