Visitors to the Eisenadler Brauhaus in Montgomery County, NY would have seen an unusual sight on a spring afternoon in 2023: four local mayors having a drink while talking about sewage. The brewery was a strategic meeting location, on neutral territory situated centrally among the four villages of Canajoharie, Fort Plain, Nelliston, and Palatine Bridge. It also highlighted a problem. The brewery was eager to expand but was limited by existing regulations for its septic system. Breweries are reliant on high-quality water for their production processes and are surprisingly compelling business advocates for water infrastructure improvements. Water and sewer infrastructure is so often underground and invisible, but as the mayors sipped their beers, they were reminded that every pint poured depends on reliable and well-managed water and sewer systems, which form the hidden backbone of their communities’ health and economic growth.
In addition to the mayors, the meeting included representatives from the New York State Department of State (NYS DOS), rural development officers from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other local organizations. NYS DOS had previously funded a regional sewer study that had stalled, and this meeting was convened by one of the town clerks who wanted to revisit the project. The goal was to discuss funding opportunities and potential solutions for the area’s aging infrastructure, with the hope that the villages could achieve more together than one community could alone.
Regional infrastructure planning offers long-term benefits but often comes with complex challenges, especially when multiple municipalities are involved. Efforts to collaborate across boundaries can be hindered by a range of political, logistical, and interpersonal dynamics.
The following factors illustrate some of the most common and consequential barriers to intermunicipal coordination:
- Concerns of trust between leaders – Fluctuations in support from their peers can make municipal leaders hesitant to pursue regional initiatives. The previous mayor of Canajoharie, despite initially supporting the sewer study funded by DOS, ultimately withdrew access to critical documents, rendering the study incomplete. Even a single email or informal conversation can prompt a shift in confidence, causing elected officials to reevaluate their involvement.
- Lack of public transparency during planning – Unlike large public initiatives that reach the stage of a public referendum, these infrastructure projects often rely on informal agreements between municipal administrators, engineers, and Department of Public Works (DPW) officials. Decisions to abandon or delay projects frequently occur without formal votes or public engagement, leaving them in a state of uncertainty. Without transparency, it becomes challenging to ensure that progress is made.
- Maintaining continuity versus pursuing ambitious change – For many municipal officials, the mandate is not to overhaul existing systems but rather to uphold basic governance structures. Municipal leaders often receive nominal compensation for their roles, and some maintain full-time jobs while simultaneously serving their communities in elected capacities. Consequently, proposals involving large-scale collaboration can appear daunting, and many leaders assume their roles with the intent to maintain stability rather than drive transformative change.
- Disparities in economic status among participating towns – Concerns over resource allocation, financial contributions, and potential subsidization of neighboring municipalities frequently arise. Historical tensions and long-standing rivalries can hinder efforts to establish cooperative frameworks. As a result, elected officials remain cautious about agreements that might disproportionately benefit one municipality over another.
- Needing co-funding from multiple sources – Communities often gain momentum after securing an initial grant, only to encounter setbacks when subsequent funding applications are unsuccessful. The resulting discouragement can stall progress entirely.
Amid these challenges, a new opportunity emerged. A few months after the initial conversations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced its new Water Technical Assistance (WaterTA) program, offering free engineering services for select communities seeking to improve their drinking water and wastewater systems. Recognizing the potential fit, the Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center (SU-EFC) identified the Mohawk Valley communities as strong candidates and began working directly with local officials to encourage participation.
To help address lingering doubts and overcome feelings of hesitation, SU-EFC and its partners used several key strategies to build trust, reduce perceived risks, and create momentum:
- Reassurance that participation does not require a long-term commitment – To strengthen their confidence in participating in the program, EPA assured the mayors that communities would not be obligated to implement the study’s recommendations but could glean valuable insights at no cost. The project only needed to maintain eligibility for State Revolving Funds (SRF), even if the municipalities ultimately chose not to apply.
- Financing legal and regulatory analysis – Many projects require complex regulatory procedures under state law, as well as legal considerations regarding asset ownership and transfer processes. Municipalities need to determine the feasibility of a project while retaining flexibility in their decision-making. To address this, the villages have applied for Local Government Efficiency (LGE) grants from DOS. If awarded, these funds would help them establish the legal and administrative framework needed to move forward with formal district structures and become eligible for State Revolving Fund (SRF) financing.
- Technical assistance providers as impartial partners – While state agencies may allocate funds expecting results, municipal governments often struggle to navigate complex projects independently. Without structured guidance, expertise, and continuity, initiatives can falter. Non-profit technical assistance providers can help communities advance projects beyond preliminary studies and increase the likelihood that initial research translates into tangible infrastructure improvements.
- Public engagement and outreach – While securing direct public involvement for every decision is impractical, fostering open communication and engagement remains critical. Each community needs to assess the benefits and challenges of intermunicipal plans for their residents. Profiling the initiative and highlighting the mayors and local officials as they articulate their perspectives gives recognition to their contributions. Raising awareness across the state also increases the likelihood of more funding opportunities.
- Demonstrating a willingness to work together – The four mayors recently signed a formal letter to return land to native Mohawk residents in the nearby indigenous community of Kanatsiohareke. The successful land transfer agreement helps prove that the mayors can join forces effectively, giving hope that collaboration on water and sewer infrastructure can be equally successful.
With free engineering services on the line and no obligation to build, the mayors came to an agreement in late 2024 to move forward. Following this agreement, the EPA contracted several firms to assess existing infrastructure in each village and evaluate whether regionalized water and wastewater systems could offer greater efficiency. The next phase will rely on continued local leadership buy-in and community feedback to determine if the villages will pursue a joint application to the SRF to move forward with regionalization.
Through continued collaboration and structured guidance, lessons learned from this initiative have the potential to strengthen municipal infrastructure and support long-term economic stability across the Mohawk Valley and beyond.