I’m not suggesting that visitors are suddenly going to stop coming to Newburyport and the surrounding communities. What I do think is if our beaches keep closing and the river develops a reputation for being unsafe to swim, boat, or harvest local seafood in, people are naturally going to start spending those dollars elsewhere. Our destination economy won’t decline overnight, but it will absolutely begin to erode one individual decision at a time as people lose confidence in the water.

This is exactly how investors view downside risk. An immediate loss hurts, sure, but the real compounding problem is that you have to start the next day from a much lower base. Every time we lose visitor spending and tax revenue, we lose the compounding growth those dollars would have generated, all while the price tag to fix the underlying problem keeps climbing. Eventually, those two lines cross, and the cost of doing nothing becomes far more expensive than the cure.

Here are two impact studies that illustrate what repeated water-quality problems can mean for a local economy.

Mississippi Gulf Coast Impact Study

One study I came across examined the economic impact of bacterial beach closures along the Mississippi Gulf Coast over roughly two decades. The researchers tracked recurring water-quality advisories alongside tourism activity and estimated that repeated closures were associated with a $152 million annual reduction in gross taxable tourism sales, or about 8% of the region’s tourism economy, with some of the largest gaps occurring during peak summer months.

Imperial Beach, California Impact Study

Another study looked at the long-term effects of sewage contamination in Imperial Beach, California, where decades of rapid population growth in neighboring Tijuana strained aging wastewater infrastructure on both sides of the border causing chronic contamination along the coast. Billions of gallons of untreated sewage and polluted stormwater forced some beaches to stay closed for more than 1,000 days.

A preliminary economic report found that 74% of businesses reported being negatively affected by the ongoing pollution, 66% experienced declining revenue, close to 30% laid off employees, and almost half lost more than $100,000 in revenue. The City of Imperial Beach also estimates the crisis has reduced tourism spending by roughly $500,000 each year, while costing between $1 million and $1.5 million in property tax revenue.

Every community is different, but a pattern of repeated water-quality problems can gradually change visitor behavior over time, weaken business activity, and eventually work their way through a local economy.

Water Quality and Residential Property Values

If a community starts losing its appeal to visitors, what impact will that have on the locals? After all, the things that attract tourists are the very same features that draw in homebuyers.

In a community like Newburyport, part of that appeal comes from the river and coastline itself. Buyers want the ability to kayak after work, spend the afternoon on Plum Island, walk the rail trail, or look out over the water every morning.

Researchers have spent years trying to measure what that lifestyle is worth. An EPA review of 36 studies found a consistent relationship between cleaner water and higher residential property values. Another study examining more than 200,000 home sales across the Chesapeake Bay watershed found that homes located near cleaner water consistently sold for more than comparable homes near poorer water quality.

We also have to know that the market’s awareness around this issue is about to change. Under new federal drinking water standards, public water systems are legally required to complete initial monitoring for PFAS and make the results fully public by 2027. When that data hits the public record, water quality will become more transparent, turning into a standard line item in a buyer’s due diligence.

The reality is that clean water carries measurable economic value. Like any other asset, changes in public data and perception directly influence market value over time.

So, Where Does the Cost Flip?

We spend a lot of time debating what it will cost to repair aging infrastructure, but not enough time talking about what it costs if we just leave it alone.

Tourism spending supports local businesses. Businesses create jobs, invest in their communities, and generate tax revenue. Property values strengthen the tax base that helps pay for schools, roads, public safety, parks, and the infrastructure that keeps a community running. Every one of those benefits depends, in some way, on the river continuing to create economic value. The question is whether we’re spending more time debating the cost of repairing the asset than measuring what it costs when the asset gradually produces less in return.

And, as we all know, the longer we wait to repair something, the more it’s going to cost in the end. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that, without adequate investment, the annual cost of drinking water and wastewater failures to American households will increase sevenfold, from $2 billion in 2019 to $14 billion by 2039. Water-dependent businesses are projected to absorb another $250 billion in losses from service disruptions over the same period.

That, to me, is where the cost flips.

As long as the economic cost of waiting is smaller than the cost of fixing the problem, delaying the investment may feel reasonable. But there comes a point when the losses begin exceeding the savings. The asset that once generated value for the community starts requiring more to maintain than it’s returning.

I don’t know exactly where that line is for the Merrimack. I do know that before deciding whether we can afford to fix it, I’d want to understand what it’s costing us every year if we choose not to.