The new lawsuit undermining the business of Coalition of Watershed Towns, of the Watershed Agricultural Council and of local municipalities in Delaware County, NY's plans to host solar and battery storage facilities

A lawsuit has been filed by Riverkeeper, Inc. against New York City's Department of Environmental Protection that can, if resolved in Riverkeeper, Inc.'s favor, together with the recent decision of Albany County Supreme Court annulling certain DEC regulation regarding watersheds, will reshape how local municipalities may or may not host solar and battery storage facilities on conservation easements (see here also an extremely interesting transcript in the Albany case).

By this publication I am making the text of the Riverkeeper's lawsuit available to the public.  You can click on the interlinked documents, they will take you right to the official site of the New York State Court system, NYSCEF, the document will open and you will be able to read it.

1. Summons
2. Notice of Petition
3. Petition
4. Exhibit A - Affirmation of Riverkeeper's member Kathleen Nolan;
5. Exhibit B - New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement, January 21, 1997;
6. Exhibit C - list of New York City owned properties in the Catskills Watershed;
7. Exhibit D - 2010 Side Agreement;
8. Exhibit E - 2010 Water Supply Permit;
9. Exhibit F - Fourth Supplement Side Agreement;
10. Exhibit G - Amended Model Conservation Easement;
11. Exhibit H - Notice of Material Breach;
12. Request for Judicial Intervention (to assign a judge to the case)

This newly filed lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Queens County challenges a December 2025 agreement that could significantly reshape how New York City protects its upstate drinking water supply.

The case, brought by Riverkeeper, Inc., is styled as a hybrid CPLR Article 78 proceeding, breach of contract action, and declaratory judgment claim against the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

At the center of the lawsuit is the “Fourth Supplemental Side Agreement”, executed on December 16, 2025, between DEP and several watershed stakeholders.

According to the petition, the agreement fundamentally alters long-standing watershed protections by:

• Modifying approximately 1,403 conservation easements

• Covering more than 96,000 acres of protected land

• Representing roughly 9% of the Catskill watershed that supplies drinking water to millions of New Yorkers

Riverkeeper alleges that the agreement introduces, for the first time, development uses on lands that were previously required to remain permanently undeveloped. These include:

• Utility and transmission infrastructure

• Renewable energy facilities

• New road construction

• Commercial extraction of sand, stone, and gravel

The petition also claims that the agreement alters the purpose of conservation easements, shifting them from strict water-quality protection toward a framework that incorporates economic development considerations.

In addition, the agreement allegedly restricts future land acquisition for conservation, particularly in lower-priority watershed areas, thereby limiting expansion of protected lands.

Riverkeeper advances two primary legal theories:

1. SEQRA violation

The lawsuit asserts that DEP entered into the agreement without conducting any environmental review, including:

• No Environmental Assessment Form

• No determination of significance

• No Environmental Impact Statement

Under SEQRA, such review must occur before an agency undertakes an action with potential environmental consequences.

2. Breach of contract

Riverkeeper also alleges that the agreement violates binding commitments made in:

• The 1997 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

• Subsequent watershed agreements and the 2010 Water Supply Permit framework

Those agreements require that lands acquired for watershed protection be maintained “in perpetuity in an undeveloped state” to safeguard water quality.

The petition asks the court to:

• Vacate the 2025 Side Agreement in its entirety

• Declare it void and unenforceable

• Require DEP to comply with SEQRA before taking similar action in the future

Why this case matters

This litigation goes directly to the foundation of New York City’s watershed protection system, which has operated for decades without filtration by relying on:

• Land acquisition

• Conservation easements

• Intergovernmental agreements

The lawsuit frames the 2025 agreement as a system-level shift—from strict land preservation toward a model that permits development within previously protected areas.

If successful, the case could:

• Reinforce strict limits on modifying conservation easements

• Expand SEQRA scrutiny over negotiated regulatory agreements

• Constrain how agencies balance environmental protection against economic development in watershed regions

Riverkeeper’s lawsuit challenges the legality of a major policy shift in watershed governance, arguing that DEP cannot relax decades-old land protections or rewrite conservation rules—particularly without environmental review—through a negotiated side agreement.

The aftermath of this lawsuit - if decided in favor of Riverkeeper - can be massive.

Local municipalities in the watershed, such as the Town of Hamden, NY, are already proceeding full speed into hosting of lithium-ion storage facilities presenting high environmental contamination and fire hazards.

If decided in favor of Riverkeeper - these plans can be abruptly halted, as they should be.

And, the kicker in the case is that it was brought in Queens County Supreme Court, far away from the local corruption, including court corruption.

So - let's see what happens.