The Return of the Prodigal Son — and a Curious Possibility of Taxpayer Intervention in Decker Advertising v. Delaware County Wayne Shepard Wins the Hamden Election. What Does That Mean for the Federal Lawsuit Seeking to Restore His Brother's Newspaper to the County Payroll?

My assessment of Decker Advertising, Inc. v. Delaware County, No. 3:23-cv-01531 (N.D.N.Y.), has changed dramatically.

I must confess that I was initially suckered in by the glamour and publicity surrounding this lawsuit, particularly the involvement of such formidable names as The New York Times, Cornell Law School's First Amendment Clinic, and Greenberg Traurig.

As a journalist and legal scholar specializing in First Amendment issues, who has personally experienced governmental retaliation for investigative journalism and criticism of public officials, I was naturally sympathetic to what appeared to be an underdog fighting governmental suppression of the press.

I thought I was rooting for the underdog.

Apparently, there was no underdog in the first place.

Recent discussions in Delaware County community groups prompted me to reconsider information that had been publicly available for years, but whose legal significance I had not previously examined in connection with this litigation.

And now the November 3, 2026 election has added an entirely new dimension.

The Prodigal Son Returns

According to the election-night results, Wayne L. Shepard has defeated Jonathan Kilday in the race for Hamden Town Supervisor.

With all precincts reporting, Shepard received 375 votes, or 61.48%, against Kilday's 231 votes, or 37.87%.

Shepard is therefore poised to return to the Delaware County Board of Supervisors.

Why is this relevant to Decker Advertising?

Because Wayne Shepard is the brother of Randy Shepard, owner of The Reporter, the newspaper whose official designation and resulting publicly funded business relationship with Delaware County are at the center of the federal litigation.

Wayne Shepard is hardly a newcomer to Delaware County government.

He spent decades in County employment, as he reported himself, since at least 1992, including senior management positions, notably as Director of the Delaware County Office for the Aging.

During those years, the County maintained business relationships with his brother's newspaper and publishing enterprise.

Indeed, Wayne Shepard's own deposition testimony addressed expenditures by his department for printing services through his brother's business.

The familial relationship, the governmental positions, and the public expenditures are not recent discoveries.

What has changed is their immediate significance to the prospective judicial relief being sought in federal court.

The prodigal son is returning to the County's governing body, while his brother's business is asking a federal judge to order the County to restore a publicly funded relationship with that business.

This raises a rather interesting question of New York municipal law.

Is This Really a First Amendment Case?

Decker Advertising has presented its dispute with Delaware County as a First Amendment retaliation controversy.

But the First Amendment does not confer an entitlement to receive municipal business.

Nor does the constitutional protection of freedom of the press automatically create a right to a particular publicly funded governmental designation.

In my revised assessment, the fundamental issue is whether the County was legally authorized to maintain the disputed business relationship in the first place, given the longstanding familial relationship between the newspaper's ownership and a senior County official.

I believe Delaware County should have addressed that question at the outset.

Instead, the litigation has proceeded for years, generating legal expenses while the controversy has been framed predominantly as a dispute over freedom of the press.

Now, with Wayne Shepard's return to the Board of Supervisors, the conflict-of-interest question becomes prospective as well as historical - and front and center of that litigation.

The federal court is being asked to grant relief that would operate upon the County's future governmental and financial arrangements.

That makes the legality of the requested relief an independent question.

Enter the Delaware County Taxpayer

New York General Municipal Law Article 18 regulates municipal conflicts of interest, while General Municipal Law § 51 provides a statutory mechanism for certain taxpayer challenges to unlawful municipal conduct and expenditures.

The official newspaper designation is expressly addressed within New York's municipal conflict-of-interest statutory framework, including the definition of municipal contracts and the specific exception for authorized newspaper designations.

Those provisions require careful statutory analysis, particularly concerning the distinction between an official's financial interest, a familial relationship, participation in governmental decisions, and the validity of the resulting municipal arrangement.

But there is another question, and it is procedural.

Could a Delaware County taxpayer (including yours truly) seek to intervene in Decker Advertising v. Delaware County on the side of the defendant County itself?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 permits intervention under specified circumstances, including where an applicant claims an interest relating to the subject of the action that may be impaired by its disposition and is not adequately represented by existing parties.

A taxpayer seeking to prevent potentially unlawful future expenditures could examine whether the requested reinstatement implicates such an interest.

The proposed intervention would not necessarily concern whether Decker Advertising suffered First Amendment retaliation.

It could instead concern whether the federal court should grant prospective injunctive relief compelling a municipality to resume a publicly funded arrangement affected by a renewed conflict-of-interest question.

That is a distinct legal issue.

An Unexpected Procedural Alliance

And here comes the particularly interesting part.

The defendant Delaware County is represented by attorney Frank W. Miller.

I have litigated against Miller in several proceedings and have publicly criticized his litigation conduct, or rather, his constant procedural sloppiness, lack of readiness and constant attempts to substitute the law for claims of privileges from various judges - which sounds really dirty when you consider that Miller's managing partner at his present law firm Hancock Estabrook LLP is brother to the Chief Administrative judge of Upstate New York - who is obviously in charge of assigning those same judges to our cases.

And, I am suing his client Delaware County for a variety of constitutional violations.

Nevertheless, the possibility of intervention on the side of his client, that same Delaware County, deserves serious consideration here.

Not that I am particularly looking foward to any alliances with Mr. Miller or his client - brrr, no.

But, after all, the legality of prospective public expenditures takes priority over my personal feelings as to how VERY sloppy is the attorney chosen by the current County government to represent them in court.

Nor must a taxpayer (yours truly) share every position taken by the County's counsel to oppose a particular form of judicial relief.

I am therefore examining whether Delaware County taxpayers could qualify for intervention under Rule 24, including whether the existing parties adequately represent their interests in the legality of future municipal expenditures.

As a Delaware County property owner and taxpayer, I know I qualify for that role, too.

Whether I or any other taxpayer will actually pursue intervention remains an open question.

For now, I find the legal possibility sufficiently interesting to warrant examination.

And I find the prospect of a taxpayer intervening on the side of Delaware County, represented by Frank Miller, particularly ... amusing.

The Question Before the Federal Court

The November 3 election results have brought the familial relationship between the newspaper's ownership and County government into renewed focus.  Not counting the fact that the Town of Hamden happens to also employ Wayne Shepard's sister as the Town Clerk and gives business to his same brother Randy Shepard's newspaper as publisher of the Town's legal notices.  A family-owned town... the local cuteness overload.

So, now the $3,999,999,999.00 Decker Advertising question is no longer confined to what occurred years ago.

It concerns what the County may lawfully be compelled to do in the future.

Can a federal court order prospective restoration of a publicly funded municipal designation without addressing a substantial question concerning the legality of that FAMILY arrangement under New York municipal law?

Can a County taxpayer seek to participate in the proceedings to raise that issue?

And if the existing parties have not adequately addressed the taxpayers' interests, might Rule 24 provide a procedural avenue for doing so?

These are questions worth exploring.

Sometimes the most unexpected ally of a municipal defendant is a taxpayer who has spent years litigating against that very municipality.

And sometimes a lawsuit promoted as a grand First Amendment controversy, so advertised with great fanfare across the nation by New York Times, Cornell Law School's 1st Amendment Clinic and Greenberg Traurig (who used the opportunity, at Delaware County taxpayers' expense, to teach their new recruits in battle how to do electronic discovery) deserves a second look through the considerably less glamorous lens of municipal contracts, conflicts of interest, and us, the taxpayers who finance them.

To be continued, perhaps.  After a conference with Mr. Miller.  Not likely.

Had he agreed to such a conference, I would have asked the $5,000,000,000,000.00 question: WHY DIDN'T YOU RAISE THAT CONFLICT IMMEDIATELY?  YOU COULD HAVE SAVED DELAWARE COUNTY TAXPAYERS ZILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!!  MILKIN' THE CASE MUCH, HUH?

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black — in Spades Attorney Adam Rodd, His Own and His Clients' Willful and Contumacious Conduct, Disability Discrimination, and the Delaware County Taxpayers Who Pay for It

 

There is something extraordinarily and disgustingly sleazy about an attorney who refuses to comply with discovery obligations and then appears in court to accuse a disabled litigant of willful and contumacious conduct for failing to attend a hearing at which the court refused to provide the disability accommodations necessary for her participation.

That attorney is Adam L. Rodd, of Drake Loeb PLLC.

And Delaware County taxpayers are paying for his legal representation of public officials and governmental entities.

Who Is Adam Rodd Representing, and What Are They Being Sued For?

In Tatiana Neroni v. Amy Merklen et al., Index No. EF2026-213, pending in New York Supreme Court, Delaware County, Rodd represents four defendants:

1. Amy Merklen, Delaware County Attorney.
2. D. Jeremy Rase, an attorney associated with the Delaware County Attorney's Office.
3. Delaware County Attorney's Office, the governmental legal office.
4. Wayne Marshfield, Town Supervisor of Hamden and member of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors.

These defendants are being sued under an Amended Verified Complaint, NYSCEF Doc. 28, asserting four causes of action:

• Judiciary Law § 487: attorney deceit.
• Tortious interference with contractual and business relations.
• Abuse of process.
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983: First Amendment retaliation and denial of access to the courts.

These are serious allegations concerning the exercise and alleged misuse of governmental and legal authority.

On July 20, 2026, Rodd submitted a Verified Answer on behalf of these defendants, NYSCEF Doc. 109.

He verified the Answer upon what he identified as “Investigative material contained in my file.”

Naturally, I sought that investigative material through discovery.

Willful and Contumacious: Adam Rodd, First Person Singular

The expression willful and contumacious is a term of art frequently used in New York civil practice in connection with discovery violations.

CPLR 3126 authorizes sanctions when a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information that ought to have been disclosed. The available sanctions include striking pleadings and entering judgment against the noncomplying party.

Now consider what Rodd did.

He verified an Answer based on purported investigative material.

I demanded production of that material.

He responded that he did not have it.

He did not produce the evidence upon which he had purportedly relied in verifying his clients' Answer.

He did not answer my interrogatories.

He failed to respond to my notices to admit.

And while leaving these discovery obligations unfulfilled, he moved to dismiss my case.

Then came the October 28, 2026 hearing before Supreme Court Justice Christopher P. Baker.

At that hearing, Rodd characterized my failure to appear as “willful and contumacious” and urged dismissal of my cases.

For what conduct?

For not attending a hearing after the court repeatedly refused to provide the disability accommodations necessary for my participation.

An attorney who refused to comply with discovery obligations was asking a court to punish a disabled litigant for failing to attend a hearing without necessary ADA accommodations.

The pot calling the kettle black — in spades.

The Americans with Disabilities Act Is Federal Law, Not Judicial Charity

The circumstances of the October 28 hearing were known well in advance.

I had repeatedly requested reasonable disability accommodations, including afternoon scheduling and adequate spacing of proceedings. My husband, also disabled, required CART real-time transcription services because of his hearing limitations.

The court scheduled fourteen motions for a single morning hearing, refused the requested afternoon scheduling, and did not arrange the requested CART services.

We were unable to attend.

Rodd urged the court to treat our nonappearance as deliberate disobedience and dismiss our cases.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, prohibits public entities from excluding qualified individuals with disabilities from participation in their services, programs, or activities by reason of disability.

Its implementing regulations require reasonable modifications when necessary to avoid disability discrimination, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7), and effective communication with individuals with disabilities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.

The ADA is a federal statute enacted by Congress. Under Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, federal law is supreme over conflicting state law, and state judges are expressly bound by it.

Compliance with the ADA is not a matter of judicial discretion.

Yet Rodd urged the court to punish - without a notice of motion, mind, completely illegally - two disabled litigants for the consequences of denied accommodations.

This litigation position is not merely bizarre.

It is unlawful.

A court cannot turn the consequences of its refusal to provide legally required accommodations into grounds for punishing the person who needed them.

Nor does an attorney representing public entities acquire authority to disregard federal civil rights obligations by asking a judge to do so.

Is Adam Rodd Protecting His Clients — or Exposing Them to Additional Liability?

Rodd's clients include governmental officials and a governmental legal office.

His litigation strategy raises an elementary question of professional competence.

Why would an attorney representing public entities subject to federal civil rights obligations urge a court to take action that could expose those entities to additional federal civil rights liability?

The ADA is enforceable through judicial remedies, including prospective injunctive relief and, where legally available, compensatory damages and attorney's fees.

An attorney who urges a court to penalize disabled litigants for the consequences of denied accommodations is not merely advancing an aggressive defense.

He is pursuing a position that may generate additional claims against his own clients.

And why? Because he has no chance of winning ethically and lawfully.

/

Those claims require legal defense. Legal defense costs money. Adverse judgments and fee awards cost additional money.

And where public entities are responsible for those expenditures, the financial burden falls upon the public.

I do not know what happened to attorney Adam Rodd who I knew more 13 years ago as an opponent in litigation on behalf of my then-clients to be a more or less decent human being - is it so hungry for business now that he falls in lockstep with the known sleazeballs such as Frank Miller and Courtney Heinel?

I do not know that.

What I question though is:

Why Am I As A Taxpayer Is Paying for His Sleazeball Tactics?

I am a Delaware County property owner and taxpayer.

I am also the litigant whose cases Rodd sought to have dismissed.

As a litigant, I have a direct interest in challenging his conduct.

As a taxpayer, I have an equally legitimate interest in questioning why public funds are being expended on legal representation that pursues unlawful positions and exposes public entities to additional liability.

Consider the financial arrangement.

Taxpayers pay for Rodd's legal services.

Taxpayers pay for the litigation he conducts on behalf of governmental defendants.

Taxpayers may then be required to finance additional litigation arising from the very conduct undertaken in defending those defendants.

And if that conduct results in liability, taxpayers may be required to finance the consequences.

We are paying for the privilege of being exposed to additional liability.

This is an extraordinary use of public resources.

Why should Delaware County taxpayers finance an attorney who refuses to comply with discovery, seeks dismissal of claims alleging governmental misconduct, and then urges a court to impose punitive consequences upon disabled litigants for failing to attend a hearing without necessary accommodations?

What public interest does that serve?

Whose interests are being protected?

A Question of Public Accountability

The October 28, 2026 hearing transcript provides a record of Rodd's arguments.

The discovery record documents the demands made upon him, his responses, and his failure to provide the requested discovery.

His Verified Answer, NYSCEF Doc. 109, identifies the purported investigative material upon which his verification was based.

His clients are identified in the public court record.

So are the claims against them.

This is not merely a private disagreement between opposing litigants. It concerns the conduct of an attorney representing public officials and governmental entities, the enforcement of federal disability rights, and the expenditure of taxpayer money.

An attorney paid to defend public entities should not be using public funds to pursue litigation positions that violate federal law and expose those same entities to additional liability.

And when that attorney accuses a disabled litigant of willful and contumacious conduct while refusing to fulfill his own discovery obligations, the public is entitled to examine the contradiction.

I intend to do exactly that.

Because I am not only the person against whom Rodd sought dismissal.

I am also one of the taxpayers paying for it.

And - why wouldn't we the taxpayers demand that our hard earned money paid to this ... representative of his profession for THIS kind of "advocacy" be returned to us.

And - do I know have a new claim accrued against Adam Rodd and his clients?  For ADA violations? Yes.  1st Amendment retaliation? Yes. GML 51 taxpayer waste claims? Oh yes.  3 years statute of limitations, ladies and gentlemen.

As I already said earlier in this blog, Amy Merklen, on whose behalf Rodd made his spectacular sleazy request, is only good for breeding litigation against the County, a feat that attorney Adam Rodd is now enthusiastically helping her with.

Congress Confronts Industrial Secrecy: A New Federal Bill Raises Questions About Water Consumption, Public Safety, and the Fraser Battery Project in New York's Watershed

A new bill introduced in the United States Congress addresses a problem that extends far beyond the industry it proposes to regulate: the development of large industrial infrastructure projects without adequate public disclosure of their demands on natural resources, environmental consequences, and potential costs to surrounding communities.

Representative Eugene Vindman of Virginia has introduced the Data Center Oversight Act,  which would require operators of existing and proposed data centers to disclose information about their ownership, electricity consumption, water use, and other matters affecting the public.

Under the proposed legislation, companies that fail to report, submit incomplete information, or provide misleading information could face penalties of up to $1 million per day.

The legislation has not been enacted. Nevertheless, its introduction reflects growing federal legislative attention to the problem of industrial transparency.

And it raises a particularly important question for communities confronting other forms of industrial development:

If the public needs to know how much water a data center will consume during ordinary operations, should it not also know how much water might be required to extinguish a catastrophic fire at a large lithium-ion battery installation?

That question is especially relevant to the proposed Fraser Battery Energy Storage System in Delaware County, New York, within the New York City watershed.

## What the Data Center Oversight Act Would Require

Data centers supporting artificial intelligence and other digital services can require substantial quantities of electricity and, depending on their cooling systems, water.

Their development has generated public concern about pressure on local water supplies, electricity costs, infrastructure expansion, and noise.

The Data Center Oversight Act proposes mandatory reporting to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration.

The required disclosures would include:

- Ownership of existing and proposed facilities.

- Electricity consumption and water use.

- Costs of supplying the facilities that may be passed on to utility customers.

- Nondisclosure agreements involving facility owners and government officials.

- Whether union labor was used during construction.

- Whether facilities are located within 1,000 feet of homes, schools, hospitals, or national parks.

These are not merely technical details. They concern the ability of residents to understand what is being constructed in their communities, who controls it, and what consequences they may be required to bear.

The proposed penalties for incomplete or misleading reporting are particularly significant. They reflect the bill sponsor's position that public disclosure must be accurate and enforceable.

## The Problem Extends Beyond Data Centers

The environmental consequences of industrial infrastructure cannot always be measured by what a facility consumes during normal operations.

Some installations present a second category of resource demands: the extraordinary quantities of water, equipment, personnel, and public funds that may be needed if an industrial accident occurs.

For a large lithium-ion battery energy storage system, this distinction is critical.

A battery installation may consume relatively little water during normal operations. But a serious battery fire may require prolonged emergency intervention, and the consequences can become substantially more severe if the fire spreads beyond the installation into surrounding forests, wetlands, or combustible peat deposits.

In that situation, the question is no longer simply how much water the industrial facility uses.

It becomes how much water the surrounding environment may require to survive the consequences of the facility's failure.

## The Fraser Battery Energy Storage System: A Project in the New York City Watershed

The proposed Fraser Battery Energy Storage System would be constructed on a forested mountain ridge in the Town of Hamden, Delaware County, New York.

The location is within the watershed supplying drinking water to New York City.

The project has been publicly described as having storage capacity of approximately 500 to 540 megawatt-hours (MWh).

However, the project's December 14, 2025, emergency response plan identifies 196 Tesla Megapack 2 XL units, each rated at 3,916 kilowatt-hours.

The resulting calculation is:

196 × 3,916 kWh = 767,536 kWh, or 767.536 MWh.

That figure is approximately 42.1% greater than the publicly represented 540 MWh and 53.5% greater than 500 MWh.

The discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of public disclosures and the capacity assumptions used in evaluating the project's fire safety and emergency response requirements.

But the danger presented by the proposed location cannot be evaluated solely by examining the battery equipment.

The surrounding landscape matters.

## From a Battery Fire to a Forest Fire — and Then an Underground Peat Fire

The Fraser project is proposed for a forested ridge with nearby wetlands and reported peat deposits.

This combination presents a potential sequence of events that requires careful examination.

A serious lithium-ion battery incident may involve thermal runaway, the release of flammable gases, intense heat, and fire propagation between battery units.

If heat, flames, or burning material escape the installation, surrounding vegetation may ignite under sufficiently dry and windy conditions.

A forest fire may then spread beyond the boundaries of the industrial site.

If the fire reaches sufficiently dry combustible peat, it may ignite organic material beneath the surface.

At that point, the emergency can change from a surface fire into a persistent underground combustion problem.

Peat fires are particularly difficult to extinguish because combustion can continue beneath the surface, sometimes with limited visible flames. Burning material may remain insulated by surrounding soil and peat, and fire can reappear at the surface after apparently successful suppression.

Extinguishing such fires may require prolonged application of water, excavation, isolation of burning material, and sustained monitoring.

The existence of peat deposits near Fraser does not itself establish that they are dry enough to ignite or that a battery fire would reach them. Those are precisely the site-specific conditions that must be investigated.

The necessary inquiry includes peat depth, moisture content, seasonal groundwater levels, the continuity of combustible deposits, wind conditions, and the availability of effective firebreaks and emergency access.

Without that information, the potential extent of a fire cannot be responsibly assessed.

## How Much Water Does It Take to Extinguish a Peat Fire?

Historical peat and wetland fires demonstrate the extraordinary scale of water management that may be necessary.

One example is the 2008 Evans Road Fire in North Carolina, which burned approximately 40,000 acres in and around the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

The fire persisted for months, involving deep organic soils and requiring extensive suppression and water-management operations.

Approximately 1.98 billion gallons of water have been cited in accounts of the response.

That figure illustrates the possible scale of water involved in a prolonged peatland fire response. It should not be treated as a prediction of the amount Fraser would require, or as a universal measure of water applied directly to burning peat.

Another example is the 2018 Lake Cobrico peat fire in Victoria, Australia.

That incident required extensive water-delivery operations, including construction of a pipeline approximately four kilometers long. Approximately 65 million liters, or 17.2 million U.S. gallons, have been reported in connection with the suppression effort.

The response continued for weeks.

These examples involve different landscapes, fire conditions, water-management methods, and suppression strategies.

They do not establish that a fire at Fraser would consume equivalent quantities.

They do establish something important: a peat fire can turn an initially localized ignition into a prolonged emergency requiring water resources on a scale far beyond ordinary industrial firefighting.

That possibility deserves investigation before a large lithium-ion battery installation is placed near combustible forest and peatland environments.

## Where Would the Water Come From?

For the Fraser project, the water question has particular significance because of its location in the New York City watershed.

The project is proposed in mountainous terrain, with seasonal road limitations and emergency response resources that warrant careful evaluation.

The December 2025 emergency response plan contemplates a response in which firefighters may have to maintain defensive positions and allow affected battery equipment to burn.

Such an approach raises a further question: what happens if the fire does not remain confined to the battery installation?

If flames spread into surrounding forest, firefighters may need substantial quantities of water to protect adjacent vegetation, prevent additional ignitions, and suppress any burning organic soils.

If peat becomes involved, water requirements could continue long after the initial battery fire.

The public should therefore be told:

- What quantity of water has been calculated for the worst credible fire scenario, including off-site fire propagation?

- Where would that water be obtained?

- Could the necessary water be delivered over the existing mountain roads?

- What equipment and personnel would be available for prolonged forest and peat-fire suppression?

- Has the developer investigated the depth, distribution, and seasonal moisture conditions of nearby peat deposits?

- What would prevent contaminated firefighting runoff, ash, and sediment from reaching wetlands and downstream water resources?

These questions are especially important where local emergency response depends on volunteer fire departments and specialized resources may not be immediately available.

## The New York City Watershed: Water Supply at Risk From Both Fire and Firefighting

The New York City drinking water supply is an extraordinary public resource.

Much of the City's upstate water supply benefits from a watershed protection system that allows it to operate without conventional filtration of its Catskill/Delaware supply, subject to federal drinking water requirements.

A major fire within the watershed could create several distinct threats.

Burned vegetation and disturbed soils can increase erosion and sediment transport into streams and reservoirs.

Ash and fire residues may alter water chemistry and introduce contaminants.

Firefighting water may carry combustion byproducts and other substances into surrounding soils and drainage systems.

And if a fire becomes established in organic soils, prolonged suppression may require substantial water withdrawals, diversion, pumping, and transport.

A fire involving lithium-ion batteries introduces additional questions about the composition of fire residues and contaminated runoff.

The consequences would depend on the nature and scale of the incident, the affected drainage basin, weather conditions, and the effectiveness of containment measures.

But those uncertainties make advance investigation more important, not less.

The same water resources that must be protected from contamination may also be called upon to suppress the fire threatening them.

The potential costs are not limited to firefighting.

They may include emergency infrastructure, environmental remediation, water quality monitoring, watershed restoration, and measures necessary to preserve drinking water quality.

These are costs that may ultimately fall upon the public rather than the industrial developer.

## Why Is Congress Demanding Water Disclosures From Data Centers but Not Comparable Emergency Water Assessments From Battery Developers?

The Data Center Oversight Act focuses on the ordinary water and electricity demands of data centers.

That is a legitimate public concern.

But the proposed Fraser project illustrates why disclosure obligations should also address extraordinary resource demands arising from foreseeable industrial emergencies.

A data center may use water continuously for cooling.

A battery storage installation may have comparatively modest routine water consumption, yet present a potential emergency involving extensive water use if a fire spreads into the surrounding environment.

Both situations implicate public water resources.

Both may affect neighboring communities.

Both require accurate technical information that the developer is better positioned to obtain and disclose.

And both raise the question of whether local residents should be required to discover material information through independent investigation, public records requests, or litigation.

The introduction of federal legislation addressing one industry provides an opportunity to examine why comparable transparency requirements should not extend to other industrial facilities presenting substantial environmental risks.

## Industrial Transparency Is Becoming a National Legislative Question

The Data Center Oversight Act is not law. Its introduction does not establish a binding national disclosure policy, and the bill does not regulate battery energy storage systems.

It does, however, demonstrate that concerns about industrial secrecy, resource consumption, and public accountability have reached the federal legislative agenda.

The issues being raised in Delaware County are therefore part of a much broader public discussion.

The Fraser project raises particularly consequential questions because its potential environmental effects extend beyond the installation itself and into a watershed serving millions of people.

The public capacity discrepancy, the proposed forested location, the reported peat deposits, the limitations of emergency access, and the potential demand for firefighting water all warrant examination.

On November 3, 2026, a federal lawsuit was filed concerning the proposed Fraser Battery Energy Storage System, asserting New York common-law nuisance claims and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

The lawsuit places the proposed project's safety and environmental consequences before a federal court.

The broader public policy question remains equally important.

## The Public Needs Accurate Information Before the Emergency

Industrial developers routinely provide projections of their projects' economic benefits, operational capacities, and expected performance.

Communities also need reliable information about the costs and consequences of failure.

For a battery energy storage installation in a forested watershed, that means investigating the possibility of a battery fire spreading to surrounding vegetation, the conditions under which peat deposits could ignite, the resources required for suppression, and the consequences for public water supplies.

The historical experience of major peat fires demonstrates why these questions cannot be dismissed as remote abstractions.

The quantities of water involved in some prolonged suppression operations have reached millions and even billions of gallons.

No responsible prediction of Fraser's emergency water requirements can be made without site-specific investigation and modeling.

That is exactly why the investigation must occur before construction.

Congress is now considering whether data center operators should face penalties of up to $1 million per day for failing to disclose material information about their facilities.

The same emerging concern for industrial transparency should prompt a broader national discussion about battery energy storage systems and other installations capable of imposing extraordinary environmental and emergency response costs on the public.

The question is not merely how much water an industrial facility will consume while everything works as planned.

The question is also how much water, public money, and environmental damage may be involved when things go wrong — and whether the public is entitled to know those risks before the project is built.

A CALL TO ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS: PLEASE CONSIDER INTERVENING IN FEDERAL LITIGATION TO PROTECT THE CATSKILLS AND NEW YORK CITY'S DRINKING WATER

A proposed industrial battery storage facility on a forested mountain ridge in Delaware County, New York, raises serious questions about fire safety, groundwater contamination, wetlands protection, and the integrity of New York City's drinking water supply.

On November 2, 2026, I filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of New York challenging the proposed Fraser Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in the Town of Hamden, Delaware County.

Neroni v. EDF Renewables Development, Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York

Case No. 3:26-cv-02257

The proposed facility would be situated within the New York City watershed, in a forested mountainous area with wetlands, potentially combustible peat deposits, difficult access roads, and limited emergency firefighting resources.

WHY SHOULD ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS BE CONCERNED?

1. A massive lithium-ion battery installation

The developer's December 2025 Emergency Response Plan identifies 196 Tesla Megapack 2 XL units, with a combined capacity of approximately 767.5 MWh, substantially exceeding the publicly represented project capacities of 500–540 MWh.

2. The possibility of catastrophic forest and underground peat fires

A lithium-ion battery fire could spread into surrounding forests and potentially ignite combustible peat deposits. Underground peat fires can persist for weeks or months, requiring extensive excavation, specialized firefighting equipment, and enormous quantities of water.

3. Threats to clean water supplies

Firefighting operations could generate contaminated runoff containing combustion residues, metals, sediment, and other pollutants, potentially affecting wetlands, groundwater, streams, and the watershed supplying drinking water to millions of New Yorkers.

4. Serious questions about emergency preparedness

The proposed facility would be unmanned, located in difficult mountainous terrain, and dependent upon emergency responders whose resources may be inadequate for a catastrophic industrial battery fire spreading into surrounding forests.

5. The inconsistency in environmental protection

New York State is currently defending its restrictions on hydraulic fracturing in Woodward v. Lefton, No. 3:26-cv-00736 (N.D.N.Y.), in substantial part to protect water resources and the environment.

Environmental organizations including Catskill Mountainkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and Food & Water Watch have sought intervention in that litigation to defend those protections.

The same water resources deserve protection against the foreseeable consequences of a catastrophic industrial battery fire.

AN INVITATION TO INTERVENE

I brought this federal action as an out-of-state property owner holding property in Delaware County, asserting claims under New York common-law public and private nuisance principles and seeking preventive judicial relief.

I am now publicly inviting environmental organizations, watershed protection groups, conservation organizations, clean-water advocates, and public-interest environmental attorneys to examine the complaint and consider seeking intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.

Organizations representing watershed communities, environmental interests, and drinking-water consumers may have interests extending well beyond my individual property rights.

Their participation could bring essential scientific expertise, environmental evidence, and a broader public-interest perspective to the litigation.

We should not have to wait for a catastrophic fire, contaminated drinking water, destroyed wetlands, or the loss of homes and farms before asking whether this industrial installation can be operated safely at this location.

The purpose of this lawsuit is prevention.

CONTACT INFORMATION — ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ATTORNEYS WELCOME

I invite interested organizations, environmental attorneys, scientists, and watershed advocates to contact me to discuss the complaint, supporting documents, and possible intervention.

Tatiana Neroni

Plaintiff, Neroni v. EDF Renewables Development, Inc., et al.

Federal Case No. 3:26-cv-02257

Northern District of New York

Mailing address:

240 Harvest Moon Drive

Georgetown, SC 29440

Email: tatiana.neroni@gmail.com

Telephone (calls and texts): (843) 240-7745

Protect the Catskills. Protect the watershed. Protect clean drinking water before it is too late.

#ProtectOurWater #Catskills #DelawareCountyNY #NYCWatershed #CleanWater #EnvironmentalProtection #FraserBESS #BatteryStorage #Wetlands #PublicInterestLitigation #TownofHamdenNY #EnvironmentalJustice

Have You Experienced Disability Discrimination in New York State Courts? I Would Like to Hear From You

People with disabilities have the same right to use our courts as everyone else.  But - having that right on paper and being able to exercise it in practice are not always the same thing.

I am investigating how New York State courts respond to people with disabilities who need special arrangements, known as reasonable ADA accommodations, to attend hearings, present their cases, or simply observe court proceedings.

I would like to hear from people who have experienced problems obtaining these accommodations from New York State court, as well as those whose requests were handled properly.

My goal is to find out whether the problems people encounter are isolated incidents or whether similar problems occur repeatedly in different courts across New York State and constitute repeated practices or set policies, written or unwritten.

What Kinds of Experiences Am I Looking For?

Here are some examples of situations I am interested in hearing from disabled litigants or court watchers:

1.  The court ignored your request for help or accommodation.  You explained that you had a disability and needed an accommodation, but the judge or court staff never answered, or answered only after it was too late, or answered inadequately, not providing to you the help you needed to use court facilities or court proceedings in an effective way to prosecute or defend your claim in court, or to watch a court proceeding.

2. The court refused to change the time of your hearing.  Because of your disability, you could not attend court early in the morning, needed more time between hearings, or needed breaks during proceedings.  The court refused to adjust its schedule.

3. You could not hear or understand what was happening in court. You requested hearing assistance, real-time transcription (a service that displays spoken words on a screen), or another form of communication assistance, but the court did not provide it.

4. You were unable to attend court in person. You needed to participate by video or telephone because of a disability, but the court refused or did not respond to your request.

5. The court demanded medical proof that you could not reasonably obtain.  You were asked to provide medical records, letters from doctors, or other documents, but nobody clearly explained what was required or why the information you had already provided was insufficient, or you provided medical records, but they were ignored and accommodations were denied.

6. You did not know how to challenge a refusal. Your request for an accommodation was denied, but you were not told how to appeal that decision, whom to contact, or whether anyone could review it before your hearing, or the appellate process was too expensive or difficult for you, in any way, to undertake.

7. You were punished for being unable to participate without an accommodation.  Your case was dismissed, you lost by default, you were fined or sanctioned, or you faced other negative consequences because you could not attend or effectively participate in a hearing without the help you had requested but that was not provided to you by the court system.

8. Your disability was not taken seriously.  A judge, attorney, or court employee dismissed your limitations, made inappropriate comments about your disability, mocked you because of your disability, put your disability into question, or assumed that because you could write documents or perform certain activities, you were not disabled or did not need accommodations.

9. You were prevented from watching court proceedings. You are a member of the public, a journalist, or a court observer with a disability, and you encountered barriers when trying to attend or watch proceedings because of your disability or because you wanted to watch a proceeding where disability discrimination was part of the discussion.

These are only examples. If you experienced something different that you believe involved disability discrimination in a New York State court, I would like to hear about it.

Why Am I Investigating This?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law that protects people with disabilities from discrimination.

It applies to state courts.

In 2004, the United States Supreme Court decided Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, a case involving a paraplegic who was severely sanctioned - arrested and jailed - for refusing to crawl up the stairs of the courthouse or be carried to the 2nd floor courtroom by court personnel, in a courthouse without an elevator.

The Supreme Court recognized that access to the courts is a fundamental right and that Congress had the authority to protect that right through the ADA.

But disability discrimination is not limited to buildings without wheelchair ramps or elevators.

A person may be physically able to enter a courthouse and still be unable to participate meaningfully in a hearing.

For example, what happens when someone cannot hear the proceedings?  When a person with a serious medical condition cannot attend an early morning hearing?  When someone cannot prepare for several hearings scheduled on the same day because of disability-related limitations?  When the disabled person needs extra time to prepare?  When the disabled person is concerned about a speech impediment, a neurological condition, a set of menopause-related symptoms or a combination of such or other factors that may come across to the court as an intentional attitude towards the court, or a display of anger?

And what happens when the court refuses to make reasonable adjustments, then penalizes that person for being unable to participate?

These are questions worth investigating.

I Would Like to Hear Your Story

You do not have to be an attorney or know anything about disability law to contact me.

You do not have to know whether what happened to you was legally considered discrimination.

I am interested in what actually happened.

If possible, please tell me:

• Which court you were dealing with and approximately when.

• What disability-related difficulty you encountered.

• What help or accommodation you requested.

• How the judge or court staff responded.

• What happened to your case or your ability to attend court as a result.

If you have letters, emails, court orders, or transcripts that help explain your experience, those may be useful as well.

I am interested in hearing from people who represented themselves, people who had attorneys, witnesses, family members, journalists, and members of the public.

I would also welcome information from attorneys, court employees, and disability advocates who have observed how these requests are handled.

And if your court provided the accommodations you needed, I would like to hear that, too. It is important to understand what works, not only what goes wrong.

What Will I Do With This Information?

I intend to compare the experiences people report, examine available court records, and look for problems that appear repeatedly.

For example, are people encountering the same difficulties in different counties?  Are certain types of accommodations routinely refused?  Are requests being decided according to clear rules?  Do people have a practical way to challenge a denial before they lose the opportunity to participate in their hearings?

Where appropriate, I will also seek explanations from the courts and officials responsible for the practices being examined, including through FOIL requests.

Unless you allow or insist, I will not use your names in my reporting or any activities related to this investigation.  

Please Share Your Experience

If you or someone you know has encountered disability-related difficulties in a New York State court, please contact me.

You may request that your identity not be published.  I will discuss any privacy concerns with you before using identifying information in a report.  Please do not post private medical records or sealed court documents in public comments.

The more firsthand accounts we can collect, the better we can understand whether New York State courts are providing people with disabilities the access to justice that the law promises them.

You do not need a law degree to recognize when you asked for help, did not receive it, and suffered consequences as a result.

And you should not need a law degree to tell your story.

Contact me by text at (843) 240-7745, by email to: tatiana.neroni@gmail.com, by messenger on Facebook, find me under my name.

---

This is an independent investigative journalism inquiry. It is not an offer of legal representation, and contacting me does not create an attorney-client relationship.

A federal lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed construction of the Fraser BESS Storage project in Hamden, NY

 On November 3, 2026, a federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York concerning the proposed Fraser Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in the Town of Hamden, Delaware County.

Case: Neroni v. EDF Renewables Development, Inc., Fraser Storage, LLC, and Brett M. Miller
Case No.: 3:26-cv-02257-BKS-PJE
Presiding Judge: U.S. Chief District Judge Brenda K. Sannes

The lawsuit was brought by me, Tatiana Neroni, an owner of residential property in the Town of Hamden.  It asserts two claims under New York common law: prospective private nuisance and prospective public nuisance.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to obtain judicial review of the risks associated with the proposed facility before construction begins, rather than after an incident occurs.

The complaint raises several principal concerns:

1. Battery capacity: The developer's December 2025 Emergency Response Plan identifies 196 Tesla Megapack 2 XL units, each rated at 3,916 kWh. Their combined nominal capacity is approximately 767.5 MWh, compared with the 540 MWh and subsequently 500 MWh figures publicly reported for the project. The complaint questions the absence of a disclosed explanation for this difference.

2. Fire safety and setbacks: The developer seeks to reduce the Town's prescribed 1,000-foot setback to 100 feet. The lawsuit questions whether the proposed configuration would comply with the applicable provisions of the 2025 Fire Code of New York State.

3. Site conditions: The proposed location is a forested mountain ridge near wetlands. The complaint raises questions about geological stability, possible peat deposits, and the potential spread of fire through surrounding vegetation.

4. Emergency preparedness: The lawsuit examines the adequacy of emergency access, available firefighting resources, water supplies, and evacuation planning for surrounding communities, including farms and residents with limited mobility.

5. Water resources: The proposed facility is within the New York City drinking-water watershed. The complaint addresses potential contamination from battery fires, firefighting runoff, and the consequences of a fire spreading beyond the installation.

The complaint draws upon the developer's publicly disclosed project documents, government reports, scientific publications, and documented battery-storage and wildfire incidents.

What the lawsuit seeks

The plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent construction and operation of the proposed facility under the conditions alleged in the complaint, together with damages available under New York law.

The lawsuit does not assert that a fire will necessarily occur. Rather, it asks whether the combination of the proposed facility's characteristics, its location, and the disclosed emergency arrangements creates a sufficiently serious and foreseeable risk to warrant preventive judicial intervention.

Current status

The complaint has been filed and docketed, and summonses have been issued to the three defendants. The case is at its initial stage. The court has not yet ruled on the merits of the allegations, and the defendants have not yet had an opportunity to respond.

The complaint is a public court document and may be accessed through PACER using Case No. 3:26-cv-02257-BKS-PJE, Northern District of New York. 

The complaint is also available here.

Hamdenites - contact the nonprofits actively involved in protecting Delaware County water supply! Appeal for their intervention against the BESS project in Hamden threatening catastrophic environmental consequences!

 On June 24, 2026, three major environmental organizations — Catskill Mountainkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and Food & Water Watch — filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York seeking to intervene in Woodward v. Lefton, Case No. 3:26-cv-00736.

The lawsuit challenges New York State's prohibition on hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The environmental organizations seek to defend that prohibition because of the potentially devastating consequences of industrial activities for the Catskill region, its residents, forests, wetlands, and drinking-water resources.

Why is this important to the residents of Hamden?

Because these organizations have placed before a federal court sworn declarations and extensive scientific documentation explaining why industrial development that threatens the Catskill environment and New York City's drinking-water supply must be subjected to serious scrutiny.

In his sworn declaration, Ramsay Adams, Executive Director of Catskill Mountainkeeper, states that the Catskill region provides approximately 90% of New York City's drinking water and emphasizes the importance of protecting the region's forests, rivers, and natural environment.

The organizations' memorandum also discusses the New York Department of Environmental Conservation's 2015 findings concerning potential threats to wetlands, surface water, groundwater, and New York City's unfiltered water supply.

The filings are supported by declarations from:

• Ramsay Adams, Executive Director of Catskill Mountainkeeper.

• Maya van Rossum, the leader of Delaware Riverkeeper.

• Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director of Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

• Emily Wurth, Managing Director of Organizing at Food & Water Watch.

The organizations are represented by attorneys from Earthjustice, the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and Food & Water Watch.

What does this have to do with the Fraser Battery Energy Storage System?

The proposed Fraser BESS project would introduce a large industrial lithium-ion battery storage installation onto a forested mountain ridge in the Town of Hamden, within the New York City watershed.

The concerns include the potential consequences of battery thermal runaway, fire spreading into surrounding forests and peat deposits, contaminated firefighting runoff, and the limited emergency-response resources available in this mountainous rural area.

Fracking and lithium-ion battery storage are different technologies, with different hazards. Nevertheless, the underlying environmental protection question is strikingly similar: Should an industrial project proceed where a catastrophic incident could threaten water resources, forests, private property, and surrounding communities?

The organizations' filings in Woodward do not address the Fraser BESS project, and their participation in that lawsuit should not be mistaken for a position on Fraser.

But their sworn declarations and legal arguments demonstrate the importance they attach to protecting the Catskills, including its water resources, natural environment, local economy, and residents.

The residents of Hamden are entitled to ask why the environmental risks that warrant such vigorous protection against one form of industrial development should receive any less scrutiny when another industrial development is proposed in the same environmentally sensitive region.

The documents are publicly filed in the Northern District of New York:

Woodward v. Lefton, Case No. 3:26-cv-00736, ECF Nos. 28 and 28-1 through 28-7, filed June 24, 2026.

These filings deserve the attention of Hamden residents, local officials, watershed advocates, and everyone concerned about the future of the Catskills.

Links to read the actual documents filed with federal court on the motion to intervene are available here.

1) The motion to intervene;

2) Memorandum of law in support;

3) Proposed order;

4) Declaration of Ramsay Adams, Executive Director of Catskill Mountainkeeper;

5) Declaration of Maya van Rossum, leader of Delaware Riverkeeper Network;

6) Declaration of Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director of Delaware Riverkeeper Network;

7) Declaration of Emily Wurth, Managing Director of Organizing at Food & Water Watch (FWW);

8) Proposed intervenor memorandum of law in support of New York State's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' challenge to its hydrofracking ban

Hamdenites!

The above listed people - documents 4) through 7) - are leaders of nonprofit organizations obviously active to protect clean water supply in Delaware County.

Contact them with the BESS project in Hamden, NY!

Do not let Young Sommer representing all stakeholders, including the developers, Town of Hamden, County of Delaware and the Coalition of Watershed Towns - overpower you and deprive you of livelihood and of clean environment.

The time to act is - NOW!