Why did watershed institutions eliminate an experienced clean-water environmental engineer, refuse to employ her in two successor County positions, and then seek public funding to train inexperienced replacements—while an industrial battery-storage project was advancing in the NYC drinking-water watershed?
Residents of the Town of Hamden are asking an increasingly important question about the proposed Fraser Battery Energy Storage System:
WHERE ARE THE NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED AUTHORITIES?
The question is particularly pertinent because the Fraser BESS project is proposed for a forested mountain ridge within the New York City drinking-water watershed, where a major battery fire could threaten surrounding forests, wetlands, groundwater, and ultimately the public water supply.
But there is another question that deserves equal attention:
What happened to an experienced clean-water environmental engineer, who is also an environmental lawyer who worked within the very watershed institutions responsible for protecting those resources?
And why did Delaware County subsequently seek public money to train new environmental engineers after refusing to employ the suddenly terminated environmental engineer - terminated on false claims of lack of funds for her salary?
The answers may illuminate a much larger controversy involving the Watershed Agricultural Council (“WAC”), Delaware County, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“NYC DEP”), governmental influence over nonprofit organizations, and the public's ability to obtain independent information about environmental risks.
1. NYC DEP Was Not Unaware of Fraser BESS
The developer's own documents demonstrate that NYC DEP and Delaware County were involved in project consultations well before the recent public controversy.
According to Fraser Battery Energy Storage, Attachment B, Public Project Summary, submitted for NYSERDA's Bulk Energy Storage Solicitation:
On September 21, 2022, the developer first met with Town of Hamden representatives.
On July 9, 2025, the developer conducted a meeting with Town and County officials, including representatives of Delaware County Planning, followed by a site visit.
On August 14, 2025, the developer held a virtual meeting with NYC DEP, following guidance from Town and County representatives.
On October 14, 2025, the developer submitted its site plan application.
The developer's September 16, 2026 public presentation further identified NYC DEP coordination concerning stormwater requirements and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”).
The same presentation identified Delaware County Planning, Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District, County Emergency Management, and other governmental agencies among the entities involved in environmental coordination.
Therefore, the question is not simply whether NYC DEP knew about Fraser BESS. The developer's own documents say that it did.
The questions are what DEP knew, what concerns it raised, what safeguards it demanded, and whether the public has been adequately informed.
These are matters of obvious public concern for residents whose properties, drinking-water resources, and safety may be affected by the project.
2. An Experienced Clean-Water Engineer Was Removed from WAC
For approximately six years, an experienced environmental engineer and lawyer worked as a CREP/CSBI Planner within the watershed protection system administered through WAC and Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District.
She holds a master's degree in environmental engineering with a concentration in clean water, a law degree with environmental-law training, an active law license, and has GIS expertise.
Her work involved watershed conservation and protection of water resources—the very professional specialization directly relevant to evaluating risks posed by an industrial battery-storage facility.
Yet WAC terminated her employment, claiming that it was discontinuing participation in the CREP/CSBI program.
Contemporaneous NYC DEP and WAC materials documented continued CREP/CSBI activities and funding, including DEP's February 28, 2026 Filtration Avoidance Determination compliance correspondence and March 2026 reporting.
The program continued. Its professional functions remained necessary. But the experienced clean-water engineer was gone.
3. Delaware County Created Two Positions—And Refused to Hire Her into Either
In January 2026, Delaware County created two positions in its Department of Planning, Parks and Watershed Affairs: Planner and GIS Technician.
These positions encompassed professional functions previously performed by the engineer in her combined WAC position.
She applied for both.
Delaware County Human Resources Officer Carrara Knoetgen confirmed under oath that she satisfied the education, training, and experience requirements, was eligible for consideration, and received an interview.
Nevertheless, County Commissioner Shelly Johnson-Bennett rejected her without providing an explanation.
Johnson-Bennett is not merely the County's planning commissioner. She also serves as County Public Information Officer, a position relevant to the County's communications with journalists.
The engineer was thus eliminated from the nonprofit side of watershed administration and prevented from entering the County governmental side, although the County itself acknowledged her qualifications.
Why?
4. The County's Own FOIL Production: Suddenly, Environmental Engineers Are Scarce!
Here is where the story becomes particularly interesting.
Records obtained from Delaware County through the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) concerning its proposed “Building the Engineering Workforce Summer Internship Program” reveal an organized recruitment effort.
These are not merely newspaper announcements. They are the County's own internal emails, grant documents, draft agreements, resolutions, budgets, and curriculum materials.
They document an organized effort to recruit and train inexperienced environmental-engineering students after the experienced clean-water engineer had been excluded from watershed employment.
The records include:
March 27–June 5, 2026: The County's internal email compilation, SJB Emails.pdf, documents recurring coordination meetings concerning the engineering internship initiative.
April 30, 2026: County Grants Manager Lynda Ginart forwarded Johnson-Bennett a draft CWC Workforce Development Grant application and discussed supporting documentation concerning the environmental-engineering workforce gap.
Source: Delaware County FOIL production, SJB Emails.pdf, April 30, 2026 correspondence.
May 15, 2026: Ginart forwarded Johnson-Bennett a draft memorandum of agreement among Delaware County, Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District, and SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Source: County FOIL production, MOA for CWCWFD Grant.pdf.
May 19, 2026: The County prepared a resolution supporting submission of the CWC Workforce Development Grant application, designating County Planning, Parks and Watershed Affairs as the lead agency.
Source: County FOIL production, RESOLUTION FOR COMMITTEE APPROVAL.docx and FW_ Draft CWC WFD Resolution.pdf.
May 29–June 2, 2026: County officials and representatives of DCSWCD and SUNY ESF exchanged draft agreements, budget revisions, curriculum materials, and supporting documents.
Sources: County FOIL production, FW_ MOA for CWCWFD Grant.pdf and Re WFD Grant application and associated attachments-redacted.pdf.
June 5, 2026: Ginart confirmed that the application and supporting documents had been submitted.
Source: County FOIL production, SJB Emails.pdf, June 5, 2026 submission-confirmation correspondence.
The application sought $35,305.75 to train three third- or fourth-year environmental-engineering students during the summer of 2027, with activities based at 44 West Street, Walton.
Johnson-Bennett was named as the County's primary contact.
The proposed curriculum included field monitoring, interviews with landowners and providers, and watershed conservation activities.
In other words, the County was seeking public funding to develop the very professional expertise the excluded engineer already possessed.
They eliminated an experienced clean-water environmental engineer, refused to hire her into two County positions for which she was qualified, and then sought public funds to train inexperienced environmental-engineering students because of an asserted shortage of such professionals.
The County has also publicly complained about difficulties recruiting qualified attorneys for its legal offices.
The excluded engineer is a licensed attorney as well.
The contradiction extends to both of her professions.
5. What Does This Have to Do with Fraser BESS?
Quite a lot.
Fraser BESS is not an ordinary construction project. Its location within the NYC drinking-water watershed raises questions about potential contamination from battery fires, firefighting runoff, impacts upon wetlands, groundwater, and the possibility of forest and peat fires.
An experienced clean-water environmental engineer could have been professionally positioned to evaluate such concerns.
Had the engineer remained employed by WAC, or obtained either successor County position, she could have acquired firsthand knowledge of watershed operations, environmental conditions, interagency communications, and governmental decisions affecting projects such as Fraser BESS.
That knowledge could have been valuable to any journalist, any resident of Hamden, any member of the public, or any plaintiff seeking a knowledgeable fact witness in environmental or governmental-accountability litigation.
Johnson-Bennett's involvement makes the circumstances more significant.
She rejected the engineer's applications, administered the County's environmental-engineering recruitment initiative, exercised County public-information responsibilities, and participated in the Fraser BESS development process, including site visits.
The project also proceeded amid overlapping legal representation of developer and governmental stakeholders by Young/Sommer LLC, raising additional questions about the independence of the governmental review process.
The County's role in these interconnected activities warrants examination.
6. Was the Objective to Eliminate a Job—or to Eliminate a Potential Independent Credible Professional Witness As to Lack of Safety of the Fraser BESS Project?
The documented circumstances support a question extending far beyond one professional's loss of employment.
Was the objective merely to remove a qualified employee, or to eliminate an independent clean-water specialist from both the WAC and County sides of watershed administration, preventing her from acquiring information that could be disclosed to journalists, residents, or litigants, or from becoming a fact witness in future public-interest litigation?
The County's internal grant emails do not expressly answer that question.
But the underlying employment decisions, the County's sworn acknowledgment of the engineer's qualifications, the continuing professional demand, and the County's participation in Fraser BESS are documented.
The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether governmental institutions made personnel decisions to protect the public interest—or to prevent independent scrutiny of their own activities.
7. A Newly Revealed Example of County Interference with a Nonprofit
There is another development.
Former Delaware County Board Chairperson Tina Molé publicly disclosed that County officials pressured Wayne Marshfield and Maya Boukai, who served as directors of Delaware Opportunities, to support suspension of that nonprofit's executive director during a dispute over approximately $300,000 allegedly owed by the County under the Senior Meals program.
The controversy emerged through Molé's pre-election public dispute with Boukai in The Reporter.
The Delaware Opportunities controversy raises an important question about how much practical independence nonprofit organizations retain when their directors simultaneously occupy positions in County government.
That question is relevant to WAC, whose leadership includes County officials, and to the wider network of public and nonprofit institutions entrusted with protecting the NYC watershed.
8. The Public Deserves Answers
The Fraser BESS controversy has generated questions extending well beyond the developer's site plan.
Where were the watershed authorities? What did they know? What did they do? Why was an experienced clean-water environmental engineer excluded from both the nonprofit and County sides of watershed administration while those same institutions continued seeking environmental-engineering and environmental law expertise - what, they needed green ones in her place with no understanding of what is really going on?
They got rid of probably the only experienced clean-water environmental engineer and lawyer in the area while pushing the Fraser BESS project - no coincidences here, at all!
And who benefits when potential independent sources of information and testimony disappear from institutions charged with protecting the public?
These questions concern every resident whose property, health, safety, or drinking-water supply may be affected.
The residents of Hamden are entitled to answers.
And here are SOME answers:
The Hamden's TALENTED Supervisor Marshfield.
Documentary sources: Delaware County FOIL production concerning the CWC Building the Engineering Workforce Summer Internship Program; Fraser Battery Energy Storage Public Project Summary, Attachment B; Fraser Energy Town of Hamden Public Meeting presentation, September 16, 2026; NYC DEP Filtration Avoidance Determination compliance correspondence, February 28, 2026, and March 2026 program reporting; sworn testimony of Delaware County Human Resources Officer Carrara Knoetgen; and reporting in The Reporter concerning Delaware Opportunities.
#FraserBESS #HamdenNY #DelawareCountyNY #NYCWatershed #CleanWater #WatershedProtection #EnvironmentalJustice #PublicAccountability #FreedomOfInformation #GovernmentTransparency #BatteryEnergyStorage #WAC #NYCDEP
No comments:
Post a Comment