Riverkeeper Sues New York City Over Catskills Watershed Agreement, Citing Lack of Environmental Review

A decades-old framework that protects drinking water for millions of New Yorkers is now the focus of a new legal challenge.

Riverkeeper has filed a lawsuit against the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, arguing that a recently adopted agreement governing land use in the Catskills watershed was approved without required environmental review and without full participation from key stakeholders.

At issue is a deal that clears a major hurdle in determining how the city buys land in the Catskill Mountains and is intended to guide watershed policy as negotiations continue over a longer-term framework. But Riverkeeper says the agreement is far more consequential than a temporary measure.

“This is an agreement that will in perpetuity and forever affect how the watershed is protected,” said Mike Dulong, Riverkeeper’s legal program director.

A 30-year partnership under strain

The lawsuit comes against the backdrop of a 30-year collaboration among New York City, state and federal agencies, Catskills communities and environmental groups.

That partnership was formalized in the 1997 watershed Memorandum of Agreement, which set the rules for protecting a largely unfiltered water supply that serves roughly 9.5 million people. Since then, stakeholders have periodically updated the agreement through ongoing negotiations aimed at balancing environmental protection with economic needs in upstate communities.

Dulong said Riverkeeper’s lawsuit is as much about that process as it is about the policy itself.

“This lawsuit is about how the city and several other parties move forward with an agreement without some of those other parties,” he said, adding that the deal also “move[d] forward without environmental review and in a way that infringes upon previous agreements.”

Changes to protected lands

A central concern involves city-owned land in the watershed. New York City owns roughly 96,000 acres in the Catskills, much of it protected under conservation easements designed to keep the land in a natural state.

According to Riverkeeper, the new agreement would relax those protections by allowing certain uses, including infrastructure projects and resource extraction such as sand, stone and gravel mining.

Dulong said those changes could have significant environmental implications and should have triggered review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA.

“What we’re challenging is the city’s failure to even begin that study,” he said.

Riverkeeper’s primary concern is water quality. Development on previously undeveloped land can introduce roads and other impervious surfaces, increasing the risk that pollutants will enter streams and reservoirs that feed the city’s water supply.

Process and transparency concerns

Beyond environmental impacts, Riverkeeper argues the agreement was reached without full transparency or stakeholder input.

Environmental groups were involved in earlier discussions but were excluded from final negotiations, Dulong said, describing the outcome as a “rushed last-minute agreement” reached late in the administration of former Mayor Eric Adams.

He said two key steps were missing: broad stakeholder participation and formal environmental review, both of which have historically shaped watershed policy.

“When there’s a major change like this, that SEQRA review is the only place where the public will really have an opportunity to weigh in,” Dulong said.

Balancing development and protection

Local officials have long argued that land-use restrictions tied to watershed protection can limit economic development and local tax bases. Dulong acknowledged those concerns but said past efforts have sought to strike a balance.

He pointed to a now-discontinued initiative known as the Streamside Acquisition Program, which targeted environmentally sensitive lands for conservation while allowing less-sensitive portions to be developed.

“That is the sort of goal,” he said — protecting critical areas while supporting economic activity.

New York City continues to pay property taxes on land it owns in the watershed, but Dulong said recent policy shifts risk undermining both environmental protections and carefully negotiated compromises.

What’s at stake

The Catskills watershed supplies about 900 million gallons of drinking water per day to New York City, one of the largest unfiltered water systems in the country.

Maintaining that status is key. If water quality declines, the city could be required to build a filtration plant — a project Dulong said could cost as much as $20 billion, with costs borne by ratepayers.

“We’re talking about the difference between providing unfiltered drinking water and then having a filtration plant come online,” he said.

While he emphasized that current water quality remains high, Dulong said future pressures — including climate change and more intense storms — make strong protections even more critical.

What Riverkeeper wants

Riverkeeper is asking the court to rescind the agreement and require a full environmental review before any changes move forward.

Dulong said he remains hopeful the dispute can lead to renewed collaboration.

“What I’m hopeful is that this is a blip in our 30-year history of partnership,” he said, adding that a successful outcome would include both stakeholder consensus and public review.

Image: Pepacton Reservoir is located in Delaware County, 12 miles south of the Village of Delhi, and more than 100 miles northwest of New York City. Pepacton Reservoir is one of four reservoirs in the City’s Delaware Water Supply System. As the reservoir with the largest capacity, it normally contributes more than 25% of the total daily water flow into New York City. (Josh Dick/NYC.gov)