Let’s pick up where we left off on Labor Day weekend 2025.

In the court battle over New York’s new wetlands law, Round 1 goes to the challengers.

Bravo.

* * *

You, faithful reader of this column, will recall how devastating the law can be for Chautauqua County, particularly because of the law’s impact on Chautauqua Lake.

The law has the potential to turn the lake into a weed farm, hinder growth of lakefront-property values, and have the effect of driving up property taxes for those owning land not along Chautauqua Lake.

You, faithful reader of this column, will also recall that the only hope of taking down any of the wetlands law–either the state statute or the state regulations–is in the courts.

As currently constituted, the state government’s legislative and executive branches are–to understate the point–highly unlikely to undo wetlands law they enacted.

That leaves courts as the only serious hope.

* * *

On April 8, an acting state Supreme Court justice came through with flying colors.

If you’re of a mind to read Justice Richard Platkin’s order, you might consider starting on page 31 of the 41 pages.

That’s where the victory begins.

The victory hinges on the state Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA, and holds for challengers on their contentions that wetlands “regulations were not adopted in compliance with” SEQRA and “were adopted in violation of SEQRA.”

* * *

In short, Platkin “concludes, for the reasons that follow, that the (defendant New York state Department of Environmental Conservation’s, or DEC’s,) SEQRA review was deficient. …

“To evaluate SEQRA compliance, the (c)ourt must examine ‘whether (the DEC) identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a “hard look” at them, and made a “reasoned elaboration” of the basis for its determination.'”

Platkin’s order holds that the DEC fell short on the “hard look” and the “reasoned elaboration.”

– “(The DEC) has a threshold obligation ‘to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern.

“(The) DEC checked boxes indicating that there would be no impact, or only a small impact, across 11 different dimensions, including whether the new regulations would ‘result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land.’ …

“But the … DEC received public comments identifying specific areas of potential environmental concern with (the) new (regulations), including: (i) the prospect of urban sprawl and other growth-inducing impacts; (ii) impact to aquatic ecosystems, algae blooms and invasive species; (iii) effect on urban communities, including sprawl; and (iv) growth-inducing impacts. …

“The … DEC’s discretionary regulatory choices … have the potential to work significant changes through alteration in development patterns, land-use intensity and/or the capacity of affected lands to support existing uses.

“Nothing … indicates that (the) DEC identified any of these potential environmental concerns as relevant areas warranting a hard look. The … analysis rests entirely on the narrow premise that expanded wetland protection is inherently beneficial to wetlands, and there is no indication that (the) DEC considered anything other than that objective when it determined that (the new regulations) had no potential for adverse impacts.

“SEQRA does not permit an agency to confine its review only to the intended benefits of a contemplated action. To the contrary, the (DEC) must examine whether the proposed action ‘may have a significant adverse impact on the environment,’ a standard that encompasses all reasonably foreseeable consequences to the environment, including the consequences to non-regulated lands.”

– Furthermore, the “DEC’s … explanation … does not address any potential adverse impacts, reference any supporting documents, acknowledge the concerns raised in public comments or analyze the concerns that were identified. There simply is no reasoned elaboration as to how the imposition of new environmental regulations governing millions of acres of wetlands across the (s)tate, viewed in light of ‘the scale and context of the proposed action,’ would have no potential for significant adverse impacts to the environment.

“(The) DEC’s significance analysis, to the extent it is discernable, was confined to a single dimension: the protection of wetlands. And while (the) DEC ultimately may be correct that only positive environmental benefits will accrue from enhanced wetlands protection, the agency has not articulated the reasoning it relied upon to rule out the potential for adverse impacts.”

So there.

Platkin’s order annuls the wetlands regulations “for noncompliance with SEQRA.”

* * *

Platkin identifies the challengers to the wetlands law as the Chautauqua Lake Property Owners Association; the Business Council of New York State; the village of Kiryas Joel and the town of Palm Tree; and the Chautauqua Lake Partnership.

Again, bravo to the challengers.

Particularly those from Chautauqua County.

But please sit tight: The DEC can appeal.

* * *

Dr. Randy Elf’s paternal grandparents had a cottage at Cheney’s Point on Chautauqua Lake for 40 years. For more on the wetlands law, see the interview of him at 0:17.10 to 0:23.10 of https://accesschautauquacountytv.org/episode/GVbIPKfKKmw.

COPYRIGHT © 2026 BY RANDY ELF