Their Claim

"The project threatens Hudson's drinking water supply through the Taghkanic Creek watershed."

The Reality

Solar has minimal ground disturbance, no chemicals, no septic, no runoff. It's one of the best uses for watershed land.

Think About What Solar Actually Is

A solar installation consists of:

  • Panels mounted on steel racks
  • Posts driven into the ground (no concrete foundations)
  • Grass and vegetation maintained underneath
  • Access roads (gravel, minimal footprint)
  • Fencing around the perimeter

That's it. No septic systems. No fertilizers. No pesticides. No road salt. No impervious driveways. No leaking fuel tanks.

Compare to the Alternatives

Watershed Impact Solar Farm Housing Agriculture
Impervious surface Minimal (posts, roads) High (roofs, driveways) Low
Septic/wastewater None Yes (leach fields) Possible
Fertilizer runoff None Lawn care chemicals High
Pesticide/herbicide None Lawn/garden use High
Road salt Minimal Driveways, roads Farm roads
Fuel storage None Heating oil tanks Diesel, propane
Soil disturbance Minimal (posts) Major (foundations) Annual (tilling)

The Real Pollution Comparison

Ask yourself: which has a greater impact on water quality?

Current Agricultural Runoff

  • Fertilizers — nitrogen and phosphorus contaminate groundwater
  • Pesticides and herbicides — toxic chemicals enter streams
  • Manure — bacteria and nutrients pollute water sources
  • Soil erosion — sediment clogs waterways from tilling

Solar Installation

  • No fertilizers — native vegetation requires none
  • No pesticides — no crops to protect
  • No manure — no livestock waste concentration
  • No tilling — soil stays intact, roots hold it in place

If your concern is truly water quality, solar is an upgrade from conventional agriculture.

New York's Strict Watershed Protections

New York State has comprehensive regulations protecting wetlands and watersheds. Solar projects must comply with:

  • Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Act — DEC regulates all wetlands 12.4+ acres (dropping to 7.4 acres in 2028)
  • GP-0-25-004 General Permit — Specific permit for solar projects near wetlands, limiting fill to 0.25 acres
  • ORES stormwater requirements — All solar projects need approved stormwater management plans
  • Wetland delineation and validation — DEC must review and approve any work near regulated wetlands

These aren't suggestions—they're legal requirements. Solar developers can't just ignore wetlands. The state has 90 days to review any project near regulated wetlands and can require mitigation or deny permits.

The Logical Conclusion

If the land is important enough to protect as watershed, solar is one of the safest things you can put there.

The watershed argument actually supports solar development:

The Chain of Logic

  1. Watershed land needs protection from contamination
  2. Solar has near-zero contamination risk
  3. Solar prevents the land from being developed for housing
  4. Therefore, solar protects the watershed better than most alternatives

What About Stormwater?

Some claim panels create runoff issues. Reality:

  • Rain falls between and around panels onto vegetated ground
  • Ground cover (native grasses, pollinator habitat) absorbs water better than lawns
  • No compacted soil from heavy equipment (unlike construction)
  • ORES requires stormwater management plans for all projects

Studies show solar farms can actually improve soil health and water infiltration compared to tilled agricultural land.

Pollinator Habitat

Many solar installations plant native grasses and wildflowers beneath panels. This:

  • Supports pollinators (bees, butterflies)
  • Improves soil health
  • Reduces erosion
  • Filters water naturally
  • Requires no mowing, fertilizing, or chemical treatment

A solar farm with native vegetation is arguably better for water quality than a conventionally managed farm or lawn.

If They Really Cared About Watersheds

SSRNY would also oppose:

  • New residential construction (septic, fertilizers, impervious surfaces)
  • Agricultural intensification (fertilizer runoff, pesticides)
  • Road expansion (salt, oil, tire particles)
  • Golf courses (massive chemical inputs)

They don't. The watershed argument is selective outrage—it's used against solar but not against other, more impactful land uses.

The Bottom Line

If your goal is genuinely to protect watershed land, solar is one of your best options. It prevents more intensive development, has minimal ground impact, introduces no chemicals, and maintains vegetated ground cover.

The watershed argument sounds environmental but doesn't survive contact with the facts.

Sources