“I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”
—Robert Frost
The toxic Shady dump now has the attention of the state attorney general’s office. Meanwhile, Woodstock councilmember Bennet Ratcliff’s consistent attempts to get the town government to pursue a local court-ordered cleanup and to resolve a neighbor’s lawsuit against the town have again been outvoted.
Councilmember Anula Courtis explained why she had reached out several months ago to state attorney general Letitia James, the highest legal authority in the state.
“On one side, we have the DEC, that’s the Department of Environmental Conservation, and our town attorneys saying that there’s no evidence of an environmental hazard,” she said. “Therefore, there’s nothing that the town can do. On the other side, people are concerned because the dirt in question came from Saugerties, raising doubts about its safety.”
The challenge that the town has faced for years is that the town cannot act on the laws that are unenforceable without clear, solid evidence from the DEC or another state authority, said Courtis. “We are not in a position to ignore the guidance of the DEC or the advice of our legal counsel.”
Court transcripts from the Shandaken justice court have been a key piece of evidence Ratcliff has cited as definitive proof the Shady property remains in violation of town law, which prohibits private dumps of any kind.
Vincent and Gina Conigliaro, the owners of 10 Church Road in Woodstock, and convicted felon Joseph Karolys stated under oath in Shandaken that construction-and-demolition debris was delivered from Karolys’ property in Saugerties during 2019 and 2020.
Karolys and Gina Conigliaro were convicted of violating Woodstock’s solid-waste law.
Because of “how important this issue is to all of us,” Courtis said she reached out to the highest legal authority in the state, the attorney general’s office. She contacted Casandra Walker, James’ associate director of legislative affairs and regional director of intergovernmental affairs for the Capital District, the Hudson Valley and the North Country.
“There is proof that the debris in whole is toxic, not just the big pieces — all the small pieces,” Courtis wrote. “The property sits on our town aquifer.”
In July, Walker met in person with Courtis and briefly with McKenna. Walker also attended Courtis’ forum on water and the forever chemical PFOS later that month.
Ratcliff route rejected
This month, Ratcliff again offered a resolution stating the site at 10 Church Road is within the bounds of the town aquifer supplying municipal water. The property is in violation of town law, which prohibits private dumps of any kind, he said.
Ratcliff’s resolution said the town, under supervisor Bill McKenna’s direction, had submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the town filed by Reynolds Lane residents Frank and Pam Eighmey, who are downhill from the dump, “in direct contradiction” to communication with the attorney general’s office asking for help.
The resolution ordered the town to enforce its solid-waste law and obtain a court order to enter the property to remove contaminated debris.
“There’s a lot to think about here,” offered councilmember Laura Ricci.
Ratcliff and Maria-Elena Conte voted in favor. The resolution failed 3-2.
One audience member shouted, “How dare you!”
Sue them, not us
Which route, Courtis’ or Ratcliff’s, is the better one for the town to pursue?
McKenna defended the move to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the town wasn’t culpable in bringing in the contaminated fill.
“From day one, [town clerk] Jackie [Earley] and I counseled them on a lawsuit directly against Conigliaro and Karolys,” McKenna said. “In 2021, I said to the Eighmeys, we will either do full removal or testing and remove what is indicated should be removed. We did that. We got removed the construction debris which violates our law.”
McKenna claimed he has never stopped trying other avenues, even reaching out to retired EPA officials, who said they agreed with the DEC assessment that the cleanup was acceptable.
“To get further remediation, we need proof,” McKenna said. “If we can get that proof, I’m happy to move forward and always have been to further remediation. But our DEC says there’s no problem.”
If the town took propertyowner Vincent Conigliaro to court today, the defendant could hold up the DEC letter saying they have no issue with the remaining material, McKenna said.
McKenna said an $8-million judgment against Karolys for illegal dumping in Saugerties had renewed interest in trying to get James’ office to include Woodstock.
“I’m not looking for the money on this, but what I want to understand is if there is such a big problem in Saugerties to warrant an $8-million fine and some of that soil came to Woodstock, why is it not a problem?”
Why didn’t he get James’ office involved earlier? McKenna said he tried, but there was no interest from that office.
Join the family! 
