Court rules Watershed Council not subject to FOIL requests

A New York appellate court ruled that the Watershed Agricultural Council of the New York City Watersheds, Inc. is not subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). This decision affects how much transparency the public can expect from this nonprofit organization, which plays a vital role in managing water quality in New York City’s watershed area. The ruling came as a result of a legal dispute initiated by a local farmer who sought access to documents related to the Council's operations.

The case, known as Matter of Ryan v. Watershed Agricultural Council of the N.Y. City Watersheds, Inc., was decided on June 18, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The ruling has implications for other similar organizations that operate in conjunction with government agencies but are not classified as public entities.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Colm P. Ryan, a farmer participating in the Watershed Agricultural Council's programs, and the Watershed Agricultural Council itself, a nonprofit entity focused on preventing water pollution in the New York City watershed. The Council implements agricultural and forestry management programs that provide incentives to landowners to adopt sustainable practices.

The dispute arose when Ryan requested various documents from the Council under FOIL, which aims to promote transparency in government operations. The Council responded by stating that it was not subject to FOIL but would consider the requests under its own transparency policy. They indicated that Ryan could access some documents upon payment of approximately $2,600 for the time required to prepare the response.

Frustrated by the Council's response and its assertion that it was not subject to FOIL, Ryan initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 78. He sought a judgment declaring the Council an “agency” under FOIL and compelling the production of the requested documents without the associated fees. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, leading to Ryan's appeal.

The Ruling

The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the Watershed Agricultural Council is not an agency subject to FOIL. The judges explained that the Council operates as a private entity, even though it performs functions related to environmental protection. The court stated, “the mere fact that a private entity contracts on a fee-for-service basis to perform a government function does not render it an agency for purposes of FOIL.”

The ruling emphasized that the Council is governed by a board primarily composed of private individuals, with only one representative from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The court noted that the Council has the authority to hire its employees and establish its budget, which is not subject to public oversight.

The judges in this case included Clark, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, McShan, and Ryba. They concluded that the totality of evidence indicated the Council does not meet the criteria to be classified as an agency under FOIL, which is defined as a governmental entity performing a governmental function.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for transparency regarding the operations of the Watershed Agricultural Council. As a result of this decision, the Council is not required to disclose its records under FOIL, limiting public access to information about its activities and decision-making processes. This could set a precedent for other nonprofit organizations that work closely with government agencies but do not meet the criteria to be classified as public entities.

Moreover, the ruling raises questions about the accountability of organizations that receive substantial funding from government sources but operate independently. It underscores the ongoing debate about the need for transparency in entities that have a considerable impact on public resources, such as water quality in this case.

What's Next

Ryan may seek to appeal the decision, although the court's ruling is a strong affirmation of the lower court's findings. Additionally, he can pursue FOIL requests directed at the DEP, which may hold relevant documents regarding the Council's operations. The outcome of this case could influence future discussions about the transparency obligations of similar organizations.