The plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Village of Fredonia over its Dec. 26 water resolution have filed a response to the village’s motion to dismiss the case.

Much of the 20-page filing defends the plaintiffs’ contention that the resolution violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The resolution set Fredonia on a path toward decommissioning its water treatment plant, drawing down its reservoir and purchasing water from the city of Dunkirk.

“The heart of SEQRA lies in its provision regarding environmental impact statements,” the plaintiffs write in the latest filing. “The law provides that whenever an action may have a significant impact on the environment, an (Environmental Impact Statement) shall be prepared.” The village did not do so in association with the Dec. 26 resolution.

The document uses various court cases to help argue that “the bar to determining when an environmental impact statement must be drafted is very low.” It states, “Moreover, the courts have also provided that when SEQRA or its regulations have been violated, the only appropriate remedy is to void the action taken by the lead agency, so that the lead agency would not treat the new work as a mere post-hoc rationalization of what had gone on before.”

The plaintiffs also disagree with the village’s stance that the resolution was only a planning document and does not definitively commit Fredonia to a future course of action. They respond, “The resolution indicates that the village will ‘create and implement a plan.’ The resolution does not say that the village will ‘consider’ creating and implementing a plan, which would not constitute taking a definite action.”

The plaintiffs are Fredonia residents Richard Clark, Kara Christina, Athanasia Landis, Andrew Ludwig and Gladys Sedota. The case is before Judge Grace Hanlon in state Supreme Court.