First, who's to blame does matter, because consent orders only are required for violations of law. If a public building were to be vandalized, would not the editors want the perpetrators caught, brought to justice, made to provide restitution, and taught a lesson so that the crime is never committed again? What is different here? Are the editors suggesting that the state government should look the other way because local government is the guilty party? Here, the Mohawk River has been vandalized. That is unacceptable, and is a crime under the Environmental Conservation Law Articles 17 and 71. The editors seem to be saying that breaking the law is OK as long as the governmental units or officials that the OD favors do it.
As an aside, my paranoid friend thinks the plans of the powers-that-be were royally screwed up when the DEC issued the construction moratorium. Now they're stuck with a real "contaminated water" crisis instead of the ginned-up one that would justify spending tens of millions of dollars extending water pipelines to the Turning Sto....uh...western Oneida County.
Is he a loon? Probably. But it is rather interesting which politicians aren't talking about the sewage issue.