The resentment public officials feared would prevent a watershed agreement between New York City and municipalities along the Hudson River watershed did not run deep, a Cornell study has found.

Without a watershed agreement with rural towns upstate, New York City would be forced to build a multi-billion-dollar water filtration plant it could not afford.

The Cornell study reveals that toward the height of the controversy -- just before the watershed preliminary agreement was signed in November 1995 -- upstate residents appeared committed to keeping discussions open. The willingness to find a mutually agreed-upon solution contrasts with the often fiery anti-New York City rhetoric of local officials from upstate communities.

Ninety-two percent of survey respondents at the time felt that upstate towns should continue talking with New York City officials. Only 6 percent felt that negotiation should be cut off. Another 3 percent did not know.

The Cornell study, "Watershed Views: a public opinion survey on the New York City Watershed, Report #6 (September 1996)," was authored by J. Mayone Stycos, Cornell professor of rural sociology and Max J. Pfeffer, Cornell associate professor of rural sociology. The study was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The spirit of agreement between upstate and New York City reflected in the study over the issue paid off last week: New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani signed an agreement Jan. 21, which gives the communities along the Hudson River money to address environmental problems, such as agricultural run-off, that threaten the watershed. Ten years ago the EPA ruled that New York City would have to build a multibillion-dollar water-filtration plant or begin working with upstate New York communities to alleviate pollution. New York City, one of the few cities in the United States that does not filter its drinking water, chose the latter.