Wheres And Whens Of Public Water

Ten years ago, after it had become apparent that East Hampton was failing in its commitment to protect groundwater, a water resources management report was completed and incorporated into the Town Comprehensive Plan. It set policy for where public water mains were needed immediately or would be soon, and named certain parts of town where public water would be ill-advised.

In July of that year, while the extension of mains to the motels on Napeague was being debated, The Star noted that at "Promised Land and Lazy Point, on the other side of the sandy isthmus . . . permits continue to be issued for houses, cesspools, wells, and even swimming pools that will inevitably pollute the scant groundwater and perhaps even change the quality of the water in Gardiner's Bay."

Opponents of extending public water to Napeague argued correctly that it would open more of the duneland there to development. They suggested that the motels set up their own water purification systems. Since Napeague has only the shallowest lens of fresh water, opponents also said good water pumped in there would be lost to the sea because it could not be recharged.

A constant in the debate over public water (and sewers, we might add) is whether water quality and distribution should be controlled by separate municipalities or subject to regional administration. The Suffolk County Water Authority always has taken the latter view, while planners in towns such as East Hampton, which have worked to protect their water supplies, have demanded a say in what happens to them.

Even after the water resources report became a part of the Comprehensive Plan, however, town officials were loath to follow all of its recommendations. Large-lot zoning and strict clearing regulations for newly established "water-recharge" districts were positive steps, as were the purchase of several large tracts that are important sources of water.

But little else was done to stop single-family houses from being built on small lots in areas with little drinkable groundwater - Gerard Point in Springs, Lazy Point in Amagansett, and parts of East Lake Drive in Montauk, for example. So it was inevitable that residents of such areas eventually would ask to have public water brought to their houses.

To the extent that local and county government was complicit in allowing houses to go up where they could be expected to drain or contaminate the water supply, it might be obligated to respond positively to cries for public water.

But that doesn't mean it is environmentally sound.

Just as one building permit in a low-lying and vulnerable area leads to others, "watering" the Lazy Point area of Amagansett, as now is being urged, would be precedent-setting. Since our zoning policies rely largely on the quantity and quality of groundwater for legal justification, the Zoning Code itself could crumble once public water is more widely available.

The Water Authority and County Legislature have stated a goal of providing public water to all residents, which would, of course, spur development. East Hampton has insisted it has a more principled goal - to keep development limited so that it does not outpace the natural water supply. Unfortunately, we do not always practice what we preach.

It seems only fair to allow those who already live on private lands at Lazy Point to hook up to public water providing they assume the full financial burden. But no additional housing should be allowed there.

That would be consistent with the ban the Town Trustees have adopted on new houses on the public lands under their stewardship. But the Trustees also should turn down the prospect of public water for those homeowners already there and prohibit any further expansion of their houses. Surely those who live on Lazy Point's windswept common lands have learned to put up with its inadequate, salty, or iron-rich water.

In the meantime, the 1986 water resources management report should be reread, revised where needed, and put to use.