Considering that the Sand Land mine in Noyac is basically a 30-acre hole, it’s well hidden. Only one road, a dead ender, leads to it, and it’s surrounded by acres of trees. To its north is the Bridge Golf Club. On an overhead map, it looks like the biggest sand trap ever.
The town, the state, its neighbors, and John Tintle, owner of Wainscott Sand and Gravel, operator of the mine, have been stuck together in it for years.
The mine is operating illegally, according to a joint Sept. 27 letter to Gov. Kathy Hochul, from Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr., Assemblywoman Michaelle Solages, and State Senators Kevin Thomas and Monica R. Martinez. The letter summarizes the history of the mine and presses the governor to direct the State Department of Environmental Conservation to end mining activity at the site.
“I haven’t been down there this week, but it was still operating illegally as of Friday,” said Mr. Thiele, in a phone call on Monday.
Their letter follows closely a Sept. 22 decision by Justice James H. Ferreira of the Albany Supreme Court that prohibits Sand Land “from operating under any permit other than the 2013 renewal permit.” In the same ruling, Justice Ferreira refused Sand Land’s request to recognize the validity of a May 2020 permit.
“They’re clearly in violation of the 2013 permit,” said Mr. Thiele. “They’re 40 feet below what it allows.”
Elena Loreto, president of the Noyac Civic Council said by email that “We’re so disappointed in the D.E.C. and the Town for not enforcing the latest injunction. Why are they not actively protecting our drinking water?”
The mine is a child of the ‘60s, before the land around it was zoned residential by the Town of Southampton, and thus is considered a pre-existing, nonconforming use. In other words, you couldn’t drop a 30-plus-acre mine there today, but because it beat houses to the area, it can continue, assuming it doesn’t expand.
New York State governs mines, with permits granted by the D.E.C., which alone decides whether to issue a grant or withhold it. A mining company may seek or change a permit to extend the area of land it’s mining, or perhaps include a different type of activity that’s mining-adjacent. Sand Land has routinely sought to expand operations, despite its location above a Special Groundwater Protection District and the discovery, in 2015, of chlordane, DEET, pesticides, heavy metals, and carcinogens in runoff from the mine’s operations.
To shorten a complicated and litigious history, in 2014 Sand Land requested to amend their permit to allow them to dig 40 feet deeper, and to expand the footprint of their 31.5-acre mine by an additional 4.9 acres. A few of those acres would be dedicated to “processing vegetative organic waste materials,” or composting. The D.E.C. initially denied the permit modification, but before that was official, it made a questionable trade with Sand Land, allowing them to deepen and expand the mine as long as they stopped the composting operation. In 2019, the D.E.C. issued the renewed permit, saying at the same time that deepening the mine would not require extensive environmental review.
Southampton Town appealed, arguing that the D.E.C. decision did not jibe with town code because Sand Land would be expanding a non-conformity — a no-no. This February, the town won — but despite the victory, and after the mine was served a couple of violations by the D.E.C., Sand Land, in May, made a new argument to the court, saying basically, okay, so the 2019 permit is no good, but the 2020 permit (which was based on the now-defunct 2019 permit) was still good.
“Incredibly, the mine operator relied on the theory that subsequent modification of the annulled permit gave the mine operator the right to continue to mine,” read the letter to Governor Hochul, explaining Sand Land’s new strategy. The mine’s lawyer, Greg Brown, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Days later, because Sand Land was ignoring their violations, the State Attorney General, with the D.E.C., filed papers with the same court arguing that the mine should operate based on the 2013 permit only — before the mess of the last decade began.
So, to close the circle, the Sept. 22 decision gave the D.E.C. a victory, and gave it the authority to shut down any mining operations that are expanded past the 2013 permit. The letter written by the local politicians last week was asking Governor Hochul to put pressure on the D.E.C. to use that victory, and the commission’s power, to regulate the mine.
A spokesperson for the D.E.C. said that “the Department of Environmental Conservation is committed to protecting the environment and continues to rigorously monitor activities at the Sand Land Corp. sand mine. This includes conducting a series of comprehensive inspections and issuing notices of violation to hold Sand Land Corp. accountable for noncompliance with a New York State mined land reclamation permit. D.E.C. is continually coordinating with the Office of the Attorney General to hold Sand Land responsible for any violations of State law, regulation, and permit conditions.”
“Our environment, our drinking water, and the rule of law are all at stake,” reads the letter to Governor Hochul. “The mine operator has ignored the State Court of Appeals decision and the preliminary injunction and continues the illegal operation of the mine as of this writing.”
“Sand Land has illegally mined more than 400,000 cubic yards or over 1 billion pounds of sand beyond what is allowed by the 2013 permit. More than 1,200 tractor trailers of sand that should be serving as the filter for our precious drinking water has been removed since the State Court of Appeals decision,” they wrote. In other words, more than 1,200 trailers worth of sand since February 2023.
The D.E.C. said violations are pending with its Office of General Counsel for enforcement. Initiating these significant enforcement actions led to Sand Land’s commencing litigation against the state, but they couldn’t comment further on pending litigation.
The question is what happens next. Will Governor Hochul direct the D.E.C. to stop any further mining at the site, including the removal of machinery? Even if she does, will Sand Land comply? If the mine is indeed spent, according to the 2013 approvals, then “reclamation,” in this case returning the land to a meadow and horse pasture, should commence.
“Any modification of the reclamation plan that would permit Sand Land to profit from its illegal actions would be a serious threat to the rule of law,” wrote the politicians in their letter to the governor.
“People forget it’s called the mine reclamation act. The main thing is, we have the court decision and court orders in hand. It’s now a matter of enforcement. That comes down to the D.E.C., the attorney general, and the town,” said Mr. Thiele.
