Letters to the Editor: CPF Water 08.11.16

Address Water Pollution

East Hampton

August 5, 2016

Dear David,

Rachel Carson once said, “In an age when man has forgotten his origins, and is blind even to his most essential needs for survival, water along with other resources has become the victim of his indifference.” Dr. Carson’s impact on the environment resonates with each tweet of a songbird. There are no silent springs because of her.

I would like to express my belief that our environment is crying so loud, it’s deafening, and until we, collectively, have the courage to stand up for the health and healing of the environment, we will all be victims.

It has been scientifically documented that the water quality of our East Hampton watersheds is impaired. There are harmful algal blooms, low oxygen levels, and excessive bacterial contamination leading to shellfish and bathing beach closures. Relying on our county, state, and federal governments’ environmental protection policies and protocols has failed to protect the health of our environment. It is therefore our responsibility to shout as loud as we can, to voice our demands for ecological recovery. For without it, we are surely doomed.

The East Hampton Town Board has drafted a funding plan to restore what we have harmed. Our watersheds contribute to an East End way of life that is unique and special. Taking steps to address water pollution is vital for our health, and our economy. No matter how rich you are, when you lose your health you lose everything. Knowing that all things are interconnected, that man is only a part of the greater whole, we need to realize that when we harm the environment, we are harming ourselves.

Taking 20 percent of the community preservation fund to restore the quality and health of our water estuaries is a measure that will protect our town’s significant scenic vistas, water estuaries, and natural landscapes for future generations. For the last 18 years, the C.P.F. has played a pivotal role in protecting the unique character of our community. With this C.P.F. money, the town will be able to reduce pollution, mitigate for future pollution, and create restoration projects.

I will bookend this letter with another insightful quote by Rachel Carson. “We stand now where two roads diverge. But unlike the roads in Robert Frost’s familiar poem, they are not equally fair. The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road — the one ‘less traveled by’— offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of the earth.”

Regards,

HELENE FORST

Chairwoman

Long Island Businesses 

For Responsible Energy

Vague Prohibition

Springs

August 8, 2016

Dear Mr. Rattray:

Last week’s public hearing about extending the C.P.F. surtax, expiring 14 years from now, and, upon passage of the referendum, immediately dedicating up to 20 percent of its future revenues to water quality improvement, was extremely heartening. It is high time we recognized the issue and made plans to ameliorate and improve an ever-worsening situation. 

But coupling the extension and change of use at this time, without addressing deficiencies within the existing legislation, most especially without tightening the extension’s language to absolutely prevent C.P.F.-funded water quality projects from at all increasing density or development, would be wrong.

In remarks before the board, several speakers, myself included, pointed out the weakness in the proposal in the latter regard. Jeanne Frankl and David J. Weinstein, both attorneys of note with decades of experience, specifically identified problems with the vague prohibition against the funds being used inappropriately to allow increases in private development and density. Mr. Weinstein even suggested language that the board said it would consider using to prevent that. 

Whether taking Mr. Weinstein’s advice or not, the prohibition should simply be absolute, and certainly not dependent on the good offices of this conservation-minded group of electees, or the future inhabitants of any of our town departments or appointed boards. The legislation would expire in 2050, and all of us expressing our opinions last Thursday likely have considerably less shelf life.

Realizing in particular that our water quality, so essential to our environment, is a legacy we ensure for our descendants more than ourselves, rushing the process of altering the C.P.F. legislation would be irresponsible. Our current board has made truly admirable commitments, on sustainable energy for example, and, under Kim Shaw’s direction, our Natural Resources Department is an extremely effective and professional advocate for our environment, as is the work of Scott Wilson in Land Acquisition and Management in identifying and promoting C.P.F. acquisitions under the current legislation.

That said, our proposed C.P.F. legislation could better address some interlocking issues as diverse as appropriate public usage of, and unfettered public access to, public property, such as our preserve bordering Dolphin Drive, or Napeague’s beaches; sustainable sources of income other than the C.P.F. to further public access and usage of preserved historical properties, and factors entwined with promoting more and critically necessary affordable housing for families and workers, even were they to land in Wainscott and Amagansett. Perhaps C.P.F. could also be used for townwide tax reassessment, say every 40 years or so, instead of never, or to create a unified school district that equitably serves all the town’s children?

Clearly, C.P.F. money could not be the magic bullet to address every problem, even with the political will, but recognizing the diminishing amount of land available, if we are going to tinker with it for the long term, we ought to think creatively about how we can do that to better live up to its expressed goal of community preservation for all. 

As always, the devil is in the details. 

IRA BAROCAS

Montauk Clean Water

Montauk

August 3, 2016

Dear Editor:

The Montauk Citizens Advisory Committee voted to support the hamlet study proposal that Montauk needs a central sewage wastewater treatment facility as designed by the Lombardo engineering report. To date, your newspaper has been ambivalent as to the necessity and funding of a Montauk project, while supporting ventures in other parts of East Hampton. 

Our community demands that the East Hampton Town Board release future preservation funds for improved water quality. You have suggested that further studies be done first, but the Lombardo study needs private and public funding to reach that goal. The downtown was chosen as the starting point of the project because the density allows for lower cost and the businesses cannot expand their present drainage.

Please support Montauk Clean Water!                    

DR. LEWIS GROSS