Letters to the Editor: CPF Water 08.18.16

Critical Need

Amagansett

August 15, 2016

Dear David,

I write to comment on the proposed amendments to the local law structuring use of the community preservation fund, specifically, its extension to 2050 and allowing 20 percent of the fund to be used for water quality improvements. 

Land acquisition through the programas been a huge success and should continue into the future. And, with our surface waters in peril providing a means for greater protection is a critical need. I urge the community to support the referendum and vote for its passage on the November ballot. 

While the pending referendum is in public discussions it’s an appropriate time to address the prescribed strategy for water protection: residential septic system upgrades. The draft East Hampton town water quality improvement plan provides a technically sound framework for water quality improvements. 

Stormwater discharges and wastewater nitrogen are correctly identified as the primary sources of water pollution. While both must be addressed, the plan represents that rebates for septic system upgrades are the best use of C.P.F. money. As a voluntary incentive program, I caution the town to not rely so heavily on rebates as the end-all for water quality improvements. Stormwater loadings continue to be a major source of contamination, and the remedial actions are more manageable and come with discernible results. 

Where C.P.F. money is made available for septic upgrades and other wastewater treatment measures, meaningful improvements to water quality must be demonstrated. 

Geographical zones with short groundwater to surface water travel times and areas that constitute pollution hot spots should be priority applications. The Ditch Plain neighborhood, with its septic influence (bacterial contamination) on Lake Montauk is a good example. Moreover, tackling water quality at South Lake, via a five-year work plan, is an appropriate out-of-the-gate initiative to demonstrate program effectiveness. 

KEVIN McALLISTER

DefendH2O

This Is Imperative

Springs

August 15, 2016

Dear David,

Attending a recent East Hampton Town Board meeting, I was grateful to hear so many worthy proponents supporting the upcoming extension of the community preservation fund, which will feature an addition of 20 percent of the money to be used for water quality. This is imperative as our water, which originates in the aquifer located under our feet, is in peril. 

Accepting that this translates to the axiom that whatever we do on the land will affect the quality of our water. Here’s a bit of history of what we have done on the land: In 1950 the population of Suffolk County was 276,000. In 1960, just 10 years later, 666,000 people were now residents of the county, an increase of 141 percent. In 1970 1.1 million residents, an increase of 84 percent. At present, there are 1.2 million residents and rising (remember, there are many in the shadows).

Suffolk is the 23rd most populated county. It is the 9th densest county by itself in the world, and, if you put the population of Suffolk, Nassau, Queens, and Brooklyn together, you have the third densest county in the world, more than India or Pakistan. And of the 3,143 counties in the country, Suffolk has the least restrictive sanitary standards.

Lee Koppelman, the planner of Suffolk County, once said, “If I had to do it all over, I would have bought up every available acre.” And I say if you can’t drink the water, which is where we are heading, what you have is worth nothing — shades of Flint, Michigan!

Sincerely,

PHYLLIS ITALIANO 

Why Pay With C.P.F.?

Springs

August 13, 2016

Dear David:

No one will dispute the need to clean our waters of accumulated nitrogen, but is it right to use community preservation fund money for that purpose? That money is community or public money, and I don’t believe it would be right to use that through rebates to property owners for improvement of their private septic systems. Shouldn’t the property owners be responsible for that? I’m thinking in particular of properties adjacent to wetlands or bodies of water such as Georgica Pond.

In an alternate though hypothetical situation, if the town were installing a sewer system to replace the septic systems, property owners would be assessed for the improvement. So why pay them with C.P.F. in the current proposed plan? 

I am pleased the town is addressing the question for the sake of future clean water.

ROBERT STUART

Upgrading Septic 

East Hampton

August 14, 2016

Dear Editor

On scientific grounds, there are two major flaws in the town’s recent proposal to fund upgrading septic systems with C.P.F. money. 

First, in the March 31 issue of Nature, a peer-reviewed paper submitted by two well-known scientists, Robert M. DeConto and David Pollard, analyzed the contribution of melting Antarctic glaciers to sea level rise. Their findings, confirmed by computer models applied to previous periods of melting glaciers, show that sea levels will rise two meters, or six and a half feet, by the year 2100. That means that every piece of property in East Hampton lower than six and a half feet above sea level will be under the ocean. What sense is there in funding the upgrade of a septic system that will be under the sea?

Second, the town proposal refers to acceptable sewage disposal systems, as defined by the county, as being eligible for funding. The only acceptable systems are those that will not be flooded by sea level rise; in other words, systems that are not buried in the ground. 

There are a handful of such experimental systems. They usually consist of a series of tanks that filter and break down septic waste, using bacterial and chemical treatment, and require expert monitoring. Unless you have a background in chemistry you might not be up to the task of getting those systems to work. 

While we are all concerned about groundwater pollution, the town needs to postpone any proposal to fund upgrading septic systems until these two major flaws in its proposal are addressed. We cannot afford to waste millions of dollars on well-meaning proposals that ignore basic science.

PAUL FIONDELLA

Good Government

Amagansett

August 15, 2016

Dear David,

Good government should be front and center on the minds of the American electorate during this extraordinary presidential campaign season. But so far, that subject has been submerged under a daily barrage of outrageous messages.

For those of us who are looking for reassurance that our democratic government can work, take a look at East Hampton’s town board:

A proposed town law that would allow and regulate the use of up to 20 percent of the community preservation fund for projects intended to improve water quality was discussed at length at a public hearing. This law was highly praised by dozens of speakers.

There were also some residents who, while approving the intent of the law, had concerns about some of the language that might be misinterpreted. Town board members listened and took their concerns seriously. And after discussion at the end of the meeting, revised the text to strengthen the law. Now, we have an important piece of legislation, which, if passed in the November referendum, will do much to protect the quality of our waters.

There you have a positive example of good government at work. We thank the East Hampton Town Board for reminding us how it’s done.

RONA KLOPMAN

BETTY MAZUR

DAVID WEINSTEIN