Letters to the Editor: Water worries

Southold

Water worries

There have been comments regarding the availability of public water in certain areas of Southold, including the prospect of bringing in water to our town from two towns over, from an unknown source.

The water vendor, Suffolk County Water Authority, held a legally required scoping session on the proposed project, during which they received many comments and questions that must be answered.

The proposal needs to be very clear on where the water is coming from and the current quality of the source aquifer. Are there any big developments that would affect water quality there? There have been three proposed routes for the pipeline, so we need to know when and how a route would be selected, and how the pipeline’s construction would be integrated into Southold’s existing infrastructure.

The U.S. Geological Survey has been mapping the salt water interface of groundwater for all of Long Island. They started in Brooklyn and Queens, as this is where the aquifer is most stressed. Last year they sunk a well in Orient, going down over 600 feet. This is a scientific study that we should use to inform us as this pipeline extension is considered.

Incidents of salt water intrusion in groundwater have been linked to road salt accumulating in the road runoff sumps, adjacent to public supply wells. 

We also need to look at our aquifer, a public resource that we need to manage. 

Last year, the Southold Town Board passed a law to address water conservation as it related to lawn irrigation.

The SCWA has stated that 70% of water used in the summer is for lawn irrigation. The law requires that systems have rain sensors and smart controllers to prevent overwatering, particularly during rainfall events. This will result in a significant savings in water use, as we have all seen automatic systems operating when it is raining.

Al Krupski

Supervisor, Southold Town

Greenport

The roads

We just survived what may have been one of the worst winter seasons in a long while. What may not survive? Our nerves and our automobiles, because the roads are completely destroyed with ruts and potholes. Along Route 25 in southold, folks are leaving their lanes to avoid them. It’s not getting better and I ask: What is the plan? When will we see repair crews out fixing these massive holes and ruts in our roads?

We need a comprehensive plan before someone gets seriously injured. Walkers, joggers, bikers, motorcycles, cars, trucks and buses are all at risk.

What is the plan?

Bernadette Hoban 

Cutchogue

America has no kings

Presidents ask Congress to declare war before bombing or invading other countries. Kings just start bombing.

Presidents sign legislation, implement laws, shape foreign policy and generally run day-to-day operations. Kings control everything, and their whim is a command.

Presidents nominate qualified people to lead agencies, because they want competent administration. Kings appoint favored, loyal courtiers without regard to competence.

Presidents spend the money Congress tells them to spend, and presidents shape the budget Congress passes. Kings control the money, no matter what anyone else says.

Presidents respect treaties. Kings threaten allies to get their way, abandon treaties, insist might makes right and cannot be trusted to make agreements.

Presidents negotiate trade deals; kings set tariffs impulsively as demonstrations of power.

Presidents tell the Justice Department to prosecute lawbreakers. Kings make their personal lawyers persecute enemies, and disregard judicial orders.

Presidents serve the public for a salary. Kings take treasure from anyone and anywhere they can.

This Saturday, please join me and many of your neighbors for the third No Kings Day.

Join us in Mitchell Park in Greenport at 10 a.m., in Hampton Bays at noon; in Riverhead at 9 a.m. or 1:30 p.m.; or in East Hampton at 11:30 a.m. Get all the details at the No Kings site. 

Now more than ever, we must remind our government that we have no kings, and our government needs our consent to govern.

Abigail Field

Southold

Media changes

Media, whether in printed form like newspapers and magazines or radio or television, are all changing. This 76-year-old remembers when there were quite a few New York newspapers and my mailbox had a great number of magazines each month. The radio, as well, had stations for everyone’s interest, from right and left politics, and music for all tastes. The East End is lucky. We still have independent newspapers that cover everything from local issues, sports, business, etc. Many areas of the country have media that is controlled by a few companies and more are being consolidated every day.

I am apprehensive about the future of our news. I was raised to be curious about differences in news culture, food, etc. If only a few corporations feed Americans what the billionaire owners want us to learn — not to be a drama llama — to me, it’s akin to mind control.

Rosellen Storm 

Riverhead

Factory farming isn’t genuine agriculture

Six thousand chickens on a single property isn’t a farm — it’s a factory operation with suffering built into the business model.

Labels like “pasture-raised” and “organic” are marketing ploys, not meaningful animal welfare protections. They do not prohibit the routine killing of day-old male chicks who can’t lay eggs, severing the sensitive tips of birds’ beaks or the slaughter of hens once their bodies are “spent” at a fraction of their natural lifespan. Organic standards even restrict animals from being treated with antibiotics when they’re sick or injured.

At the same time, the public health risks are real. Avian influenza has already devastated large-scale operations like Crescent and Spring Farm on the East End; concentrating thousands more birds near homes poses both animal welfare and public health risks.

Southold should protect its existing agricultural community — including wineries, vineyards, and the many plant-based farms that define the region’s character and economy. An industrial egg facility threatens neighboring agricultural operations, local tourism and residents’ quality of life. 

Southold should stand for genuine agriculture — not factory farming disguised with buzzwords.

John Di Leonardo

president and executive director, Humane Long Island

Southold

Betrayal

Over 30 years ago, Southold Town offered citizens who met certain financial criteria the opportunity to buy into the American Dream. They laid out a parcel of land for affordable housing. Unfortunately, this dream will turn into a heartbreaking nightmare if the Planning Board allows the land north of this development to be turned into a 6,000-hen egg producing enterprise.

The decision to allow this project to go forward is a betrayal, a cold-hearted decision that totally ignores the residents of this development. Legitimate health concerns have been ignored by the powers that be. Financial devastation will be caused by the adverse effects of 6,000 chickens and the accompanying odor and noise. A community that is a beautiful place to live will be a foul-smelling blight on the whole Town of Southold. 

I have spoken to those who have the power to put a stop to this travesty. Their excuse: ‘It’s zoned for farming’ or ‘This is America and you can’t tell a land owner what he can do with his land.’ The agriculture law they live by bans ducks in Southold. Ducks do not have to be raised near water. So you can tell someone what he can and cannot do with his land! 

The placement of this enterprise in the midst of a large residential area is not only irresponsible, but is criminal. To jeopardize the health and welfare of all the families in the path of this toxic plume of chicken feces dust is a dereliction of duty by those elected officials who have the power to prevent this from happening.

If this becomes a reality, everyone who has the power to put a stop to it should never hold public office again.

John Reichert

Southold

Applicant has options

The code has two principal means of reducing impacts. The first is distance. Our neighbor has 16 acres, allowing the applicant to move the operation far enough away from our established residential community to reduce negative impacts. 

The other is plantings. The premise is natural and planted vegetation and trees act as a natural buffer. By allowing the removal of trees, the town is going against its own site plan requirements and precedent. 

While we understand wanting to save money on infrastructure, every new business has start-up costs. His shouldn’t come at the expense of our equity, quality of life and our ability to enjoy our outdoor spaces. The covenant was not exclusive to agricultural land. It was also intended to protect the property’s compelling environmental attributes. That is not speculation; it is black and white language in the covenant itself. 

Another principal goal of agricultural land use is “clustering.” Nearly every property where the town purchases the development rights identifies one area set away from neighboring properties for containing the more intense uses. While the covenant might not specify that, the comprehensive plan and years of precedent do. 

At Monday’s Planning Board work session, the applicant was seen laughing as my father and other residents were visibly upset, voicing their concerns. He displayed a lack of consideration and a clear inability to comprehend the burdens his operation will place on his new neighbors, who have lived there in peace for years. That shows a lack of empathy and a total disregard for residents who will have to live with rats, odors and other impacts. It’s in his power to change this; he has 16 acres. 

Allowing this to move forward isn’t just an insult to us, it’s an insult to other farmers who have had to accept more restrictive easements in the past. If our neighbor is allowed to proceed, it sends one clear message: Sell your development rights first, then do what you want. 

The thing is, our neighbor has options, we don’t. 

Leslie Herrlin

Southold

When ‘agriculture’ becomes a loophole

What’s happening on Jasmine Lane isn’t a misunderstanding or an oversight. It’s the result of weak rules, vague definitions and a system that isn’t protecting the people it is supposed to serve. 

This is a working-class neighborhood where people chose to live for stability, affordability and quality of life. Now they’re dealing with the consequences of policies that aren’t working as intended. The Town of Southold created this situation by purchasing the development rights of the parcel and changing the zoning to agricultural. We moved into a new development of affordable residential housing, that did not have this agricultural zoned parcel at the end of it. This isn’t about chickens; it’s about how rules are being stretched and how local government has failed to respond.

The central issue is simple: What qualifies as agriculture? In New York, farming is protected, as it should be. But those protections were meant for legitimate agricultural uses that fit their surroundings, not for anything someone chooses to label as “agriculture.” When towns fail to define limits — how large is too large, how intensive is too much, and what belongs in a residential setting — they create a gray area. Within that gap, almost any activity can claim protection. That’s not the intent of the law. It’s a workaround. Courts have made clear that zoning should reflect the character of a community. When something is labeled agriculture but operates in a way that disrupts a neighborhood or resembles a commercial use, it becomes a problem.

Programs like the purchase and transfer of development rights were designed to preserve farmland and prevent overdevelopment. But when they are loosely written or enforced, they can backfire. They may block residential construction without clearly limiting other uses. The result: You can’t build homes, but you can do almost anything else if it’s labeled agriculture. That’s not preservation; it’s a loophole. And it creates unfair conditions for neighbors who expected a residential environment.

There are also concerns about whether proper review took place. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, local governments must evaluate impacts like noise, odors, traffic, drainage and changes to neighborhood character. Introducing an intensive use into a residential area is significant and should be carefully reviewed. If that process was rushed, minimized or bypassed, the outcome may be flawed. SEQRA is meant to protect communities, not serve as a formality.

There is a broader issue at stake. When government decisions significantly change a neighborhood, affect nearby homes and potentially reduce property values, they begin to weaken basic protections.

Even if it doesn’t rise to a legal “taking,” zoning must still be applied fairly. If one property is effectively allowed to operate outside the limits imposed on others, under the cover of agriculture, it raises concerns about equal protection and due process. The law should not apply one way to one property and differently to its neighbors.

These problems are made worse by a lack of oversight. When one party dominates local government, accountability can weaken. Fewer voices challenge decisions and resident concerns may be dismissed or delayed. Without meaningful pressure, flawed decisions can move forward unchecked.

The residents of Jasmine Lane are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for consistent rules, fair zoning and decisions that consider real impacts. If that cannot happen on one street, it signals a larger problem.

The fixes are straightforward. Clearly define what agriculture means, including limits on size and intensity. Strengthen development rights programs to prevent loopholes. Follow environmental review requirements properly. And ensure leaders are held accountable.

The law is supposed to protect everyday people. When it instead leaves them exposed, something is wrong. Jasmine Lane is more than a local dispute. It’s a test of whether government is working for the people it serves. Right now, that test is being failed.

Rose Anasagasti

Aquebogue

Halpin’s inauspicious start

Although he campaigned to bring fiscal responsibility to Riverhead, pastor qua Supervisor Jerry Halpin voted to approve every big raise the town’s GOP wanted for already handsomely paid town officials his first day in office. But more troubling is his refusal to reject the GOP’s agri-tourist scam that would transform our scenic farmland into megaresorts. 

The GOP’s last stab at this encountered massive public opposition, including about how the town surreptitiously used the developer’s own lawyer to write the law and politicians who took donations from the developer [were] involved. We now know that Mr. Halpin’s biggest campaign donor owns the parcel involved. Following the GOP’s modus operandi, he refused to disclose who he discussed this bad idea with, let alone the substance of what was said. 

Riverhead needs leadership to protect our beloved farm heritage — not a scheming cheerleader for dumb ideas. Time for a third party candidate not indebted to developer dollars?

Ron Hariri 

Calverton

This is not a solution

Last week I attended Nick LaLota’s mock tele-Town Hall. He took six questions, shutting off the mics of the questioners immediately so he could spin falsehoods without being challenged. To summarize his answers: Trump good, Democrats bad.

One thing he did say was that he thought that it was terrible for “Democrats” to have TSA workers at the airports working without pay. But, actions speak louder than words. Each day Mr. LaLota has passed up the opportunity to sign on to a vote to pay those very same TSA workers during the DHS shutdown.

Instead, he supports Trump’s hair-brained idea to send poorly trained armed ICE agents (who shot and brutalized American citizens in Minneapolis) to airports to do work they are completely untrained for instead of simply paying the TSA agents who are trained.

What could possibly go wrong?

Jerry Silverstein