Advocates vow to fight on after county legislators failed to put the Suffolk County Water Quality Restoration Act on the November ballot. Doing so would’ve allowed voters to decide whether to significantly boost revenues for clean water initiatives.
Failing to do so means the potential to access to billions in federal and state water quality funds has evaporated.
After four hours of testimony, legislators voted 10 to 7 along partisan lines on Tuesday to recess rather than close their public hearings on two related resolutions. By employing this tactic, they willfully flubbed a critical deadline to put the question to voters on Election Day.
Seven Democrats voted against recessing the hearing — they’d proposed closing it instead, which would’ve allowed the referendum process to move forward.
Bridget Fleming, (D) District 2, said she was troubled that against a flood of “public comment asking us to put this on the ballot,” her colleagues posed objections that “were not based in reality.”
“The science behind it is the most robust in the nation, and Long Island desperately needs this,” she said.
“We can deliver if we just do the right thing and send this to the voters.”
Water Quality Restoration Act
Scores of speakers testified overwhelmingly in favor of two related resolutions.
Resolution # 1573 would create a new county Water Quality Restoration Fund to connect homes and businesses to sewers and, in areas without sewers, to innovative advanced (I/A) wastewater treatment systems.
A new one-eighth percent sales tax would raise an estimated $3.1B through 2060, when the tax would sunset. It’s estimated that 66 percent of this tax would be paid by Suffolk County visitors. In this way, our guests would be doing their share to fund the impact of human activity on our water.
The spending plan requires that 10 percent be set aside for administrative expenses. Of the remainder, 25 percent would be used as matching funds to leverage federal and state grants for sewer projects. The rest would be used to convert traditional septics to I/A systems.
This bill would also extend to 2060 the existing one-quarter percent sales tax that funds the County’s Drinking Water Protection Program, which provide substantial funding for sewer projects. Absent a public referendum to extend that tax, it will sunset in 2030. The extension would bring an estimated $1.9B more for drinking water projects, including open space acquisitions.
A separate resolution — # 1512 — would consolidate Suffolk County’s 27 sewer districts into one Suffolk County Wastewater Management District. (It wouldn’t include local municipal or private sewer districts, like the plant that serves the Shelter Island Heights Property Owners Corporation.) Among the goals: streamlining services, reducing costs, and stabilizing rates.
In areas not served by sewers, an estimated 360,000 traditional septics continue to leach nitrogen into the groundwater, and the goal is for all of them to be replaced. The county wastewater district would oversee I/A systems, which require initial inspections to confirm that they’re working correctly and ongoing maintenance.
Decades in the making
Numerous advocates spoke during hours of public hearings (some had also presented at an earlier set of public hearings in June).
A resounding theme was that the path toward improving ground and surface water quality had been decades in the making, was backed by solid science, and, at long last, was on the brink of a steady funding mechanism. The new revenue would enable the County to meaningfully deliver on the goals of its Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan, adopted in 2020, and its Drinking Water Protection Program, established in 2007.
Tabling the matter would mean losing a unique, fleeting opportunity to access federal grant funds in the quantities necessary to make impactful change. That’s because it took a special state law, enacted with bi-partisan support in Albany after numerous attempts over several years, to allow the County to set up the referendum on the proposed new fund.
Speaking Tuesday in Smithtown were leaders of the County’s conservation organizations, including The Nature Conservancy, Defend H2O, Peconic Bay Keeper, Group for the East End, Save the Great South Bay, Seatuck, and more.
Also advocating for putting the question to voters were the County’s major trade unions, builders’ associations, League of Women Voters chapters, and business and community organizations.
You can watch the hearings on the Legislature’s Vimeo channel; they start at the 4:24:55 mark.
Nitrogen loading and residence
Dr. Christopher Gobler of the Stony Brook Center for Clean Water Technology spoke for his allotted three minutes (starting at 5:11:10 on the recording) but was then questioned at length by legislators.
“I’ve seen the collapse of our shellfisheries — the 99 percent collapse of scallops and clams, the loss of 90 percent of our eelgrass, the loss of close to 90 percent of our saltmarshes,” he said. “And the science is crystal clear on this. The root cause is an overloading of nitrogen from land to sea. And that overloading of nitrogen is coming from wastewater.”
The proposed public referendum, Gobler said, “will set the course for protecting ecosystems, human health and the economy in Suffolk County for generations to come.”
Legislators opposed to moving forward with a referendum offered few reasons for their enmity. Steven J. Flotteron, (R) District No. 11, told Gobler he wondered, “is nitrogen reduction, is that the silver bullet that’s really going to fix this?”
He said he’d seen studies indicating that bays with higher nitrogen levels don’t have the toxic algal blooms Gobler documented here.
Gobler said that nitrogen in Suffolk County’s major bays is harmful in lower quantities in part because low rates of tidal flushing mean nitrogen remains longer in the water bodies. In shallow bays, higher temperatures compound the effects.
“This is the most scientifically robust wastewater plan of any county in this nation because it didn’t consider just nitrogen loads, it also considered residence time,” he said. “Which truly reflects the effects of nitrogen in the ecosystem. Therefore, if you’re just looking at total nitrogen loads, you’re only getting half of the picture.”
Gobler said that facts “baked into” the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan had been vetted over many years by scientists at USGS, the EPA, the state DEC, Cornell University, and Stony Brook University, among other institutions.
Questioning Gobler, Nicholas J. Caracappa, (R) District No. 4, said he knew from working at the Suffolk County Water Authority for 34 years that nitrogen in drinking water was not “even in the top 20 concerns.”
Gobler said that recent studies indicate nitrates in drinking water may harm human health at even lower levels than previously thought; Caracappa said, “some studies.”
“I think we can all agree; we want to get the nitrogen levels as low as possible,” Gobler said.
More sewering?
Carcappa pushed in vain to get Gobler to say that sewering was the way to go for Suffolk. Gobler said sewers might be preferable in areas where you could extend existing districts, but I/As are more cost-effective.
He said the price to extend a sewer could be $125K per parcel, whereas a typical I/A installation would be $25K.
“So you can have five times more I/A systems compared to sewering ” Gobler said. “If we want to have as many upgrades as possible, I/A systems will get you more bang for your buck.”
“I/A systems and sewers are important,” Caracappa said later, returning later to his belief that the proposed law gives sewering short shrift. “But sewers are the priority, without question.”
Caracappa said he feared the County would “stockpile” money while waiting for people to apply for I/A systems while shovel-ready sewer projects wouldn’t be funded.
Fleming and others argued that the proposed law allowed new revenue for sewering to be leveraged with matching state and federal grants in combinations requiring as little as a 10 percent contribution from the County.
Kevin McDonald, The Nature Conservancy’s Long Island policy advisor, agreed, saying, “The first few years of funding would generate almost a billon dollars for sewers alone.”
The funding ends up in about an equal split between sewering and I/As, he said.
A balance between sewering and I/A was also needed to address community preferences, which vary widely from densely settled areas in the western end of the county to less populous East End towns, where sewers are less common.
“In the end, this is a strategy that has to be worked out with communities,” he said. “There’s a cultural dimension to what’s an acceptable technological or engineering solution that’s part of this discussion.”
What’s more, McDonald said, the new county law would include provisions for annual review “with a plan to be adopted every year that speaks to the priorities of the Legislature.”
Ignoring local pleas
Speaker after speaker told stories of the effects they’ve witnessed on beloved land and seascapes as a result of diminishing water quality.
Maura Spery, former mayor of Mastic Beach Village, told of foul aromas wafting through the community.
“You could smell people’s septics failing,” she said. “What we’re talking about in Mastic Beach is lawns that are wet with effluent that kids are walking and playing on. This is a public health issue. Whether it’s an I/A, whether it’s a sewer, we need all of this.”
Legislator Al Krupski, (D) District 1, which includes Shelter Island, said he remembers as a kid finding freshwater flows at low tide along waterways in East Cutchogue. “Everybody knew the groundwater was flowing into the saltwater.”
He talked about the origins of Spring Lane along Indian Neck in Peconic.
“It’s called Spring Lane because they dug holes and put barrels into the ground and got water for the animals,” he said. “At low tide, those barrels would fill up with fresh water that was coming out of ground.”
“So it’s pretty obvious where that effluent from cesspools was headed.”
Peter Topping, executive director and baykeeper for Peconic Baykeeper, said he grew up hearing stories of his family “harvesting bay scallops, harvesting hard clams.” But due to scallop die-offs and diminishing water quality, “all my life I’ve felt cheated. I want that opportunity not just for myself and my children, but for everybody that lives in Suffolk County.”
“This is not an eastern Suffolk County/western Suffolk County issue,” he said. “Some of these areas are going to get sewered; that’s great. The majority are not. That’s OK so long as we have funding.” He urged legislators to “put whatever politics or anything else aside and think holistically for the good of the County, for the good of your constituents and for the future of Long Island.”
Tommy John Schiavoni of Sag Harbor, who serves on the Southampton Town Board, hung a Peconic County flag from the speakers podium, reminding legislators of the unrealized dream of many to have the five East End towns break away from Suffolk County.
East Enders, he said, have voted by large majorities to support environmental initiatives, including the Community Preservation Fund, which enables the five Towns to collect a 2 percent real estate transfer tax to purchase open space. In 2017, voters agreed to set aside 20 percent of the funds collected each year for water quality improvement projects.
And they supported the NYS Environmental Bond Act in a referendum last fall, with the expectation that Suffolk County would be positioned to qualify for some of the $4.2B in funding for environmental restoration projects. “Your constituents want this,” he said. “Please don’t be the ones to stand in the way of democracy.”
The one lever
In questioning Gobler, Flotterton worried the bill didn’t include “proper language” and may have missed possible other threats.
Gobler responded that climate change was a threat, causing Suffolk’s bays to warm at three times the global average. “But here’s the thing. Here in Suffolk County, we have no ability to control global climate change. There’s only one lever we can pull to address this and that’s this plan here to reduce nitrogen loads, which we know will be effective.”
By reducing nitrogen in effluent, Gobler said its cascading degradation of coastal ecosystems could be reversed, improving the resilience of waterways. But it was important to act quickly, before impacted areas reached the tipping point, beyond which it’s harder, if not impossible, to reverse damage.
Focusing first on near-shore areas, where wastewater flows more rapidly into groundwater, positive results could be apparent within just a few years, Gobler said.
Fleming returned to the idea of “one lever” in her closing arguments to colleagues (starting at 8:29:01).
“The general public wants this. We are a water community, and all these people understand that our water is in crisis,” she said. “We are uniquely positions to pull the only lever that we have, as Dr. Gobler point out, to act on the most scientific, robust wastewater plan in the nation.”
“We worked really hard on this for over 10 years,” she said. “Please don’t let the voters down.”
Fleming, whose district long included Shelter Island until boundaries shifted last year, moving us to Krupski’s district, will retire at the end of this term.
Likewise, Krupski isn’t running for re-election to his county post in November. Instead, he’s campaigning to be Southold Town Supervisor. In his closing remarks, he talked about personnel throughout the County who have worked for years on developing water quality improvement plans, including the tightly-regulated I/A program.
“They’ve put an awful lot into his,” he said. “They know how to find these systems. They know how to put them in the ground, they know how to pilot them, and they know how to test them to see if they’re effective or not.”
Given the upgrade demand, “the world is trying to get in here because there’s such a market,” Krupski said.
“This is the time to take advantage of this and gradually improve our water quality over time,” he said. “And it’s not just for us today; it’s really for the next generation.”
Jennifer Hartnagel of the Group for the East End was blunter than others.
“What good is a plan 10 years in the making without a sound and secure way to implement it? What a waste of taxpayers’ money!”
“Kicking this down the road isn’t going to accomplish anything,” she said. “You have the widest spread of support here from a diverse range of stakeholders. We are relying on each and every one of you to put politics aside and let your constituents speak for themselves.”
All 18 seats in the Legislature are up for grabs in November.
Fighting on
On Wednesday, advocates issued this joint statement:
“Last night, the Suffolk Legislature abandoned a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to clean up our drinking water and repair our local bays and harbors. For years, residents have dealt with contaminated drinking water, dead fish and wildlife, and damaged bays and harbors. This affects our public health and economic prosperity.
“Over the last decade, labor unions, public officials, conservationists, building trades, chambers of commerce, community leaders, and other stakeholders have developed a comprehensive solution to restore clean drinking water and healthy bays and harbors.
“A million and a half Suffolk residents cannot be deprived of the right to clean and safe water. Despite last night’s inaction, we remain committed to bringing the Water Quality Restoration Act to Suffolk County voters to create a clean water future.”
Below are select individual comments attached to the statement:
Kevin McDonald, The Nature Conservancy’s Long Island Policy Advisor
“A million and a half Suffolk residents cannot be deprived of the right o clean water. Despite last night’s inaction, we remain committed to bringing clean water through the Water Quality Restoration to the voters and residents of the County.”
Julie Tighe, President, New York League of Conservation Voters
“We are deeply disappointed in the Suffolk County Legislature for refusing to place the Water Quality Restoration Act on the November ballot. Hundreds of thousands of Suffolk County residents are in desperate need of septic system replacement or a transition to sewers, which this plan would have addressed, and which is why it is a top priority for NYLCV. But some members of the County Legislature chose to play politics and in doing so stripped residents of the power to tackle the water quality crisis happening in their own backyard. We strongly encourage the Suffolk County Legislature to call a special meeting in the coming week to right this wrong.”
Peter Topping, Executive Director & Baykeeper, Peconic Baykeeper
“The failure of the Suffolk County legislature to provide the public with the opportunity to protect their right to clean water is a major setback to the health of our aquatic ecosystems and the protection of our drinking water. While the public hearings clearly demonstrated that the support for the Water Quality Restoration Act is overwhelming, it is clear that the majority of our legislators aren’t listening and are failing to take the action necessary to implement the Suffolk County Subwatersheds Plan. We must press on in our efforts. The future of our bays, ponds, drinking water, and economy all depend on it.”
John Turner, Conservation Policy Advocate
“Given the compelling need to address water quality issues, the fact there’s significant state and federal funding to assist the county’s water quality effort, and the solid science that underpins the Water Quality Restoration Act, the failure of the Suffolk County Legislature to allow county residents to vote on protecting their precious drinking water supply and critical coastal waters constitutes legislative malpractice.”
Lisa Scott, President, League of Women Voters Suffolk County
“The Legislature’s decision to recess IR1573 and remove it from Suffolk County voter input is undemocratic. It suggests their underlying distrust of voters to educate themselves when the referendum would be voted on in November. The science is clear, our economy is paying the price, and our children’s health is at stake. Last week, both the Republican and Democratic candidates for Suffolk County Executive supported putting the referendum on the ballot. If they can agree, why can’t the Legislature? The League’s mission is to make democracy work through informed and active participation in government. Let the Voters Decide, not individual politicians, in an election year.”
Robyn Silvestri, Executive Director, Save the Great South Bay
“The Great South Bay continues to decline due to nitrogen overload. This summer alone, we have seen beach closures, shellfish closures, fish kills, and invasive seaweeds proliferating.”
Eric Alexander, Director Vision Long Island & Founder of the LI Main Street Alliance
“We had a missed opportunity at the Suffolk County Legislature to bring our fair share of Federal and State grants for water quality and infrastructure by allowing the voters to decide on a referendum to support local water and wastewater projects. Hundreds of civic and small business leaders in over 30 communities throughout the County expressed their desire to have this referendum on the ballot this November. We are hopeful that this initiative can move forward in early 2024 as local elected officials become even more aware of the deep support from folks in the neighborhoods they serve.”
