Shelter Island Reporter Letters to the Editor: Oct. 10, 2024

Note to letter writers: Letters endorsing a candidate or candidates for the election, or commenting on ballot referendums, with early voting starting Oct. 26, will not be accepted for the issue of Oct. 24. This is to ensure that those who disagree with a letter’s point of view will not be restricted from expressing a counter viewpoint.

NO CONFLICT

To the Editor:

I believe that an educated and informed public is an empowered public. I have recently received numerous requests for information regarding septic grants, who qualifies and how to apply. 

There is a significant amount of misinformation flying around about I/A systems, how much they cost, grant qualifications, timing and application process.

This is why I offered to be a presenter for the Library’s Friday Night Dialogue series. It provided an opportunity to discuss the topic with a group as opposed to individually.

Unfortunately, a group of people launched a successful campaign to have my presentation canceled, claiming that it was unethical for me to talk about the topic.

The same people who push for mandates are now restricting information. My question to them is: What are you afraid of? It’s not unethical for me to provide information to the public.

Right after the reconstitution of the Ethics Board, I presented them with several questions, because I understand the complicated nature of having a full-time job in an evolving field and serving on the Town Board. An Ethics Board ruled on Aug. 8, 2023 (opinion 4-2023): “We do not see a conflict between her role as a Town councilperson and the assistance she provides at no charge to Island residents. Therefore, she may continue to help applicants with the application process.”

Should you wish to read the complete document it can be found here: shelterislandtown.gov/297/Advisory-Opinions.

That being said, I would like to make it known that I am willing to discuss this topic with anyone at any time. If you have a group of friends who are interested in learning more let’s get together and have a conversation. If you have questions or don’t understand enough to have questions, let’s talk.

You can reach out to me at: meglarsensi@gmail.com.

MEG LARSEN, Councilwoman, Town of Shelter Island

THE IMPORTANT QUESTION

To the Editor:

Lisa Shaw’s recent letter doesn’t hold water. While she seems well-meaning, her argument unconvincingly tries to resuscitate the Water Advisory Committee’s (WAC) 2020 Ground and Surface Water Management Plan (GSWMP).

At least two Town Board members oppose this, as Councilman Dyett wrote in the Sept. 19 Reporter. Notably, Ms. Shaw doesn’t mention that opposition.

Ms. Shaw claims that the GSWMP, which calls for an Island-wide, utility-based public water system, was written with the guidance of two professional engineers, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and “other leaders in the field.” Nowhere does she suggest that we need any new expertise or analysis almost five years later.

Putting aside that the engineers she mentions from back then were not hydrologists (who are experts in the movement, quality, and distribution of water underground), the important question is: did USGS and “other leaders in the field” actually advise WAC to convert Shelter Island to public water run by Suffolk County Water Authority? If so, based on what? Where are the reports?

Because the “advice” is years old, it doesn’t include many subsequent test results including the important impact of I/A systems installed since. And we have seen no comparison of water quality now being provided by SCWA vs. current well water quality in various parts of the Island (news flash: it doesn’t seem to be much better).

Shelter Island School’s successful, on-time, on-budget I/A system shows that we don’t need to surrender control of our drinking water to an unaccountable, off-Island utility to affordably improve our drinking water.

We need to take a fresh, practical look at water issues today, and not rely on outdated, questionable “analysis.” It’s time to hire outside competent, expert water-quality professionals for this process.

WILLIAM DERROUGH, Chairman, Friends of Coecles Harbor

UNBIASED INPUT

To the Editor:

Town Board candidate Lisa Shaw and some members of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) want to expand public water. Meanwhile, a goal of the draft Comprehensive Plan is to “implement” a pre-COVID era WAC plan that calls for a “time-phased master plan for public water utility service to the remainder of Shelter Island.”

Ms. Shaw’s recent letter suggests that, with this old report, we can rely going forward on “Citizen Science.” But, for many reasons, the Town needs to obtain real scientific expertise without further delay. The water issues are complex.

Expanding Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) service to the rest of the Island would cost at least tens of millions of dollars. The comprehensive plan draft cites a 2005 estimate of $28,000,000-35,000,000, leaving to the imagination what it would cost 20 or more years later.

Public water customers in new districts would pay (a) thousands to connect to a main (b) many thousands more for SCWA to extend the main, and (c) more for annual water charges than they now pay for well water — which may be as good or better than SCWA water.

Neither Ms. Shaw nor any of the other public water proponents is a hydrologist or has expert water credentials. Real scientific expertise is needed to interpret past, current, and future data and compare the benefits and costs of public water vs. much less expensive home treatment systems.

At the recent Reporter forum, the Town Supervisor suggested that the Town can rely on experts paid by SCWA.

But the stakes are enormous and, since it’s in SCWA’s interest to expand its service, its experts could hardly be considered independent.

The Town needs qualified, independent, unbiased input to help find water solutions that are both well-grounded in real science and cost-effective.

So much is at stake.

STEPHEN JACOBS, Shelter Island