Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG-10/06/2026 WS October 6, 2026 Town BoardrSession 0 en Session V-1 9:00 Members of the North Fork Animal Welfare League re: Southold Town Animal Shelter Operations and Proposed Budget V-2 9:30 Deputy Supervisor John Stype and Town Planning Director Heather Lanza re: Short- Term Rental Percentage Discussion(Follow-up from 9/22 Town Board Discussion) V-3 10:00 Councilwoman Alexa Suess re: Communication Policy Review V-4 10:15 Lillian McCullough, Land Preservation Executive Assistant re: Review of CPF Project Plan Referral Responses V-5 11:00 Recreation Supervisor Janet Douglass with Councilman Brian Mealy and Councilwoman Anne Smith re: Park& Recreation Committee Update on Bench Donation from Southold Mother's Club in Memory of Marta Thomas V-6 Councilman Brian Mealy re: Final Review and Acceptance of Conservation Advisory LI Rewild Signage for the Town Garden and Community Outreach and Education Event V-7 Town of Southold Comments Submitted for the SCA North Fork Water Main Extensions Project V-8 11:30 Town Board Break Executive Session V-9 Labor-Matters Involving the Employment of a Particular Person 11:45 Heather Huerta, Youth Bureau Director V-10 Labor-Matters Involving Personnel Budget Review Matters with Town Comptroller Michelle Nickonovitz and Deputy Comptroller Sharon Glassman 12:15 Town Attorney Ben Johnson 12:30 Chief Building Inspector Mike Verity 12:45 Judge Eileen Powers 1:00 Senior Citizens Program Director Jacqui Martinez 1:15 Town Planning Director Heather Lanza 1:45 Town Clerk Denis Noncarrow 2:00 Highway Superintendent Dan Goodwin 2:30 Solid Waste Coordinator Nick Krupski 2:45 Police Department Personnel Budget Request V-11 Labor- Matters Involving the Employment of a Particular Person(s) 3:00 Members of the Police Advisory Committee V-12 Legal Advice 3:15 Town Attorney Ben Johnson V-13 Current/Pending/Potential Litigation 3:45 TOS v. Frank Kelly t� tii�i ti � t s In the g of 226, Town of Southold Conservpat on Ad visor Y t Council a tablished this native garden with the support and assistance of the Reild Long Island Gardens Program and Southold Town elected officials and staff.' The native plant garden promotes climate resilience, supports biodiversity, provides foots and shelter to s pollinators and wildlife, and serves as an example to � � the community of the beauty and benefits of a m native plant garden. z {' We are committed to: ���4{ 3 k, Promoting native plantings to reduce 4 irrigation, mowing, and fertilization.' Supporting birds and pollinators while resisting pests. Creating'a beautiful space for all Southold Town Hall employees and visitors to enjoy. y t e b an � En la primavera de 2026, el Consejo Asesor de Conservacion del municipio de Southold estableci© este jardfn de plantar , nati vas"con el apoyo del prorama Reild Long Island Gardens, as[Como de los funcionarios electos y el personal del municipio de Southold. 4 Y Este jardfn demuestra c©mo ias plantar nativas pueden contribuir a la resiliencia clim6tica, fomentar la biodiversidad y proporcionar alimento y refuio para los palinizadores y la vida silvestre.'Tambien busca ser un ejemplo para nuestra comunidad de la belleza y los beneficios de incorporar plantas ntivas'a nustros espacios. Nuestro compromiso es: b Rromover el use de plantas nativas para reducr la necesidad de rieo, corte del cesped y fertilizantes. Crear un habitat que beneficie a la's aver, los p'olinizadores y otros'animales slvestres, y que ayude a mantener un ecosistma saludble. Crear un espacio hermoso y acoedor para el disfrute del personal y de quienes visitan el Ayuntamiento de Southold. " ALBERT J.KRUPSKI,JR. ,, Town Hall,53095 Route 5 SUPERVISOR P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Fax(631) 765-1823 , u Telephone(631) 765-1889 3 . OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:Suffolk County Water Authority North Fork Water Main Extensions Sep 25, 2026 To:Suffolk County Water Authority,4060 Sunrise Highway, P.O. Box 38, Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 (Lead Agency).Attn:Jeffrey W.Szabo, Chief Executive Officer e: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, North Fork Water Main Extensions: Riverside/Flanders to Jamesport/Laurel and East Marion to Orient From:Albert J. Krupski,Southold Town Supervisor Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)for the North Fork Water Main Extensions proposed by the Suffolk County Water Authority(SCWA).These comments address a central deficiency:the DEIS does not meaningfully evaluate water conservation,demand management and added local storage as an alternative to importing water through a new 24-inch transmission main. The DEIS's own data show that the North Fork's supply problem is not a shortage of water. The supply problem is caused by the early-morning summer peak driven largely by automatic lawn irrigation.That problem can be addressed by reducing and reshaping demand and by storing water, and the DEIS ought to evaluate those options before committing to a$20 million-plus pipeline. 1.The DEIS dismisses conservation without supporting analyses SEQRA requires a DEIS to describe and evaluate the range of reasonable alternatives that are feasible given the sponsor's objectives and capabilities,at a level of detail sufficient to allow a comparative assessment(6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v)).The regulation expressly contemplates alternatives of technology, scale or magnitude,timing, and type of action. The DEIS does not meet that standard for evaluating conservation measures. Section 5(Alternatives)evaluates only the No-Action alternative and pipeline routes:the Proposed Action,the Preferred Alternative along Main Road, and a previously planned route eliminated during preliminary review(DEIS pp. 5-1 to 5-5). Southold Town Comments North Fork Pipeline DEIS Appendix B addresses conservation in Section X.E(pp.71-72).That section lists five measures,then dismisses them by stating that conservation's "impact on North Fork consumption has shown to be limited," and "the projections for new connections are such that conservation will not be sufficient to offset the increased demand."The DEIS condenses this to one sentence: "conservation alone will not fulfill the need and achieve the goals and objectives of the project" (p. S-13). The DEIS does not provide any quantified scenario to estimate how much peak demand or annual volume has been and could be reduced by irrigation restrictions, pricing, smart controllers, leak reduction or conditions on new connections. Without those numbers,the conclusion that conservation "will not fulfill the need" is an assertion, not an analysis. Also, new-connection projections assume every new service irrigates at the 2024 rate.This assumption ignores the Southold Town irrigation law enacted on July 22, 2025,which requires, among other things, smart sensors and odd/even alternating watering days, as well the ability to halt lawn irrigation during severe drought conditions. Conservation also need not stand "alone"to be a reasonable alternative.A combined conservation-and-storage alternative is a legitimate alternative of scale and timingthat the DEIS does not fully consider. 2.The DEIS's own data show the shortfall is caused by a peak in Lawn-irrigation Appendix B(Hydrogeologic Analysis and Route Evaluation,June 2026)documents the following: • Off-peak demand is not a problem. "The Southold system is easily capable of providing this normal off-peak demand"(App. B, p. 24). In a typical November period, "only a fraction of wells and boosters are operating" (p. 27). • Peak demand is two and a half times average. In 2024, average-day production was 4.101 million gallons; peak-day production was 10.186 million gallons(Table 4, p. 33). • The peak falls in the middle of the night.The 2024 peak five-hour window ran from 2:00 to 7:00 AM (Table 4). Household use(showering,cooking, laundry)is minimal between 2:00 and 5:00 AM.What runs then is automatic irrigation.The DEIS confirms this:the morning peak is "the time that automatic irrigation systems are typically running," and demand varies by day of the week because "most automatic irrigation systems are set to operate on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule," with Monday the highest(App. B, p. 28). • The 2024 shortfall was relatively small. On the 2024 peak day,wells and boosters supplied 11,696 gpm, and the Moores Lane elevated tank supplied the balance, at up to 700 gpm,for a net storage loss of 0.139 million gallons over the five-hour peak (Table 4, pp. 33-34).The shortfall behind Appendix B's conclusion that the system is 2 Southold Town Comments North Fork Pipeline DEIS "stretched to its maximum capacity during peak periods" (p. 34)was therefore about 5.6%of peak demand, confined to the early-morning irrigation window.We recognize SCWA's concern that the system has no margin if a well or booster fails at that hour. But a deficit of this size is precisely the kind that a modest reduction or rescheduling of early-morning irrigation, or additional storage, could address.The DEIS should quantify how much margin these measures would restore. Lookingforward,Appendix B projects peak demand risingfrom 12,396 gpm in 2024 to 13,238 gpm in 2030 and 16,569 gpm in 2050(Table 5, p. 36). It also proposes shutting down 8 chloride-affected wells and curtailing 9 others, removing 1,350 gpm of peak capacity (Table 7, pp.41-42). On the 2024 peak day, all wells and boosters together supplied 11,696 gpm, and the Moores Lane elevated tank made up the remaining 700 gpm (Table 4, pp. 33- 34). Once those wells are retired,the remaining wells and boosters could supply about 10,350 gpm at peak.That leaves a projected shortfall of about 2,900 gpm in 2030(13,238- 10,350)and about 6,200 gpm in 2050(16,569- 10,350). Compare that to the summer peak increment.The 2024 average-day rate (4.101 MGD)is about 2,850 gpm;the 2024 peak was 12,396 gpm, so roughly 9,500 gpm of peak-window demand sits above the average-day rate.Appendix B attributes that early-morning peak to "the peak in domestic use together with the irrigation demand,"with automatic irrigation systems running on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule (p. 28). Measured against 2024 well and booster supply(11,696 gpm) less the 1,350 gpm from wells to be retired,the projected shortfall is about 2,900 gpm in 2030 and 6,200 gpm in 2050(Tables 4, 5 and 7), roughly 30%and 65%of that increment.The DEIS never estimates how much of the increment is irrigation, or how much water savings could be gained through restrictions, pricing, smart controllers or added storage. 3.The demand projections assume no conservation at all The projections in Tables 5 and 6 build in continued high irrigation use; • They predate Southold's irrigation code.The projections use calendar year 2024 as the baseline(App. B, p.32). Southold Town adopted a new irrigation code in July, 2025.The DEIS neither accounts for the code's effect nor provides post-code data, even though 2025 data existed and the DEIS states that 2025 peak data "had not yet been calculated."The FEIS should use post-code data. • Every new customer is assumed to irrigate like today's customers.Southold Town adopted a new irrigation code in July, 2025.The DEIS does not account for the code's potential effect, nor does it quantify the SCWA's own conservation efforts. The projection multiplies each of 113 new connections per year by the 2024 peak factor of 1.27 gpm per service(p. 35).Taking into account the newest regulations could lower that factor. 3 Southold Town Comments North Fork Pipeline DEIS • SCA's own conservation results go unused. Section 2.2 of the DEIS includes Water Wise credit data for 2016 to 2025(Tables 2-10 and 2-11), and Appendix B describes the 2016 three-point program aimed at"excessive peak-season irrigation demand" (p. 15).The DEIS does not use this history to estimate what stronger or mandatory measures would achieve. • Water hauled to Shelter Island is not accounted for.We understand that water haulers serving Shelter Island fill tanker trucks on the North Fork.The DEIS does not identify the timing or quantify these withdrawals. Because Appendix B bases its demand projections on total pumpage per connection(p.38), any water drawn from SCWA's system is either counted as North Fork demand or in the 8%classified as "Lost and unaccounted for."The DEIS should disclose these withdrawals and evaluate how they can be managed. 4.The DEIS relies on conservation as mitigation but will not evaluate it as an alternative The five measures Appendix B rejects as an alternative (pp.71-72) reappear in the DEIS as mitigation for the pipeline: mandatory odd-even lawn watering enforced by local jurisdictions, a multi-tiered rate structure, pressure-reducing valves on irrigation lines, "smart" irrigation controllers, and encouraging private wells for lawn irrigation (DEIS pp. S- 30, 2-84). If these measures are effective enough to count on as mitigation,they are effective enough to be evaluated as an alternative, and the DEIS must say how much demand they would remove. We also note that"encouraging the use of private wells for lawn irrigation"would draw from the same thin Upper Glacial aquifer the project claims to protect. It shifts the withdrawal rather than reducing it and should is not necessarily a conservation measure. The EIS should evaluate,with quantified savings,the following: 1. Enforceable time-of-day and day-of-week limits on potable-water irrigation, including prohibiting or staggering automatic irrigation during the 2:00 to 7:00 AM peak window and ending the Monday-Wednesday-Friday clustering. 2. Seasonal or steeply tiered pricing for high summer use.The DEIS notes the standard retail rate of$2.57 and the conservation rate of$3.71 per 1,000 gallons (App. B, p. 20; DEIS p. 2-48); it should assess whether stronger price signals would reduce peak irrigation. 3. Mandatory weather-based or soil-moisture controllers and rain sensors for in- ground systems,with rebates. 4. Conditions on new service connections limiting potable-water irrigation. 5. Turf-reduction and native-landscaping incentives. 6. Leak detection, meter replacement and loss reduction targeting the 8% unaccounted-for water. 4 Southold Town Comments North Fork Pipeline DEIS 5.Additional storage could meet the peak Appendix B rejects additional storage because "of the lack of a reliable source of additional water" (pp. 70-71), statingthat"storage tanks without the necessary, unconstrained wells to fill them are useless"(p. 30).Appendix B's own figures do not support that conclusion without further analysis. • The wells have off-peak capacity even on the peak day. On July 8, 2024,wells alone delivered about 9,400 gpm during the five-hour peak, but averaged about 6,000 gpm over the remaining 19 hours(Table 4, excluding booster output from ground storage).On ordinary summer days and in the off-season,the margin is larger.We recognize that several wells are restricted for chloride management(Table 4);that is exactly why the DEIS should calculate how much off-peak refill the unrestricted wells can safely provide, rather than dismiss storage without numbers. In addition,Southold's analysis of SCWA's own data shows that many chloride- impacted wells are located in close proximity to road recharge basins.This indicates a strong possibility that those wells are impacted by road salt, and so working with highway maintenance agencies to reduce salt quantities when treating roads for ice may help improve the water quality. • The storage needed is modest. Covering the projected peak shortfall of about 2,900 gpm in 2030 and 6,200 gpm in 2050 over a five-hour window would require about 0.9 and 1.9 million gallons of storage.The system already has 2.8 million gallons (Table 2, p. 26). • Steadier pumping is gentler on the aquifer.Appendix B explains that saltwater upconing occurs"under summer season pumping stresses"when every well runs at once (pp. 16, 25). Storage lets SCWA meet the peak with lower, steadier pumping spread across the day. Paired with conservation,total annual withdrawals need not increase. • Storage directly serves fire protection.A central concern in Appendix B is low tank Levels on summer mornings, leaving too little water for firefighting(pp. 4, 28-29, 34). Storage distributed at several local sites addresses that concern directly and adds redundancy, rather than relying on a single 7-mile transmission main. • SCWA already accepts that storage works.Appendix B says the Rocky Point Road ground storage tank,filled off-peak, "allows for lower pumping rates for area wells, which minimizes potential upconing"; its boosters supplied 658 gpm duringthe 2024 peak window(pp. 70-71).Appendix B also lists "increases in system storage capacity"among future improvements (p.6),credits"the construction of additional storage facilities"with sustaining operations (p. 43), and anticipates adding storage 5 Southold Town Comments North Fork Pipeline DEIS after 2050 as one of the "traditional engineering methods of meeting peak demand" (p. 37). The DEIS should explain,with a quantified tank-sizing, refill and well-pumping analysis, why additional storage combined with conservation cannot meet the need. 6.The DEIS ignores reuse of Greenport's treated wastewater The DEIS and Appendix B do not address the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. The plant discharges treated effluent to Long Island Sound under a permit allowing up to 0.65 million gallons per day(NYSDEC SPDES Permit NY0020079).The Village has identified about 300,000 gallons per day of that effluent as available for reuse.That is roughly 110 million gallons a year, nearly twice the 60.7 million gallons of production the project would replace by retiring chloride-affected wells(App. B, p.42). The option has already been studied.A 2022 study by H2M, commissioned by the Village with a state grant, recommended groundwater recharge basins on the Polo Grounds near Moore's Lane, at an estimated cost of more than$5 million. Irrigation reuse at Island's End Golf Course and Peconic Landing had also been proposed. Water conservation means more than reducing demand. It also means not discarding water the North Fork already has. Every day,treated wastewater that could replenish the aquifer or replace groundwater used for irrigation is piped into the Sound.Appendix B justifies the new pipeline as a way to protect the thin North Fork aquifer from over-pumping and saltwater intrusion. Recharging treated effluent locally helps to serve that same goal without importing water, and it also removes nitrogen from the Sound.Any evaluation of conservation should include this option. 8.The DEIS should incorporate current USGS findings on the North Fork aquifer The U.S. Geological Survey,working with NYSDEC, is studying the North Fork aquifer, including its vulnerability to saltwater intrusion.The DEIS does not use this work, although the Final Scope called for"applicable available USGS reports" (p. 15).The need for the main depends on how much water the aquifer can safely supply, and so does the viability of conservation, storage and recharge.SCWA should obtain the USGS results before making a final decision. 9. Requested actions We ask that SCWA: 1. Prepare and circulate a supplemental DEIS that includes a full Conservation and Storage Alternative, evaluated with the same level of detail as the route alternatives, and open a new public comment period on it.Adding this analysis only 6 Southold Town Comments North Fork Pipeline DEIS in the Final EIS would deny the public any chance to comment on the most important alternative to the project. 2. Quantify achievable reductions in peak-hour and annual demand from each measure listed in Section 4 above, using SCWA's Water Wise data and post-2025 data reflecting Southold's irrigation code. 3. Provide a storage analysis showing tank sizes, refill schedules and well-pumping rates needed to meet projected peaks with and without conservation. 4. Evaluate combined alternatives of reduced scale or deferred timing, such as conservation and storage now,with a smaller or later main only if monitored demand shows it is needed. 5. Revise the demand projections in Tables 5 and 6 to include conservation scenarios instead of assuming current irrigation practices continue unchanged through 2050. 6. Support with data, or withdraw,Appendix B's statement that conservation's impact on North Fork consumption"has shown to be limited" (p.72), and reconcile it with the DEIS statement that SCWA's programs have"measurably reduced consumption" (p. 2-57). 7. Include reuse and recharge of Greenport's treated wastewater, includingthe basins recommended in the Village's 2022 H2M study, in the evaluation of conservation measures, and quantify its effect on aquifer levels and groundwater withdrawals. 8. Disclose monthly bulk and tanker withdrawals from the Southold Low pressure zone for the past five years, including water taken to Shelter Island, and state whether they are included in the demand projections. 9. Incorporate current USGS findings on the North Fork aquifer in a supplemental DEIS, and defer a final decision until they are available. The North Fork's water supply is adequate for its residents'ordinary needs.Appendix B states that the system "is easily capable of providing this normal off-peak demand" (p. 24). The strain arises during a few early-morning hours each summer, driven in substantial part by automatic lawn irrigation.The North Fork aquifer is a shared public resource on which every resident,farm and business depends. Each gallon used on lawns, or discharged to Long Island Sound as treated wastewater, is lost to all, and all will bear the cost of replacing it. Conservation, storage and water reuse offer a way to protect that resource at far lower cost than a new transmission main.We respectfully urge SCWA to evaluate these measures fully,with quantified analysis, before committing to the project. Respectfully submitted, 7