March 8, 2002
BAIT AND SWITCH - Part One
Oh, the promises they made. Now broken.
Oh, the assurances they made. To no avail.
Oh, the Byzantine manipulations they engaged in. Successfully.
Oh, the disinterest they displayed. Time and again.
It is worth quoting from Councilwoman Martha Rogers' statement that she read to the public on January 7, 1997, the day she voted to change the protective zoning at the racetrack property to allow Golf a the Bridge located at the pinnacle of the Town's "Aquifer Protection Overlay District".
Martha says:
"One of the conditions of the change of zone here would be compliance with the golf course monitoring program overseen by the Suffolk County Water Authority." [SCWA]. "There would be two components to this golf course monitoring program.
"The first would be a 3 part agreement between the town, the applicant and the water authority. Ground water monitoring wells would be installed at locations specified by the water authority that were installed, maintained and monitored by the Suffolk Water Authority. It would include monitoring, and testing performed by the specifications and at intervals determined by the Suffolk Water Authority. All expenses of installing the wells and of doing the maintenance would be solely at the expense of the applicant. And I think that it is also important to note the frequency, the location, the depth of the wells,
most importantly who is to do it. It would be done by an independent qualified source, [my emphasis] and I think of the entire action before us, this is the most important condition that would be seen by the Water authority and not by the Town and not by the applicant.
"Definitely, with regards to pesticides, one of the conditions of the change of zone would include application oversight [my emphasis], not only of the golf course itself but also on the lawn and landscaping areas of the residential units.
"Synthetic pesticides would be used as a last resort and any approval of specific pesticides would have to be approved by the town and the town of course would lend whatever police" [my emphasis] "powers it had and will now subsequent to the date subject to local laws pledging police powers to enforce compliance with the water authority monitoring program."
Promises. Promises.
We now know that, contrary to the above:
1. that all 32 synthetic pesticides, fungicides, herbicides that the developer wanted to use were approved for use by the Town. (Even though Director of Land Management, Bob Duffy, had sworn to me that especially 2, 4, D (a component of Agent Orange) would never be used (it can be used after 2 years of the course's existence). Ethofumesate can be used even though it has turned up in wells around the Noyac Golf Course. What's worse, is that the Department of Health Services in a letter dated February 25, 1998 to someone whose well was contaminated stated that the Health Department doesn't even know how many parts per billion is even "acceptable" for humans to be exposed to.
2. that there's no "independent" sampling at the golf course, it's done by the developer's own hired agents.
3. that there was to be testing on a quarterly basis. Yet, this has not been the case.
(Not only that, but, "Quality Control" mistakes made some of the samples taken virtually useless.)
4. that the wells are not maintained or monitored by the Suffolk County Water Authority. They merely review the results of testing sent to them by the developer's agents. By their own admission, SCWA has "no police power."
5. that the DEC (who issued the irrigation permit) has never bothered to go up to check the wells/equipment to see if the figures the golf course's Superintendent sends them on water pumpage used for irrigation is accurate.
6. that there was no oversight during its construction except for clearing and grading and, even then, placement of a drainage pipe, laced with chemicals from smaller pipes connected to it used to vacuum up a Tee at the second hole when wet, drained onto adjacent property creating a gully approximately 1/3 mile long-a blatant violation. If there was oversight, how could this have happened? (And that's the only pipe we know about. There are 18 holes, what of the others? No summons was ever given.) Freedom of Information Requests have revealed no records exist that show that oversight took place other than by McLean Associates for which no contract even exist-though it should! (McLean had estimated it would cost $12,000 for their "limited construction monitoring and report services" during the "clearing and grubbing phase" and a final inspection for the "Final Grading and Revegetation Plan"). McLean now claims they were paid only $3579. But, by whom? No record of any payment to McLean by the Town's Comptroller exits. This pipe-contrary to McLean guidelines-was found in February 2001 by concerned neighbors. No testing of soil or water was carried out though requested by the Noyac CAC. So much for "police" powers.
7. that the "monitoring agreement" was written in the main by the developer's agent, Stuart Cohen.
8. that although construction began in 1999, it wasn't until May 2001 that SCWA issued a report reviewing the developer's test data even though the golf course had started construction in 1999 and the turf laid down in the summer of 2000. Not to mention that SCWA was to have received baseline testing before any construction began. The only baseline testing is from 1998-not turned in until 2001. (SCWA complained in its May 2001 review about the developer's testing protocol.). So much for "quarterly" reports!
9. that the Town will now allow this pure water to be degraded. (Unlike the rest of the South Fork, SCWA's monitoring wells in Noyac show "non-detectable" levels of nitrates, that is: "less than 0.02"). They will now allow Golf at the Bridge to contaminate up to 10ppm-the drinking water safety limit-when the ambient amount of nitrates occurring on the South Fork is 1.5! "10" represents a criminal degradation of this water resource contrary to the spirit and to the letter of the law under our Town Code.
TOWN'S NON-DEGRADATION POLICY
Now, at the outset, let me say that in no uncertain terms, our Town Code in its "Aquifer Overlay Protection District" section has a non-degradation policy to protect our drinking water. Article XIII, Section 330-63 empowers the Town Board to:
"A. …facilitate the adequate provision of water to the residents of the town and also to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the town. The sole source of drinking water for the Town of Southampton is underground aquifers. The federal government has given sole source designation to this area. The aquifers must be kept pure if a continued source of drinking water is to be available…It is the policy of the Town of Southampton to protect the town's supply of drinking water in its pristine state" [my emphasis] "and prevent degradation of this valuable resource.
"C. These water catchment regions effect water quality of the entire town. The types of land use which occurs above the water catchment regions must be compatible with the function of water recharge to ensure the goal of protecting the drinking supply of the town."
To pull a fast one, in late 1997 the Town went and changed the contents of the 1996 draft Master Plan Update which specifically said that there should be no golf courses sited over a sole source deep-water recharge area in the Town's Aquifer Protection Overlay District just to accommodate Golf at the Bridge.
AUDUBON INTERNATIONAL'S NON-DGRADATION POLICY
The change-of-zone granted by the Town and Planning Board mandated that Golf at the Bridge must participate in Audubon International's "Signature Program." Audubon has a policy of "non-degradation of natural resources. On Feb 10, 2000, Audubon International's Director of Environmental Planning, Dr. Miles Smart stated:
"What we do, basically, is a threshold of NO DEGRADATION to the natural resource."
"…if they are finding concentrations of chemicals, we would tell them to stop using chemicals-period."
"…So, if you're starting to see anything moving through there, you've got to stop. And, that's it-To clean up an aquifer, after you put stuff in it-It's impossible."
"…That's the bottom line. I would accept no degradation. I mean, why would we?"
And so it goes. Part II of my letter next week-What Dr. Petrovic's Report I and II of October November 2001 revealed.
Julie Penny, Co-Chair
South Fork Groundwater Task Force
 South Fork Groundwater Task Force
PO BOX 2360 Sag Harbor, NY 11963
Phone/Fax: 631 - 725 - 6200
Site By: Hamptons Online
|
|
|
