A change in route for the North Fork Pipeline did little to quell Riverhead’s distaste for the project, as residents and town officials were sharply critical at a public hearing Wednesday evening at the Riverhead Free Library.
Pictured Above: Mike Foley of Riverhead was unimpressed with the Water Authority’s presentation.
The proposed pipeline would travel 7.5 miles from an existing Suffolk County Water Authority interconnection point on Whitebrook Drive in Flanders up Route 105 to the Main Road, then travel down the north side of the Main Road to another interconnection site near Franklinville Road in Laurel, a change in route from Sound Avenue, which was proposed last year.
The route change was announced in late July by the Suffolk County Water Authority, which is in the midst of preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) project, and was billed by the Water Authority as an accommodation for Riverhead, which had objected to the original route, which was mostly on a town road. The Main Road is a state road.
The Water Authority is currently suing the Town of Riverhead for declaring that it had local zoning control over the pipeline.
Water Authority Chief Executive Officer for Operations Joe Pokorny had also told The Beacon after an Aug. 20 public hearing in Peconic that, when doing engineering for the project after a series of public scoping sessions last year, the Water Authority had realized it would only need one pump station on the Main Road route, whereas the Sound Avenue route, which is significantly up-gradient from the Main Road, would require two.
The water in the pipeline would not distributed in Riverhead — it is a transmission pipeline that would deliver water directly to Southold customers.
The Water Authority says its wells on the North Fork can no longer accommodate the peak demand in Southold and are suffering from saltwater intrusion.
Riverhead Water District Superintendent Frank Mancini was the first to criticize the pipeline, which as proposed would be laid very close to the Riverhead Water District’s existing water main on the North Fork.
He said he’s concerned that settling of the ground after the Water Authority’s excavation could damage Riverhead’s water pipes, and complicate Riverhead’s installation of water service lines for new customers along the route.
“It’s not fair to our ratepayers,” he said, asking the Water Authority to offset the pipeline at least 10 feet away from Riverhead’s pipeline and to provide a bond “so if failure occurs in the future, you guys are responsible.”
“I call BS on listening to people,” said Mike Foley, adding that Mr. Mancini had told the Water Authority during last year’s scoping sessions that there wouldn’t be adequate pressure on the Sound Avenue route. “All of your experts couldn’t figure it out.”
He criticized the salaries of the Water Authority officials in the room, whom he said collectively made more than $1 million per year.
“You charge more than Riverhead does” for water, he said. “I need somebody to explain to me how you have a monopoly on expanding water to the East End of Long Island. Riverhead can do the job for 25 percent of what you are.”
“How does the Suffolk County Water Authority determine the prices and where you send your pipes?” he said, then directly addressed Water Authority CEO Jeff Szabo, who was on the panel. “We’re on to you, Jeff. You’re a real good marketer, but I think you’re bush league.”
Barbara Blass of Jamesport asked why the bulk of the assessment in the DEIS was of the Sound Avenue route, which she said “begs the question of whether the DEIS provides enough detailed information to support a findings statement” — a document determining what action to take that would be prepared after the DEIS is finalized.
She added that the Main Road route “has significantly more businesses and residents,” and the state Department of Transportation had said “the original route has less impact on the public and traffic,” and urged the Water Authority to closely examine the impact on the Aquebogue School, which is along the route.
“The town receives more detailed traffic information on a 15 lot subdivision than on this project,” she added.
Ms. Blass also criticized the document’s “references to indisputable immunity to local zoning,” adding that until the litigation against Riverhead is finalized “any statement about immunity is premature and speculative.”
Riverhead Councilman Ken Rothwell said he believes the Water Authority’s 2025 “Monroe Determination,” which the agency used to determine its immunity from local zoning, was flawed because a quorum of its board was not present at the Monroe hearings.
Former Congressional staffer Mark Woolley, who worked with the Water Authority to bring public water to people whose wells were contaminated near EPCAL, said he believes people near EPCAL who had to drink bottled water before a Water Authority pipeline came to their houses would say “thank you” for this pipeline as well.
“I support what you’re trying to do,” he said “Greenport is having issues with water. Greenport needs to have water. Orient now has issues with a plume — eventually that’s something that will have to be addressed.”
Peconic Estuary Partnership Executive Director Joyce Novak urged the Water Authority to wait until the U.S. Geological Survey finishes a study of the North Fork’s groundwater before completing its environmental review, and urged that the pipeline only be used for drinking water, and that Southold customers “use existing wells to irrigate their property.”
Flanders/Riverside/Northampton Community Association Co-Chair Kathy Kruel questioned why the Water Authority was sending water from Flanders to Southold when Flanders residents suffer from low water pressure and receive alerts to conserve water during times of high demand.
The interconnection point is in Flanders, but the Water Authority says the water is coming from a wide area underneath the pine barrens in Northampton and Westhampton.
Ms. Kruel said Riverside, just south of downtown Riverhead, is in the process of a revitalization effort that already is likely to include a 40-unit mixed-use apartment complex.
“If we’re having problems now during the summer with water pressure, what’s going to happen when we revitalize Riverside and the water goes out to Southold?” she asked. “We were told the people in Southold don’t even want it. What’s going to happen to water for us in our community?”
Suffolk County Legislator Greg Doroski asked that the Water Authority provide “specific benefits to Riverhead” in exchange for running the pipeline through the town, and said he believes a recently completed $2.2 million wetland restoration project at Meetinghouse Creek, directly adjacent to the Main Road, “is within Riverhead Town’s wetlands jurisdiction.”
“The Suffolk County Water Authority really needs to do a better job of reestablishing relations with the Riverhead Town Board,” he said.
“As up-islanders, you may think there is an off-season but there is no off-season,” said Riverhead Town Supervisor Jerry Halpin, adding that there is serious traffic on Riverhead’s roads year-round. The Water Authority has said it will avoid construction during the fall pumpkin-picking season.
He also took issue with the Water Authority’s declaration in the DEIS that it has “undisputed immunity” from local zoning rules, when Riverhead has already disputed its immunity.
He added that the town would like the Water Authority to adhere to the town’s wetlands jurisdiction over the Meetinghouse Creek project.
Riverhead Environmental Analyst Jeffery Seeman also criticized the lack of traffic data and delineation of wetlands in the DEIS.
The Main Road route is listed as an “alternative route” in the document, but “an alternative route is very often not selected” in an Environmental Impact Statement, he sad.
“It says each route is viable but it may be more viable to take the Main Road,” he added. “It would be to everyone’s advantage to make a decision as to which route you’re going to take, so the impacts can be evaluated and mitigation put together in a stronger way.”
He added that “I certainly agree that you’re going to have difficulty reaching a findings statement until all litigation is finalized. You placed Monroe as a key topic in the EIS. In order to get to a findings statement, you have to address that issue. I don’t think you will have a defensible findings statement until that work is done.”
The Water Authority’s North Fork Pipeline documents are online here.
Keep Independent News on the East End
The Beacon is able to provide all of our content online free of charge thanks to support from our readers. Be a vital part of keeping our community informed!
Advertisement
