The Group for the East End says the Suffolk County Water Authority’s revised plan for a major new North Fork water main is an improvement over its original proposal, but the environmental organization stopped short of endorsing the project and called for stronger conservation measures, independent construction oversight and additional review before the pipeline is eventually extended to Orient.
In comments submitted on the Water Authority’s draft environmental impact statement, Group for the East End President Robert DeLuca said the organization considers the newly proposed Main Road route for the first phase of the project “superior to the original proposal.”
But DeLuca emphasized that the group was not endorsing the overall project, citing “outstanding questions and information gaps” that it wants addressed in the final environmental impact statement.
The revised route is preferable, DeLuca wrote, because it is shorter and follows a corridor the organization believes is less likely to encourage additional development on open land. The shorter route should also reduce construction-related impacts including erosion, sedimentation, runoff, fuel consumption, noise and dust, according to the group.
The comments represent a significant response to the Water Authority’s proposal to extend its interconnected water system farther east onto the North Fork, a project intended to bolster water supply and reliability in Southold Town.
A SCWA spokesperson said in response to emailed questions from the Sun that “we appreciate a well-respected organization like the Group for the East End providing substantive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North Fork Water Main Project. We are reviewing their feedback and, like all comments we received at the hearings and in writing, we will respond in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.”
‘Little if any active enforcement’
Among the group’s central concerns is water conservation.
DeLuca argued that the multimillion-dollar pipeline proposal underscores the need for a townwide conservation program capable of materially reducing water consumption. Many property owners, particularly seasonal residents, may be unaware of the Water Authority’s conservation policies, irrigation schedules and water emergency declarations, he wrote.
He also questioned how effectively Southold Town’s existing irrigation restrictions are being enforced.
“Despite the town’s recent efforts to more effectively regulate water usage (notably residential irrigation), there is little if any active enforcement,” DeLuca wrote.
The group called for a formal effort involving the Water Authority and local governments to educate residents about water quality and conservation and encourage more efficient use.
“In the absence of such efforts, the town’s reliance on a water supply that must be transported from Southampton Town, will only continue to grow, and the related vulnerabilities of a distant source supply will continue,” DeLuca wrote.
Independent construction monitor
The organization also recommended that the Water Authority and affected municipalities jointly fund an independent monitor to oversee construction in real time.
Such a monitor could determine whether contractors are complying with permit conditions and report to the Water Authority, towns and regulatory agencies, DeLuca wrote. He argued that state and regional regulatory agencies often lack the resources to maintain a continuous presence during lengthy infrastructure projects.
“Shared oversight can build trust, resolve minor compliance issues among interested parties, and provide an organized reporting pathway to regulatory agencies,” he wrote.
RELATED: How 20 Southold properties used nearly 32 million gallons of public water in 13 months
The group also urged the Water Authority and local governments to resolve their dispute over what is known as the Monroe balancing test, an issue involving local-government participation in the environmental review and decision-making process.
“Public trust is an essential part of the long-term success of any immediate and future infrastructure endeavor,” DeLuca wrote, adding that the organization does not support “a heavy-handed approach to local officials that have legitimate concerns about how the development of significant infrastructure may impact their community.”
The comments recommend that the Water Authority establish a dedicated website providing real-time construction information, including anticipated traffic congestion and excavation locations. Residents should also be able to use the site to submit questions, complaints and reports of potential violations.
Additional review sought before pipeline reaches Orient
Group for the East End raised separate concerns about the proposed East Marion-to-Orient portion of the project, which is not currently funded or scheduled.
Because years could pass before that segment is built, environmental conditions, development patterns and zoning could change substantially in the interim, the organization argued. It wants the Water Authority to commit to a supplemental environmental review before proceeding with that portion of the pipeline.
The group said it is not seeking an entirely new environmental impact statement. Instead, it wants the Water Authority to examine significant new information that emerges before construction, including changes in environmental conditions, water-supply data, construction technology, storm resiliency and land-use patterns.
The organization also wants a future review to consider whether extending the water system could encourage additional development.
DeLuca specifically pointed to the Water Authority’s Browns Hills well field near Orient and the possibility that a future main could connect that facility to the broader system. Any future analysis, he wrote, should consider “the extremely high likelihood of a main extension to its Browns Hills well field, as well as a further extension to Orient Point.”
The group also called for a more detailed assessment of storm risks along the Orient causeway, including what would happen if a water main crossing the vulnerable stretch were damaged by a major storm.
It recommended that the Water Authority incorporate findings from the recently completed 2025 Orient Water Resources Study, commissioned by the Orient Association, into any future review of the easternmost section.
Other issues raised in the comments include whether the pipeline could encroach on Suffolk County parkland along Cross River Drive and a request for more detailed information about directional drilling beneath the Peconic River.
In its conclusion, Group for the East End said the revised route reduces some environmental impacts but argued that additional safeguards remain necessary, including conservation, intergovernmental cooperation, third-party oversight, public information during construction and additional environmental review if the pipeline is eventually extended east.
The organization said those measures could provide “substantial opportunities for increased mitigation of potentially significant impacts” associated with the project.
