The county executive’s proposal to assess a water surcharge in Suffolk to fund the installation of sewers and advanced septic systems won’t be on the ballot in November. The State Legislature ended its 2015-2016 session on Friday without taking up a bill authorizing the referendum.
“There was no appetite in the State Senate to advance the ballot measure this year,” Deputy County Executive Peter Scully, who is overseeing Suffolk’s wastewater management strategy and developed the proposal for County Executive Steve Bellone, said in an interview Friday.
Bellone called for the $1-per-thousand-gallon surcharge, to be imposed on all public water customers in Suffolk, to establish a dedicated fund for wastewater treatment projects. It would raise an estimated $75 million annually that would be distributed by the county executive and legislature with the advice of a comprising local officials, community and environmental leaders.
The plan, supported by a coalition of environmental and business groups, as well as Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine and Southampton Supervisor Jay Schneiderman, did not win the support of Southold Supervisor Scott Russell and Riverhead Supervisor Sean Walter, who both said the proposal left too many questions unanswered and was not yet ready to move forward.
State Senator Ken LaValle, whose district takes in the entire East End along with much of Brookhaven, felt the same way.
“Suffolk County’s water quality fee proposal is a complex plan that requires much more transparency, public discussion and input before it can be seriously considered,” LaValle said yesterday.
LaValle and other state legislators, like Russell and Walter, expressed concern that the money could be diverted for other purposes or would not be distributed equitably — with eastern Suffolk getting short-changed.
“Assurances need to be in place to ensure if a measure of this type is enacted that funds are utilized solely for water quality protection and localities are given decision-making authority,” LaValle said. “Proper financial controls would be necessary with guarantees that funds will be disseminated equitably. Lastly, any funds must be exclusively used for environmental purposes, and not for balancing budgets.”
Suffolk County, without voter approval, took nearly $30 million from a special water protection fund to balance its budget in 2011. A budget resolution moving the funds was passed by the county legislature and signed by former county executive Steve Levy. The measure was called a “raid” by environmental activists, who sued to block it on the ground that since the fund was created by referendum, it could only be changed by referendum.
As those legal proceedings went on, the plaintiffs and other environmental groups in 2014 struck a deal with the county in which Suffolk agreed to borrow another $29.4 million for environmental protection projects and land acquisitions aimed at protecting groundwater and the environmental groups agreed not to oppose a charter law authorizing the county to borrow more money from the drinking water protection program to balance the budget in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and keep the county tax levy increase within the state-mandated 2 percent cap. The county would be required to pay back all amounts borrowed by 2029, with payments to begin in 2018. Both initiatives were placed on the ballot last November and passed with nearly 66 percent of the vote.
State lawmakers and local officials alike were miffed by how little advance notice the Bellone administration had given them before announcing the proposal at a press conference on April 25. The next day, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan told Newsday Flanagan was “unequivocally opposed to it and said that it was D.O.A.”
Scully, the former State DEC regional director who was hired by Bellone last year as the county’s wastewater management “czar” said Friday, reaction to the idea of establishing the county-wide water quality protection fund has been “universally positive.” He acknowledged that “people are very concerned that the proceeds of the water surcharge should be placed in a lockbox so they couldn’t be used for any other purpose.” The authorizing legislation will specifically require a public referendum to authorize any other use, he said.
“The measure won’t move forward without that language,” Scully said.
“People get it,” Scully said. “They live on an island surrounded by water. They see beaches being closed. They can’t eat the shellfish. They read about algal blooms and fish kills. All indications are that we have a crisis on our hands.”
The county recognizes that sewering is not a viable option, especially on the East End, he said. The implementation of reliable, effective advanced wastewater treatment systems is essential and the county is working on that, by testing several different systems in the field.
But these systems can be expensive and the only way to get the county’s existing unsewered homes, businesses and institutions to install them is by providing financial assistance. The proposed fee is a means of raising the revenue to provide that assistance, Scully said.
The deputy county executive said Suffolk intends to pursue a ballot measure in 2017. “We will be using the time to do outreach with local officials, civic and business groups and the agricultural community,” Scully said.
Scully said he hopes to meet with town officials in the near future to hear their concerns and discuss the plan.
Russell and town board members all expressed skepticism about the proposal when they discussed it at a recent work session. Worries about the revenues being used for other purposes, about the East End getting its fair share of the pot, and about possible pressure to build sewer plants — which could spur development and threaten the North Fork’s rural quality of life — topped their list.
