To all interested members of our community, I'm writing in response to Councilperson Bridget Fleming’s commentary on the change.org petition that represents opposition of the proposed CPI development. Specifically, I am compelled to clarify the section that refers to my remarks before the Town Board at the December 9, 2014 public hearing (see below) and to offer additional thoughts on the project. This statement will also be submitted to Southampton Town officials as part of the record. "I note with particular interest that Kevin McAllister of Defend H2O has told us that because of state-of-the-art advanced septic systems, the applicants “have stepped up” regarding environmental protection, and that Nitrogen pollution of our waters will be less in the proposed project than would as-of-right development at the site. Mr. McAllister suggests that the project could be the launching point for use in other applications.” As a committed advocate for clean water, I have been actively participating in the review process of the CPI proposal for several years. My focus is ensuring the proposed redevelopment implements the best available technologies for sewage treatment. For example, when I challenged the Rechler’s to "do the right thing" and commit to using a state of the art denitrification system for wastewater discharges over two years ago. Which they have committed to and yes, I did recognize their effort for "stepping up.” However, I did not suggest that nitrogen pollution would be less than the as-of-right development (grandfathered septic flows). That’s because I haven’t seen the nitrogen loading calculations that compare the two. On the contrary, I implored the Town Board to dispense with accepting Suffolk County Health Department’s “ grandfathering” of untreated, prior use septic flows on this site or elsewhere. Perpetuating a known pollution problem has to stop. Southampton Town, like all other municipal governments have the legal authority to require more stringent wastewater discharge standards than Suffolk County. While Brookhaven Town is poised to codify advanced treatment requirements within the Carmens River watershed, Southampton Town continues to defer to Suffolk County’s deficient regulations. Another clarification is to Ms. Fleming’s reference that the project could be a launching point for use in other applications, I said it specifically about the use of the Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) proposed for development on the western side of the canal. The PRB is being lauded by the applicant as more desirable technology because it will treat (denitrify) not only wastewater, but the groundwater moving through the site and enriched from other sources. wastewater, but the groundwater moving through the site and enriched from other sources. After reviewing the science, I have concluded that the PRB can significantly reduce on-site nitrogen levels and that PRB’s in general, have the potential to be an effective tool in reducing nitrogen loadings to other waterbodies. Use of the PRB would be a first locally, and its success in this project could set the stage for other applications throughout our region. That is why I have repeatedly asked that rigorous performance monitoring be a condition of its approval. Staying consistent with my 16+ year record of defending our waters is why I have focused my attention exclusively on the threats to water quality and natural areas essential to water protection in the proposal. The land-use, whether it be hotel, cottages, town homes, restaurants, markets, parkland or a combination thereof - is for the Town Board and our community to decide. That being said, I’m reasonably satisfied that the threats to water quality have been minimized. I will be fully satisfied when the Town Board requires the implementation of an array of “Bayscaping” applications (sustainable property management practices) in the site plan design. These include pervious driveways and parking areas, minimizing turf areas, use of native vegetation, grass meadows and rain gardens for stormwater recharge. These are meaningful site plan design components for the protection of water quality and habitat. As for the issue of public access, there’s good reason a public promenade extending the full length of the redeveloped east side should be incorporated into the project design. Access to the waters edge along the entire length of the property is not unreasonable, and like the site plan design components identified, should be a condition for project approval. Public participation in the decision-making process ensures that the outcomes are made better and thank you to everyone who participates. Clean water is a right not a privilege! Kevin McAllister P.O. Box 729 Quogue, NY 11959 mac.waterwarrior@icloud.com 631.599.9326 www.DefendH2O.org