Residents petition to dredge Reeves Creek, although chance of action looks slim

Residents living near Reeves Creek have petitioned the town to apply to have the creek annually dredged by Suffolk County, although the response from town officials suggest the chances of dredging seem slim.

The petition was signed by around 40 people — many of whom live on Whites Lane adjacent to the creek — and requests that the town submit an application for presentation before the Suffolk County Dredge Project Screening Committee for consideration for an annual dredging.

“Due to a shoaling of sand, safe passage to Reeves Creek navigable waterway is a concern. Requirements of scheduled yearly maintenance is needed now more than ever,” the petition reads. “In the past all other neighboring navigable waterways have a yearly maintenance scheduled program allowing them safe passage.”

The creek has not been dredged since 1964. The petition was filed with a letter to the Town Board by Connor Burke, the owner of Eastern Bays Oyster Company, who said his business depends on safe passage of the creek to reach oyster beds in Peconic Bay. 

“If the creek is not dredged soon, I will be forced to time all of my workdays to the tides to ensure I am able to access my oyster beds without fear of running aground due to the silt and sand buildup in Reeves Creek, where my oyster barge is docked, as the creek has not been dredged by Suffolk County in over 40 years,” Burke’s letter reads.

Town officials were not sold on the idea during last Thursday’s work session due to costs associated with tests needed to apply for the dredging. Town Engineer Drew Dillingham told the board that the two requests to the county Department of Public Works to annually dredge the creek in the last few decades — one in 1985 and another in 1996 — were both denied because it would produce no “public benefit.” 

That opinion hasn’t changed, according to conversations Dillingham had with a representative from the Department of Public Works, the bay constable and former bay constable. Dillingham described the lack of public benefit during the discussion as meaning “there’s no public beaches. There’s no public program. There’s no services, such as gasoline or food. There’s no public parking,” he said.

Suffolk County law outlines when dredging is qualified as either a matter of public interest or private interest. A criteria for identifying the dredging as public interest includes if it supports, advances or enhances “marine commercial uses, including but not limited to boatyards, ship repair facilities, commercial fishery docks and product transfer sites.” 

A criteria for identifying the dredging as a private interest includes if it “provides service solely and exclusively to shoreline homeowners or a group of homeowners in a civic association, the membership of which is controlled by a residency requirement, regardless of the nature of the water body.”

“I spoke with the people who would know and they indicated that they really don’t see any improvements since the last two times the application was made to the county,” Dillingham said.

Dillingham said the town has received multiple communications from Rep. Lee Zeldin’s office requesting the town complete a screening application to the county. The application would require a sediment sampling and a hydrographic survey, “which shows pre-existing channel floor conditions, proposed channel floor conditions and total volume of spoils,” Dillingham said. The price of both of these tests together would total around $75,500, he said.

Dillingham said the town would also be responsible for disposing of the sand after the mud is removed. 

Preparing the application would ultimately be the board’s decision, Dillingham said. After the application is received, the county would make a determination whether or not the application would go to a hearing.

“So we could spend $75,000 and the county could say no?” Councilman Ken Rothwell asked.

“With past history and my discussions with the bay constables, and division of waterways and DPW, would indicate that there’s a very slim chance for the county to approve this based on public benefit,” Dillingham replied.

“So to Ken’s point, I mean, we spend $75,000 and DPW again says no. What have we gained? Nothing,” Councilman Bob Kern said. “So another question is: is there grant money available for that $75,000?”

“I haven’t looked into that, only because the $75,000 would be risky, in my mind, at best to put up and get any kind of positive result, you’d be taking a big risk,” Dillingham said. “But I have not looked into grants, no.”

“I’d like to explore it further to see if we could get some funding, to see if maybe the congressman’s office may have some funding available or — I’m not sure how it works — but it’s something to explore at least anyway,” Councilman Tim Hubbard said. “I’m not in favor of just throwing $75,000 out the window if we know we’re not going to be able to dredge it.”

“The thing is that even if the county approves it, once we dredge it there’s nothing for the public there,” Dillingham said. “We’ve dredged it so that the local residents can use it. I mean… obviously somebody could navigate it in and out, but there’s nothing for them there.”

When asked how many residents dredging the creek might impact, Dillingham said there were “over 100 signatures” on the petition, though the petition filed with the town clerk April 4 had more than 40 signatories. He said that the signatures “could be friends from Florida,” although every signer of the petition lists a Riverhead address for their boat registration.

“Snowbirds,” Supervisor Yvette Aguiar said in response.

Dillingham said he would follow up with Rep. Lee Zeldin’s office to see if there is funding for a study.