Riverhead board challenges water authority’s immunity claim on North Fork pipeline route

Riverhead Town Board members again challenged the Suffolk County Water Authority’s claimed immunity from local land-use regulation Tuesday, during the board’s second Monroe balancing test hearing, this time focused on the agency’s preferred alternative route for a North Fork water transmission main along Main Road.

The hearing, which lasted more than two hours, was the latest step in a continuing fight between Riverhead and SCWA over who has authority to regulate the proposed pipeline through town. The water authority says the project is needed to provide public water in Southold Town, which is part of the authority’s territory. Riverhead officials say the project would impose major traffic, construction, emergency-response and environmental impacts on Riverhead without providing a direct benefit to town residents.

The route examined Tuesday was not the Sound Avenue route originally advanced by SCWA as its proposed action. It was the authority’s preferred alternative, which would run north from Flanders along County Road 105, cross under the Peconic River and Peconic Bay, emerge near Indian Island, continue to Main Road, and then head east along Route 25 toward Southold.

That distinction became one of the central issues in the hearing. Town officials and residents argued that the draft environmental impact statement focused nearly exclusively on the Sound Avenue route, even though SCWA is now identifying the Main Road route as its preferred alternative.

Town environmental consultant Jeff Seeman said the route change is significant because Main Road has different impacts than Sound Avenue, including denser population, commercial hamlet centers, Aquebogue Elementary School, historic structures, existing utilities and town-regulated wetlands. Seeman said people and businesses along Main Road may not have been fully engaged earlier in the process because the public had been focused on Sound Avenue.

Former Riverhead councilwoman Barbara Blass made a similar point during public comment. Blass said the DEIS itself acknowledges that most of the study concerns the Sound Avenue route, and she argued that SCWA’s environmental review and Monroe analysis failed to properly account for the Main Road alternative now before the town. She also criticized the water authority for including its own Monroe determination in the DEIS while, in her view, disregarding Riverhead’s earlier determination that SCWA is subject to town review.

The hearing followed a year of dueling Monroe determinations. Riverhead held a Monroe balancing test hearing in August 2025 and later adopted a resolution finding that SCWA is not immune from town zoning, site plan and other land-use requirements for the project. SCWA held its own Monroe hearings in October 2025 and reached the opposite conclusion, determining that it is immune from Riverhead’s local land-use regulations.

SCWA sued Riverhead in February, seeking to overturn the town’s determination and obtain a judgment declaring the project exempt from town zoning and land-use review. State Supreme Court Justice Alison Napolitano denied the town’s motion to dismiss the case in July, allowing SCWA’s Article 78 and declaratory judgment claims to continue.

SCWA attorney Brody Smith, of the law firm Bond Schoeneck & Kingtold, the board Tuesday that the pending lawsuit already has a record and objected to the idea that the town could use a second Monroe hearing to supplement the record from its prior determination. Smith submitted a copy of the two-volume DEIS to the town clerk and defended the authority’s process, saying the DEIS includes analysis of the Main Road alternative, wetlands review and correspondence with the state Department of Transportation about construction traffic.

Smith said the Main Road route was selected for engineering and public-health reasons, including less elevation change and the ability to avoid an additional booster station. He said the SEQRA process is intended to identify problems, study alternatives and refine a project before a final environmental impact statement is issued.

Board members were sharply critical of SCWA’s position.

Councilman Ken Rothwell said the move from Sound Avenue to Main Road makes the project substantially different and warrants new environmental review. He also questioned what benefit Riverhead residents would receive from a project that would disrupt Main Road businesses, residences and emergency routes while serving Southold.

Supervisor Jerry Halpin rejected any suggestion that Riverhead officials oppose clean water for Southold, saying the town’s objection is to the process and the burden placed on Riverhead. Halpin also said Riverhead sent officials to SCWA’s hearings, while SCWA sent binders to the town.

Councilman Bob Kern questioned whether SCWA had fully explored other alternatives, including using the railroad corridor, crossing Peconic Bay more directly or considering desalination. Kern also pressed Smith on whether the DEIS materials studied Main Road in enough detail.

Councilwoman Denise Merrifield focused on SCWA’s own Monroe process, saying the water authority board did not have a quorum present at the October hearings even though the full authority board later made the Monroe determination. Merrifield said that, in her view, the absence of the governing board at the hearings undermined the validity of SCWA’s determination.

Councilwoman Joann Waski raised concerns about traffic, local businesses and the effect of construction on residents living close to Main Road. Waski also questioned the impact of detouring traffic onto Peconic Bay Boulevard, which she said was not built to handle heavy commercial traffic.

Riverhead Water District Superintendent Frank Mancini told the board the Main Road route raises serious concerns for the town’s existing water infrastructure. Mancini said SCWA’s drawings appear to place the proposed 24-inch transmission main close to Riverhead’s existing water main and fire hydrants, creating potential conflicts and future repair problems. He said greater separation between the mains and some form of protection against future damage should be discussed, but said the town has not had meaningful communication with SCWA on those issues.

Former Riverhead Planning Board chairperson Stan Carey, a longtime public water professional who has worked for both the Riverhead Water District and SCWA, offered a more skeptical view of the town’s position. Carey said Riverhead has not historically subjected similar utility projects to this level of review and said water main work is routinely done across Long Island. He said the project would provide an important benefit to North Fork residents who need reliable public water, while acknowledging that SCWA could have done a better job communicating with the town.

Carey’s comments prompted pushback from town officials. Rothwell said other utility projects Carey cited had provided direct community benefits to Riverhead. Town attorney Erik Howard said utilities doing substantial road work in town are typically required to obtain permits and may be required to post bonds. Senior planner Matt Charters also noted that Suffolk County was previously required, after litigation, to submit to town site plan and special permit review for a county fueling facility.

Several residents also urged the board to hold firm against SCWA. Claudette Bianco of Baiting Hollow said SCWA’s Monroe process was flawed and criticized the lack of detail in the authority’s plans. John McAuliff of Roanoke Landing supported the town’s opposition and questioned whether expanding water supply would encourage additional development on the North Fork.

The board closed the hearing but left the written comment period open until Sept. 11. The SEQRA comment period on SCWA’s draft environmental impact statement remains open until Sept. 25.