Southampton Can Have Clean Water Without Sacrificing Its Park

Save Lola Prentice Park: Southampton's Sewer Plan Needs a Reality Check

Lola Prentice Memorial Park should not become the price Southampton residents must pay for improved wastewater management. The Village Board owes the community a convincing demonstration that sacrificing this public space is necessary. The records assembled in our environmental dossier and accompanying Evidence Matrix and FOIL Source Report do not supply that demonstration.

Subscribe

We oppose the park's alienation and conversion to wastewater infrastructure. Crucially, the Board's current push runs directly counter to existing legal constraints: the Southampton Village Board is subject to a 2019 injunction prohibiting the use of Lola Prentice Memorial Park for anything other than a park, and it is currently being sued for attempting to evade that injunction through parkland alienation. Our objection rests firmly on the law, the Village's planning record, engineering documents, correspondence, and Board of Trustees minutes.

The proposal described in the reviewed records places treatment at 151 Windmill Lane, effluent recharge at 185 Windmill Lane, replacement parkland at 135 Windmill Lane, and pumping at 88 Jobs Lane. Moving the treatment building outside the park does not preserve the park when the park itself becomes the sewage-effluent disposal location.

Replacement acreage is not an answer to every loss. Residents deserve a comparison of recreation, accessibility, landscape character, and environmental functions. A different parcel cannot simply be declared an equivalent public benefit.

What the records reveal

Our two reports connect 54 issues to identified sources. The companion report reproduces 41 associated record files, totaling 412 source pages, so readers can examine the underlying evidence.

That evidence raises serious questions about the Board's oversight and the planning process conducted by its committees and consultants.

Both 2021 requests for engineering proposals anticipated preparation of a Negative Declaration, while also providing for a later environmental-significance decision. March 24, 2021 committee notes record a decision against seeking public input during proposal vetting because it would complicate and prolong that process.

Residents have reason to question a process that began with those assumptions and participation choices. Public involvement should help determine the direction of a project involving public land.

The April 2026 draft alternatives comparison raises another concern: park or green-space restrictions count against several candidates, while a proposal requiring parkland alienation remains in consideration. The Board should publish consistent criteria and explain that difference. Public land deserves the same scrutiny wherever it appears on the map.

The technical warning cannot be dismissed

The Windmill Lane versus David Whites Lane comparison identifies high groundwater, reduced discharge capacity, and the need for a groundwater-mounding study. The draft scope also calls for mounding analysis at 185 Windmill Lane.

Those concerns come from the project record. A promise to investigate them is not a finding that the location is safe.

Concentrated recharge can raise groundwater levels. Depending on local soils, groundwater conditions, and loading, that response could affect neighboring properties and the historic North End Burying Ground, whose oldest recorded burial dates to 1721. Grave soils and monument foundations deserve explicit attention.

The reports identify mechanisms and unresolved risks; they do not present a completed model proving cemetery damage. That distinction strengthens our demand: obtain seasonal groundwater measurements, soil testing, and independently reviewed modeling before committing the park.

Alternatives deserve a fair examination

The dossier prioritizes three locations for engineering tests:

• 100-104 Willow Street municipal works campus: examine usable space while protecting essential operations. This is distinct from the previously discussed 105 Willow Street property.

• 27 West Main Street municipal parking: evaluate compact treatment with a credible parking-replacement plan.

• Powell Avenue / Railroad Plaza station parking: investigate a potential arrangement with the rail owner, subject to commuter and operational requirements.

The broader screening also considers 76 Main Street, 20 Walnut Street, 135 Windmill Lane, and the hospital campus at 240 Meeting House Lane. Each has significant availability, size, or land-use constraints. Jobs Lane parking overlaps the Agawam Park parcel and should not become another park sacrifice. The small Hampton Road parking parcel near Main Street is screened out for a full plant or disposal field.

These are candidates and screening results, not nine proven replacement sites. The Board must investigate ownership, usable area, groundwater, displacement, and complete costs under common assumptions.

Treatment and recharge also need not occupy one parcel. July 25, 2024, correspondence expressly discusses treatment at one location and disposal elsewhere. That documented configuration deserves current engineering and cost comparison focused on preserving existing parkland.

Show residents the whole bill

The $20.92 million Phase I application concerns collection and conveyance. It is not the cost of the complete wastewater system.

The 2023 engineering report also projects approximately 25.5 percent more future design flow than existing design flow, based on building-use changes. It states that no zoning modifications were made to accommodate those estimates. The public nevertheless deserves the current development assumptions and their infrastructure consequences.

The Board should disclose one complete budget covering treatment, recharge, land, hookups, displacement, mitigation, monitoring, and lifetime operation.

Preservation must guide the decision

We ask the Board to retain Lola Prentice Memorial Park, commission independent technical review, fairly compare developed-land and separate-recharge alternatives, and answer the evidence in writing.

The two reports accompany this Viewpoint for examination. Our position is straightforward: the Village has not demonstrated that protecting water quality requires converting this park. Attempting an end-run around a 2019 court injunction via parkland alienation—triggering further litigation, only underscores the flaw in this approach. Until it answers the documented technical concerns, honors judicial mandates, and fairly evaluates park-preserving options, the Board has no persuasive basis for asking residents to surrender Lola Prentice Park.

Environmental Dossier:

environmental dossier

Evidence Matrix and FOIL Source Report:

Evidence Matrix and FOIL Source Report

You can also email me if you would like me to send the direct Report links.

Blaise F. Labriola

Southampton Village

blaise2475@gmail.com