In case you missed it, the Army Corps is headed back to Montauk in a big way. Work is to begin in late fall on an estimated 18-month project to replace the stone armor at Montauk Point, which the corps says could not withstand a major hurricane in the condition it is in now. Doubts, which have greeted Army Corps plans for a bigger seawall at the Point in the past, are beginning to re-emerge.

According to the Army Corps, without a major redo, the boulder revetment at the Point will be undermined and the bluff above it will erode, threatening the 222-year-old lighthouse. The corps estimates that the work would be completed by the summer of 2020 and cost $24 million.

The last time the lighthouse’s fate was discussed, estimates were that moving it away from the edge would cost $27 million. This is awfully close to the expected cost of the stone seawall, but don’t expect the Army Corps to go down that road. The corps does one thing where the coast is concerned: build things and leave. It is not in the habit of moving historic structures around. A big factor, too, is that the money for Montauk Point is to come from a congressional appropriation made in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy; painstakingly dragging the lighthouse hundreds of yards back from the brink might not be covered.

Officials from Albany to Montauk are in a bind. While the fiscally prudent thing to do would be to allow the lighthouse to meet the fate the people who commissioned it in 1795 expected, its status as a state symbol and icon would preclude that.  

For surfers and surfcasters who know and love the Point, the big worry would be unintended effects that could harm their pursuits. The Army Corps says that any impacts would be benign. But, given the corps’ handiwork on the downtown Montauk beach, the project requires nothing less than the most gimlet-eyed scrutiny.

A collective madness has gripped many in East Hampton over the proposed Deepwater Wind South Fork Wind Farm, and it has proved the near undoing of the town trustees. Things hit a low point during a May 17 hearing on the proposed landing site of an electric cable from the distant offshore turbines when an elected trustee tried to prevent someone with whom he disagreed from speaking. 

What is odd about the clamor that has mushroomed as the Deepwater company’s project has advanced is that the wind farm site itself is closer to Rhode Island than to Montauk Point. The cable landing site might be under a trustee beach, requiring an easement in the same way another utility might seek permission to run power lines along a private road. But it might not, running instead under state-owned parkland.

Opposition has predictably come from offshore commercial fishing interests, which oppose the industrialization of the seabed, apparently preferring to keep it for sometimes-damaging bottom trawls and indiscriminate long-line harvests. It is strange to hear some traditionally anti-science voices among the fishing fleet speak out for the environment, when the same voices have stridently opposed the creation of marine monuments or sanctuaries. And their claim of providing an important food source raises the question: For whom? At $18.95 a pound for flounder in the markets, for example, fish is more of a luxury than a staple for most Americans.

Pity the town trustees, whose meetings have become the de facto sounding board for many of those against the South Fork Wind Farm. Trustee Rick Drew has been the point person on all of this, reading heaps of documents, and as the chairman of the trustee harbors and docks subcommittee, perhaps getting too close to the trees to see the forest. 

A low point came during the May 17 hearing when Mr. Drew tried to stop Gordian Raacke, the director of Renewable Energy Long Island, an independent green-power group, from making a statement. Shouting into a microphone, Mr. Drew said he objected to Mr. Raacke’s statement, claiming he was paid by Deepwater, which he was not. It was a relief when Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc took charge, defending Mr. Raacke’s right to speak, and the fuming Mr. Drew quieted down. Mr. Raacke explained later that neither he nor Renewable Energy Long Island had received any money from or had any formal relationship with Deepwater Wind.

In an ideal world, commercial fishing and environmental protection would go hand in hand, and the Earth would not be rapidly warming because of human activity. However, and as we have said before, although every viable alternative electricity should be pursued, wind power now remains the best available source. 

Wind turbines are going to be a part of the United States’ near-term energy future. What cannot be overlooked is that climate change will damage the oceans far more than will scattered wind turbines. This is what Mr. Drew should have had in mind before he tried to stop a wind proponent from providing relevant details about the cost of the Deepwater project. 

The sooner the town trustees and fishing and environmental advocates begin talking to one another and realize that we are all in it together, the better. Mr. Van Scoyoc struck the right note when he said that while we might not agree, we must all listen to opposing views if we are to move forward, saving fish, fishermen, and the planet.

If there is a single measure of how insane the absence of meaningful gun regulation in this country has become, it can be found in certain schools that are equipping students with bulletproof shields to carry in their backpacks. A report in The New York Times this week said a Catholic school in Chad’s Ford, Pa., recently handed out the heavy, composite sheets, each a little bigger than a laptop computer, to its eighth-grade class. The shields can stop a handgun shot and deflect pellets from a shotgun blast, but are no match for a round from an AR-15 rifle, the preferred weapon of recent school shooters. And anyway, in the case of attack, which part of their bodies are the students supposed to protect with the shields, their torsos or their heads?

Perhaps the shields are really intended to provide a sense of security for those who carry them, children who might otherwise be too frightened now to go to school. Or they may be an attempt to assure parents that administrators are doing something to protect their kids. Unfortunately, in a country that has far more firearms than it has common sense, such measures are meaningless.

A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month suggested that the United States is virtually awash in ticks — and the illnesses they can spread. Here, they include Lyme disease, a debilitating condition marked by lethargy and aching joints, among other symptoms. Over all, the C.D.C. estimated, some 600,000 Americans were affected by tick-borne diseases from 2004 to 2016, at a rate about three times that of the 12-year period before 2004.

Consider that on the East End, as well as in several other places around the country, ticks, specifically those of the lone star variety, can cause a dangerous allergy to red meat and meat byproducts such as gelatin. This allergy can be easily identified by a blood test, but those affected can often make an armchair diagnosis by noticing the onset of hives, coughing, and itching about three to eight hours after consuming meat, which can sometimes be followed by severe anaphylaxis requiring hospitalization.

Physicians here are increasingly familiar with this allergy, known as alpha-gal, after the carbohydrate suspected of triggering the condition. It is important to note that not all meals with meat trigger symptoms. For some, a lean cut of beef may be okay, while a fattier hamburger may mean a potential late-night trip to the emergency room. In almost all examples, the delay between a meal and the reaction is the telltale; those who suspect they may have the allergy should visit a specialist for confirmation. Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control have not caught up with the spread of the alpha-gal allergy.

Money is an issue at the C.D.C., as far as tick-borne illnesses go. Just as its May report came out, Senator Charles E. Schumer called for millions in already-appropriated funding to be freed for research and prevention. According to Mr. Schumer, New York, and especially Long Island, have more tick-borne disease than anywhere else in the country.

East Hampton Town needs a summer plan. Relatively recently, officials presented a set of hamlet-specific vision documents intended to guide redevelopment and new projects in the commercial centers with an eye toward a mix of business and residential needs and an emphasis on affordable living for workers. These studies were quite nice and contained some exciting ideas. What the hamlet plan authors did not do was look at the reality of East Hampton’s resort, day-trip, and short-term rental economy in a coherent way. As good as the study was, without acknowledging the transformations the town has undergone and offering some direction for the future, the work was only half done. Time is of the essence.

The reality is that East Hampton has changed from a mostly quiet place with summer rentals into a destination complete with a handful of reality-TV shows and a multitude of boldface names. Shoppers pour in to browse the village’s Main Street boutiques, most run by out-of-town companies that give nothing back to the community. Montauk draws thousands on sunny weekends for the beaches, fishing, and nightlife. Airbnb and other unregulated rental services bring in hundreds, if not an even greater number of visitors. As a result, roads, essential services, public spaces, and the general quality of life are affected negatively. And almost all of this is based on long-ago zoning decisions while officials went far too easy on violations, calling them in the obfuscating parlance of officialdom, pre-existing, nonconforming uses.

Now, having been either unwilling or unable to stem the flood, town officials are seeking to accommodate it, planning a costly sewage system for parts of Montauk, for starters, which will help lock in permanently the mistakes now in place. The authors of the hamlet studies more or less averted their gazes, proposing traffic circles and portable houses to deal with the influx but never trying to identify and deal with the root causes. It was not their fault, though, as direction comes from the top, in this case the well-meaning, if shortsighted, town board that commissioned the analyses. Remember, this was for the most part the same group that greenlighted the sandbagging of the Montauk beach, breaking the law in the process.

The lack of a long-term plan to deal with the summer hordes also comes down to residents, who for the most part have not spoken out as a whole about the changes to East Hampton wrought by its international renown. Until enough taxpayers raise their voices to say they want their town back, nothing is going to change. In fact, given the corporate money now backing many commercial projects, things could get a whole lot worse.

For lack of a better word, East Hampton needs a tourism master plan, which should be produced in conjunction with the Villages of East Hampton and Sag Harbor. This would address current conditions, including the maximum number of seasonal visitors possible under present rules, as well as the number that actually would be ideal. Considering development of the commercial centers in the absence of an overarching vision is a guarantee of failure.

The Earth is getting warmer and fossil fuel-burning power plants have a lot to do with it. That is why those who study climate and government policies say alternative energy sources are essential in order to avoid massive upheavals. Given present technology, wind power, either from land-based or offshore windmills, is considered the best, fastest way to make a difference. 

Other nonpolluting options, such as nuclear and hydroelectric, are problematic. And in the Northeast, large-scale solar arrays are less commercially viable than elsewhere and have been met with bitter community backlash where proposed. There is no easy answer, but steps must be taken to slow the rapid rise of global temperature. This is why towns, such as East Hampton, and states, such as New York, have made commitments to renewable sources.

East Hampton Town officials, however, and in particular the town trustees, seem cowed by a small, but outspoken, number of residents who oppose Deepwater Wind’s proposed South Fork Wind Farm. The project calls for 15 generating turbines about 25 miles south of Point Judith, R.I., and 35 miles east of Montauk. A cable connecting the wind farm to the Long Island power grid is supposed to come ashore somewhere in East Hampton Town, passing either under the trustee beach at Wainscott or at one of two state-owned locations on Napeague. It would produce about 90 megawatts, said to be enough to supply electricity to about 50,000 houses, which is more than twice the total number of residential properties in the entire town.

In exchange for town easements, if the cable comes ashore in Wainscott, Deepwater Wind has promised deal-sweeteners, including paying to bury overhead utility lines on Beach Lane and Wainscott’s Main Street, $1.5 million for water-quality projects, and other substantial perks. Should the town continue to stonewall Deepwater, it could easily withdraw its offers and instead bring the cable across dry land in Napeague State Park or Promised Land, where no town permits are required. As a Deepwater report earlier this year said: Most local zoning laws are superseded by state utility regulations.

Regardless of whether the commercial fishing industry has misgivings about it, wind power appears here to stay. Turbines capable of generating 190 megawatts for Connecticut customers are in the planning stages for a site south of Martha’s Vineyard. Other states in the region are soliciting proposals for far larger projects, one for up to 1,100 megawatts. (The Millstone Nuclear Power Station, by comparison, produces about 2,000 megawatts, which powers about two million houses.)

It is difficult to support the position that wind power is not a necessary component of a cleaner-energy future. Officials, and in particular the town trustees, must recognize their limited say, and work with Deepwater Wind rather than against it.

A proposal to pave the eastern parking area at Ditch Plain in Montauk brought an outpouring of emotion to East Hampton’s Town Hall on Tuesday. Surfers and others who enjoy the ambience of the rutted, gravel-and-sand patch known as Dirt Lot were vigorous in opposition. But officials are in a bind: Conditions there at peak times are unacceptable. 

When the surf is good, notably during hurricane season, Dirt Lot and its entry road are lined with vehicles parked every which way because there are no markings or directional signs. Late arrivals queue up all the way to DeForest Road, making quick access for police or emergency medical personnel almost impossible. If this section of beach is to remain open to the public, this cannot be allowed to continue. Public safety must be the town’s top priority, followed by environmental considerations.

Many residents and nonresident parking permit holders would like to see Dirt Lot remain as it is, but that is just not possible given its heavy use in season. Closing it off to vehicles and allowing the site to revert to nature would not be an alternative because that would put too much pressure on the remaining Ditch parking lots. One approach would be for the town to widen the Dirt Lot entry and designate an emergency lane with semipermanent flexible bollards. 

But the big question is whether all three parking lots at Ditch should be limited to resident permit holders on summer weekends, as has been done elsewhere. No data collection, to our knowledge, has been made to support this one way or the other, but anecdotally, the impact of residents-only parking at Indian Wells in Amagansett has been positive. At Ditch, this is an idea whose time may have come.

Among other steps the town should take to bring order to the Ditch madness is banning group surfing lessons and parking of associated surf camp support vehicles. These entities have improperly used resident parking permits to run for-profit enterprises on public property. Limiting lessons to perhaps two students at a time would also help reduce the chance of injury in the water.

In looking at all three Ditch Plain lots as a whole, the town is beginning necessary work toward a safe and better-functioning arrangement. Changes must be made, but deciding on a high-season problem during the month of March is unlikely to produce satisfactory results. Our advice is for the town to test a solution without paving Dirt Lot now and carefully monitor conditions this summer to develop a long-lasting solution.

Remember those giant “Welcome to New York” signs that appeared in Montauk two summers ago — only to be taken down after the public pointed out that they were not just ugly but totally pointless? They were part of a campaign funded by the state that was supposed to boost tourism by informing tourists who’d already arrived that, yes, you could eat and drink in New York, and visit unspecified “attractions,” and fill your days with delight by accessing an I ♥ NY app.

We didn’t know whether to laugh or kick something last month when we read in The New York Times that the remaining billboards from this boneheaded campaign — more than 500 of them still flank state highways — had cost taxpayers about $15,000 apiece . . . and the Federal Highway Administration was insisting they were illegal and had to go: “The hundreds of big blue ‘I ♥ NY’ signs that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo had installed beside the state’s highways have cost more than $8 million,” The Times reported. “New York was given until Sept. 30 to bring the signage into compliance, or face a $14 million cut in federal funding for its roads and highways.”

The governor, who was quoted elsewhere as calling his pet-project signs “a tremendous success,” continued for a few weeks to insist they were fantastic before crying uncle. The New York State Department of Transportation announced that all the signs would either be reworked or taken down, their materials repurposed to reduce the material waste of this already wildly wasteful interlude.

Our thoughts now turn to the county and state-sponsored signage on our roadsides here in East Hampton. It has, we think, gotten out of hand. (How many times does a driver need to be alerted to the location of Cedar Point Park?) The “Litter Removal Next 1 Mile” signs alongside Montauk Highway are the worst. For starters, they’re not fooling anyone: Volunteer anti-trash activists pick up more garbage than the government crews funded by corporate sponsorship. These litter-removal signs are terrific advertising for the sponsors — making it look like Town Pond is the domain of Morgan Stanley and Woods Lane is affiliated with an “accounting and success consultancy” firm from Oyster Bay — but they’re not doing much for the rest of us. Who do we have to complain to to get them gone?

At a time when young people have taken leadership roles in the fight for sensible gun control, led the Black Lives Matter movement, and generally found new political activism, allowing them to have a voice at the local level is a logical next step. Guild Hall, for example, recently created a teen council, in which high school students receive a stipend for attending meetings to help shape cultural programs and build audiences of the future. That would be most obviously valuable in some form on school boards and perhaps in Town Hall.

There is a state precedent, of sorts. Students on the State University of New York’s 64 campuses vote each year for an executive board and student assembly president. The president automatically becomes a voting member of the SUNY board of trustees. This provides a conduit for undergraduate and graduate student opinion and ideas to reach the highest level of the state educational system.

Under state law, one must be 18 to run for school board, which would preclude most students from mounting a campaign. However, a student-elected representative could join in an advisory role. In most districts here, unelected superintendents sit with board members at meetings, often at the head of the table. Why not seat a young person whose peers believe he or she could represent them ably? Youth representatives could add a valuable perspective and enliven board discussions. 

Another important point about students’ involvement at school board meetings is representation, not just of the views of young people, but those of an expanding, new-resident demographic as well. 

In most districts, Latino participation in top-level policy discussions has been absent. If a student board participant from a largely Spanish-speaking household were selected, he or she could help bridge that gap. Moreover, the message to the immigrant communities that now make up a significant percentage of the school and towns’ populations would be one of welcome. Greater involvement could also lead to other forms of local government participation over time. For example, Latinos have been barely a presence in any of the East End towns’ leadership groups despite being an important presence in the region for more than two decades.

The Parkland student activists already have proven that youth can shift public policy. Giving our local kids a chance to make their influence felt is something worth working for.

Every April since 1970, many Americans have celebrated Earth Day. While the holiday does not have the buildup of Christmas or the whoop-de-doo of the Fourth of July, it has become tradition in many places to take a hike, clean up roadsides and wrack lines, or take part in other outdoor activities. Numerous local organizations have laid on events this year, among them the South Fork Natural History Museum in Bridgehampton and the Nature Conservancy’s Mashomack Preserve on Shelter Island.

No mention of nature on the eve of Earth Day would be complete without noting the hard work by members of the Southampton and East Hampton Trails Preservation Societies, as well as state, county, and town workers, who keep the trails mapped and accessible, assuring access to beaches and waterways, sometimes in the face of strong opposition from waterfront property owners. Important, too, are all the voters, who have consistently supported open space preservation for decades.

The East End is an outdoors lover’s paradise. This Earth Day, let’s all make a pledge to get out there and enjoy it — and to pick up a few pieces of litter as we do.