One line from a recent story about a new restaurant being proposed at a Montauk hotel really jumped out at us. Speaking at an East Hampton Town Planning Board meeting on Dec. 13, Kathleen Cunningham observed that a 16-seat restaurant at the Hero Beach Club should not even have received any consideration until there was a better way to deal with the extra wastewater it would produce. Related, though not directly, is a town board proposal for a nearly $33 million Montauk sewage treatment system, into which the Hero Beach Club, among many other enterprises, could be tied.

And there you have it. Even though downtown Montauk is an overbuilt, unmitigated summertime disaster from a planning perspective, the town board has been willing to look favorably at year’s end at a sewage proposal that would remove a major stumbling block for developers who in their own self-interest would make things far worse. At the same time that town officials are trying to figure out how to tamp down the high-season party in Montauk, this proposal is precisely what some observers have feared as ideas for new wastewater infrastructure are put forth.

Assurances to the contrary, a septic waste plan prepared for the town states that new restrictions would have to be written into the code in order to avoid increases in build-out density. Boards, such as those that review planning and zoning projects like the Hero Beach Club’s, are hampered by precedent and limited in the ways in which they can guide growth. Variances are sought, and granted, even though the cumulative effect of many small changes can be detrimental to the community’s overall interest.

In a prior editorial, we addressed our belief that the Montauk sewage treatment plan was an example of misplaced priorities — and that its funding was foolishly tied to the continued existence of erosion-threatened properties. Now, in pointing out how it could immediately lead to additional commercial growth where none is warranted, we hope the incoming town board sees it as yet another reason to slow the process.

Two big — and very different — fund-raising efforts reach important junctures this month. In Sag Harbor, an $8 million goal that would enable a partnership to rebuild the burned movie house and turn it into a genuine arts hub is within reach. In Montauk, the Playhouse Foundation is within striking distance of its target, also $8 million, to add two indoor swimming pools, meeting rooms, and a theater — all very much needed in a hamlet where off-season diversions are limited.

The plan for rebuilding the Sag Harbor Cinema includes a main theater evoking the one badly damaged in a fire almost exactly a year ago. It also calls for a smaller screening room, suitable for classes. It is just as important that it would retain an iconic cultural fixture in a rapidly changing village and stave off the kind of commercial development that might be of little or no interest to residents.

Each is a worthwhile community undertaking that deserves consideration for year-end giving.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo chose to make a new, tough proposal on domestic violence and guns the very first initiative in his 2018 State of the State Message this year. Under current law, judges issue orders of protection for alleged victims to protect them from harm after an arrest but before the case goes to court. Once an order is issued, defendants must turn in any licensed guns, that is, handguns, but they can continue to possess rifles and shotguns. Therefore, under the law, domestic abusers might not be able to shoot spouses at short range but could pick them off from a distance. That discrepancy makes no sense. 

The governor’s plan would change that. The proposal also adds certain misdemeanor offenses to the list of crimes for which all guns must be given to authorities. Weapons would be returned to their owners if a case were resolved in their favor. As the law stands now, certain assault and battery crimes and strangulation do not automatically result in the removal of weapons. If Mr. Cuomo’s idea becomes law, all domestic violence convictions would result in the loss of firearms. 

Statistics from domestic violence studies show that attacks are far more likely to be deadly when there is access by the abuser to firearms. There have also been many links between violent domestic attacks and other crimes, including mass shootings. The man who killed 26 people at a church in Sutherland, Tex., in November had beaten his wife and her child. The man who shot up a congressional baseball practice in June had a domestic violence record. In fact, more than half the perpetrators of mass shootings had shot a wife or girlfriend, according to gun-policy experts. Studies also show that the rate of homicides declines in cities and states that adopt strict gun laws.

Taking the guns away from those statistically most likely to use them to commit a violent crime will make everyone safer. It’s the obvious thing to do.

Along the East Coast, we thought we already had this fight settled. Now, after the Trump administration opened almost all United States federal waters to oil exploration and drilling, the battle to protect the oceans, as well as to slow global warming, must be taken to another level. 

Last week, the Trump administration announced that oil and gas companies could again begin work on more than a billion acres of ocean in the Arctic and off the Eastern Seaboard, reversing President Obama’s ban. The move was widely anticipated, at least since Ryan Zinke, a Montana congressman, climate change skeptic, and oil pipeline company board member, was appointed secretary of the interior last year. It also comes shortly after the Trump White House relaxed safety rules put in place after the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil platform disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, from which the region is still recovering at a cost of billions.

Fearing for his own political future in a divided congressional district, Representative Lee Zeldin, an early Trump supporter, quickly distanced himself from the offshore oil decision after it was announced. However, for Mr. Zeldin’s opposition to have any real effect, he should be willing to stand up to the White House on other priorities until meaningful protections for the nation’s coastlines are assured.

The direct costs of offshore oil are potentially massive. In 2010, the Deepwater blowout fouled more than 1,000 miles of coast in one of the worst environmental catastrophes in history. Losses in the gulf commercial and recreational fishing industries ran more than an estimated $1.5 billion for the first eight months alone after the spill began. The environmental effects were immediate and have continued to the present day, including the devastation of protective mangroves and breeding areas. Sea life remains challenged, with ongoing marine mammal deaths, though the long-term effects are only now beginning to be understood.

Along the East Coast, one of the areas long sought by oil and gas companies is Georges Banks, one of the most productive fishing areas in the region. Fossil fuel extraction there would come at great risk, from both sonic exploration and spills. Returning to oil as a national priority would also be a step in the wrong direction. 

Already, safer, less-polluting natural gas and land-based production have increased massively, calling into question the urgency of offshore development anyway. For eastern Long Island, the economy largely depends on its beaches — and commercial fishing stands alone as the only major industry not directly linked to resort and second-home business activities. A major spill here would crush both.

Then there is the overarching effect on the planet itself. Oil, like its cousin coal, is one of the key sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which cause global warming. The shift away from fossil fuels toward renewables, including offshore wind turbines, as well as demand reduction, is the only responsible course for the seas and the Earth. It is unfortunate that the Trump administration has listened only to industry in opening the nation’s coasts to oil instead of taking the long view and doing what is right for all of us.

A week or so after the second act of the women’s marches in cities and communities large and small across the country, questions remain: Do they matter, and where does the moment go from here?

The total number of participants in the rallies held on Jan. 20 from Maine to Alaska is guesswork, but two academic researchers estimated that, at minimum, 1.6 million or up to 2.5 million people took part. This is about half the estimated turnout for the inaugural marches in 2017, but still. On the South Fork, a march held in Sag Harbor on Jan. 20 drew a crowd in excess of 500, so large that many of those at the edges of the assembly near the foot of Long Wharf could scarcely make out what Suffolk Legislator Bridget Fleming and other speakers were saying.

Such widespread demonstrations of support for a political cause, albeit one that it is hard to define, deserved more attention than it got in many national media outlets. Amid the Russia election investigation and President Trump’s sedate trip to the Davos billionaire’s conference in Switzerland, the press noted the number of marches and quickly moved on. Such is the nature of the warp-speed news cycles these days. But, thinking all the way back a week and a half, as well as recalling the many protests large and small against the Trump administration’s policies and the president’s unfortunate Twitter habit, it seems a sustained movement is underway.

That so many have waved signs and taken public action for more than a year is noteworthy. Their enthusiasm seems to have taken hold and helped galvanize Democrats. This is likely to be the marches’ most important effect.

Representative Lee Zeldin of New York’s First Congressional District is not alone in coming under near-constant needling, online and at public appearances and his Long Island office. His seat will be contested in the November election, and while there appears to be little interest among Republicans in forcing a primary, there already are six declared candidates for the Democratic nomination.

Often in American elections, the outcome is decided not by how people vote but by how many bother to take time from their day to go to the polls or fill out absentee ballots — by who is motivated enough to put down the remote and get up off the sofa, so to speak. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the motivation meter is tilting toward the Democratic Party, which is, to a large degree, because people have taken to the streets and are likely to stay there.

Tuesday’s State of the Union speech probably did little to change the political map for 2018. The old fear-mongering about immigrants was there, if tempered from last year’s “American carnage.” Mr. Trump was notably silent on the #MeToo movement — and sexual harassment in general. This is hardly surprising, considering that he is said to have carried on an extramarital affair while his current wife was pregnant with their child, and it was his own recorded “grab ’em by the pussy” remark that led to the now-iconic hats of the same name and arguably to a force that could change the course of history. 

November is really only a few short months away. There is no reason to doubt Americans will stay engaged until Election Day and beyond.

The most important work in the recent push to improve water quality on the South Fork has been done not by local government, but by a private organization, Concerned Citizens of Montauk, which has taken a science-first approach for more than four years. This is in sharp contrast to the elected officials in East Hampton and Southampton Towns, who have required expensive nitrogen-reducing septic systems for new houses without knowing for sure if they will result in measurable improvement for the environment.

One part of gauging success is knowing what the conditions are at the start. So far, none of our local government boards has embarked on meaningful data collection in the marine environment. Consider that. So far, the empirical information, which comes from a state program, actually shows nitrogen levels well below that considered harmful by the Peconic Estuary Program. Pio Lombardo, a consultant who is the architect of East Hampton Town’s water strategy, dismisses the state results, saying the handful of saltwater test sites were in the wrong locations. He might be right, but he might be wrong. The fact is, no one knows. Yet.

C.C.O.M. stands alone, having been committed to testing many South Fork waters for fecal bacteria for years in partnership with the Surfrider Foundation’s Blue Water Task Force. Several of the sample sites have consistently shown elevated bacteria levels, some in the dangerous range for human contact. Embarrassed officials have pretended that the C.C.O.M. program did not matter and have done nothing in response.

Now, C.C.O.M., working with the United States Geological Survey, has convinced East Hampton Town to come on board in baseline testing of pollutants in Lake Montauk. The data will help define water quality problems and put a system in place to monitor potential improvement. This approach must be expanded, ideally to the entire Peconic Estuary.

It is still a good time to get your flu shot. Speaking in Montauk on Monday at a business conference at Gurney’s Resort, Dr. Thomas McGinn, who oversees physician operations for the giant hospital network Northwell Health, said that influenza cases on Long Island were spiking and that the vaccine offers a needed degree of protection. Although it has been reported that this year’s flu shot is only partially effective, Dr. McGinn said some defense is better than none.

Anecdotally, we have heard that local ambulance crews are seeing an increase in patients with flu symptoms, especially among vulnerable older residents. Practitioners say this year’s strain is especially virulent, knocking down those who are affected for a long and debilitating period. Nationwide, the number of people seeing a health-care provider with flu-like symptoms this year has been the highest since 2003-4. As of last week, the rate of infection was considered widespread in 32 states, including New York, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In addition to getting a last-minute flu shot, medical professionals recommend a number of steps to decrease the chances of exposure. They are frequent hand washing with warm water and soap and not sharing food, drink, or eating utensils with others. But, get that flu shot if you have not done so already.

The Trump administration’s announcement this week of high trade tariffs on imported solar panels and components continues his war on sensible energy policy and threatens a United States industry that employs as many as 260,000 Americans. The move was anticipated and is consistent with the Interior Department’s recent decision to open many of the country’s coastal waters to oil exploitation.

On Monday, the Trump administration said it would impose a 30-percent tax on solar panels from China in response to what it said was the dumping of below-market-value solar equipment. The White House move also helps prop up the faltering coal industry, which has had a difficult time competing with cheaper fuels, like natural gas, wind, and, yes, solar.

In the long term, domestic panel manufacturers could see gains, but a solar industry group said that 23,000 U.S. jobs would be lost this year alone. The huge growth in the residential use of solar energy has been attributed to the falling cost of imported panels. Take that away, and consumer demand falls, too.

For solar installers, including several on the East End, the tariffs will force prices up. This is likely to depress demand, especially since the generous utility rebates that drove consumer enthusiasm a few years ago have expired and generally have not been renewed. 

Large scale wind-power generation, like the project planned for a site east of Montauk, is near the top of the U.S.’s renewable energy portfolio over all. However, solar home systems remain an important potential source of electricity on the South Fork, especially in summer, when demand skyrockets. Putting unnecessary impediments in the path of those who would like to move away from fossil fuels is a grave mistake.

With the looming threat of climate change — observed here on the East End in the accelerating rate of coastal erosion due to sea level rise — every possible step toward an energy future that is more dependent on renewables is a step that is needed. 

There is a numbing ubiquity to plastic water bottles, despite their general pointlessness and woeful environmental impact. We were reminded of this by a photograph taken at a recent Springs School Board meeting, which showed one Nestlé Pure Life 16.9-ounce water bottle placed in front of each member’s seat. The Springs School Board is hardly the only group at which water in plastic is seen; plastic bottles were deployed at a League of Women Voters candidates’ debate, as they are at many public and private events.

Recycling plastics is known to be worthwhile, but the statistics are not encouraging. According to an academic study last year, nearly 80 percent of the plastics manufactured ends up in landfills or in the environment at large. Health studies have suggested that certain plastics can mimic estrogen as they degrade. Some leach compounds that have been linked to asthma, heart problems, diabetes, and certain forms of cancer. Environmentalists also recommend the use of certified water filters to reduce the chance of exposure to water from the tap.

The Springs School, as with the League of Women Voters and other public and private entities, could help by setting an example of refusing to supply bottled water at their events. Another school, Montauk, has been a leader in this, with a successful fourth-grade effort to get businesses to give up serving drinks with plastic straws. East Hampton Town and Village have banned single-use plastic bags, and a new Suffolk law encourages grocery customers to supply their own bags or pay a 5-cent fee. 

The Springs School’s dozen or so water bottles might not seem worth worrying about, but they are part of what advocates say is a growing crisis. Already, a million plastic bottles change hands each minute around the world, and the shocking number is growing. According to The Guardian newspaper, enough plastic bottles are now sold in a year to reach halfway to the sun if stacked end to end. Some of the world’s discarded plastic ends up in the food chain. 

Schools, above all, should seek to set examples of good stewardship of the planet. Ending the practice of supplying wasteful plastic bottles at meetings is one way to help spread the message that even the smallest steps can make a difference.

The East Hampton Town Board’s 3-to-1 vote last week to appoint David Lys to fill the slot vacated when Peter Van Scoyoc moved on to supervisor gets our qualified support. Mr. Lys, a Springs resident who is 41, will serve as a town councilman until the end of the year; beyond that it will be up to him and East Hampton voters if he chooses to run in the November election for the final year of the term.

What we know about Mr. Lys so far is not all that much, although it is positive. He is committed to public service, having been on the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals since 2013 and taken a leadership role in Citizens for Access Rights, which advocates four-wheel drive vehicle use of public beaches. He also has been a leader in the restoration of the Amagansett Life-Saving and Coast Guard Station. Where he stands on key issues facing East Hampton is less clear.

Councilman Jeff Bragman, the newest member of the board, voted against Mr. Lys’s appointment, hinting at differences over the airport, immigration, and the zoning code. These may turn out to be major concerns, but on a five-person board the effect might be minimal. Given that the public knows little about Mr. Lys’s overall views, however, it is good that, should he wish to stay on beyond December, he will have to campaign and ask the electorate for its blessing. He will have a year’s record to stand, or fall, on.

But in putting Mr. Lys forward, the Democratic town board members other than Mr. Bragman made a curious decision in another way: They had a chance to name a first-ever female majority but failed to seize it. At a time when gender equality and sexual harassment is at the top of the news, not selecting a woman for the post — among whom there were a number of qualified options — seems tone-deaf, especially when a Republican man who had never run for elected office was their ultimate choice.