President Trump again made it plain this week, in moving to drastically cut the size of two protected areas of public land in the West, that he favors exploitation over historical and environmental protection, and over the survival of Native American cultural sites and artifacts. In Utah, he announced Monday that the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments would be reduced to a fraction of their former selves. This is a sad day for those who care about open spaces and America’s wild lands.

Court battles are sure to follow the White House’s decision to reduce the monuments by a total of about two million acres — the greatest such diminution in United States history. One of the opponents’ arguments will be that only Congress has the legal right to shrink national monuments.

Mr. Trump framed the move as a return of authority to local elected officials and away from Washington. But it really is further pandering to anti-government zealots while handing a victory to Republican lawmakers, oil and coal companies, and others.

If Mr. Trump thinks about it at all, his is decidedly an anti-human health and anti-environment administration. Just this week 15 state attorneys general sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency for its failure to meet clean air law requirements on smog. The suit was in response to the E.P.A.’s refusal to follow through on state-by-state plans to reduce air pollution. 

Under Scott Pruitt, the Trump E.P.A. has made a mockery of its name. Mr. Pruitt has spent much of his early tenure gutting regulations, ignoring science, cutting staff, and naming industry insiders to key positions, while, according to news reports, spending his days meeting privately with corporate executives seeking to relax environmental rules.

And who could forget the administration’s abandoning the Paris climate agreement, which now leaves the United States and Syria the only nonsigners?

As 2018 approaches, activists are gearing up to take on Mr. Trump and the Republican Congress at the ballot box. Concern about how we treat the planet and respect its natural resources should be at the top of the issues of interest to voters. 

Although voters approved a referendum last year that allowed up to 20 percent of the East Hampton Town Community Preservation Fund’s annual income to be used for water quality projects, there have been few indications of how that might work in real life. Now, as the managers of the Whalebone Village affordable housing development in East Hampton have asked the town for up to $376,000 to upgrade its septic system, the lack of guidelines is apparent.

East Hampton Town already is set to begin using preservation fund money as rebates for property owners who upgrade their private septic systems; the application process has begun. Grants of up to $16,000 per property, or 100 percent of the cost of replacement, are available, depending on how close an inadequate system is to one of the bays or harbors.

Specifics about how preservation fund money could be used were vague when voters approved diverting some of it to water quality. The risk was that officials might spend it unwisely, hampering the fund’s original purpose, which was to preserve open land and historical places. 

The East Hampton Town Board should proceed very carefully. As was pointed out by Paul Giardina in his unsuccessful councilman run, other sources of funding for such undertakings may be available, if they are untested here. Moreover, very little scientific information has been presented to prove that the project proposed for Whalebone Village is actually worthwhile. Whalebone was built not all that long ago and met the environmental standards of the time. Now, its managers are telling the town that the waste systems installed to meet those standards are inadequate. Were the standards wrong or is something else at play? Either way, it needs to be cleared up. It also is important to remember that lack of guidance about how preservation funds could be used led to the biggest financial scandal in Town Hall history and the resignation of Supervisor Bill McGintee in 2009.

Whalebone Village must do more than show up at Town Hall with its hands out. At a minimum, the board needs to require impartial environmental and financial analyses before considering whether to direct so much public money its way. 

By now, we have all had our flu shots, right? Well, not exactly. According to federal government statistics, less than half the adults who should get the influenza vaccine each year actually do so. For children, the rate is better, but far from ideal.

Flu shots help protect us from the highly contagious, debilitating illness that can have severe complications in some portions of the population. Children, pregnant women, and those 65 and older are at particular risk, as are those with chronic lung conditions. At best, flu can knock you down for a couple of days, at worst, it can kill.

The shots are inexpensive and available widely, including at large pharmacies, walk-in clinics, and doctors’ offices. If you haven’t yet — and especially if you are in one of the at-risk groups — please consider getting a shot right away. Remember: The flu is contagious so you will be helping others as well as yourself.

We hope that the several people who spoke in opposition to a proposed affordable apartment complex in Amagansett were outliers rather than representative of a majority of hamlet residents. If they were an indication of wide sentiment, this town is in more trouble than we had supposed.

At an East Hampton Town Planning Board meeting earlier this month, preliminary plans for a 38-unit development were presented by the East Hampton Housing Authority. The apartments would be arrayed among 10 low buildings. Rents would be low, starting at $1,425 for a one-bedroom and topping out at $2,400 for a three-bedroom unit, the latter about $1,000 less than a rock-bottom year-round rental of a house in East Hampton Town.

The need is indisputable. Cost of living is among the most common complaints in East Hampton. This makes life especially hard for people at the low end of the wage scale, as well as some retirees. The scarcity of worker housing is a huge issue and it has helped create a year-round hiring nightmare for many businesses. So, too, has the high cost of living been tied to the hollowing out of necessary volunteer services, with fewer young men and women coming through the ranks of our social institutions and available to become firefighters or ambulance personnel.

Concerns were raised by members of the planning board and people in attendance at the Nov. 15 meeting about four commercial spaces in the proposed apartment complex. These objections may be warranted and should be considered carefully. However, the alarms focused on the project’s effect on the Amagansett School should be understood for what they are: overblown and exclusionary if not immoral.

If anything, the Amagansett School would benefit from a few more students. In recent years, its enrollment has been minuscule, with fewer than 10 children in some of grades, while neighboring Springs School classrooms are filled to capacity. For example, enrollment in the Amagansett first grade was 6 students last year; in Springs it was 77. It also needs to be said that the Springs student population was 56 percent Latino in 2016, while in Amagansett it was only 13 percent. 

It is understandable that a few parents might want to preserve the private-school feeling provided at the Amagansett School. One-on-one personal attention is great for kids as they progress. However, it is an affront to the community as a whole for some residents to suggest that new affordable housing is fine as long as it is built elsewhere.

The 38 apartments, should they be built, would be of clear benefit. School taxes might rise a bit, but the money could be found to accommodate a modest boost in enrollment. It also should be noted that despite the school’s size it has three administrators.

Yes, the project, especially its impact on traffic and whether the commercial spaces are really necessary, should get close scrutiny. But, in our opinion, its effect on the Amagansett School would be beneficial.

Giving Tuesday came and went here this week with myriad pitches floating in electronically and a few coming to the old-fashioned mailbox. Guild Hall went a step further, trying a live event streamed on Facebook from noon to midnight. During the day, Guild Hall staff went before the camera to talk about what they do. East Hampton Village Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. stopped by. Music and readings came later on. With the help of a video feed made possible by the LTV technical staff, viewers were able to join in on and off during the day, and a dozen or two were hovering when we watched.

Guild Hall’s was the most technically sophisticated fund-raising approach of the season; a final accounting of how the live stream did financially will take some time and be instructive. However, taking a look behind the scenes and getting a feel for the people who make it all happen was productive.

The sheer number of local organizations to which year-end donations could be made is staggering. They range from the very small, like Elsa’s Ark, which primarily aids stray and feral cats, to the very large, like Stony Brook Southampton Hospital and the big arts institutions, like Guild Hall, the Parrish Art Museum, and the LongHouse Reserve. In between are many worthy institutions, such as the Montauk Playhouse, the public libraries, Meals on Wheels, East End Hospice, and the several historical societies.

Guild Hall shined a light on its own role in the community by taking its message online for half a day and half a night. It also helped remind viewers of the many choices they have when the charitable urge strikes.

East Hampton Town’s decision to remove a horse barn on land it bought in Amagansett in 2014 has raised a bit of skepticism. Though some might consider tearing down a barn wasteful, it is the right decision.

The parcel, 19 acres on the north side of Montauk Highway bordered by the Long Island Rail Road tracks, is just east of the hamlet’s downtown. Until its purchase with money from the community preservation fund, the property was under review for a 79-unit luxury development. After the town took title, various ideas were floated for its use, but none could be settled upon, with the poor quality of its soil a deterrent for farming. As time went on, the barn, not all that well constructed to begin with, began to decay.

When voters authorized the community preservation fund in 1998, the understanding was that the money, from real estate transfers, was to be used for open space acquisition for environmental, agricultural, and recreational reasons and to reduce the eventual buildout of East Hampton, countering losses of natural habitat as well as limiting the ultimate number of residences and commercial structures. A secondary purpose was historical preservation. A year ago, East Hampton voters also approved the use of up to 20 percent of annual C.P.F. income for water quality improvements.

As an aside, consensus on the official name of the property is yet to come. The Connecticut developer called the project 555, a nod to its address and that the rental of the apartments would have been limited to those 55 and older. Its previous owner called it Ocean View Farm, though nothing much had grown there in quite some time. The bid specification for the barn’s removal refers to it as the Putnam site, referring to the corporate name of the would-be Connecticut developer. 

Razing the barn makes financial sense for the town. The cost of maintaining the building in its present condition is not obviously legal under the community preservation law. Leasing it to a private party as a horse stable or for storing farm equipment would also appear to be prohibited, but were that legal it might bring its own set of problems for officials. To the extent that some of the wood and windows could be reclaimed, town officials should try to do so. However, removing the barn and planting the area with a cover crop, at least for the time being, is the right approach.

We strongly support the property’s use as an active public space. A walking path on the periphery has been envisioned, leaving room for the annual Soldier Ride convergence there and other worthy events. Another appealing use would be for a portion to be set aside for community garden plots. If the town goes ahead with the massive and arguably necessary new medical facility on Pantigo Place, the ball field there could be relocated to the Amagansett site. There are plenty of good options. Getting rid of a horse barn, which under the best of outcomes would benefit few residents, is just the beginning.

If for self-interest alone, homeowners and businesses should jump on a new energy efficiency program sponsored by PSEG Long Island. In an effort to meet peak demand, while at the same time reducing everyone’s utility bills, free power audits are being made available. It is as simple as phoning 800-567-2850, making an appointment, then setting aside a couple of hours while your house or business is evaluated by a certified energy inspector. 

Participants get back a detailed report with a range of options for cutting electricity use and making upgrades. The program also can provide information about rebates, financing options, and separate options for low and moderate-income households. Businesses can get free LED lighting conversions. But that’s not all, as they say on TV. 

Residential and commercial utility customers can receive free Nest-brand “smart” thermostats if they join a program to allow their summertime air-conditioning to remotely be set down a degree or two at times of peak grid demand, but just for up to 10 times a year. Customers who already have Nest thermostats get $250 if they sign up. Another offer is a rebate to replace pool pumps with energy-saving models that can reduce electricity use by up to 80 percent. There’s a cash bonus for installers, as well.

It is, of course, not all about the money. Reducing demand is part of a multipronged strategy to eliminate the pollution-causing diesel generators deployed in East Hampton to meet summertime needs and also slow the South Fork’s unsustainable growth in electricity use. It starts with a phone call to the number above or by filling out a form at longislandgreenhomes.org. Do it today. It really matters.  

It has been an exciting couple of weeks for South Fork history buffs. A rare copy of the Declaration of Independence with a strong East Hampton connection sold at auction upstate on Saturday for $1.5 million plus fees. Southampton Town officials are considering a historical designation for part of the hamlet of Bridgehampton. And in East Hampton Town, there is movement on new rules that would protect landmark houses from demolition.

The town plan is modeled on one implemented recently in East Hampton Village. It gives certain homeowners the right to build an additional residence on a property in exchange for lasting protection for a historical structure on the same site. This seems a fair tradeoff. Owners would be able to expand without having to build on to a lovely old existing house in a way that would diminish its significance. So far 13 property owners have been positive in response to the town’s outreach.

As much as any other factor, our history has made us what we are as a community. To the extent that brick-and-mortar reminders of the past can be preserved, they should be. This plan is a good way to begin to do that.

East Hampton Town officials have a real problem on their hands as a deadly pine tree infestation rages in Northwest Woods. Officials hope to get private property owners’ permission for crews to take down trees under attack by the southern pine beetle at the town’s expense. But, as residents of the affected area learn that they will be responsible themselves for the hefty cost of disposing of the downed trees, some may balk at allowing the town access.

Residents’ hesitation about allowing the town onto their land may increase as huge piles of 80-to-100-foot-long logs become visible off Swamp Road, for example. Property owners who already allowed inspectors and crews to do their work are now stunned to find out they are on the hook for thousands of dollars of unanticipated costs. This could well lead some to refuse to cooperate, which has the makings of a massive headache. 

Unless many more trees are taken down quickly, the beetle could spread beyond the relatively small area it is now known to affect. Already, East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell has declared a state of emergency in order to free money for tree cutting. Cooperation from landowners is essential, but getting that cooperation will be difficult if the personal cost for removal or chipping them in place is prohibitive.

The town rationale about why it cannot pay to help remove trees from private property does not sound quite right. A town attorney said on Tuesday that to do so would violate a state prohibition on government “gifts” to individuals. How this squares with the town’s generous new septic rebate program, for example, was not explained.

If there is a genuine environmental crisis unfolding, which it appears there is, then it is surely in the public interest that money be found to assure public participation in the effort. The weak answer that the town can do nothing more than take down the trees cannot be the end of the discussion if the remaining pine forests are to be saved.

It is good that the town may waive log and brush fees at the recycling center for property owners in the affected area, but it will likely have to do much more before the infestation is contained.

The East Hampton Village Board has moved closer in recent weeks to allowing highly managed hunting as a means of reducing the number of deer. This is a brave position. Opponents of deer hunts, while perhaps few in number, are vocal and unyielding. 

Hunting is the only population-control method consistently shown to work, however, and it has been used as an environmental management tool for decades. Once skittish and rarely seen, over recent years deer have come out of the woods to live among us. Their proximity to populated areas has put them into harm's way, most notably the unknown but very high number killed and injured while crossing roads. 

Police are frequently called now to dispatch deer that are unable to move but still alive after striking a vehicle. Drivers must deal with the costs and their insurance companies, as well as painful emotions, often among young passengers, that linger after such an incident. Then there are the deer that get tangled in fences or, now, end up trapped in open, abandoned foundations or at houses under construction. 

Though their fans argue against a correlation, tick-borne illness has spiked here along with the deer. Among the newer problems is a life-threatening allergy to red meat caused by the bite of the lone star tick. This was all but unknown until relatively recently. Deer have also altered the natural environment, removing the forest understory and preventing seedlings, other than those they find distasteful, from growing. Once upon a time, it was impossible to see more than a few yards into the woods; now the nearly revealed topography interrupts the view. Anyone who tells you otherwise just isn't paying attention.

Shooting wildlife is unthinkable for some. We get that. However, with the situation out of balance as it is, killing, or culling as the current euphemism goes, seems inevitable. Humans have kicked the world out of balance and, unfortunately, it falls to us to do what we can to restore and maintain natural habitats, not just for one charismatic animal, but for all species. Many village residents agree; a recent mailed survey found that an overwhelming majority was okay with hunting as a control method.

Make no mistake, East Hampton's burgeoning deer population has come at a cost. As much as we enjoy seeing deer, their presence on our lawns or dead and injured on the side of our roads is an obvious indication that something is very wrong. It is good that the East Hampton Village Board is willing to admit this and consider all options.