A proposal being worked on by East Hampton Town officials to clarify the law on outdoor seating at restaurants has caused confusion. The misunderstanding seems to have come from those who are unfamiliar with how the process of revising the town code works and who misread a draft described at a May 2 town board meeting by NancyLynn Thiele, a town attorney, which had been circulated to stimulate discussion. Steve Haweeli, the president of the East Hampton Chamber of Commerce, has been sounding the alarm and has urged restaurant owners and their staffs to attend a June 1 hearing.

The draft repeats a provision in the current law that allows up to 30 percent of a restaurant’s seating capacity to be outside, pending an okay from the fire marshal’s office. The change proposed is to set up a process by which restaurants could have even more seating outdoors by obtaining site plan approval from the planning board and meeting County Health Department and parking requirements.

That said, the town really did blow the roll-out. For example, a section about waiting areas for restaurant patrons was ambiguous and led to un-called-for panic even though the intent behind it was sensible. Also, the attorneys should have circulated a draft early on to the town business committee, whose members might have noticed this and made other valuable suggestions. 

Contrary to the assumption of the worst, the draft is actually intended as an orderly way for restaurants to gain outdoor tables and chairs. There is plenty of time for restaurant owners to get their views heard, beginning at the June 1 hearing. In the meantime, those who would be affected by changes in the law should take a more careful look at what Ms. Thiele had to say.

Truer words about global warming and sea level rise have rarely, if ever, been uttered in connection with what East Hampton Town government is facing: “Literally, the shape of our town is going to change. We’re better off having a plan.” The speaker was Jeremy Samuelson, who is leading a new effort to come to grips with what lies ahead. 

What lies ahead looks bad. According to New York State’s most conservative estimate, the bays and oceans will rise by 1.3 feet by 2050. This is enough for Napeague Harbor to expand to Route 27, for example, potentially cutting off Montauk and leading to significant questions about how to replace inundated infrastructure. What will remain of high land along Gerard Drive at Accabonac Harbor would be a pair of islands. Erosion nearly everywhere along the beaches will only further exacerbate the tension between protecting private properties with bulkheads and the inevitable loss of public beaches that would result.

So far, the coastal policies of governments the length of Long Island have been inadequate. Though a number, East Hampton Town included, enacted so-called local waterfront revitalization plans, they were drafted years before much was known about human-caused climate change. Making matters worse, when it came to using applicable state laws to enforce the towns’ and villages’ waterfront plans, Albany largely failed to do so.

What will set East Hampton Town’s pending “coastal assessment resiliency plan” apart remains to be seen. Certainly, the need to begin thinking differently about both new development and existing houses and businesses already in harm’s way is evident. Those involved in the town’s new effort warn that more attention will need to be given to bay and harbor areas, many of which are at far lower elevation than sites along the ocean. In all, it is an alarming picture.

Given what is known now about its exposure, East Hampton Town should be at the forefront of progressive thinking about how to deal with the changes sea level rise will bring. We hope the resiliency plan now being considered is the first step in a new direction

Many in the commercial fishing industry are frustrated with the pace of planning a planned wind farm in the Atlantic east of Montauk. The project, they say, will hurt their ability to make a living and they are feeling left behind by public officials and by public sentiment, which appears largely supportive. Aware of these concerns, Deepwater Wind, the company planning the turbines, wants to hire a handful of local representatives to help smooth the waters.

Balancing the needs of fishermen with the increasing call for renewable energy is a tough order. Seafood harvesters here have long expressed displeasure at what they see as excessive and unnecessary regulation. Now, with the industrialization of portions of their fishing grounds, they fear a slippery slope in which productive areas are put out of reach. Their concerns are important and have to be weighed carefully.

There are no easy or cost-free solutions to the soaring electricity demands of our modern society. Traditional fossil-fuel power plants are among the largest sources of damaging emissions. Wind is part of a less-polluting future that will also have to include the reduction of demand as well as land-based generation by solar and other “green” methods. 

Given the dire predictions on the effects of global warming, ocean sites for wind farms will have to be part of the answer. As the calls for tapping the consistent offshore winds grow, we must keep in mind the people who make their living from fishing. At this point, Deepwater’s search for the $50-an-hour representatives seems more for show than an indication of substantive concession to the industry’s legitimate concerns. 

Assuming that offshore wind will inevitably be utilized on a large scale, much more effort should be made to place turbines away from important fishing areas — including the site in Deepwater’s plans on the traditionally productive Cox’s Ledge. In addition, members of the commercial fishing industry who are displaced or suffer economic losses must be compensated, either through subsidies or tax breaks. 

The fishing fleet will enjoy the benefits of a greener planet, along with the rest of us, but it should not have to endure a disproportionate part of the cost.

A mailing from the Garden Club of East Hampton with pretty painted images of plants native to this area arrived this week and piqued our interest. There, arrayed on a folding card announcing the club’s upcoming annual sale, were milkweed and arrowwood, viburnum, columbine, eastern shadbush, cardinal flower, New England aster, and bearberry — which hungry deer avoid and are in their own ways important parts of the ecosystem, enjoyed by bird and bug alike. 

’Tis the season. A day later, flipping through the most recent Audubon magazine, we read a statistic that a native oak tree can support at least 557 species of butterflies and moths — and myriad birds for which the butterflies and moths may be lunch. By comparison, a non-native ginkgo tree sustains just five butterflies and moths.

A nifty tool on Audubon’s website provided more information. The red-blossomed cardinal flower on the Garden Club’s mailing is like candy to hummingbirds, and it pleases wrens, grosbeaks, chickadees, and thrushes, among others. Sparrows like yarrows, and jays will gorge among the goldenrod. Enter your ZIP code and you can download a shopping list of sorts to take to local nurseries to turn your garden into an insect and bird-welcome zone. The Garden Club’s May 27 sale is, of course, another fine source.

In Riverhead, an organization will welcome volunteers this weekend and through next month to help germinate seeds and tend to young plants. This is in advance of the Long Island Native Plant Initiative’s sale days in early June at Suffolk Community College. Into the flats will go joe-pye weed, boneset, and germander; out to new sites will go the plants to attract insects and birds. 

If you are planning a garden this year or hope to do a good deed, consider going native. Hardy blooms and the creatures that thrive among them will thank you.

As the United States enters a dark age for environmental protection by Washington, the job has come down both literally and figuratively to our own backyards. 

A Republican Congress eager to remove what it views as unfair impediments to business has gained an eager champion in President Trump. The suppression of climate change programs and funding cuts are causing great alarm. A former anti-Environmental Protection Agency state attorney general has been put in charge of that agency. A lifelong oilman is the new secretary of state. Mr. Trump has vowed to return the coal industry to its lightly regulated glory days. 

Other moves have included a proposed $1.5 billion cut in the National Park Service allotment and hints that the administration will dump Obama-era vehicle emissions standards as well as longstanding water rules. The damage could take decades to undo.

States have taken steps of their own. New York is set to become only the second in the nation to get nonpolluting electricity from offshore wind turbines when the Deepwater project 30 miles east of Montauk goes online in 2022. Important, too, is $2.5 billion in the new state budget for clean water, including $110 million for land purchases.

On Long Island, the East End towns and Suffolk County have recently accelerated water-quality programs. East Hampton is finalizing the rules for septic system upgrade rebates. County Executive Steve Bellone has announced that grants and loans for homeowners will soon be available for new high-tech, low-contaminant systems.

The goal of all these efforts is to protect drinking water in this crowded county, as well as to reduce the nutrient pollution that is overpowering marine and freshwater ecosystems, killing fish, shellfish, and the micro-organisms on which they depend. In some cases, algal blooms can lead to elevated toxins and bacteria that are dangerous to humans. There are even atmospheric effects, particularly linked to nitrogen, that can raise ammonia and ozone, which can impair breathing, limit visibility, and hamper plant growth.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation began a campaign this week to encourage the use of phosphorus-free lawn fertilizers and native plants and grasses. It also is promoting letting lawn clippings remain in the yard and maintaining grass at a height of at least three inches to allow deep root growth, which is more able to withstand weeds and drought. These are steps in the right direction. 

Advocates of a soft approach to the home landscape say slow-release fertilizer, or, better, organic compost, is preferable to aggressive treatments aimed at getting the lawn emerald green by Memorial Day. The Perfect Earth Project, based here, has tips on more environment-friendly methods of lawn care — and favors a three-and-a-half-inch height for grass, among other things. The Peconic Land Trust offers free organic lawn-care advice on Wednesdays at Bridge Gardens in Bridgehampton; it also will answer questions at [email protected].

Earth Day is Saturday. Given the weather, many of us are likely to be tending our lawns and gardens and making choices about what products to use. This year, perhaps more than ever, organic, earth-friendly solutions are essential.

Eight million dollars seems like a lot of money for where the Sag Harbor Cinema lobby stood until it was destroyed in fire in December. However, the sum a civic group has pledged to buy the site and the relatively unscathed theater behind it and eventually build a new cultural center will prove well worth it in the long run.

In a deal announced this week, the Sag Harbor Partnership intends to raise what is needed to buy the property and continue and expand on the cinema’s reputation as a place to see smaller, art films by also offering educational programs. Conceptual plans call for two theaters as well as a screening room-classroom on the second floor.

With uncertainty about the Bay Street Theater’s long-term lease on Long Wharf, Sag Harbor and the surrounding communities should be especially eager to support what could be a new and vital cultural asset.

Expressions of outrage this week about an announcement by the Corcoran real estate firm that it would fly select potential clients by helicopter from Manhattan to the South Fork to view properties was predictable, if somewhat overblown. While the promotion might well add to air traffic, its effect will be negligible when compared to the ever-increasing use of East Hampton Airport by noisy aircraft of all sorts.

Hopes for a quieter airport were set back last year by the helicopter industry’s court case against the Town of East Hampton. The United States Supreme Court now may or may not take up the town’s final appeal of the Court of Appeals ruling that rejected its contention that it was free to set operating hours at the airport independent of Federal Aviation Administration approval. There is a high probability that the court may decline to consider the case, which would mean that the decision against the town’s home rule would stand.

The immediate effect of the Supreme Court’s declining the matter or agreeing with the earlier decision would be that the town would have to seek the F.A.A.’s blessing for any future limits. A degree of hope can be found in the supportive views of Representative Lee Zeldin and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, who could advocate on behalf of East Hampton — and other noise-affected communities nationwide — in Congress. However, they will face a formidable adversary in the aviation industry, which fiercely opposes what it sees as patchwork regulations.

What the helicopter companies and its allies have never understood is that their refusal to do enough to reduce noise could trigger a nuclear option — the town’s simply shutting down the airport for good. It was notable last fall when State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., not known to be an anti-aviation firebrand, suggested that there might be reason to doubt that East Hampton Town should be in the airport business at all. 

What was once unthinkable, except to an enraged few, has now become something worth considering. With helicopter noise likely to return to pre-curfew levels at all hours of the day and night, expect the close-the- airport drumbeat to get louder. With an important local election in East Hampton in November, how the candidates for supervisor and town board propose dealing with it will be something to listen for closely.

Many people, especially urban users of ride hailing services, prefer summoning Uber or Lyft on their smartphones instead of calling for a taxi. Following a state budget deal, Uber and its competitors will pick up passengers legally in East Hampton Town, as well as upstate, where they had been unable to operate because of legal and insurance requirements. Expect traffic around the South Fork’s hot spots to get a lot worse this summer.

East Hampton’s rule that all for-hire vehicle companies have places of business within town limits is now likely to fall by the wayside. The regulation was never going to stand up anyway — it is difficult to imagine that a court would agree to give locals a total monopoly on a specific kind of economic activity, which is in part conducted on state and county roads. Now, because of the state deal, the tougher problem of what to do about the congestion that Uber and other companies will cause becomes harder to deal with.

At bottom, the problem is not the car services, but the people who use them. East Hampton Town has more than its share of overcrowded drinking establishments, and until they are brought in line or eliminated, people will want to get to them. Uber and the like are not the villains here. Instead, they are the end result of successive Town Hall administrations unable, or unwilling, to turn the party train around. 

We know ride-hailing services are popular, and for a reason. They are prompt and can offer superior service, driver courtesy, and vehicle cleanliness. Though Uber in particular has been criticized for fare spiking, through something it calls surge pricing, its upcharges have been significantly less outrageous than the late-night gouging reported by users of some traditional taxis here.

When you think about it, both the ride-hailing services and East Hampton Town’s taxi regulations have had the same goal: safe rides at reasonable cost. Since it cannot fight Albany on this, the town is seeking ways to minimize the expected influx of vehicles and drivers from away. This is bound to fail. 

The solution will have to come from reducing demand. Possibilities for this include stricter noise and capacity controls on once-modest restaurants that now serve hundreds of customers from afternoon to late night on a single day. Until the town comes up with tighter regulations, patrons will continue to flock to these places, whether in an Uber or Lyft car, taxi, or by another method

East Hampton Town Trustee Pat Mansir’s surprise resignation last week presents a good opportunity to make some general observations about the town’s oldest continuous government body and how it must now change to keep up with the times.

The trustees date back to the early Colonial era and, at that time, were East Hampton’s only local government. Authority was conferred by charters handed down with British crown authority. The most important, the Dongan Patent of 1686, established the Trustees of Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of East Hampton, whose successors are the trustees we now know.

Ms. Mansir’s departure brought the trustees’ ranks to eight members, down from its customary nine. This is a step in the right direction, we believe, because of the unwieldy nature of an elected board of that size. The nine-justice Supreme Court stands in contrast; its members serve for life but don their robes only after presidential nomination and an exhaustive Senate confirmation process. The East Hampton Town trustees are elected in one fell swoop, which asks the average voter to do the impossible: Make an informed choice among as many as 18 candidates. As a result, there have been plenty of duds and no-shows among the trustees over the years, as voters have had to resort to following the party line or picking a candidate whose last name sounds as if it is from a local fishing family. It would be far better to stagger their terms, so that only a portion of the seats would be in play in any one election.

The trustees should also take this moment to assume a more professional operating procedure, sticking to agendas and empowering its chosen clerk to rein in disruptive members in the interest of decorum and everyone’s time. More staff might help, too, as would a clearer definition of what a trustee’s job entails. Ms. Mansir’s resignation indicates that the trustees could use a tuneup, but they are definitely worth keeping around. 

They said it could not be done: A public restroom in Amagansett. Now, on Monday, if officials are to be believed, the ceremonial first flush will take place. It will have been a long time coming.

Providing a place to go in the hamlet’s central business district has been a struggle going back to the 1980s, if not longer. Over the decades, ideas were floated for a site in Amagansett Square, which is privately owned. More recently, the town parking lot north of the highway appeared the obvious choice, though issues with neighbors and groundwater flow complicated matters. Throughout, businesses and, especially, the Amagansett Library have had to accommodate visitors in need. Headline writers’ puns over the years (“Finally, a Place to Go in ’Gansett!”) have been both unbearable and premature.

Despite Monday’s expected opening, work at the Amagansett restroom is likely to continue. As concerns about groundwater contamination grow, public facilities like this should be among the first to be fitted with new, low-nitrogen septic systems. Let’s hope that doing so does not take another 30 years.