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

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.

Water quality and environmental well-being are taking top billing these days. Along with East Hampton Town, Suffolk is taking steps to reduce the amount of nitrogen and other pollutants in household wastewater. Homeowners have been invited to sign up for as much as $21,000 in county loans and grants to install low-pollution treatment systems, while the town is working on a rebate program that would provide funds for up to 100 percent of the cost of cesspool replacement in vulnerable watershed areas using money from the community preservation fund.

Meanwhile, East Hampton Town Republicans have weighed in, presenting a plan of their own that calls for inspections of private waste systems by a new town employee and the creation of a database of systems in need of upgrades. For this, they suggest state and/or federal money could be used rather than the preservation fund.

Suffolk’s program will provide money for the replacement of up to 400 outdated, failed, or poorly designed systems. Up to $11,000 in an outright grant will be available per eligible applicant, with additional money available as an optional 15-year loan at 3 percent interest. This is notable given that single-family wastewater systems can cost between $15,000 and $17,000, according to latest estimates. Participation will be by application, with a starting date of July 1. Details about how to sign up have not been finalized.

Response from the environmental community to the town and county initiatives has been warm, but an undercurrent of concern remains. Suffolk is estimated to have at least 360,000 residential cesspools or other systems that do not adequately reduce the risk of contaminants entering waterways and drinking water. Neither Suffolk’s 400-property program nor the town’s rebates deal with the massive scale of the problem.

It should be remembered that both plans target only residential waste, ignoring equally significant sources of pollution from commercial properties. Kevin McAllister, the founder of Defend H2O, has said that quite a few businesses in eastern Suffolk appear to be in violation of the federal 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act, which called for them all to be replaced by now. Many of the sites in East Hampton where questions about this have been raised drain toward Lake Montauk.

To truly be effective, the town’s and county’s efforts must expand to include businesses. At the same time, long-term thinking must be given to centralized sewage treatment for the most vulnerable areas.

Suffolk’s failed and failing septic systems are thought to outnumber those in the entire State of New Jersey. Need we say more?

By any measure, a report that at least two East Hampton Town employees may have been sickened after being exposed to fumes from spray-foam insulation barrels they were ordered to prepare for reuse as trash cans is bizarre. Both the worker who blew the whistle and the town safety official who shut it down deserve credit. But this risky, and probably illegal, practice has been going on for years, which suggests that far more oversight of some town departments is necessary.

This particular incident is stunning in its details. According to a town employee, he was sent to pick up about 25 steel barrels from an insulation company, which has so far not been publicly identified. Next, he was told to cut them open, get rid of their remaining contents by dumping it on the ground, and then flush the insides with water. One of the employees told a supervisor he was not comfortable doing so, but was simply told to get it done. The town has ordered soil tests to determine the extent of the contamination. 

The man who came into closest contact with the barrel contents reported feeling lightheaded and nauseated while working with them in a Town Parks Department garage. Later, he experienced respiratory constriction, tingling, and hair loss, symptoms that appeared to have been caused by the chemicals. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the spray-foam compounds can cause breathing problems and affect the central nervous system. Other components are associated with asthma, eye problems, and allergy-like sensitization. 

Anecdotally, the town apparently has over the years used several types of industrial barrels in place of proper trash cans intended for the purpose. A reader this week sent us a photograph of a rusty Shell Oil drum repurposed and filled with garbage at a beach parking lot. There must be more. For a town that prides itself on a certain ecological consciousness, this is an embarrassment. A check of all the town’s roughly 300 barrel trash cans has been ordered, which is important but far from enough. Accountability for those who ordered the spray-foam barrels reused and their contents poured on the ground is essential, as is a review of department protocols to assure that they meet modern health and safety standards — and the law. 

We were surprised to read recently that New York City prohibits rentals of fewer than 30 days. This is in an effort to keep apartments from being turned into de facto hotels and to protect the interests of neighbors and neighborhoods. Contrast that with East Hampton Town’s confusing regulations, which allow four sub-two-week rentals a year, provided that only two are in the same six-month period and that they are registered with the town clerk’s office. 

While these rules might have made sense to those drafting them, in the real world they have negligible impact. Airbnb, the leading online short-term booking site, recently showed hundreds of nightly availabilities, few of which included East Hampton’s required registry number. Many of these boasted space for multiple guests, implying arrangements that could exceed the townwide limit of four unrelated adults per house. “My place is good for couples, families (with kids), and big groups,” the owner of a Montauk house that could sleep as many as 14 people boasted. 

From appearances, the town is not paying enough attention. There are one or two high-profile share house busts each summer, sure. But routine flouting of the law by homeowners who market their properties to groups or for high-turnover short stays needs greater focus.

Residents’ complaints during summer are largely about overcrowding. Until the town gets serious about enforcing single-family residence rules nothing is going to change.

President Trump’s attack on the Obama-era Clean Power Plan should be taken very seriously on the East End. Long Island’s hundreds of miles of bay and ocean shoreline are highly vulnerable to the increased erosion and worsened storms associated with global warming. Walking away from efforts to protect future generations, as well as the natural environment, is shortsighted, to put it mildly.

Mr. Trump’s order Tuesday, supposedly to return jobs to coal-producing parts of the country, would undo major efforts to cut carbon emissions. Industry experts say that coal country jobs are never going to be what they once were, due to mechanization and competition from less expensive natural gas. Mr. Trump’s order only complicates worldwide efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophe, essentially trading a debatable promise of renewed work for miners with climate changes that even the Pentagon considers could include famine, war, and unprecedented population shifts. 

New York’s top elected officials have protested loudly. Both Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman were quick to denounce Mr. Trump’s order this week. Both have vowed legal action. On the other hand, Representative Lee Zeldin, the East End’s voice in the House of Representatives, is likely to go along with the White House’s attempt to gut climate policy. Mr. Zeldin is ranked by the League of Conservation Voters with having among the worst records on ecological issues, including carbon emissions and offshore drilling. Because eastern Long Island is at risk from sea level rise, this puts him at odds with the region’s long-term interests.

He appears, however, to be aware of the political risks. Last fall, as his re-election campaign was at full tilt, he signed on with the House Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group. By itself, this means little since he previously voted for repealing the Clean Power Act and has been among President Trump’s most stalwart supporters. But we can hope. 

New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced a new, $70 million rebate program this week aimed at getting more electric vehicles on the roads. This is an important step, especially in light of hostility from the Trump administration to rational efforts to protect the global environment and fight climate change, though dollars and cents play a role as well.

In a historically anomalous period of dirt-cheap gasoline, American consumer interest in electric and hybrid motor vehicles has declined. This has caused a temporary slowdown in the rate at which drivers are switching to less-polluting cars and trucks and a setback for greenhouse gas reduction. Meanwhile, the White House has said it might reverse national fuel economy regulations. This would lead to more pollution and increase the rate of global warming. It also would result in drivers eventually paying more at the pumps to fill their gas-guzzlers when prices inevitably rise again. 

Weakening federal rules that encourage innovation also could harm this country’s traditional auto industry over the long term, as high-tech startups, like the all-electric Tesla, make revolutionary advances while the industry remains mired in the past. Foreign manufacturers could also gain more market share, the way Japanese auto companies did when gas prices soared decades ago.

In New York State, transportation is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases, which is the main reason why Mr. Cuomo’s expanded rebates — up to $2,000 per vehicle — are good policy. Increasing the number of cleaner cars and trucks will help New York meet its goal of reducing global warming emissions by 40 percent by 2030. For coastal communities, like those on the South Fork where sea level rise is already presenting massive challenges, reductions are essential.

Money will also be set aside for promoting electric, hybrid, and fuel-cell technology, as well as increasing the availability of charging stations. According to the state, there are now more than 30 electric models to choose from, including the new Chevrolet Bolt, a battery-powered subcompact that can travel about 230 miles on a single charge. Because only about 1 percent of all vehicles driven in the United States now are electric, public awareness will be key.

Another way the Trump administration might discourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles is by rolling back the federal tax credit that now provides up to $7,500 for eligible vehicles. There is considerable risk that the credit could be eliminated in the Republican budget. House Speaker Paul Ryan is no fan of solar and other alternative-power incentives and is likely to seek to cut the credit from future spending plans with little resistance from the White House.

New York’s effort is one way to counteract federal retrenchment and is to be applauded.

A fourth-grade initiative at the Montauk School to stop the use of plastic straws there and in the community is worth paying attention to — and bears a lesson for how we should think about our relationship to the environment. 

This winter, the students began sending letters to Montauk food businesses, hoping to persuade their owners or managers to switch from plastic to paper straws. The argument is based on the fact that plastic straws are not generally recycled and it reflects the growing awareness that plastic is among the top-10 kinds of debris entering marine ecosystems around the world. As with bans of single-use plastic bags, curtailing the use of plastic straws is a way to reduce the carbon emission impact of nonessential items. Alternatives include straws made from recyclable paper and compostable versions made from plant-based compounds.

A number of Montauk restaurants, ice cream shops, and takeout places have responded favorably to the students’ pitch. The people at Muse at the End, Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, the Surf Lodge, Gosman’s Dock, and others deserve a tip of the hat for being willing to consider switching to paper or, at a minimum, making a plastic straw available on request rather than automatically plonking one into every drink. 

According to activists, there is at least one straw per person per day used in the United States, as many as 500 million by more expansive estimates. Though long-lived in landfills, plastic waste slowly begins to degrade when it hits the oceans, breaking into tiny pieces that can be fatal to marine life, notably endangered sea turtles such as the Kemp’s Ridley, which has been the focus of rescue efforts here and in its southern breeding grounds.

A recent video shows a single cloth microfiber causing the death of a plankton that ingested it; multiply that a billion-fold and the impacts up and down the food chain are beyond belief. Some plastics in water can absorb and concentrate toxic chemicals, including DDT, a banned pesticide that was among the causes of the last century’s precipitous drop in the populations of bald eagles and osprey, among other wildlife. An estimated 150 million tons of plastic waste disappears each year, much of it into the oceans, and it eventually makes its way into everything and everyone who eats seafood. 

As many as 51 trillion particles of micro-plastic are thought to be in the world’s waters today, about 500 times the number of stars in our galaxy. That is a lot of garbage. Montauk’s fourth graders are heroes in our book for doing something about it.

East Hampton Village should have just said no to a smoke-and-mirrors request from representatives of Ronald Perelman, the owner of the Creeks estate on Georgica Pond, at the outset. Mr. Perelman seeks a new zoning classification created for him alone specifically to legalize illegally built structures there. Instead, though skeptical, board members are taking time to consider the proposal. They should not have been so polite. 

Mr. Perelman’s problems at the Creeks are of his own making. The legal tangle there was triggered only by an accidental discovery following a 2012 fire, when a village inspector noticed that considerable illegal construction had taken place. Since then efforts to bring the property into compliance with the law have been stymied. 

Now, Mr. Perelman, who has not been a good neighbor to the pond over the years, according to his representatives’ admissions, is dangling a carrot before the board. In a March 2 presentation, his representatives said there were 17 septic waste systems on the property, and that apparently not all of them had Suffolk Health Department approval. If Mr. Perelman were granted the new zoning, he would then upgrade to the latest waste technology, they offered.

That he and his representatives would try to leverage doing the right thing only now in exchange for a sweetheart zoning deal is offensive. He could have afforded to make upgrades years ago; he was listed by Forbes in 2016 as the 33rd richest American.

Village Trustee Barbara Borsack put it right at the March 2 meeting: “If we are dealing with someone who doesn’t care about the rules, even if we put all these new rules in place, why would we assume that they would be followed?”

If officials give Mr. Perelman what he wants, it would in effect be rewarding him for flouting the law. If he gets what he wants, other wealthy village landowners are sure to take note and to clamor to be next in line for special treatment. 

As hard and expensive a fight as it may be to get Mr. Perelman to remove the illegal construction at the Creeks, that is the only right approach, and the village should be ready to slug it out over the long haul.