It may be difficult for the powers-that-be in East Hampton Town Hall to recall in the depths of freezing winter the taxi mayhem of the past several high seasons. But time is a-wasting if something is to be done to bring the situation under control by summer. Complicating matters is the fact that meaningful regulation will require inter-government cooperation, including that of Suffolk County.

    Because much of the abuse comes from out-of-town cab operators taking advantage of people out for a night of fun, it may be tempting for local officials to give this low priority. That would be wrong. We should treat our visitors as we wish to be treated ourselves, and, as we know, there are those among us who also call cabs from time to time.

    Montauk was the center of much of the frustration last summer, with outrageous fares and other transgressions, such as cabbies taking up public parking spaces while sleeping off the preceding night’s rounds. However, the easternmost hamlet was hardly the only place where there was trouble. In one incident, for example, police were called in August to resolve a dispute about a promised $75 ride from Amagansett to Bridgehampton that suddenly doubled in price when the rider was already in the cab.

    Triple-digit fares are commonplace here, drawing cabbies like moths to flame to hang around likely spots, such as the Montauk bars. East Hampton Town took a stab at regulating taxis by starting a registry and trying to require that drivers have a local address. This may be better than nothing, but it falls short of protecting riders from unsafe rides and what you might call highway robbery. And since trips often cross town lines, East Hampton’s regulatory authority is by definition limited.

    This is where Suffolk, and perhaps the state, may have to step in. One solution might be for lawmakers to create an East End taxi commission of some kind, modeled on New York City’s. A new agency could help set safety and performance standards as well as regulate fares.

    Allowing the wild west taxi scene to continue is unacceptable. Reining it in will require leadership and the active involvement of several levels of government. This should begin immediately.

    The apparent collapse here of planned participation in a deer reduction plan backed by the Long Island Farm Bureau should not go unremarked.

    As we have noted, the failure of the Department of Environmental Conservation to provide leadership in this matter should raise significant questions among state lawmakers about the agency’s function and capabilities. The local glitch, to which East Hampton Village and Town’s pulling out of the cull was attributed, that an environmental impact study was required before signing on, is an embarrassment to all involved.

    Those opposed to the killing of deer by professional sharpshooters supervised by the United States Department of Agriculture have said that they view the delay as a victory. Maybe. We suspect it is not a capitulation to vocal pressure and take the word of Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell, who had been on record in favor of the cull, and others that an environmental impact statement could not be completed in time for the program to begin next month. A large-scale hunt like this would by definition affect the environment; knowing in advance just what that effect would be, at least to the extent possible, is obviously necessary.

    Looking ahead, we expect deer on roadsides and lawns to increase as proper woodland habitat is either fenced off or further denuded by their hungry foraging. Collisions between deer and vehicles will continue at the current unacceptable rate, if not grow. And, even if deer are not alone in carrying ticks, more people will be diagnosed with Lyme disease and other ailments, along with a potentially fatal allergy to red meat caused by the bite of the lone star tick.

    Leaders here, at D.E.C. headquarters, and at Suffolk County Vector Control must do more to bring the deer population into balance with the land’s ability to support it. As of now, no viable alternative to a professional, precise hunt has been put forward. East Hampton should begin work on the required study as soon as practical.

    East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell has begun working with a number of other officials on revising the town’s gatherings law, with an eye toward controlling the burgeoning nightlife scene in Montauk. Meanwhile, a committee asked to study taxicab operations, including rabid price-gouging, has been revitalized. The work is long overdue, and but part of what it will take to make the easternmost hamlet a little less of a no-holds-barred party destination for summer 2014.

    Town Hall faces a considerable obstacle in the form of precedents allowed by the previous administration’s approval of huge outdoor events and the questionable conversion of several old-time motels into swank and far-larger social hubs. Among these was the over-the-top analysis supported by the then-town attorney’s office that the former Ronjo Motel in Montauk’s downtown could not only have a bar, but could operate with hundreds of people on the premises at all hours, far more than its handful of guestrooms could accommodate.

    Now it is rumored that the new owner of at least one other Montauk motel may hope to go the nightclub route, and there are surely others watching closely to see just how far they too could push matters. East Hampton Town should push back — hard. Now is the time for officials and residents alike to shift the balance away from the handful of business owners who put making a buck ahead of community.

    One key area the town board should look into is new rules about outdoor occupancy. Places like Montauk’s Sloppy Tuna, Surf Lodge, Ruschmeyer’s, and the Montauk Beach House, and Cyril’s Fish House on Napeague, are, under current rules, essentially allowed to pack as many people as they can onto their properties. This has prompted season after season of noise complaints from neighbors and litter and congestion problems. Setting limits consistent with each business’s ability to provide off-street parking would be a good starting place.

    As to the beaches, officials should give serious consideration to banning alcohol consumption where and when lifeguards are present. And they should prohibit unenclosed bonfires within several hundred feet of road ends and along the entire downtown Montauk beach. There are simply too many people here in season, making too much noise and leaving too much of a mess behind. The sooner Town Hall updates the code to accommodate the new reality the better off we all will be.

    The nice old house and outbuildings at 208 Montauk Highway in Amagansett had been for sale for quite a while with no buyer emerging when the owner approached East Hampton Town Hall for help. The result is a hearing at East Hampton Town Hall tonight on a zone change that just might hasten a closing. But the request, to go from a residential designation with a limited-business overlay within the Amagansett Historic District to full-on commercial, should be rejected.

    Formerly Balasses House Antiques, the site had been occupied more recently by an ambitious and fascinating gallery, one that enjoyed a strong following for its many events. But the asking price of $2.6 million is apparently on the high side for the economics of the office, salon, gallery, or antiques shop uses allowed under current zoning, or at least that is what the lack of a buyer suggests. A second-floor apartment in the main building is an increasingly rare commodity, though not quite income-producing enough either.

    So sometime last year the unidentified owner approached the former town board majority, seeking to have the roughly half-acre property rezoned to central business, a more or less anything-goes designation, rather than chop the price to something more reasonable. In an L.B.O., as the limited business zone is known, you have to figure a $2.6 million sale isn’t going to happen; in central business, well, ka-ching, ka-ching. And that was the tune to which the former town board majority danced. Only a technical error delayed a hearing and probable yes vote before the end of their term. 

    East Hampton Town’s comprehensive plan, adopted in 2005, flat-out says no to rezoning any parcels in Amagansett for new commercial development. The current town board need look no further for justification in denying the request. Moreover, the town should tread very lightly when it comes to properties in any of its critically important historic districts.

    The Balasses House request should be a test for Supervisor Larry Cantwell and the rest of the newly constituted board in putting community interests first and respecting the work of those who came before them. In the end, property owners’ problems in inking a deal at a price of their own choosing is not enough to justify changing zoning, overriding the comprehensive plan, or undermining historic preservation goals.

    There is some good news on the environment for eastern Long Island and some that’s not so good. Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone said recently that water quality was now his administration’s top priority. In East Hampton, Democrats listed groundwater and the areas’s bays and harbors among their key platform planks last year. Yet the State of New York, despite a projected budget surplus in the coming fiscal year, appears poised to cut environmental funding.

    According to the New York League of Conservation Voters, a watchdog group, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s proposed 2014-15 spending plan would actually reduce spending by the Department of Environmental Conservation and keep essentially flat the amount set aside for a $157 million fund that helps pay for habitat and drinking water protections, historic sites, and saving family farms.

    Environmental organizations have said that this fund, which draws on a dedicated real estate transfer tax, should be strengthened, going to as much as $200 million for the coming year. The League of Conservation Voters has noted that the state’s penury on environmental protection is in sharp contrast to generous increases for what it described as technological upgrades.

    For his part, Mr. Bellone has announced that nitrogen pollution amounts to “public water enemy number one.” This is a very welcome point of view from a top official in a region dependent on healthy waterways and whose drinking water comes solely from the ground beneath our feet. Public support is there for doing something about it. As many as 9,700 county residents listened in on a conference call at the end of January during which Mr. Bellone described his concerns.

    Next will come the hard work of figuring out how to make things better. Roughly two-thirds of Suffolk residences are not connected to a municipal sewer system; instead they dispose of liquid waste in often outdated septic systems. Mr. Bellone has said he is going to work to find solutions. East Hampton Town commissioned a study last year to gauge the scale of the problem here and propose ways to protect water supplies and marine ecosystems. Nitrogen abundance has been linked to massive plankton blooms, such as the devastating “brown tides” of the 1980s that nearly wiped out the scallop — and this may be tied to what we all put in the ground every day.

    We expect the present town board will work long and hard on the issue, but money and manpower from the state will be essential to success. Long Island residents should be worried that Albany is not doing enough to protect these critically important resources and demand more support for local initiatives like Mr. Bellone’s and the plans being developed in East Hampton Town. The environment, particularly drinking water and marine areas, should receive equal attention from Mr. Cuomo and the Legislature.

      In a town that is largely affluent, where sterile and perfect lawns and grounds are a powerful aspirational symbol, a small group of ban-the-blower advocates has sprung up, but it is fighting a Quixotic battle.

       One of the rules of civil behavior is that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you necessarily should; for us, leaf blowers fall into the realm of maybe not. Their use comes less from homeowners than from hired workers whose employers know the value of getting a job done as fast as possible, irritating those nearby, which can be considered collateral damage, as they race to the next lawn.

       Because a growing number of people work from home here, many on intellectual pursuits that demand quiet, there is likely to be a hidden economic cost in lost productivity as a result of the noise blowers make, not to overlook plain old sanity. In a place where deference is given too often to intrusive business over the interests of ordinary residents and taxpayers, there is little hope of a quick respite.

       This does not mean that those pressing for quieter seasons should give up. One small step would be to promote the use of leaves as mulches in garden beds and around delicate trees. Cities and towns everywhere, however, have either banned the blowers or strictly limited their maximum sound output. Gas-powered units are the main culprit; they tend to be excessively noisy and their exhaust, especially from the common two-cycle models, are a source of dusty allergens and carbon-based air pollution.

       A sample regulation could come from the City of Palo Alto, Calif., which allows gas blowers only in commercial areas within business hours, and limits their use in residential areas to those that are electric powered and only between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday; Sunday is a day of peace. The trick in Palo Alto and elsewhere is a speedy and meaningful response when complaints come in.

       The alternatives are hand rakes or, heaven forbid, a little tolerance of a few leaves here and there. 

    The good news in a recent New York Times Science section story about sea level rise is that Montauk’s tide records lag behind those in places along the eastern United States coastline that are becoming inundated the fastest. The bad news is that the advantage is not by much. According to the numbers, the waters have come up about a foot every 100 years and are coming faster, with the greatest increases in the mid-Atlantic states. This means that the landward migration of the shoreline will continue unabated here, and even get faster. Property owners and local officials who ignore this are simply kidding themselves.

    In December, the Eastern Long Island Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental group, issued a statement supporting major changes along the Montauk oceanfront. It called for one of the Army Corps of Engineers options: rebuilding protective dunes after removing several motels and residences that are now in harm’s way. This echoed a view expressed on this page earlier in 2013 to the effect that think-big solutions were the best choice.

    Pumping sand in front of exposed properties at this late stage would be a temporary solution at best and a waste of both money and precious time before a better one is at hand. Rather than outright property condemnation, however, town and federal officials should consider more creative redevelopment of the seaward edge of downtown Montauk, perhaps granting motel owners air rights over existing retail parcels or the use of nearby lots that are vacant or underutilized.

    Meanwhile, away from the most obvious at-risk spots, shoreline restoration projects continue. These, too, must be re-evaluated and incentives found to coax property owners into long-term decisions. East Hampton Town needs to rethink fast how it interacts with the waters that surround us. The sea will not wait while policymakers wonder what to do.

    New York Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Tim Bishop are among a bipartisan group of Washington lawmakers pushing for a second round of reform of the recently reformed National Flood Insurance Program. Their call for action comes as an increasing number of property owners here and around the country have become aware of steep increases in their premiums, the result of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, which sought to answer the program’s longstanding deficit. Debate in the Senate on a new Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act is expected this week. From the perspective of many on the East End of Long Island, change is necessary.

    The intention of the authors of the earlier reform of federal flood insurance was good: Since Hurricane Katrina, the program had accumulated a deficit as large as $25 billion. Biggert-Waters was supposed to address that by phasing in premium hikes to reflect actual risks and reduce the subsidy from American taxpayers at large, which kept premiums low. In the new math, the safer a property from flood damage, the lower the cost. The reverse was applied to the most at-risk properties, as set out on federal maps.

    As things unfolded, however, the increases soared beyond belief — as much as 1,000 percent in some cases; in isolated examples rates were said to be leaping from $4,000 a year to more than $40,000. As a result, real estate deals have been jeopardized or called off. Outrage is mounting.

    There is a hidden risk to the federal program if prices rise to the point that some property owners decide to drop coverage. In that scenario, Congress might well be inclined to spend billions following the next major flood or hurricane to pay for uninsured losses. It is interesting to note that the $50 billion Hurricane Sandy relief package is just about double the accumulated deficit of the entire program over its nearly four decades of existence.

    Reducing taxpayer subsidies for flood insurance is necessary and reasonable. Doing so without destroying real estate markets or pricing some people out of their homes is reasonable too. The measures outlined in the proposed affordability act attempt to strike that balance and deserve swift passage.

    Forget the polar vortex, there’s a word for the weather we have been having this week and it’s — drumroll, please — winter.

    If there is one thing old iceboaters can tell you, the South Fork usually experiences a cold snap right around the second week of January, and only a few years ago, relatively speaking, there would be weeks of hard-water sailing even on Three Mile Harbor. And, in what might be termed real winters a number of decades back, you could drive a car to Gardiner’s Island on the frozen bay if you were especially brave, or foolhardy. This winter? Feh. It’s supposed to hit the 40s by Saturday.

    For all the talk of sub-freezing temperatures and good-intentioned suggestions to “stay warm,” this winter’s story has not been one of cold but rather how mild it has been. The National Climate Data Center, a government weather records agency, has reported that there have been more than four times as many record high temperatures than record lows for the 30 days that ended on Sunday. For example, Baltimore had its warmest winter day ever on Dec. 22, when it reached 62 degrees.

    Whether these records can be linked to human-caused climate change is beside the point. The planet is getting warmer, no doubt about it. Face-numbing days like we’ve seen this week are difficult to cope with, but they are becoming fewer and further between, and that is the real and important story. Just ask any old iceboater.

    A practice that East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell described at the first meeting of his tenure would be a simple fix to a fundamental problem of the previous administration, which frequently added resolutions on both routine and controversial matters to meeting agendas at the last minute and without public notice.

    Some of the more notable instances of this were several airport matters, scheduling a hearing for zoning changes at the behest of the Amagansett 555 developers, selling town land to a Montauk motel owner, and an apparently punitive audit of the town’s Human Resources Department.

    Also troublesome was the previous town leadership’s withholding of meeting agendas entirely — with the unfortunate exception of a private email sent to key sympathizers — until moments before meetings were to convene. Mr. Cantwell has said he will see that agendas are circulated at least two days before each meeting and work session.

    State open meetings law requires only that meetings be announced in advance so that members of the public can attend if they so choose. The law is also specific about what constitutes a meeting and what records must be kept, but it has little to say on the subject of agendas. It is clear, however, that prior distribution of a list of subjects to be covered is both standard practice and good government. A two-day rule, such as Mr. Cantwell has proposed, would keep interested parties — and minority party members — in the loop. This shift toward a more open Town Hall is to be commended.

    A corollary is that the board should decline to hear requests for mass gathering permits that do not meet the required application time frame. Those planning large events, which have in some cases proved controversial, should be expected to provide materials in a timely manner; they should be aware that they can no longer be the beneficiaries of limited scrutiny by town officials and the public, which occurred when late requests were considered. If there is time to plan a big party, there is time to get an early okay.