Several developments having to do with water pollution crossed the transom in recent days that deserve wide attention. The Peconic Baykeeper organization announced that, with the Long Island Soundkeeper, it will file a lawsuit seeking better state compliance with provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. Closer to home, the Concerned Citizens of Montauk and local Surfrider chapter released results of water testing that showed high bacteria levels at several locations. And the East Hampton Town Board, in a typical exhibit of dysfunction, was unable to sign on to an extension of the Peconic Estuary Program, a regional conservation and management effort. And let’s not forget the long-stalled Havens Beach remediation project in Sag Harbor, which was supposed to be completed by the beginning of the swimming season.

    According to Kevin McAllister, who heads the Baykeeper organization, the State Department of Environmental Conservation has failed to enforce federal requirements for wastewater discharge permits. Citing excess nitrogen and other pollutants, Mr. McAllister said there are many sites on the South Fork where violations are likely — the inference being that a legal decision in Baykeeper’s favor would have big-time implications for local governments that run wastewater treatment plants, as well as for large, private polluters. Indeed, he said there are more than 1,300 sewage plants and septic systems in the region that do not adequately protect surface waters.

    Homing in on the problem, C.C.O.M. and Surfrider took water samples at eight places during June and July, including the ocean beach at Ditch Plain and at the south end of Lake Montauk. While a number of locations tested within acceptable bounds for bacteria, water from an outfall pipe at the Montauk Shores Condominium at Ditch Plain and at South Lake Drive showed elevated levels of enterococcus, a fecal bacteria that can survive in saltwater. While this bacteria is generally not harmful to humans, it is considered a good indicator for the possible presence of a broad range of pathogens that could be dangerous.

    As to the Peconic Estuary Program, an East Hampton Town Board meeting was temporarily derailed last Thursday over a vote to allow town staff to work in concert with those of other towns and villages on water-quality matters. When Councilwoman Theresa Quigley objected to the routine measure being brought to a vote after she had tried to kill it, Supervisor Bill Wilkinson voted no in what appeared a show of sympathy and Councilman Dominick Stanzione abstained. Hoping that last Thursday’s instance of public pique was a temporary delay, we trust that a majority of the board will vote yes as soon as possible.

   After putting up with years of annoyance, several East Hampton Town residents have begun organizing in an attempt to force elected officials to do something about noise from gas-powered leaf blowers. These activists can fairly speak on behalf of many others who are vexed by the racket from these machines, which are often used for everything from dusting driveways to drying rain-dampened sidewalks in front of shops. The campaign is overdue.

    One of the things that visitors notice when they arrive on the South Fork is how manicured our neighborhoods are. Thanks to an unending supply of low-cost immigrant labor and powerful devices such as blowers, taking care of lawns and gardens has become one of the area’s largest industries. As such, the ban-the-blowers crowd, apparently made up of your average homeowners, may stand little chance of prevailing. It is not surprising that officials would be apt to sympathize with the landscapers, many of whom say blowers are essential. Work can be done with electric blowers, of course, or brooms and rakes, but the louder gasoline blowers seem to be key to quick turnaround on jobs — and better profit margins than would be achieved without ear-splitting mechanization.

    In addition to noise, the organizers of the nascent movement have said that air quality can be compromised as blowers whip up chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and mold, among other substances, and that the emissions from the gas-powered devices can be far worse than from a motor vehicle operated for an equal length of time. We worry, too, about the hearing damage the blowers may be doing to the many workers we see without ear protection, workers who are likely not to have health insurance, and who would hesitate if they are in the country without proper documentation to seek help. In such cases, there appears to be a social justice dimension to the devices’ use.

    One place to start would be for the towns and villages to phase out their commercial-equipment exemptions on noise limits. There is precedent for strict measures, too: The Village of Southampton does not allow the use of blowers from Memorial Day to Labor Day, and the City of Yonkers, bans them from June 1 to Sept. 30. Similar rules are in place in at least 16 other New York municipalities alone, suggesting that it would be possible to take action here. While the activists are at it, they should press for state or county regulations requiring hearing protection for those who use them.

    Lawn-care company owners are going to seek the most cost-effective way to get the job done; that’s just smart business. It is up to the community to guide them toward doing so in a manner that does not also destroy the peace and quiet.

   Out of curiosity last week, we asked for a copy of an official list of taxi companies registered to do business in East Hampton Town. Interest has surged this summer in what taxi drivers do for several reasons, most having to do with mounting public annoyance, and it was fascinating to look over the business entities in the official registry. There are 86 outfits on the list, with almost 550 registered drivers active here — stunning numbers by any measure.

    The town is phasing in a locals-only provision of dubious legality for taxi companies, but even if officials manage to successfully demand that all for-hire operators post an East Hampton Town mailing address, that alone would not end the excessive fares and too-frequent problems with how taxis operate. 

    At the July meeting of the Montauk Citizens Advisory Committee, one of several that provide a conduit to the town board for ideas and citizens’ complaints, taxis were a hot topic. Montauk business owners have noted with displeasure that cabs often take up what otherwise would be customers’ parking spots during rest times or between fares. There being little that police can do about it, some shopkeepers have taken to shooing cabbies away on their own, a confrontation-causer if we ever heard one.

    Others have tried to bring attention to the late-night taxi scrums outside such places as Ruschmeyer’s and the Surf Lodge in Montauk, the Stephen Talkhouse in Amagansett, at the ocean beaches during the daytime on weekends, and last, but perhaps most dangerous, for passing motorists in the early evening outside of Cyril’s Fish House on Napeague. Even in East Hampton Village, the de facto taxi stand near the Main Street bus stop at the Huntting Inn is an annoyance and increases the risk of accidents as other drivers stop in the eastbound traffic lane while waiting for the Jitney to arrive.

    The reason so many local drivers and those from elsewhere are on the roads here during the summer season is the money — it’s good, and there is a whole lot of it in an essentially unregulated industry. Fares can run $80 to $100 for a run from Montauk to Springs or Sag Harbor to East Hampton, we have heard, much more than seems fair. One knock on out-of-town drivers is that they often have little idea where anything is and have to rely on in-car navigation devices to get to almost any location off the main roads. This suggests that their attention to the main task at hand, driving, could be compromised.

    Montauk’s citizens committee formed a subgroup to gather more information and make suggestions to the town board. We await their report; the taxi situation is getting out of hand. 

   In a letter to the Star last week, a writer made the observation that the Bluff Road, Amagansett, intersection with Atlantic Avenue was unacceptably dangerous, and he made a suggestion that the Town of East Hampton install four-way stop signs there. The letter was one of many we have received about traffic this summer, in keeping with the general sense that there are too many vehicles on the roads and several horrific accidents.

    The town has put in several new stop signs lately without ill effect, notably where Abraham’s Path and Accabonac Road meet near the Springs-Amagansett-East Hampton border. But do more stops make the roads safer? The answer is not as clear-cut as you might think.

    One of East Hampton Town’s former highway superintendents, Chris Russo, was said to have generally opposed four-way stop signs. His successors, Scott King and Stephen Lynch, have not exactly been quick to seek more, and it appears they have shown justifiable restraint.

    One of the reasons cited in highway-design literature to go slow, so to speak, on four-way-stop intersections is that they do not necessarily improve conditions — either for pedestrians or drivers. The reasons vary, but include a misplaced or exaggerated sense of safety for people crossing such intersections on foot as well as heightened congestion and driver confusion. Indeed, the Internet is filled with how-tos about who goes first when drivers encounter four-way stops.

    This is not to argue that the Bluff Road-Atlantic Avenue intersection or other problem spots in town should not be improved. However, since stop signs are not always the best cure for traffic ills, a detailed study must be required before any new one is contemplated.

   The thing about the suddenly renewed discussion about trucks parked on bathing beaches is that 15 or 20 years ago East Hampton residents would not have been having this debate. But we are, and it is a symptom of an ever-growing summer population that even simple pleasures are now points of friction. Resolving the conflict is the job of town officials, who for the most part, have failed to show leadership in this regard.

     As recently as five years back, there were hardly ever any vehicles parked on a now-disputed sliver of sand on the east side of the Three Mile Harbor inlet. Now, on a sunny summer afternoon, trucks line up almost door-to-door after backing down from a paved access road. On Saturday, we saw a pickup truck left parallel to the waterline of the quiet cove, and at dead center. Four people sat nearby in beach chairs at the water’s edge as if they owned the place. For those who oppose vehicles on the beaches, it is a visual and practical blight; for those who like their four-by-fours, it is a cherished right. 

    Many Americans have a peculiarly powerful relationship with their modes of transportation. Those who suggest that trucks might not belong on a narrow, easily accessible section of waterfront like this and who might argue that new beach limits are in order are sometimes treated as if they are attacking mom, apple pie, and the flag. For those who conflate their sense of identity with what they drive, this can be taken as a personal affront.

    The reason some vehicle owners plunk their rigs on the beaches is because they like to: It is pleasant and convenient to drive picnics, chairs, coolers, paddleboards, and what have you right where you want them. To these beholders at least, there is nothing wrong or unsightly about the rows of trucks at the kid-friendly wading spot known as “baby beach” at Three Mile Harbor, or at Little Albert’s Landing in Amagansett, “truck beach” on the ocean on Napeague, or the town nature preserve off East Lake Drive, Montauk.

    Yet to the non-car-loving eye, vehicles on the beaches are nuisances that create deep tracks, cause environmental damage, and take up space that would otherwise be used by people. At the disputed Three Mile Harbor site, some people have begun to bring up safety concerns, pointing out that baby beach is not an appropriate place for motorized fun.

    Politicians, assuming that the four-wheeler crowd is a powerful November voting bloc, are loathe to upset them, which means that East Hampton Town continues to hand out free, good-for-the-life-of-the-vehicle beach-driving permits, and, therefore, as the population rises, there will be even more trucks on the beaches, not fewer. Beach-driving advocates, fearing a domino effect, are unlikely to see baby beach as an appropriate place to relax their all-or-nothing stance.

    The East Hampton Town Trustees, who run most of the town’s beaches, seem to perceive only the tradition of beach driving, collectively failing to see beyond this position when they should be objectively weighing the pros and cons on behalf of all residents. As to the East Hampton Town Board, the current group can hardly agree on how to screw in a lightbulb so we cannot expect any resolution to such a loaded issue there.

    There are places where vehicles on the beach during swimming season may be okay, such as at Little Albert’s in Amagansett and perhaps in limited numbers on Napeague, but aside from access for the disabled, there is no convincing argument for the continued use of baby beach at Three Mile Harbor by four-wheelers, nor, frankly, for trucks on the sand along the channel, when there is ample and easy parking a few steps away. A slippery slope it is not; common sense and respect for others it is.

    Many of us would like to turn back the clock to a less crowded decade, when we could drive where we wanted and do more or less what we liked. But try as we might, we cannot wave that magic wand. Neither can elected officials continue to hide in the shadows of political expediency, pretending that times have not changed and that some restrictions are not inevitable.

   One of the smartest analysies of the traffic problem — and much else — plaguing the South Fork this year that we have seen so far came from an interesting source. In our letters to the editor this week you can read for yourself a take on what has gone wrong from Judi Desiderio, who runs a successful real estate firm here. She placed much of the blame on the rise of the Web-enabled short-term housing boom. This, she argued, has led to a sharp increase in the number of cars on the roads, as well as an interesting side effect: greater and more frenetic activity as weekly (or shorter) renters rush to get it all in.

    To this we might add a couple of points: First, those who rent out rooms or illegally converted garage apartments or sheds, for example, are increasing the residential capacity of their properties. And, while taken singly, the additional beds may not seem like much, multiply them by 1,000 perhaps, and we have the makings of a big headache. Separately, we spoke off the record last week with one of the organizers of an East Hampton share house, who claimed ignorance of the law and said that the up-to-a-dozen vehicles often parked at the property, which neighbors have complained about, were just “guests” going to the beach.

    Ms. Desiderio likened the short-termers to a “brown tide,” evoking the algae blooms that can bring death to marine life in our harbors and bays — and she had a point. One gets the sense here that, banner house-sales notwithstanding, the summer population has exceeded what most residents want — as well as the ability of governments and emergency services to meet its needs. Something has to change, and targeting illegal, short-term rentals is a place to start.

   Consider if you will what East Hamptoners are saying about the state of things circa 2103. Looking over this week’s crop of letters to the editor and reading accounts of recent Demo­cratic Party “listen-ins,” we are struck by an overarching theme: The town seems out of control and no one in authority appears to be doing anything about it.

    Since about the beginning of the year, The Star has had a series of editorials noting some of the topics candidates for town office in November should be talking about. These have included planning for sea-level rise, repairing ineffective town departments, restoring even-handed rules of law, and leveling with voters about chronic budget underfunding. To that list, we now add quality of life. 

    The subjects may be familiar, but that does not mean that the concerns of ordinary people — or even party activists — can be dismissed. According to an apparent majority of those speaking out, there is plenty worth complaining about. Take, for example, noise in general, noisy leaf blowers, illegally overcrowded houses, the expansion of nighttime watering holes, traffic, the airport, Montauk’s going to hell in a handbasket, and even the cost of doughnuts. With a few of next week’s letters to the editor already in hand, we can safely say the theme continues.

    Larry Cantwell, the presumptive next town supervisor, and the other members of the next board will have their work cut out for them after years of neglect. If they need a to-do list, our letters pages could suffice. The sooner the candidates start really talking about how to set things to right, what it will cost, and how to restore law and order and peace and quiet, the easier the task will be

   Two major public entities, the Town of East Hampton and the Montauk Fire Department, have found themselves touched by an alleged $96 million Ponzi scheme involving the Panoramic View Resort and Residences in Montauk. And, knowing what has now been alleged, Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota must take a close look at whether local officials might have acted improperly.

    Troubles at the Old Montauk Highway property have been known for some time, and the matter came to a head late last week with the arrest of two men, Brian R. Callahan and Adam J. Manson, who, federal authorities said, had swindled some 40 investors who were told they were buying into a stock fund when the money was used to pay off the Panoramic’s debt. The investors included the Montauk Fire Department.

    By its own account, the Fire Department did the right thing, quickly pulling out of the deal after suspicions arose. The department had put cash from its scholarship fund into the duo’s investment fund, but for reasons not yet explained, it took out at least $400,000 and shifted it into certificates of deposit.

    This came shortly after the department’s treasurer, Terri Gaines, was caught skimming about $500,000 from the department’s treasury for personal use and was arrested. She paid it back and was sentenced to three years in prison, but the public deserves an answer to why the Montauk department put so much money into the hands of a private investment fund so soon after it had been burned by Ms. Gaines. This brings into question the ongoing effectiveness of its financial oversight. East Hampton Town’s involvement is more complicated.

    At about the same time the Fire Department was getting involved, the Panoramic View began large-scale renovations that should have had painstaking town review. Instead, the Building Department issued permits for conversion of motel units to residences and other changes without routing the project to the Planning Department, planning board, and perhaps even the zoning board of appeals.

    In 2008, two town officials, Sylvia Overby, then the chairwoman of the planning board, and Tom Talmage, the town engineer, were alerted to the work going on at the Panoramic and went to have a look. They found renovations that far exceeded what had been described in town files. Speaking later, Ms. Overby, now a member of the town board, said massive changes had taken place but that approvals for the work “never came up through the correct channels.” The only town officials outside of the Building Department who considered any aspect of the conversion were members of the architectural review board, who had been asked to decide on some minor aesthetic changes.

    Underlying the problem for the Panoramic’s redevelopers was the fact that the land on which the resort sits is zoned residentially. That means that the motel could remain as it existed, but that plans for any alterations, even if they were less than a conversion or expansion, would, under the law, have to be submitted for site plan review, a process that could have gone on for years. Instead, the owners converted the motel into luxury residences (some still available for short-term rental), re-graded the landscape, and made other improvements without mandated review.

    Dan Adams, who in 2010 was the newly hired, get-tough town attorney, said he would look into the matter and stop work, if necessary. But he was ousted within months. At the same time, Tom Preiato, the acting top town building inspector, expressed a view favorable to the Panoramic, saying that only minimal oversight was needed.

    Why the Panoramic was allowed to avoid exhaustive review of its plans before approvals were handed out remains unknown. Nor is it known who made the Panoramic’s case in Town Hall. At a time when the recently arrested men were allegedly scrambling for money and trying to beat the clock on their debt, time was money. They had neither.

    How it was that East Hampton Town officials helped speed their way is something that must be brought to light. It is now up to current town officials and the district attorney to decide whether to launch their own investigations, which we believe are warranted. Where such large sums of money are concerned, as well as allegations of criminal activity, a hard look at Town Hall’s role can no longer be sidestepped.

   Where some people hear noise, other people hear cash registers ringing, but as complaints pile up about excessive sounds this summer — especially in beleaguered Montauk — we can’t help but wonder if the pervasive din will begin to have a downward effect on real estate. In keeping with the theme of a community overrun and getting out of control, which we have heard in casual conversations just about everywhere in recent weeks, the general volume seems turned up to 11 (to give a tip of the cap to “This is Spinal Tap.”)

    Two areas of town come to mind when you consider decibels: approaches to East Hampton Airport and the area around Fort Pond in Montauk, along with its downtown, where audible amplified music is the norm on weekend evenings. And, almost wherever you are, leaf blowers, crack-of-dawn construction crews, and boisterous share-house parties are to be reckoned with.

    If anything, East Hampton Town Hall seemed ready to make things worse recently, putting forward rule changes that would have made it impractical, if not impossible, for police and the Ordinance Enforcement Department to keep a lid on things.

    In the spring, we spilled a lot of ink cataloging things that this fall’s political candidates should be talking and thinking about in the run-up to the November election. It’s time to add noise to the list, and ask what they propose to do about it.

   Prospects of a solution to the problem of what appears to be an exploding deer population here remain uncertain despite the release last month of a management report that was supposed to provide one.

    Deer are too many, the report’s authors agreed, citing tick-related diseases as a top concern. Environmentally, they said, deer numbers may have put East Hampton Town’s remaining wild lands at a “tipping point” because of the elimination of the forest understory, an essential habitat for plants and other wildlife. To this, we would add the rapid emergence of a tick-borne red-meat allergy which can have immediate and life-threatening implications.    

    Property damage, whether when a vehicle strikes one of these sizable animals or when they attack horticultural or farm plantings, has become epidemic as well. High, wire fences around house and field have given some parts of the South Fork an unpleasant, keep-out look.

    The problems caused by deer are more or less agreed upon; what to do about them remains unclear. The study’s authors called for a sharp population reduction, presumably through hunting, “as soon as practically possible.” Unfortunately, instead of making specific policy recommendations that could be swiftly acted upon, the report called for a five-year plan before anything was actually done. The report turned out to be little more than an expansion of the ideas contained in a similar document produced by a subcommittee of the town’s Nature Preserve Committee back in January 2011.

    More than two years later, officials are still calling for the drafting of a management plan. How much longer will residents have to wait before Town Hall really takes on the deer?