Estuaries Are a Bargain

Whichever side of the political aisle you sit on, there’s a reality in play in 2025: Government spending is going to be on the chopping block, and only the most compelling arguments are going to save individual investments.

Why, then, does federal spending on estuaries seem so precarious? The argument is rock solid, the benefits are clear and demonstrable, and it seems unlikely that the dollars going to places like the Peconic Estuary are raising ire among voters. If this funding is at risk, nothing is sacred.

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was in Riverhead last week pledging to fight proposed cuts to the National Estuary Program. Run by the Environmental Protection Agency — whose administrator is Lee Zeldin, the 1st District’s former representative in the U.S. House — it is tasked with protecting estuaries across the country.

Her urgency is clear: In President Donald Trump’s proposed spending plan for 2026, the program would lose $8 million. In context, the program received $132 million to benefit 28 estuary programs from 2022 to 2026. That works out to $26.4 million per year, so $8 million would be a substantial 30 percent cut next year.

Locally — and Zeldin should be fully aware of this — the Peconic Estuary Program and the Long Island Sound Study have significantly advanced the science in our local waters, which have led to monumental improvements in water quality. Gillibrand believes the NEP is successful enough that $50 million should be added, not taken away.

Meanwhile, these numbers are minuscule compared with overall government spending. Snipping $8 million here will have virtually no effect on the government’s bottom line — but it will ripple through the estuaries in an out-sized way. Its value is monumental in some of America’s most delicate environments, including here.

The senator noted that the House is currently looking at a bipartisan measure that would extend federal funding for the NEP for five more years — and that measure has the support of Congressman Nick LaLota, who took over Zeldin’s 1st District seat, along with other Long Island representatives. Gillibrand, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, is pushing her colleagues to support it as well. She describes it as a “full-court press” on the White House, which might not be aware of just how sensible this spending is.

Zeldin, as EPA administrator, would seem to have no choice but to fall in line with the White House desire for specific cuts, like this one. Bob DeLuca of the Group for the East End argues that spending on the estuaries “delivers far higher returns on any federal investment than any dollar value.” That’s the best argument to make in the current climate.

If Zeldin, who knows firsthand the value of these programs, makes the case that estuary spending is both shrewd and high-return, perhaps the president — who prides himself on knowing a good deal — can be swayed. Let’s see if he has the temerity to do it.