Bridget Lawrence-Meigs is the farm manager and programs director at Fairfield Farm.
LAKEVILLE — Harvest is in full swing at Fairfield Farm, the 287-acre farm and cattle pasture owned by The Hotchkiss School and located just a mile from campus in Lakeville.
Peppers and tomatoes are crowding the vines in the hoop houses while corn dries in the Grange, a multi-purpose structure that serves as a storage facility, teaching kitchen, ad hoc classroom and concert venue.
With classes back in session as of earlier this month, Bridget Lawrence-Meigs, the farm manager and programs director, is ready to get students involved.
“The farm is this place that, like a lot of campus farms, has a mission,” said Lawrence-Meigs. “At Hotchkiss, it’s very much about production and education.”
Acquired by the school in 2004, Fairfield Farm has become a major producer for Hotchkiss’ dining hall and today supplies 20-25% of the produce and 100% of the beef served on campus each fall.
According to Joshua Hahn, Hotchkiss’ assistant head of school and director of strategic initiatives, the farm fits into the school’s broader efforts over the past several years to reduce its carbon emissions.
“The school’s grass-fed beef has a much lower carbon footprint than conventional beef,” said Hahn. “So decisions we’re making in terms of where the food’s coming from [have] an impact, not just nutritionally and economically, but also on the climate.”
Beyond a full-production farm, Hahn said the space acts as an “interdisciplinary laboratory for the school.” Teachers and visiting instructors have utilized Fairfield as a classroom “en plein air,” teaching on topics from English and social science to engineering. One group of engineering students designed an overhead irrigation system for seedlings; another designed a composter.
For Lawrence-Meigs, a seasoned educator and co-leader of a gathering of campus farms called the Campus Farmer Network, the farm is an opportunity to make complex dimensions of the food system more tangible for students.
“One of the big problems with our food system is that the human element is often lost,” she said. “Like, who grew this tomato?”
By involving students in multiple steps of the food production process, Lawrence-Meigs says the farm can foster conversations about the “social, environmental, and political” aspects of food production both on the farm and off.
The goal is “helping the kids really understand that the farm isn’t in a bubble, and food systems aren’t in bubbles,” she said.
As part of that education, students can help harvest the roughly 10% of Fairfield Farm’s product that gets donated to groups like The Corner Food Pantry and Northeast Community Center, which work to alleviate hunger in the communities surrounding Hotchkiss’ campus.
According to a study by Connecticut United Ways, 10% of Connecticut residents said they experienced food insufficiency in 2022: a statistic due in part to the 25% increase in U.S. food prices between 2019 and 2023, as reported by the Consumer Price Index.
At Hotchkiss, where the student body represents 31 countries, food security and sustainability are issues that resonate.
The Hotchkiss Food Access Society, a student group which works with the farm, was formed by a student who learned about food insecurity in Ghana and wanted to help address similar issues in Connecticut.
For other students, engagement with the farm may be limited to two visits over their four-year tenure: the annual potato harvest for first-year students and senior prom, which is held on the grounds. Hahn hopes that, for these students, the visibility of farm-grown food at the dining hall will invite critical thinking about what they eat.
“We’re not going to graduate 175 seniors who are gonna go on to be farmers next year,” he said, offering politics and business as more likely career paths. “But everybody eats. As Wendell Berry says, ‘Eating is an agricultural act.’”
State Sen. Stephen Harding
NEW MILFORD — State Sen. and Minority Leader Stephen Harding announced Jan. 20 the launch of his re-election campaign for the state’s 30th Senate District.
Harding was first elected to the State Senate in November 2022. He previously served in the House beginning in 2015. He is an attorney from New Milford.
In his campaign announcement, he said, “There is still important work to do to make Connecticut more affordable, government more accountable, and create economic opportunity. I’m running for reelection to continue standing up for our communities, listening to residents, and delivering real results.”
As of late January, no publicly listed challenger has filed to run against him.
The 30th District includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Cornwall, Falls Village, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Fairfield, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Sherman, Warren, Washington, Winchester and part of Torrington.
MILLERTON — James (Jimmy) Cookingham, 51, a lifelong local resident, passed away on Jan. 19, 2026.
James was born on April 17, 1972 in Sharon, the son of Robert Cookingham and the late Joanne Cookingham.
He attended Webutuck Central School.
Jimmy was an avid farmer since a very young age at Daisey Hill and eventually had joint ownership of Daisey Hill Farm in Millerton with his wife Jessica.
He took great pride in growing pumpkins and sweet corn.
He was very outdoorsy and besides farming, loved to ride four wheelers, fish, and deer hunt. He also loved to make a roaring bonfire.
He was a farmer, friend, husband, father, son and brother. He will be missed by many.
He is survived by his father, Robert Cookingham, wife Jessica (Ball) Cookingham, daughters, Hailey Cookingham-Loiodice (Matt), Taylor Ellis-Tanner (Jimmy) and sister Brenda Valyou, as well as many cousins, nieces and nephews.
He is predeceased by his mother, Joanne (Palmer) Cookingham.
His daughter, Hailey, will always keep his legacy alive by their father-daughter antics, such as their handshake, nicknames and making “quacking noises” at each other.
Services/Memorials will be held at a later date.
The Kenny Funeral Home has care of arrangements.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.