Food banks brace for surge despite partial SNAP funding

Corner Food Pantry volunteer Lisa braves the wind and rain on Friday, Oct. 31, to hand out eggs and other foods to residents in need.
Alec Linden

Corner Food Pantry volunteer Lisa braves the wind and rain on Friday, Oct. 31, to hand out eggs and other foods to residents in need.
LAKEVILLE — Dozens of cars lined up outside the Corner Food Pantry on Oct. 31 as the looming lapse in federal food aid funding added to the gloom of a rainy Halloween afternoon.
The uncertainty surrounding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP or food stamps, threatened to leave millions of households across the nation without benefits just as the month ended.
About 42 million Americans rely on SNAP — including roughly 360,000 Connecticut residents — and many were bracing to miss their November payment scheduled for the next day. But volunteers at Lakeville’s tri-state food assistance nonprofit pressed on as heavy rain soaked their umbrellas and the month-long government shutdown in Washington dragged on.
“The community is coming together,” said board member Sarah Gunderson as she checked food recipients’ item sheets outside the pantry’s storehouse beside St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church. She said organizations and individuals across the region had responded quickly, asking how to help and offering to volunteer.
On Monday, Nov. 3, the USDA announced it would use contingency funds to finance November’s payments, but it will only amount to about $4.5 billion, or just over half of the normal allotment for the month.
While SNAP recipients will receive payments this month, it remains to be seen how much beneficiaries will get, and when they can expect to see the money hit their EBT accounts. The agency has cautioned that due to complications surrounding distributing partial payments, some recipients potentially could wait weeks or even months for their portion. Lawmakers and food access advocates have warned that the delay could impact vulnerable populations for months to come.
Even as SNAP benefits are expected to resume for now, the federal shut down continues, with each party blaming the other. The stalemate is putting other critical social service programs at risk of running out of money.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is depleting its limited emergency reserves — the Trump Administration allocated an additional $450 million in back-up funds on Friday which is expected to last the program, which reaches seven million vulnerable Americans under normal circumstances, for two to three more weeks, though future support is uncertain beyond that point.
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps about six million households nationwide with winter heating costs, is similarly on track to lose funding just as the mercury is beginning to drop in earnest.
Gov. Ned Lamont (D) announced the state has provided the nonprofit Connecticut Foodshare with $3 million in emergency funds to distribute to food banks, though state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have contested that the number is small compared to other states, and won’t address the multi-pronged threat to vulnerable residents that the shutdown has rendered.
One Salisbury resident who sat in her car as she waited for her turn at the Corner Food Pantry on Friday afternoon said that she was “very angry” about the situation in Washington, but simultaneously “enormously grateful” for the work of the food bank. She said she was picking up food for her disabled daughter, who was in need of Saturday’s SNAP payment that wouldn’t come, and her daughter’s young son.
She works part-time, she said, and had to rely on the Pantry while the federal program paused. “I have to do this so they can have food,” she said.
“This just really boils my blood,” she added.
While some money from SNAP is now expected to reach beneficiaries, the interruption is still likely to cause suffering for families and residents in need.
Allison Gray, a pantry board member, said residents and local groups can still play a big role in helping out right now. She said food drives are especially helpful and that she has already emailed local groups a list of suggested actions and needed items. Monetary donations and food drop-offs also make a significant difference, particularly contributions of dry, packaged goods and snacks. “Nobody can afford to buy snacks,” she said.
While the extensive storerooms of the food bank appear well stocked, Gray said much more is needed, especially with Thanksgiving approaching and as more residents turn to food banks to supplement their shelves.
Residents concerned about their food security in the coming weeks are encouraged to contact their town’s social services department for assistance.
Those in a position to give can support local food banks, such as the following, as they prepare for increased demand: The Corner Food Pantry in Lakeville serving residents of Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts; Fishes and Loaves in North Canaan serving residents of North Canaan, Falls Village and Norfolk; Sharon Social Services food pantry serving residents of Sharon; Kent’s food bank serving town residents in need; Cornwall Social Services’ food pantry serving town residents; and Falls Village’s food pantry which is available to town residents.
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.