August 13, 2009: Vol. 32, No. 32

Past issues

Feeds

The Paper in print

Twitter

Facebook

Email updates

All Brooklyn news

Neighborhood Map

Bay Ridge

Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights

Brooklyn Heights

Downtown, DUMBO

Carroll Gardens

Cobble Hill, Red Hook, Boerum Hill

Fort Greene

Clinton Hill, Crown Heights

North Brooklyn

Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick

Park Slope

Prospect Heights, Windsor Terrace, Greenwood Heights

GO Brooklyn

Dining Guide

Where to GO Events calendar

Classifieds

The Brooklyn Wire

Mean Streets

Podcasts

Brooklyn Cyclones

August 13, 2009 / Brooklyn news / Not Just Nets / Gowanus / Gowanus Canal Zone / Cleaning Our Waterways

State caught in ‘Superflop’

By Mike McLaughlin

The Brooklyn Paper

The Paterson administration has backed away from its surprise call last year to have the federal government lead a Superfund clean-up of the Gowanus Canal — and now says the Environmental Protection Agency should “carefully review” an alternate proposal from Mayor Bloomberg for decontaminating the waterway.

The EPA will decide the 1-1/2-mile long canal’s destiny this fall, choosing whether to remove the waterway’s bed of toxic sediment via the Superfund program, which forces polluters to pay often after a lengthy and litigious effort, or by letting the city go ahead with its proposal, an untested arrangement that uses federal money and voluntary contributions from polluters to cover the estimated $400-million clean-up cost.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation told the Bloomberg administration that it was not opposed to the mayor’s plan — as long as it sought a comprehensiv e clean-up. That Aug. 6 letter was a departure from the state’s December request to add it to the Superfund list.

Jennifer Filocomo

“The Department remains committed to the need for a clean-up to Superfund standards,” wrote Stuart Gruskin, executive deputy commissioner. “We believe that it is appropriate for the EPA to carefully review and consider the [city] proposal.”

Gruskin’s correspondence said that the EPA should investigate if the mayor’s claims are true that his plan will be faster and more efficient than the Superfund and to make sure that the city approach won’t delay or hinder the clean-up if a Superfund designation is later deemed necessary.

The Bloomberg administration heralded the letter as a vindication of its idea, which has been criticized by the EPA and Gowanus Canal zone neighbors who doubt the city has the ability or the interest in fully restoring the channel.

But the letter raised some of the recurring doubts that have nagged the mayor’s plan from the start, such as the difficult balancing act of coordinating the polluters with the city, state and federal agencies.

BoroDeal

“There are many assumptions in the proposal, including among other things, a requirement for a very high degree of cooperation responsible parties,” Gruskin wrote.

In December, the state requested adding the Gowanus Canal to the Superfund list, a move that sent the mayor’s office scrambling. Bloomberg said Superfund designation would scare off the $400 million in private investment in the neighborhood that will pour into the neighborhood after the city rezones the old manufacturing district.

Some real-estate developers confirmed the mayor’s doubts and said they won’t build if the Gowanus becomes a Superfund site.

On Friday, a day after the online version of this story was published on BrooklynPaper.com, Josh Skaller, a candidate for the City Council seat that includes the canal, condemned Paterson for “buckl[ing] under pressure from a developer-loving mayor.”

“Governor Paterson has not knocked on thousands of doors in Carroll Gardens, but I have,” said Skaller, who is running in the Democratic primary for the seat currently occupied by Bill DeBlasio. “It is clear the community supports Superfund status. [Superfund] is not a perfect solution, but it’s the best way to make sure the Canal gets the clean-up needed before we can build along its banks.”

Updated 02:20 pm, August, 14 2009: Story was updated to include a quote from Josh Skaller.

←Politics: Sen. Adams: I would’ve collared Gates immediately!

→Greenpoint: Gates of wrath! Greenpoint fights illegal fences along waterfront

Reader Feedback

Eric McClure from Park Slope says:

The Mayor's "plan" is greenwashing. The only way a comprehensive clean-up going to happen is via the EPA and Superfund.

Superfund Gowanus now, and call the developers' bluffs.

Aug. 13, 2009, 1:36 pm

Gowanee from Gowanus says:

Of course the EPA should carefully review the City's Plan, in the same way that it should carefully review all the comments made by everyone that submitted them to the EPA. Checking the EPA website, Pro-Superfund comments greatly outnumber pro-alternative City Plan. The City is doing this to accomodate developers looking to make quick bucks asap. That's the bottom line. The ONLY way that the canal will get cleaned up is with the EPA.

Aug. 13, 2009, 11:03 pm

Buddy 11210 says:

Amen. For the 300 of us who attended the debate between EPA's head of Superfund in our area and the three suits representing the Mayor, it was very clear: The only way to do it right is to do it with the EPA. Let's get on with it. Developers can have their field day once the area is safe. But "safe" includes not only remediation of the ground but a true solution to the Combined Sewage Overflow and cleaning up the water (pollution goes down to bedrock and out to 4th ave). Sadly, the Governor has, again, shown his total and complete lack of understanding the issue and disregard for the communities he pretends to represent.

Aug. 17, 2009, 7:39 pm

wherehaveall the reportersgone-gone long ago from gowanus says:

This is a NON-STORY!
It is "appropriate for the EPA to carefully review and consider the [city] proposal". The EPA in fact must by law review all submissions made during the comment period.

The real story should be how did your paper come to frame this issue in this way? There is not a single piece of information here about the benefits and problems of either plan. The mayor's plan can only be faster if it has a funding source. There is no funding source for the city plan--though the plan lists a number of options--each with very little possibility of being a funding stream that can be counted on to deliver a "faster cleanup".

Lets see this paper roll up their sleeves and get into some real reporting going here, with real information and not just spin built on lame information.

Aug. 18, 2009, 4:27 pm

cv from bh says:

I am shocked that people are living in the Gowanus Canal area -- a proposed Superfund site. No children, nor anyone should be permitted to live there given the contaminant dangers. The city and state and all the current and past owners will be sued for billions when all the people living there now will die of cancer. The city must vacate the area immediately and condemn all the contaminated housing there. State legislation is necessary to that end. I will write to our legislators.

Nov. 24, 2009, 1:15 pm

Enter your comment below

Name: Neighborhood:

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.