Clean the Gowanus? Hold your nose and choose between feds and city

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Two competing proposals to clean up the Gowanus Canal were brought into stark relief on Tuesday night as federal officials pitched an approach that drags corporate polluters into lengthy court battles, and city officials unveiled an untested approach that seeks to clean the waterway by soaking federal taxpayers.

The fight between Mayor Bloomberg and the Environmental Protection Agency is a classic disagreement over whether to use the carrot or the stick to implement public policy. Bloomberg administration officials say that offering incentives to corporations to pay for some canal cleansing will work better than the EPA approach of suing polluters to finance the clean-up — the Superfund approach that is currently on the table.

EPA officials told more than 200 people in PS 32 on Hoyt Street on Tuesday night that the Superfund program has a proven record of results. It dates to 1980 and has cleaned hundreds of polluted sites across the country (though 1,600 have made it on to the Superfund list). The agency also claimed that it’s better equipped than the city’s grab bag of initiatives to direct a complex cleanup in the water and on land involving up to 150 property owners.

Not only that, but neighbors allegedly won’t wait years for progress on the waterway.

“Clean-up always comes first. We don’t hold it up while litigation is going on,” said Walter Mugdan, who directs the EPA’s Superfund program in New York and New Jersey.

That’s a bold claim given the glaring examples of delays on EPA-led efforts on the Hudson and Passaic rivers.

But Mugdan and his green team argued that their approach would extract the necessary $300 million to $400 million from identifiable polluters to remove the high levels of PCBs, dioxin and other toxins that accumulated on the canal’s bed from 150 years of industrial dumping.

The feds also claimed that, contrary to the mayor’s concerns, the proposed Superfund listing would not hamper existing city plans to make infrastructure improvements that would reduce sewage overflows into the canal.

And while the Superfund won’t interfere with the city work scheduled to begin this fall, it’s not going to help solve the annual 300-million gall spill either, because this “water quality” issue is in the state’s jurisdiction.

Mayor Bloomberg has been an outspoken critic of the federal proposal, saying that his team can do a Superfund-equivalent clean-up in less time.

His administra­tion’s plan, presented in greater detail than it was two weeks ago, hinges on obtaining an inordinate allotment of federal taxpayer money through a program run by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Instead of largely seeking corporate penalties, this formula is more dependent on generous yearly congressional earmarks from a program that only has $50 million to spend across the entire country.

Mugdan called that one of the main flaws.

“This is likely to take longer than Superfund once it starts because of the annual authorization restraints,” Mugdan warned.

The city expects challenges, but not insurmountable hurdles, because cleaning the Gowanus is now high on the mayor’s priorities.

“This project is at the top of the mayor’s federal agenda,” said Caswell Holloway, the chief of staff to Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler.

Under this scenario, American taxpayers would foot the bill for 65 percent of the clean-up. The Bloomberg Administration argues that this would entice corporate offenders to pay for the rest, helping to avoid the likely litigation between polluters and the federal government that can emerge from a Superfund designation.

“This would be a major incentive for [potentially responsible parties] to come to the table,” said Dan Walsh, the director of the Mayor’s office of Environmental Remediation.

Plus, it would facilitate the residential transformation of the surrounding manufacturing blocks favored by the mayor and already in the early stages with large apartment complexes planned by Toll Brothers and a collection of developers on the city owned Public Place site, both on the western shore of the canal.

The debate has energized the community — as shown by the turnout in PS 32 — and with the July 8 deadline for public comment fast approaching, many people have already chosen whether to support or oppose declaring the 1.8-mile long canal a Superfund site.

Among activists, there appears to be a significant minority who agrees with the mayor’s rationale that the Superfund would hinder development in the area.

The majority is made of people who welcome the intervention of the federal government after years of city neglect under several mayors.

“My priority is for the Gowanus Canal and its surrounding area to be cleaned up as quickly and efficiently as possible,” said Bob Zuckerman, who is not only the chairman of CB6’s Environmental Protection Committee and a candidate for City Council, but is also the former head of the Gowanus Canal Conservancy. “After comparing the EPA’s approach to the city’s, I am confident that a Superfund designation will result in a more comprehensive and coordinated cleanup of the canal.”

Supporters of Superfund designation like Zuckerman do make one good point: Why did the city wait decades to present a comprehensive clean-up plan until only after the EPA became involved?

Updated 5:13 pm, July 9, 2018: Story was updated to include a comment from Bob Zuckerman.
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Eric McClure from Park Slope says:
The Mayor's plan for cleaning up the Gowanus is pure fantasy. If you believe that the city's plan would be superior to Superfund designation, Mayor Bloomberg also has a bridge to sell you -- oops, sorry, no, he's already sold that bridge to Two Trees.
May 27, 2009, 8:58 pm
Gowanus from Brooklyn says:
The mayor's plan offers nothing to the community, above and beyond the Superfund plan, besides the false promise of a swift cleanup. (The plan was clearly a bailout scheme for the PRP's.)

Under the city's plan, the cleanup would never get done, which is based on doing much of what has been going on for 8-10 years now. The Army Corp gets some funding, and the studies are worked on a bit more till that funding runs out and everyone waits a year or two for more funding. What was the acronym for this plan that was used last night--the WACO plan?
May 27, 2009, 10:12 pm
margaret from gowanus says:
In talking with Gowanus residents, there has not been one person who is anti-Superfund. And most people I talk to aren't thrilled about the overdevelopment plans that were in the works for this area before Superfund came.
May 29, 2009, 10:15 am
Robert Durante from Carroll Gardens says:
Quoting Bob Zuckerman
"Why did the city wait decades to present a comprehensive clean-up plan until only after the EPA became involved?"


"Toll Brothers, Hudson Companies) who have committed to creating affordable and market rate housing, community facilities, and retail,
And let’s not forget their own clean up of the canal along with the Mayors.
The area would not have been rezoned without their interest and their money AND if the SUPERFUND designation had been in place or discussed before they would not have been involved. Now tell why the feds stepped in now .
May 29, 2009, 1:57 pm
Michael King from a street that dead ends at the canal says:
I was very pleased at the presentations by the EPA and City on Tuesday night. They were both well thought out and discussed, and the moderators did an excellent job of moderating. I was expecting a screaming match but the audience was quite well behaved - everyone acted like adults.

The thing that I came away with was: is our government really arguing over who gets to clean the Canal? If the EPA comes to play the Army Corps takes their ball and goes home? The city does not want the feds to sue polluters, so that they can make their own deals? Poppycock. Tell our government to figure out how to get along and get to work - I'm not interested in internal power struggles.

Finally, what's this about developers backing out if the are is designated a Superfund site? As a home owner who stands to gain plenty with redevelopment, I say let them leave. There are plenty of local builders who would benefit from having the canal clean. I much favor small-scale, natural developments that respond directly to the neighborhood's needs.
May 30, 2009, 9:55 am
Paul from Park Slope says:
With Superfund listing there's guaranteed continuity of effort, something guaranteed to be lacking if Emperor Bloomberg gets his way. Even with his 3rd term power grab he's gone in a few years, and what will be the commitment of a new administration? And depending on the generosity of Congress to fund this? Right!
That's the kind of fiscal wisdom we expect from a Mayor who made the city almost totally reliant on FIRE economics (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) so that we're facing gargantuan debt right now. But if you spend enough of your own billions on PR, maybe folks won't figure it out. Right!
BTW: "Supporters of Superfund designation like Zuckerman do make one good point..." Gee, thanks! Glad you approve! Is that supposed to be reporting or editorializing? Do a more professional job!
June 4, 2009, 10:29 am

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: