Pollution on the surface of the Gowanus Canal. (photo courtesy of http://www.brownstoner.com/)

After writing a blog a few weeks ago about the possibility of the Gowanus Canal being added to the Federal Superfund National Priorities List, I became increasingly interested in the progress of the EPA's proposal and the Superfund status of the canal.  After perusing a recent article I came across in The Architect's Newspaper, I found out where Mayor Michael Bloomberg stands on the issue.  As the article notes, in early October, Bloomberg revealed a $150 million investment plan for cleaning up the waterway.  This plan for remediation wasn't exactly his first, as he had announced a comparable investment for cleanup back in 2002.  As a result of raw sewerage being discharged into the canal after heavy rain storms, the city of New York needed to bring the state of the Gowanus into compliance with the Clean Water Act.  Though Bloomberg announced this clean-up effort in 2002, no advances had been made by 2005 and, as a result, the city filed a consent order. 

Nonetheless, it was not until this past October that Bloomberg brought his attention back to the Gowanus Canal, though this time because of the EPA's announcement that it should be given Superfund status: "This is the beginning of a comprehensive cleanup that will be done much faster than the years of fighting through the Superfund process."  Bloomberg argues that his plan has more capital and would address the issue of the polluted waters more efficiently, as the article notes.  The EPA, on the other hand, maintains that its Superfund remediation budget exceeds $1 billion every year.  Region 2, which covers New York, gets between $80 and $100 million per year, though it is likely to reach $250 million this year because of stimulus funding, which would clearly top Bloomberg's investment strategy monetarily.  Still, money should not be the main concern here, but rather discerning which strategy-Bloomberg's plan or the Superfund distinction-will improve the overall environmental integrity and well-being of the Gowanus Canal.      

On that note, the major problem with Bloomberg's rationale is that although his projected investment plan will address sewerage overflow, it has absolutely nothing to do with the remediation of toxic sediments in the canal, which is why the EPA proposed adding the Gowanus to the Superfund List in the first place.  As Riverkeeper staff attorney Joshua Verleun points out, "...to lump it [Bloomberg's wastewater treatment project] in with Superfund is misleading-they're two different things.  Both from a legal perspective and an advocacy perspective, Superfund really is the best way to clean up the canal and it's what the people in the community want and deserve."        

When politics and environmental concerns conflict, I think that it's logical to head advice from environmental experts, and some politicians do in fact understand this line of reasoning.  In mid-October, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez ultimately agreed with Superfund, recognizing that the EPA has "the expertise and resources to carry out a comprehensive remediation of these sites, creating a safe place for New Yorkers to live and work."

What is the next step in determining the fate of the Gowanus Canal?  The EPA must now announce its final decision on the canal's Superfund status (which is likely to come in March), when it can either take over the canal and officially list it on the Federal Superfund National Priorities List or allow Bloomberg to take control.  I'm a firm believer in doing things right the first time, so for me the choice would be easy.  The Superfund initiative calls for a comprehensive clean-up plan that would address the toxic chemicals that have plagued the canal for years-something that Bloomberg's plan doesn't ensure.  I'm just hoping that the EPA doesn't back down and that the Gowanus can be thoroughly cleaned once and for all.