I think everyone agrees that the Gowanus Canal is a severely contaminated site that is not currently appropriate for human habitation nearby unless something is done about it.
Reports from Tuesday night's meeting at PS 32, a community forum about Superfund status for the Gowanus Canal, confirmed that the Environmental Protection Agency is more than convinced that the area is in need of this designation.
Representatives from the EPA, the community and plenty of politicians were there. I am guessing that quite a few of the City Council candidates for the 39th district were in attendance.
According to Katia Kelly of Pardon Me for Asking: "Mugdan, U.S. EPA Director of the Emergency and Remedial
Response Division, suggested there can be no rational discussion about whether
the canal needs to be cleaned up. The meeting last night was more about
the when and how. The
primary objective, Mugdan explained, is to identify the sources of the
contamination, clean up the sites along the Gowanus, and then to
dredge the bottom of the 2 mile long canal."
Note that Mugdan said that the land next to the canal must be cleaned first. I am wondering who is responsible for that clean up? Other questions are: who pays for the clean up, how long will it take and when will it happen?
Apparently there's a long list of sites with Superfund designation that have yet to be cleaned up. Who's to say that the Gowanus Canal will be a high priority for the EPA. And have they said whether they would pay for it?
Found in Brooklyn, a blog written by a Carroll Gardens community activist, reports that there was a representative from Bloomberg's office at the meeting, who expressed Bloomberg's opposition to Superfund designation and thinks that developers like the Toll Brothers, who have apporved plans to build condos, townhouses and a promenade along the canal, should pay for the clean up.
She writes: "A representative
from Mayor Bloomberg’s office appeared and burst the feeling of “YES!
finally some sense is being spoke here” and said that the Mayor was
against the superfunding and that developers have invested 400 million
dollars in doing the same clean up as the EPA."
The sides are drawn and the argument seems to be: who is better suited to responsibly take care of the clean up of a severely toxic site like the Gowanus Canal? There are those who say it is the private sector developers (who are huge financial supporters of many NYC politicians) and are motivated and eager to make big money off of the site.
Others believe that a government agency like the EPA would do it in the most thorough and responsible job. But from my reading about Superfund, the designation does not come with funding. Originally the idea was that the polluter had to pay for the clean up. But that "polluter tax" expired in 1995 and attempts by Democrats have tried to reinstate it but it was opposed by the Bush administration.
What does Obama think and will the polluter tax be reinstated under his administration?
That said, it worth noting that the first site to get Superfund designation was Love Canal near Buffalo, New York. In the late 1970's, horrible chemicals, which caused birth defects and miscarriages, started seeping up through the ground into basements
and a school, burning children and pets in that large residential area. Unknown to the occupants at the time, the neighborhood was later revealed to have been built
on a 19th-century canal where a toxic mix of more than 80 industrial
chemicals had been buried.
According to the New York Times in a 2004 article, Love Canal is what motivated Congress to pass the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, which came to be known as Superfund.
The law provided for the establishment of a priority list of dirty
sites, and created a mechanism for the cleanups to be paid for by the
companies that created them. A ''polluter pays'' tax was also set up to
pay for cleanups at abandoned hazardous waste sites.
That
tax expired in 1995, and Democrats in the Senate have tried to
reinstate it. The most recent effort was last week, when the bill,
opposed by the Bush administration, was defeated, 53-4
Superfund status, while incredibly validating for all who believe that contamination in the Gowanus Canal is unhealthy for children and other living things, does not insure a speedy clean up. Or a sugar daddy that will take care of it.
I'm curious about the details and how long this will take. It seems about time that the Gowanus get cleaned up so Brooklyn can begin to enjoy that beautiful and historic area.