Sanitizing The Gowanus Canal

oo

(photo credit: f.trainer on Fickr)

This Is a follow-up to: Wishful Thinking, Rezoning and the Mighty Dollar Along The Gowanus Canal


I was pretty depressed after the C.B.6 meeting on Monday regarding the clean-up of the Gowanus Canal. Both the presentations by D.E.P. and The Army Corp Of Engineers left me with so many questions that yesterday, I reached out to my friend Marlene Donnelly who has been a member of Friends And Residents Of Greater Gowanus (F.R.O.G.G.) for quite some time and fully understands the issues.
I sent her an email in the hopes that she could help me understand what these experts are NOT saying about their plans for the Gowanus Canal. And more importantly, what we all need to know as residents of the area.
Here is her very thorough analysis. I think you will all find it very informed and extremely interesting.

The meeting followed on the heals of last weeks meeting held by the Mayor's Office of Sustainability--which was more depressing.
The DEP presentation we saw hasn't changed much from what we were shown in the DEP Gowanus Stakeholders meetings. The main thing that has changes is the time line. Our 2004 Stakeholders presentation shows construction date for the Flushing Tunnel work to begin fall 2006.

The part of this plan that is hard for me to accept is it's limited goal--what does it actually achieve. The canal presently has the NY State classification of "SD". This is the lowest water quality standard of the state. Gowanus and Newtown Creek are the only water bodies in NYC with this ranking. Water bodies of SD classification are for use in industrial areas. All that the DEP is accountable for is maintaining a certain level of oxygen in the water for fish survival. Under this classification, the city is not legally accountable for the level of pathogens in that water--even though the city pipes are the source of those pathogens.

So how is it that the city could even entertain the notion that the land abutting this waterway should be given over to residential use?

And as we heard last night, the DEP is hopeful that when the new pumps are in place in the Flushing Tunnel, the water quality may meet the measures for the next classification up. That is, if all the factors used in their theoretical planning model actually come to pass (like only 37 inches of annual rainfall), the canal just might have enough oxygen in it to support fish colonization. And why we look forward to that possibility, does this change the general environment to support human colonization along the banks of this canal?

But the real frustration in these meetings is the inability to open the discussion to other environmentally sustainably possibilities for the canal most of which would impose on the adjoining lands. That's when you realize that this is not about clean water, it's a land-use battle. The DEP is not being objective in this, they work for the mayor's office and the mayor's office is all about more housing. So here we have it: the mayor's office pushing for the residential land use (which requires the highest environmental standards) next to a class "SD" water way (the lowest environmental standard). But we are all not to worry, because the DEP intends to fully meet that standard.
And the other real issue I see here is that the Atlantic Yards EIS based all their claims on the fully operating Flushing Tunnel. If the State ESDC allows the AY's construction to go forward, there appears to be legal accountability on the part of the state and possibly Ratner in always keeping the flushing tunnel in operation, as long as the AY structures are in existence.
Marlene Donnelly