by Mirele B. Goldsmith

Abstract

In 1999 New York City approved a plan to build a water filtration plant in Van Cortlandt Park under the Mosholu Golf Course. Activists in the low income and primarily minority neighborhood near the site joined forces with an array of citizen groups concerned with New York City's water supply to oppose the plant. The story of the water filtration plant offers insight into the complexity of urban environmental issues and the challenges citizen activists confront in constructing effective responses. The project to construct the plant was set in motion by the 1986 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act amendments that require filtration of drinking water drawn from surface supplies. Federal, state, city and borough-level authorities were involved in the decision to build the plant. In this paper I focus on the strategies used by citizen groups to oppose the construction of the plant, and the response of government bureaucracies. This analysis reveals the inadequacy of the political mechanisms intended to provide for citizen participation in decisions about complex environmental issues in New York City and its' vast watershed.

Citizen Opposition to the Croton Water Treatment Plant

In 1999 New York City approved a plan to build a water filtration plant in Van Cortlandt Park under the Mosholu Golf Course. Activists in the low income and primarily minority neighborhood near the site joined forces with an array of citizen groups concerned with New York City's water supply to oppose the plant. The story of the fight over the water filtration plant offers insight into the complexity of urban environmental issues and the challenges citizen activists confront in constructing effective responses. In this paper I focus on the strategies used by citizen groups to oppose the construction of the plant, and the response of government bureaucracies. This analysis reveals the inadequacy of the political mechanisms intended to provide for citizen participation in decisions about complex environmental issues in New York City and elsewhere.

Origins of the Water Treatment Plant

New York City's water is drawn from the Hudson and Delaware River basins that encompass 2,000 square miles. The Croton water supply system currently consists of ten reservoirs and three controlled lakes, with a total capacity of 95 billion gallons of water drawn from a watershed covering 375 square miles in Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess Counties and the State of Connecticut. It provides about 10% of New York City's daily water supply, and up to 30% in times of drought. The water from the Croton supply is distributed primarily to low-lying areas of the Bronx and Manhattan.

The project to construct the plant was set in motion by Federal legislation. New York City's water, including that from the Croton system, is drawn from surface supplies that require filtration according to United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) regulations. These regulations resulted from the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments passed in 1986 in response to national concerns about increasing outbreaks of water borne diseases. There is no question that even without filtration Croton water currently meets the US EPA's health-based (primary) water quality standards. Occasionally, because of color irregularities, Croton water does not meet the aesthetic (secondary) standards. In addition, Croton water is not expected to meet new standards that may be adopted regarding disinfection by-products.

Federal, state, city and borough-level authorities were involved in the decision to move ahead on a treatment plant to filter the Croton water supply. In 1992-1993 the New York State Department of Health and the US EPA directed the City to begin filtration of Croton Water. When the City did not comply, these agencies brought an enforcement action against the City.

During this same period, New York City was involved in negotiations about the future of the entire water system. In January, 1997 the New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement was signed by New York City, New York State, the communities in New York City's watershed, the US EPA and environmental organizations. As part of this agreement, the EPA allowed New York City to defer filtration of water from the Catskill/Delaware system until 2002. The agreement stipulated that if water quality could be maintained and future quality insured, this supply would be exempted from the Federal mandate to filter.

Although the watershed agreement provided the City with an opportunity to avoid the financial and political costs associated with filtering the water from the Catskill/Delaware system, the the filtration requirement was not waived for the Croton supply. In May, 1998, the City of New York entered into a consent decree with the US EPA and the New York State Department of Health. This decree, approved by the courts in November, 1998, set out a timetable for construction of a plant to filter the Croton water. (For a detailed account of the events leading to the selection of the site for the plant, see New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 1999.)

Selection of the Site for the Water Treatment Plant

Between 1993 and 1998, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had made efforts to move ahead on the construction of a water treatment plant. Plans had been developed in 1993 for the plant to be built at the Jerome Park Reservoir. This site had been identified as the location of a future filtration plant when the reservoir was originally constructed and some work had actually been completed in the 1960's and in the late 1980s. This work, including construction of a pilot plant and wall dividing the reservoir, was extremely disturbing to the community. When the plans for the plant were revived in 1993, community members organized themselves in opposition.

The Friends of the Jerome Park Reservoir spearheaded the community's response to the proposed plant. This organization developed a coalition of community groups, mobilized the co-op and block associations, and enlisted educational institutions, including Lehman College and the Bronx High School of Science to support the fight against the plant. The Jerome Park activists convinced the DEP to hire a consultant for a community advisory committee, held community meetings, organized rallies, lobbied government officials and threatened to go to court. In the face of sustained opposition, the DEP backed off (K. Argenti, personal communication, December 12, 2000).

In 1996-1997 a new study was undertaken to find a site for the water treatment plant. Seventeen sites in the Bronx and Westchester were proposed, and seven were chosen for inclusion in the environmental impact statement. Although the DEP had originally stated that sites within City parks would not be considered, the new list contained several sites in Van Cortlandt Park. The Mosholu Golf Course site, which is in the Park, was added to the list at the end of the comment period for the scope of work for the draft environmental impact statement in May, 1998. Consequently, the residents of Norwood were taken by surprise when they learned that the plant might be built in their immediate neighborhood (Moss, 1998a).

Norwood is a low income, primarily minority community located within Bronx Community District 7. This district had a total population of 128,500 in 1990. 65,000 residents were of Hispanic origin in 1990, and 22,000 were Black. Between 1980 and 1990 the Hispanic population increased by almost 67% ("Community District Profile Bronx CD 7," undated). In a Norwood News Article,City Councilwoman June Eisland, described the neighborhood as "primarily populated by working class and predominately minority residents, who together with a major teaching hospital, have struggled for years to attain stability in the housing stock, business district and quality of life" (Moss, 1999c).

When the selection of the Mosholu Golf Course site was announced, the DEP explained that it was selected because of its proximity to existing water supply facilities, and because it would cause the least neighborhood disruption of the proposed sites. Fay Muir one of the Norwood community activists fighting the plant, believes that the DEP chose to locate the site where the least protest could be expected. She describes the neighborhood's demographics as similar to those of Jerome Park. But she points out that if one looks closely, the site specific demographics are different. Surrounding the site, the population is 87% minority. And on two sides of the site, there are only trees (personal communication, December 4, 2000). Frank Eadie, of the Croton Watershed Clean Water Coaltion, suggested that the DEP calculated that taking a golf course would not disturb park activists as greatly as taking other parkland. Golf courses are seen as serving only the well-off. However, Eadie pointed out that the Mosholu Golf Course is the least expensive course in the City, and one of the few accessible by subway. Eadie suggested that "if the golfers had been more upscale, they could have defended the course" (personal communication, December 4, 2000).

Citizen Response

As has already been noted, the Croton Water Treatment Plant and its proposed siting at the Mosholu Golf Course is situated within a complex array of issues and interests related to the New York City water supply. So it is not surprising that the network of people and organizations involved in opposing the proposed plant reaches well beyond the Norwood area. The coalition opposing the plant includes neighborhood activists, watershed activists, environmentalists and others who are concerned about the relationship of filtration to the future of the water supply and New York City.

Within Norwood, the leading opponents of the plant are activists affiliated with the Mosholu South Community Coalition and the Bedford Park Organizing Project. These two neighborhood organizations are part of the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition that brings together activists from ten neighborhoods. Jerome Park is also represented in the NBCCC.

During the fight to defeat the siting of the plant in Jerome Park, a network of organizations concerned with the water supply began to coalesce. The Bronx Clean Water Alliance was formed. The Gaia Institute and the Bronx Council for Environmental Quality helped the activists in Jerome Park with technical expertise. Sierra Club activists joined the effort. Organizations in the Croton watershed communities north of New York City also became involved with the Jerome Park issue, leading to the establishment of the Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition (CWCWC) that brings together organizations based in New York City and the watershed communities.

The organizations in the Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition have different political and ecological reasons for opposing filtration (Moss, 1999a). Jerome Park and Norwood residents do not want the filtration plant in their neighborhoods. New York City housing activists fear that the construction of a filtration plant will lead to water rate hikes that will particularly affect residents in low-income housing. Upstate groups are concerned that the existence of a filtration plant will take the pressure off up-state communities to protect the watershed, leading to unwanted development and sprawl.

Although the coalition is a natural one, based on the undeniable interconnection of all issues related to the water system, there are also tensions. The coalition members have different interests. Although activists from Norwood admire Jerome Park's success, there is also a sense of disappointment that the Jerome Park contingent seems to be less interested in the fight now that the plant will not be built in their community. Although the position of the Jerome Park activists is that the plant should not be built anywhere, some activists feel that the Jerome Park groups have developed a working relationship with the DEP that they want to preserve to help insure that no facilities are built at the Jerome Park Reservoir.

Another tension is between the community-based groups and the environmental organizations. Most prominent are the National Resources Defense Council, which has several staff people working on New York City water issues, and Riverkeepers. Riverkeepers, led by Robert Kennedy, is a key player known for bringing what public attention there is to the challenges facing the water supply. Several environmental organizations participated in the negotiations regarding the Watershed Agreement. They are viewed by some community activists as having been willing to compromise on the filtration of the Croton system in order to avoid filtration for the Catskill-Delaware system. Thus, some activists view them as complicit with the DEP.

Arguments Against the Water Treatment Plant

Activists involved in this diverse coalition have raised three primary objections to the plant. First, they anticipate negative impacts on the local neighborhood, particularly during the construction process. Second, they object to the destruction of parkland. Third, they insist that watershed protection, or non-filtration, is a viable alternative to building the plant.

The construction of the water treatment plant is expected to take five years and to involve the blasting and removal of one million cubic yards of soil. In addition to noise and traffic congestion, residents are concerned about the impact of the construction on air quality. According to experts quoted in Norwood's local newspaper, asthma rates in the Bronx are as much as 20% higher than the national rates. In the area closest to the proposed site for the plant, the rate is more than twice the national average. During construction diesel fumes from trucks, organic mold dug up in the excavation process and ozone could affect asthma sufferers (Moss, 1998c). The DEP's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the plant found that there would be no significant impacts to air quality (or health, in general) as a result of the construction process or operation of the plant, based on expected emissions that are predicted to be within legal levels. Local activists were infuriated by the lack of acknowledgement of the asthma issue. The DEP's reliance on a general legal standard for air quality, when the neighborhood already has a high rate of asthma, seemed to deny the problems likely to arise at this specific site.

Once the plant is operational, chemicals will be transported to the plant and the waste produced in the filtering process will be removed. This waste will amount to 13,000 pounds per day, or 2,372 tons per year if the plant is operating at average capacity. There is no firm plan for the disposal of these wastes, despite the fact that New York City is already in the midst of a waste disposal crisis.

The second objection to the plant is that it will replace parkland. The DEP claims that since the Mosholu Golf Course will be restored following construction, the only impacts on the park will be temporary. These impacts, such as removal of trees and disruption of water flow in adjacent woodlands, will be ameliorated. In testimony before the Bronx Borough Board, Jane Sokolow, of Friends of Van Cortlandt Park, described the "rendered after" picture in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement as depicting a flat area of grass that looks like a covered landfill or mined area (Moss, 1999b).

It must be noted that land in Van Cortlandt Park has been taken for three major highways in the past. City Councilman Jose Rivera, in voting to reject the plant at the Borough Board level, challenged the Board: "I wonder if anyone would dare to suggest that a filtration plant be built in (Central) Park downtown. I'm not going to ask you to vote your conscience. I'm going to ask you to preserve the beauty of Van Cortlandt Park" (Corey, 1999).

The third objection is that filtration is not necessary, and may even be harmful. Karen Argenti, a Jerome Park activist, believes that "the question addressed in the environmental impact statement should have been about the best way to protect the water," not where to site the filtration plant (personal communication, December 12, 2000). Every activist contacted about the proposed plant emphasized that the DEP should not be building the water treatment plant anywhere. The activists note that there is no evidence that Croton water actually needs to be filtered, since it meets current health standards. Their position is that filtering water that has been polluted can never be as safe as keeping the water clean in the first place. It is also much more expensive. The water treatment plant will cost at least $900 million to build and $17 million annually to operate (NYC Independent Budget Office, 2000).

The argument that filtration can be avoided is one that the DEP is making itself in relation to the Catskill/Delaware watershed. In Catskill/Delaware, New York City is working actively to insure that the water supply will not need to be filtered in the future. Although New York City officials blame the US EPA for requiring filtration, "many activists believe the DEP hasn't tried hard enough to convince their counterparts in Washington -- the Environmental Protection Agency -- that filtration avoidance is a workable alternative to building the plant" (Moss, 1998b).

This third objection is the one that has the potential to rally the widest coalition against the plant because it does not pit one neighborhood against another. For Norwood activists, arguing for any other site in the Bronx could alienate potential allies, especially the groups that fought off the DEP on the Jerome Park site. Activists are concerned about sustaining their coalition because they suspect that the DEP is attempting to use a "divide and conquer" strategy to undermine opposition to the plant. This suspicion was confirmed after a suit was filed challenging the siting of the plant on the basis of alienation of parkland. The DEP issued a press release stating that if the suit was successful they would go back to the Jerome Park Reservoir site (Moss, 1999e).

Powerful Interests Support the Water Treatment Plant

The coalition against the plant is arrayed in opposition to powerful interests, including developers, construction firms and construction unions in New York City, and upstate real estate developers. All of these interests have a great deal of political clout. David Ferguson, a housing activist who is a Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition leader, participated in a meeting with the Central Labor Committee. Union leaders told the CWCWC that that they knew the plant was unnecessary, but they would support it because it would provide construction jobs in New York City (D. Ferguson, personal communication, November 26, 2000). Up-state real estate developers, who also wield a great deal of political clout, may want the filtration plant built so that there will less pressure to protect the water supply at the source. If the water is filtered, it can be argued that it does not matter if it is polluted before it gets into the supply system.

The City agencies that are responsible for the water supply are unlikely to question the need for construction of the plant. The Mayor of New York City is supported by construction interests. The Water Board and Water Finance Authority were set up to provide the water system with as much independence as possible. The system's expenditures are outside the general City budget so there is little opportunity for oversight or influence by citizens. The Water Board establishes the water rates based on the needs of the system. Currently, fifty percent of the system's budget is used for debt service. The amount of bonds issued by the Water Finance Authority is determined by the DEP's assessment of the system's capital needs. The DEP's assessment is subject to independent evaluation by an engineering firm. However, this firm is also contracted to implement a large number of DEP infrastructure projects (F. Eadie, personal communication, December 4, 2000).

Strategies for Defeating the Plant

Despite the odds being stacked against them, citizen groups have mounted a sustained campaign to keep the plant from being built at the Mosholu Golf Course site. The first strategy they implemented was a campaign to defeat the proposal during the siting process. Siting decisions by New York City are subject to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). Under the ULURP procedure the community board, the borough president, borough board and City Planning Commission (CPC) review the decision. If the CPC approves the proposed facility, the proposal is put to a vote in the City Council. The three community boards surrounding the park and the Bronx Borough Board all voted unanimously against the proposal for the water treatment plant to be built at the Mosholu Golf Course site. But on June 1, 1999 the CPC voted ten to one to approve the proposal. Although activists believed that 20 or 21 City Council members were opposed to the plant, the site was approved by the City Council on a "leadership vote", meaning that members were expected to vote with their leader as opposed to voting their conscience. Activists felt that they had been cheated by the political process (Moss, 1999d).

Once the filtration plant survived the ULURP process, the opponents of the plant focused their efforts on litigation. According to New York State law, alienation of parkland requires approval from the New York State Legislature. The New York State Attorney General actually expressed his opinion to the DEP that siting the plant without legislative approval was illegal, but the DEP decided to fight the suit rather than attempting to secure legislative approval. Two suits were filed challenging the legality of the siting decision on these grounds. The Friends of Van Cortlandt Park filed one suit. The other was filed by an organization formed expressly for this purpose; Norwood Community Action was established by activists from the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition. Since the NBCCC receives city funds, it did not want to file suit and take the chance that participation in a suit might endanger future funding.

The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, granted the city's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the two cases. In essence, the judge agreed with the DEP that since the plant would be underground, and the golf course would be restored, no parkland was actually being alienated. This decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which certified to the New York State Court of Appeals the question of whether the plant required state legislative approval. In February, 2001, the New York State Court of Appeals concluded that such legislative approval was indeed necessary.

The ball is now back in the political court, and the opponents of the plant will have to convince the state legislature not to approve the alienation of parkland for the plant. Concurrent with the litigation, opponents of the plant continue their efforts to persuade the US EPA to change its position on a filtration waiver for the Croton system. Activists hope that Hilary Clinton, who expressed her opposition to the plant during her Senate campaign, will influence the EPA to grant the waiver. Meanwhile, although the DEP cannot begin construction of the water treatment plant, planning continues. The activists have gained time, but have not yet defeated the plant.

Conclusion

The controversy over the Croton Water Treatment Plant offers an example of the complexity of environmental issues facing urban populations and the difficulties citizens face in confronting these issues. These difficulties include the multiple scales at which the natural, political and technical systems exist, the multiple regulatory contexts, and the involvement of powerful political interests. When citizens decide to get involved despite these difficulties, they find that the political mechanisms intended to provide for citizen participation are inadequate. In the case of the Croton Water Treatment Plant, the ULURP process gave activists a voice regarding the specific siting issue, but no influence. There are only very inadequate opportunities to address the larger issues of filtration and the water supply. In this case, activists have turned to the courts for assistance, at the price of narrowing their focus to legalities rather than the substantive issues at the core of this conflict. This case demonstrates the inadequacy of the efforts being made to provide citizen oversight and involvement in the system. It also makes the need for such continuing involvement crystal clear.

References

Corey, M. (1999, March 25-April 7). Borough Board Votes to Oppose Plant Norwood Comes Out Against Mosholu Site at Hearing. The Norwood News, 12:6 All Norwood News articles available: http://www.bronxmall.com/norwoodnews/ongoing/filtration.asp

Moss, J. (1998a, August 13-26). City Adds Filtration Site. The Norwood News, 11:15.

Moss J. (1998b, November 5-18). Residents Stage Harris Park Rally Against Plant. The Norwood News, 11:21.

Moss J. (1998c, December 17-30). Experts: Plant Will Worsen Asthma. The Norwood News, 11:24.

Moss J. (1999a, February 11-24). Community Boards Reject Filter Plan - Planning Commisssion, City Council and Mayor Still Have Say. The Norwood News, 12:3.

Moss, J. (1999b, April 8-21). City Needs Legislature's Approval, Dinowitz Says. The Norwood News, 12:7.

Moss, J. (1999c, April 22-May 5). Commission Grills DEP on Plant. The Norwood News, 12:8.

Moss, J. (1999d, July 29-August 11). Filtration Plant Gets Final Go-Ahead. The Norwood News, 12:14

Moss, J. (1999, October 21-November 3). Filtration Battle Goes to Court. The Norwood News, 12:20.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Croton Water Treatment Plant. (1999, May 20). Available: http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/asp/dep/asp/news/croteis2.asp

New York City Department of City Planning. Community District Profile, Bronx CD 7. Available: http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/asp/dcp/asp/bx7lu.asp

NYC Independent Budget Office. (2000, November) The Impact of Catskill/Delaware Filtration on Residential Water and Sewer Charges in New York City. Available: http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us

Back to top