Attendees
Joan Salome-Rodriguez (Facilitator), Marlene Donnelly, Erica Eliason, Katia Kelly, Louis Kleinman, Margaret Maugenest, Susan Yung
Guests: Aaron Kaufman (Trust), Corinne Brenner, Li Chin-Drachman, Pratt SES – Sher Gallo Netto, Christopher Hauserman, Dhruvin Thakkar
1: Li reported and showed a Powerpoint she prepared. She is doing work on a community-led initiative for cleaner waterways and wishes to explore potential collaboration opportunities regarding a campaign to address sewage overflow and water pollution in the Gowanus Canal. She is seeking insights on how to deal with sewage overflow from New York City’s combined sewer system leading to increased water pollution, impacting both the environment and residents—particularly those in basement and first-floor apartments prone to sewage backflow. Her campaign focuses on a community-based solution: integrating rain barrels into schools, gardens, and homes to reduce the amount of rainwater entering the sewage system. This initiative would not only help mitigate overflow but also repurpose collected rainwater for gardening and cleaning, reducing unnecessary clean water use. If successful, she plans to advocate for policies that prevent real estate development in high-risk flood zones, which disproportionately impact lower-income residents.
Marlene indicated that the 8,000 new units will cause more issues and that the CSO tanks being built really do little for the Gowanus area since what they catch is runoff from Atlantic Yards and Park Slope. The Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) had given rain barrels out at one point. Katia called rain barrels a fine idea that Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon supported but, in our area, is ultimately a “drop on a hot rock,” though every drop counts. Marlene suggested Li reach out to Eymund Diegel who had given this issue a hard look.
2: Joan reported – US Geological Survey work being done on behalf of the DEP – Michael Como got back to me. The USGS is looking at Gowanus but, disappointingly, is still only looking at the Federal Monitoring Well on Sterling Place and 6th Avenue. Reminded him that the Sterling Place well was quite a ways from Gowanus and quite a ways uphill from Gowanus and we need them to come down to at least Nevins between Sackett and Union (I think there are City water caps there). Have not heard back about that – will follow up.
3: Joan reported on Erica’s follow up with the State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) about its water quality rules. Nothing yet. Riverkeeper is also following up and pressing for a better standard in the Canal. The important thing for us is to follow up for a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, with the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS), by March 31, 2025. It is DEC’s goal to file a Notice of Adoption with the NYSDOS by September 30, 2025. This rulemaking(s) may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Small Businesses and Local Governments. DEC assured Erica the CAG’s petition for Gowanus was added to the other data and justifications DEC is reviewing to inform the updated regulations.
4: Joan reported that Victoria Sacks emailed on 3/3/2025 that our follow-up questions would be answered soon.
5: Joan briefly mentioned a 2/4/2025 groundwater survey report to DEC by a consultant, HRP, that has very concerning information in it. The survey was done off-site at a Brownfield project at 473 President Street (includes 469 President – the E-Waste parcel, and 514 Union Street). The purpose was to identify impacts of off-site soil vapor and groundwater based on chlorinated volaitle organic compounds at President Street sites. The investigation was performed from October 2022 to June 2024. Although the sites are 12 feet above sea level, groundwater elevations range from .66′ to 2.85’ flowing west northwest toward the intersection of Union and Nevins and the Canal with minor fluctuations in levels based on tides. The elevations were mapped between January 2023 and June 2024 (see page 2, paragraph 3). Though the soil samplings were not alarming, the groundwater samplings were (see pages 5-6).
I would very much like to know where this groundwater is going now that the 70’ metal bulkheads are in the Canal. Is it mounding? Is it traveling under the Canal to the west side? Is it traveling into the Canal through permitted outfalls? I think we need to ask EPA & DEC these questions. We will revisit this and the item below at our next meeting because the Pratt students were ready to present their flood-risk study.
6: Another report to DEC regarding the Owl’s Head site, also attached, was prepared by Environment and Ecology Engineering and is much more detailed than those prepared by Arcadis. It shows chromium has been found in the groundwater there. Questions arise about this as well:
Chromium can be found in several forms, but the two most common are trivalent (chromium III) and hexavalent (chromium VI).
- Trivalent occurs naturally in the environment and is an essential human dietary element.
- Hexavalent chromium is toxic to both the environment and to human health. (Remember the famous Erin Brockovich case in which PG&E contaminated groundwater/drinking water in Hinkley, CA and made the people who lived there sick – that was hexavalent chromium.)
- Trivalent can convert to hexavalent under certain conditions; oxidation.
- Hexavalent chromium can impact human health via oral, inhalation, and dermal exposure (dose response is important though; just because we are exposed to it doesn’t necessarily mean it will cause harm).
- The attached report found chromium in the groundwater at levels that exceed applicable screenings, but the results only list “total chromium” and do not note whether it is trivalent or hexavalent. It could be because the EPA only sets a standard in drinking water for “total chromium” and not hexavalent, but my best guess is that both are present.
Questions are:
a) Why is there no consistency across compounds for which these companies are testing? Arcadis (hired by National Grid) seems to have done the bare minimum, but the attached report completed by Ecology & Environment Engineering (hired by NYS DEC) seems to be more thorough with a longer list of “stuff” that’s floating around out there.
b) Since chromium is in the groundwater, it is most likely in the soil, which means it could be floating around in the air as particulate matter. Would it be too much to ask to add this so the list of compounds for which the summa canisters are testing?
c) I know the common pushback seems to be that it doesn’t matter that it’s in the groundwater because we don’t drink the groundwater here, but I respectfully disagree. This isn’t just about human health; it is about the environment and we shouldn’t be polluting our planet or waterways with this stuff.
d) Finally, again, where is this groundwater going? Is it mounding? Is it traveling under the Canal? Is it traveling into the Canal through permitted outfalls? I think we need to ask EPA & DEC these questions.
6: At 8 p.m., Pratt Architecture students gave a presentation of their groundwater flood-risk study. This study was done for the Gowanus Canal Conservancy (and Arcadis?). They looked at the impacts and risks for existing homes. The students shared the Powerpoint (I’d like to ask more questions about the gaps in the Arcadis data that they saw – we can email them).
Marlene advised them to distinguish between “cellar” and “basement” since cellars are 4’ high and non-habitable and that is often where the flooding happens since they are basically holding tanks for flood waters.
Louis asked if cost of the solutions to flood risk in their presentation are included. Yes, they are in the links.
Corrinne thanked them for the great maps and asked what a French drain is (I wanted to know, too). It is basically a gravel ditch/trench. She also indicated that they could get more granular in their maps if they included not just storm surge but tidal water and effluvial water (we have lots of that). She further suggested they include the impacts of new development. Also suggested that the solutions suggested include how many feet of water they could address. Finally, what can a region do?
Katia asked if street names could be included. Said we’d long been seeking a hydrology study. And followed up on the idea that these solutions put the onus on property owners to address what poor City planning had broken.
Chris said they had looked to see if there was money out there for more region-wide solutions for flood resiliency, and there was none. A good opportunity for advocacy there.
Marlene said Columbia had done a similar study long ago and, sadly, it had zero impact on the rezoning. So how can you use your study to impact policy? How can you move the needle because it seems other things matter more to politicians and policy makers.
We thanked our guests, promised to revisit items 4 & 5 and follow up for proposed rule-making, and ended the meeting.