I believe that the EPA has a good intention of trying to clean up a portion of the Passaic River. After many years of leaving the river untouched and polluted, it is great to see an organization taking action to make a difference at this superfund site. However, I feel that all their hard work would sadly go to waste. Once a portion of the river is cleaned, I think it would get contaminated once again. To an extent, I agree with Jeff Tittel from the New Jersey Sierra Club supporting a more comprehensive approach. The EPA is taking a good step towards cleaning this river but I think the most successful outcome requires towns that the river runs through to help in the effort. This is an issue that can't be addressed in a day. If everyone gets involved especially industries that are responsible for the waste like Diamond Alkali facility, the river could once again be used for fishing and allowing communities to come together at a place that they call home.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/can-the-epa-clean-up-one-of-americas-most-toxic-rivers/2016/08/19/f9314c74-5829-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html
This is a picture showing the Passaic River and all the towns it runs through in Northern New Jersey
For more information on the passaic river, see the following google document:
The river cleanup is definitely a good idea, but I don't think it'll be a waste. Hopefully the EPA will be able to keep the river from being polluted again.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your ideas! We need to make sure the companies that are polluting the river will stop when the EPA is cleaning up the river!
ReplyDeleteI think the clean up is a step in the right direction and hopefully it will be worth the time and money being put into the cleanup. I think that even cleaning a portion of the river will be beneficial to the surrounding community.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it will take a lot of people to make a difference, rather than just one group/organization/motive...You made some good points and I do agree that it is a good initiative that they are taking!
ReplyDeleteReally nice summary and comments, and good use of images and links. The cleanup proposals were a bit complex and the WP article was short. Some of the concerns with more extensive cleanup were not discussed. For example, and this is really sad, the fairly polluted sediment on the surface of the river basin now is much less polluted than sediment lying further below. In other words, what was polluted 50 years ago or more, is somewhat covered by slightly less insidious waste. In dredging the deeper sediments, there was concern that the river would actually be re-polluted to a greater extent than it is presently. It would also be considerably more costly to extract more of the sediments. Not many people like to think about this, but there are many brownfields in the US that have been repurposed in fairly healthful ways, as parks and green spaces. But, sadly, what lied beneath prevents such areas from becoming zoned for residential or commercial areas. (In Newark there are brownfields that have been built on, but that's another issue for another day!)
ReplyDelete