Latest News

Sewage-Free Streets and Rivers partners reviewed all of the Development and Evaluation of Alternative reports from a community and quality of life perspective to ensure that communities have access to waterways and benefit environmentally and economically from these plans.

Here is what we found in the reports:

All of the municipal and utility permit holders will choose how they will measure the solutions to sewage overflows. They can either measure the solutions by demonstrating that they are capturing 85% of the flow or by using by using the presumptive approach based on reducing the number of system wide overflows.

Presumptive vs. Demonstrative Approach:
Most permit holders have not officially selected an approach, but the general trend is toward an 85% capture, which equates to approximately 20 overflows a year, depending on the community. Our concern is that by focusing on the minimum requirement of the permit, other combined sewer overflows issues impacting communities like flooding, sewer back ups onto streets and parks and into basements, water quality, and toxicity will not be adequately addressed. Permit holders should select alternatives based on information that shows that not only will permit requirements be met, but community impacts of flooding, sewage backups, water quality and toxicity are also addressed.

Climate Change:
Although the permit does not require climate change or sea level rise to be considered when evaluating the alternatives, several permit holders and Supplemental CSO Teams considered climate change in their reports:
JCMUA, Ridgefield Park, Elizabeth, and Harrison included or discussed sea level rise.
CCMUA noted that climate change would be considered in the selection of alternatives.
Perth Amboy and PVSC’s Supplemental CSO Teams asked that climate change be considered in the evaluation of alternatives.
We recommend that NJDEP provide clear guidance on how permittees can include climate change data in the selection of alternatives so that they use the same baseline data for precipitation, storm intensity and frequency, and sea level rise. Permit holders reference 2004 as the design year, though baseline data within reports vary when discussing alternatives. These climate impacts could render CSO solutions ineffective or result in unintended consequences, unless they are taken into consideration in the design and selection of alternatives. For example, the Ridgefield Park report noted that sea level rise would reduce the amount of overflows. Less overflows into waterways could result in polluted water backing up into basements and onto streets.

Public Participation:
Other than attendance at Supplemental CSO team meetings, many of the permit holders and their consultant representatives had little to no interaction with the public when considering which alternatives to evaluate. This is despite a clear guidance document from the NJDEP recommending an ongoing public engagement process: The Supplemental CSO teams should not be considered as public engagement; rather, they should be treated as public engagement strategy sessions. These teams are designed to give municipal permit holders in-depth access to a key group of stakeholders with the goal of sharing the ideas developed in those meetings with the wider community–ideally, with the assistance of those stakeholder groups. Most of the reports indicated that the permit holders convened or participated in a regional and/or municipal Supplemental CSO Team, but they did not describe the preferences, questions, or any other input from stakeholder groups either at CSO Supplemental Team meetings or other public participation activities. We recommend that the permit holders be required to revise their evaluation of alternatives reports to include the following information to ensure that the preferences of Supplemental CSO Team members and the public are considered:

• A list of Supplemental CSO team meetings with the date, time, and location.
• A list of local LTCP process public meetings with the date, time, and location for each meeting along with the methods used for attracting attendees.
• Number of attendees for each meeting.
• A list of the types of people and organizations represented at the meetings, for example, community members, elected officials, community organizations, businesses or business associations, municipal employees, municipal consultants, home owners, etc.
• Agendas presented at the meeting as well as a summary of the preferences, concerns, and input gathered at the meetings.
• How the the Supplemental CSO Team was involved in a two-way conversation with the permittee beyond being a passive recipient of information.
• Explicit plans should be shared for how municipalities plan to engage directly with the public on the final report beyond the Supplemental CSO team meetings.

Green infrastructure (GI):
A thorough evaluation of GI is needed in order to determine the optimal amount of green infrastructure and select and site green infrastructure installations that produce the desired stormwater management and community benefits. Like all of the other alternatives, a thorough evaluation is needed to ensure that the technology is utilized properly.

The evaluation of green infrastructure in the evaluation of alternatives reports ranged from extensive to minimal. The CCMUA and JCMUA utilized a triple bottom line approach, which considers the social benefits of the alternatives evaluated. Some permit holders like Newark worked closely with community groups to understand their priorities. These permit holders also prioritized green infrastructure in a balanced approach. Other permit holders like North Hudson Sewerage Authority and Bayonne stated that GI will be implemented on a system wide basis or as a secondary alternative without any indication of what that actually meant.

We recommend that permit holders follow NJDEP’s “Evaluating Green Infrastructure: A combined sewer overflow control alternative for Long Term Control Plans” guidance manual related to modeling and explain the hydraulic and hydrological model used and the results. We recommend the reports include:

1. Evaluate land uses, drainage areas and other community specific drivers and benefits to establish the goals and milestones for the GI program.
2. Compile a GIS Database for GIS Parameters including flood prone areas
3. Use one of the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling tools referenced by NJDEP (Arc Hydro, SWIMM, infor works) to model potential stormwater reduction volumes. The NY-NJ HEP worked with the City of Perth Amboy to undertake such an analysis for two model sewersheds, demonstrating that green infrastructure interventions that met preliminary feasibility tests and community support reduced peak stormwater volumes could be reduced by 20%.

We also recommend the use of a triple bottom line approach, as described in NJDEP’s “Evaluating Green Infrastructure: A combined sewer overflow control alternative for Long Term Control Plans” guidance manual to assess the selection of alternatives and articulate the community benefits of green infrastructure and a quantitative value of these benefits. The cost-benefit analysis should include the full range of community benefits.

We are concerned that permit holders like the North Hudson Sewerage Authority and Bayonne have stated that GI will be implemented on a “system wide basis” or as a “secondary alternative” without a quantitative measure (like gallons of stormwater captured or volume of stormwater reduction that shows how GI is contributing to the goal of 85% capture or 4 overflows annually) are not considering a meaningful GI program. We recommend that permittees be required to revise the evaluation of alternatives to include targets for gallons of stormwater captured or reduction of CSO volumes for GI. We are concerned that without a designated contribution goal reducing combined sewer overflows the GI component of the plan will be minimal and ineffective.

We recommend that the evaluation of alternatives describe the strategies that will be used to implement green infrastructure goals. For example:

• Identify all public land that can be utilized for GI (parks, schools, city, state and county owned lands and facilities).
• Develop a goal for stormwater capture from GI projects on private land as well as ordinances or incentive programs to achieve the goal.
• Choose locations for GI that will not replace existing green space with impervious cover.
• Plant trees as part of the GI plan.
• Use a cost analysis for GI based on economies of scale, procurement by quantity, and relate to cities of similar size and socioeconomic status.
• Implement GI in conjunction with community groups to ensure community engagement from the start of these projects and community acceptance.
• Ensure that consultants working on these plans are certified and experienced in GI design and construction.

Storage:
Storage is an alternative that all of the permit holders are considering. Some of the reports provide more detailed information on the proposed locations and dimensions of the storage tanks, tunnels or shafts being considered. We recommend that all of the reports include this information and that community members provide input on storage options being proposed and locations identified. It was unclear how the locations of the storage site were identified or if there had been any community input on the sites identified. We recommend that:

• The public have input into the selection of sites for storage.
• Land ownership be identified and verified.
• Identify the communities impacted and engage them in a two-way dialog on the proposed project.
• Dimensions of the storage tanks should be included in the reports and if they are surface or subsurface.
• Acquire private land for storage tanks rather than utilizing the traditional approach of bottom of the river end of pipe tank storage.
• Odor control should be discussed and evaluated.
• Include improvements on the surface that relate to needed amenities, like parks, parking, or GI opportunities.

Disinfection:
The Sewage-Free Streets and Rivers partners have concerns about the use of disinfection as a primary alternative to combined sewer overflows. To our knowledge, disinfection does not account for sewer back-ups and street flooding or the water quality that is in direct contact with residents. We are concerned that disinfection could have a negative impact on quality of life and cause health and safety issues because the water residents are interacting with will still be polluted. The bi-products are unknown as well as the long term impacts on the NY-NJ Harbor’s ecosystem. Disinfection on its own does not address solids. Holding tank location and land acquisition issues need to be addressed in addition to the safety of the public near disinfection systems. We recommend that NJDEP review the potential impacts disinfection could have on the quality of life and water quality in these communities.

Inflow and Infiltration Reduction (I & I):
I & I is a cost effective alternative that should be considered for further evaluation by all of the permit holders – documentation of the condition of the pipes and ways to address leaks should be made public and included in the reports.

Sewer Separation:
Spot separation can address local flooding issues and reduce overflows. Utilities, such as gas and electric, should coordinate to identify opportunities to separate sewers with new development or redevelopment and when other utilities are doing road work. We recommend coordination between utilities to reduce costs and maximize efficiency.

Evaluation of Alternatives:
We recommend that NJDEP require permittees to include a quantitative metric (such as gallons of stormwater capture or CSO volume reduction) to show the relative contribution of each alternative being considered for the LTCP. Some of the reports noted that GI would be implemented on a system-wide basis or implied that GI would be implemented as part of the plan but did not include the percent of CSO reduction or wet weather volume GI would account for in their evaluation of alternatives. The report should clearly show the options that the permittee is considering to reach the goal of 85% capture or 4 overflows annually add up and the percentage of CSO reduction each alternative will account for in the proposed plans.

The evaluation of alternatives should also include how funds will be allocated to ensure public participation for the selection of alternatives and implementation of the LTCP and statements by the permittees addressing plans to advertise, and monitor public participation in the selection and implementation of the LTCP.

Additional Alternatives to Evaluate:

• Water conservation was evaluated by several permit holders including Newark and Bayonne, but not all of the permit holders. This is a low cost solution that should be considered for further evaluation and included in the budget for the LTCP.
• Ordinances, zoning changes, and public education efforts to reduce stormwater entering the system were generally considered but should be considered for further evaluation as low cost solutions to CSOs and require budget considerations.
• Coordination with municipal, county and state government should be included in the LTCPs but was not mentioned in the evaluation of alternatives.
• Adaptive management was considered by one permit holder and would be beneficial to all of the permit holders to consider in their plans.

Comments on Specific Municipal and/or Utility Alternatives Reports focused on public participation:

Bayonne

Bayonne participated in the regional Supplemental CSO Team and formed a municipal supplemental CSO team. Specific details on the meetings, who was in attendance, agendas and preferences related to the alternatives were not included in the report.

The Supplemental CSO Team is hardly mentioned in the report, only being discussed briefly in section D.1.4, but the preferences of the CSO Supplemental Team are not mentioned.

There is no mention of outreach to public outside the supplemental team and no documentation of any preferences.

Bergen County Utilities Authority

On page 34, the BCUA LTCP discusses alternatives as they relate to “public acceptance” however, input from the Supplemental CSO team was not included. BCUA should hold community meetings where members can voice their opinions and concerns about each alternative.

CCMUA/Gloucester City/Camden City

The report considered public input and noted specific preferences of the Supplemental CSO Team related to several alternatives:

• The CSO Supplemental Committee has reinforced the desire among Camden stakeholders that the Final LTCP include as much green stormwater infrastructure as quickly as possible.
• The CSO Supplemental Committee noted that a satellite facility in the vicinity of G4 and G5 would impinge on the municipal park.
• The report noted that the Supplemental CSO Team would be included in the siting of satellite facilities.
• The feasibility of siting satellite facilities will be evaluated further in close cooperation with the neighborhood stakeholders and the CSO Supplemental Committee during the development of the Final LTCP.

Section 6.2 of the CCMUA LTCP states that climate change will be addressed in the final plan.

Section 6.4 described the triple bottom line approach being used to evaluate the alternatives.

East Newark

The Supplemental CSO Team is mentioned only briefly in section D.1.4, and the preferences of the CSO Supplemental Team are not mentioned at all. We recommend that a summary of feedback from the Supplemental CSO Team be included.

Elizabeth/Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties

Section 8 of the Evaluation of Alternatives report is dedicated to CSO Supplemental Team coordination. The report summarizes meeting notes, outlines community outreach activities and educational events such as Community Organization and School Events and discusses signage and notification systems. This is a good example of including community input in the report.

Guttenberg

Guttenburg did not consider public input or any input from a Supplemental CSO Team. The report speculates on the perceived desires of community members and private developers.

Section D.2.7 of Guttenburg’s report notes that Guttenburg will only be evaluating very limited GI measures which will only be implemented across three streets.

Harrison

Section A.5 discusses a local community group known as “Harrison TIDE”. It is important to state that this community group neither replaces a Supplemental CSO Team nor the community at large.

Jersey City

The report included preferences that were gathered through community meetings and from stakeholder groups related to green infrastructure and included some of this input into the evaluation of alternatives. This was a good example of including community input in the report related to green infrastructure.

The report noted community preferences related to green infrastructure but did not include the comments received or provide more specific details on the content of the meetings, attendance, or community represented.

We recommend more specific information be included in the report on the extent of the outreach, as well as the preferences of the Supplemental CSO Team and public related to the grey alternatives reviewed.

Kearny

Section C.2.2 of the report states that Kearny enlisted a local group known as Kearny AWAKE to give comments on the proposed solutions. It should be noted that this does not count as representation of the entire community.

Newark

Section D.1.4 of the report states that Newark has taken comments from the quarterly region Supplemental CSO Team meetings run by PVSC. These quarterly meetings are not sufficient for procuring public comments and preferences, and additionally, the comments that were made were not reflected in the reports. It is necessary to hold publicized and well-attended public meetings, and then provide the statements made by community members, not just a statement noting that community input was recorded.

Community groups have stated that no tanks should be installed and disrupt Riverfront Park.

Newark did hold 14 public meetings in partnership with community groups and its municipal action group Newark DIG, however the specific feedback from community members was not included or used in the alternatives analysis.

North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority

Section D.1.4 of the report states that North Bergen has taken comments from the quarterly region Supplemental CSO Team meetings run by PVSC. These quarterly meetings are not sufficient for procuring public comments and preferences, and additionally, the comments that were made were not reflected in the reports.

Perhaps it was done accidentally, but it appears that North Bergen, after considering GI measures in the report, neglects to include GI as part of the final solution in section D.3.3. This warrants further investigation to ensure that North Bergen is, in fact, planning on implementing GI as part of their LTCP.

North Hudson Sewerage Authority (Adams St. and River Road)

The report noted that a workshop was held to evaluate the alternatives but does not indicate that Supplemental CSO Team members were included in the workshop or the preferences of the team.

North Hudson Sewerage Authority does own the land in the four communities that it serves. Although the reports states that it will seek GI to be used systemwide. It is unclear where the GI will be used. NHSA should include more specific information about their proposed plans for utilizing GI as an alternative, how sites were chosen, and how they are optimizing GI in the four towns. There is a need for the municipalities to be more involved in the development of NHSA LTCP.

Paterson

The terms “CSO Team”, “CSO Supplemental Team”, and “Supplemental Team” were not found in the City of Paterson’s report, indicating that input from these teams was not reported.

Perth Amboy/Middlesex County Utilities Authority

The report includes a few specific preferences and comments from the Supplemental CSO Team and how they were taken into consideration. Section 6.7 of the report is a place-holder for discussion and commentary from the Supplemental CSO team. We recommend that this section be added as well as additional information on how the Supplemental CSO Team and the public were engaged, and their feedback on the alternatives that were evaluated in the plan.

As with other permittees, the report states that it will seek GI to be used systemwide. It is unclear where the GI will be used. Perth Amboy has been the subject of several assessments by Rutgers University as well as the NY-NJ Hep that identifies and evaluates specific GI opportunities. The report should include more specific information about their proposed plans for utilizing GI as an alternative.

Ridgefield Park

Public participation captured by the Supplemental CSO Team meetings, Village Caucus Meetings, Earth Day event, and other outreach efforts. Of the six controls evaluated, favorability of the public was given a 15% weight though it was not identify what the public actually supported (seems like they are using general public perceptions to distribute weights) (see Table 7-31, pg 151).

Onondaga County, New York, found itself in an exciting position in 2012. Struggling, as many cities and towns are to reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs), Onondaga county was going to use an all gray infrastructure approach, until Joanie Mahoney, then County Executive, stepped in to recommend a newer approach to the issue in the form of green infrastructure.

Though green infrastructure was gaining traction, it was not yet readily accepted as a viable solution by municipalities and towns. In fact, it wasn’t until Mahoney read NRDC’s Rooftops to Rivers: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows that she began to recognize the plethora of benefits possible with green infrastructure. Despite considerable obstacles standing in the way of convincing the public and municipalities of the efficacy of green infrastructure, New York Water Environment Association Government Affairs Committee Chair Matt Millea and Mahoney both recognized that the journey toward successfully implementing green infrastructure in Onondaga County would begin with ambitious thinking about the possibility of a green Syracuse.

As part of its Save the Rain program, Onondaga hit the ground running and installed green roofs, cisterns, and permeable parking lots. These alternatives quickly became conversation pieces and points of public introduction to green infrastructure; most notable, perhaps, was the use of recycled rainwater for ice at Syracuse’s War Memorial hockey rink. After demonstrating the efficacy of green infrastructure through its completed projects, both as a tool for reducing CSOs and as a tool for public engagement, Syracuse began the journey of widespread implementation, going on to successfully construct green public parks, parking lots, and city streets with features like bioswales, permeable pavement, and rain gardens in city sidewalks. 

Syracuse’s success is also owed in part to the use of the EPA’s Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), a tool that allows municipalities to measure the type and amount of runoff from a sewer system. Using SWMM, Onondaga County was able to select ideal locations for GI and quantitatively demonstrate that, in combination with gray infrastructure, green infrastructure was an ideal way to tackle CSOs.

As a result of extensive efforts using SWMM and city buildings to shift public opinion on how CSO events might be tackled, Syracuse and Onondaga County have ended up with a cleaner and healthier Onondaga Lake, which now attracts more fishers, bald eagles, and boaters than in any time in recent memory. In fact, Onondaga Lake now even attracts performers and the community-at-large to the recently completed St. Joseph’s Health Amphitheater, a lakeside venue that is thriving due to the renewed cleanliness of the body of water upon which it rests. Let Syracuse and Onondaga County be an example; if we push for green solutions to CSOs, in combination with gray solutions, our communities will not only be greener, but also cleaner and more unified.

 

Perth Amboy, like many New Jersey municipalities, has faced flooding issues for many years. Since the 1860s, New Jersey and much of the North East have utilized combined sewer systems (CSS), where stormwater and sewage are combined in a single pipe and conveyed to a local wastewater treatment plant. When too much liquid enters the CSS, it overflows, sending a mixture of sewage and stormwater into local waterways. Because more land in our cities has been paved with impervious surfaces in the last century and a half, the amount of land available for stormwater to drain into has dramatically dwindled, thus putting more liquid into our sewer systems than ever before. Development is unlikely to stop in any of the 21 municipalities currently being affected by combined sewer overflows (CSOs), so it is critical that the issue be addressed immediately and effectively.

Perth Amboy is at the forefront of the problem and is actively developing solutions.  Currently, the city is experiencing frequent CSO events, directly affecting its community by reducing access to its beaches, and indirectly damaging its citizens, as witnessed by the deflation of waterfront property values that comes with unusable beaches. Rather than become overwhelmed by the scope of the issue, Perth Amboy met the challenge with a sense of hope. By addressing the issue early, community members will be able to have a say in choosing the solutions which will have maximum impact on the problem, and minimum disruption to the community.

On Wednesday, July 17th, community representatives, among them Mayor Wilda Diaz, Council President Bill Petrick and Vanessa Bermudez of the Zoning Board, met at a local community center to come to a mutual understanding of the issue. Moderated by Harry S. Pozycki (Chairman and Founder of the Citizens Campaign) and led by panelists Dr. Christopher Obropta (PhD in Civil Engineering, specialist in water resources at Rutgers, and expert in gray infrastructure), Gary Brune (New Jersey Future stormwater utilities program manager), and Moriah Kinberg (New Jersey Future, Community Outreach Manager and organizer of of Sewerage Free Streets and Rivers Campaign), the group discussed the many proposed solutions to CSOs and their ramifications within the city. The panel discussed the roles of green and gray infrastructure in the solutions. Green Infrastructure solutions mimic nature by capturing stormwater and then slowly releasing it into the ground, while grey infrastructure uses pipes, storage tanks and tunnels as well as sewer treatment plan expansion to capture and treat the mixture of stormwater and sewage. Green infrastructure is unique in its ability to help solve the issue cost effectively and for the added community benefits ranging from neighborhood beautification to cooler, shaded, sidewalks. Perth Amboy will not be the first city to implement strategies for solving stormwater issues, and this too gives the city the advantage of being able to implement proven strategies, rather than spending money on speculative ones. One such proven strategy that is up for consideration is the creation of a stormwater utility, which is a more equitable way to fund stormwater infrastructure upgrades. Rather than relying on property taxes or sewer fees that are not related to polluted runoff, a stormwater utility is directly related to the amount of stormwater that runs off your property and can only be used for stormwater infrastructure. In addition to funding, concerns relating to public outreach and zoning were also addressed, as any plan put in place to mitigate stormwater cannot be enacted without the involvement of the public who will be dealing with the construction of these CSO solutions, which could possibly involve the use of private property.

The meeting adjourned with a final comment from Pozycki, who encouraged us to dream about what our communities would look like sewage free. Yes, the task of fixing our centuries old sewage systems will be slow and expensive, but simply setting one’s gaze on the much improved Jersey communities of the future will always prove the challenge worthy of undertaking.

 

All of the Development and Evaluation of Alternatives reports that were submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on July 1, 2019 have been posted on the NJDEP’s website for the public to review.  The reports, submitted by municipal and utility Combined Sewer Overflow permit holders, describe the options being considered to reduce flooding and pollution caused by combined sewer systems.

“Communities will be investing billions of dollars to stop sewage from overflowing into waterways and backing up onto streets and into basements,” said Kim Gaddy, Newark resident and Environmental Justice Organizer for Clean Water Action. “The question is what will this investment look like and how will it benefit our communities?” 

While the Evaluation of Alternatives reports are not final plans, they provide a first look at the possible solutions and a breakdown of which ones are likely to be the most feasible. NJDEP recognizes the importance of public input in this process and is soliciting feedback from community members as part of their review of the reports and have required permittees to educate and engage the public in the selection of alternatives. Comments can be submitted until September 1, 2019.

“As of July 1, 2019, communities have less than a year until  the final plans, known as Long Term Control Plans (LTCPs), are due,” said Nicole Miller of NewarkDIG (Doing Infrastructure Green). “Once the final plans are approved by the NJDEP they will take decades to complete and cost millions of dollars to implement. With proper community input, LTCPs have the potential to provide benefits. Now is the time for the community members to make their voices heard by submitting comments to NJDEP and participating in local and regional stakeholder meetings. The next few months are critical for the residents and business owners who will be impacted by these plans and who will ultimately pay for them.”

“These reports show that local communities are very concerned about sewage overflows into nearby streets and waterways and that they expect green solutions to be incorporated into the next phase of planning because while reducing sewage flows it also provides open space, improved air quality and heat island temperature reductions that aren’t realized with traditional infrastructure,” said Greg Remaud, NY/NJ Baykeeper. 

“These alternatives plans are a critical step in gathering local knowledge from communities suffering from polluted stormwater and sewage flooding. The people who live in these communities understand these problems and their effects the best. Projects in these alternatives plans, specifically green infrastructure, will reduce flooding and sewage overflow, and will improve the environment of the community, the health of its citizens, and property values,”  said Jennifer M. Coffey, ANJEC Executive Director.

The Evaluation of Alternatives reports are the result of permits issued by NJDEP in 2015 to 25 municipalities and utilities in New Jersey with combined sewer systems requiring them to develop plans to reduce the number and severity of combined sewer overflows. These overflows happen when stormwater overwhelms the system. This combination of stormwater and sewage is released into nearby waterways, and sometimes floods area streets and backs up into basements.  

For more information on participating in stakeholder meetings and other ways to get involved go to SewageFreeNJ.org. 

All of the Development and Evaluation of Alternative reports can be downloaded from the NJDEP website.

Comments can be sent to the respective NJDEP team leader.

Armando Alfonso Armando.Alfonso@dep.nj.gov (609) 633-7021 for comments on the Camden County Municipal Utility Authority, The City of Camden, The City of Gloucester, Trenton Sewer Authority reports.

Nancy Kempel, Nancy.Kempel@dep.nj.gov 609-292-4860 for comments on the Bergen County Utilities Authority, Fort Lee Boro, Hackensack City, Ridgefield Park Village, The Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties, The City of Elizabeth reports.

Joe Mannick, Joe.Mannick@dep.nj.gov, 609-292-4860 for comments on North Hudson Sewerage Authority, North Bergen Woodcliff Sewer Treatment Plant, Town of Guttenberg reports.

Dwayne Kobesky, Dwayne.Kobesky@dep.nj.gov 609-292-4860 for comments on the Perth Amboy, Middlesex County Utilities Authority, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, Bayonne, Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority, Newark, North Bergen Township Municipal Utilities Authority, East Newark, Harrison, Kearny, Paterson reports.

Local perspectives from Sewage-Free Streets and Rivers campaign partners: 

Jersey City:

“This is an important first step to assess the optimal set of solutions for managing the impact of stormwater from future storm events in Jersey City and our surrounding waterways.  Sustainable Jersey City supports a combination of both gray and green infrastructure (GI) and feel strongly about leveraging GI opportunities FIRST, to both save on the enormous cost of grey infrastructure and also to gain the varied additional quality of life benefits GI can provide.  We are particularly interested in the expansion of urban forestry initiatives in Jersey City as we can solve multiple problems and provide a healthier environment for people simply by substantially growing our tree canopy. We will do our part to educate and engage the public over this next year, encouraging community feedback about possible solutions during this next decision-making phase by the Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority.” 

Debra A. Italiano, Founder & Chair, SustainableJC.org

“I was so pleased that our Board of Commissioners recently passed a resolution to evaluate the creation of a Green Infrastructure Incentive program.  The study will evaluate the use of various green infrastructure incentives to help reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs), enhance drainage in certain neighborhoods, improve the tree canopy, and access to green space. Offering incentives like storm water fee reduction credits to developers for using green roofs or pervious pavement, has been shown to work in several other communities and we think it may work here as well.”  

Tom Gibbons, Commissioner, JCMUA/Hamilton Neighborhood Association

Bayonne:

“With the recent increase in building development and the loss of many of the mature street trees, Bayonne is at a turning point, as the planet is at a tipping point, environmentally. We need to affirm a plan that will not only improve green and open space while protecting our waters, but maintain what we have. The report does not include the location of projects. I am concerned that people can not have informed input without knowing where they will be placed and worried that some of the proposed projects could actually destroy our green spaces. This will only be mitigated by robust public input. This is the challenge for individuals and community groups. What is at stake in this decision is a livable future and a government that is responsive and accountable to its residents, where decisions this far reaching are made by, and for the benefit of all.”

Jill Scipione, President, Morris Park Neighborhood Association

Perth Amboy:

“The alternative reports recently submitted by the 21 NJ cities forces residents and public officials, on all levels, to think about effective solutions that will fix this serious problem we’re faced with combined sewage overflows. We can no longer sweep this issue under the rug and hope that someone else will come and solve it.  The surging of waste in our waterways has been detrimental to our ecosystem, local sea creatures, and even the water quality within our homes. We must all play a role in being a part of the solution by limiting the use of water in our homes, implementing green infrastructures that captures rainfall, and finding ways that fund gray infrastructure improvements, which will cost millions, if not billions of dollars per city. I’m hoping that we can create a culture shift that steps up to this challenge before it impacts our property taxes.”

Joel Rosa, Perth Amboy Civic Trust