Storm surge barrier plans for NY Harbor: Comments from the public
July 27, 2018
Riverkeeper Team
Assorted commentary by public officials, journalists and members of the public.
“We welcome good, common-sense ideas to prevent massive flooding in our region. A 5-mile ‘sea barrier’ is not one of them.”
– Editorial, The Record (N.J.)
"The fact that those two alternatives exist [for storm surge barriers at Sandy Hook or Verrazano Narrows] is inconceivable. The fact that they were announced 12 days before the public meeting is inexcusable."
– Editorial, Rivertowns Enterprise (N.Y.)
“It is clear to me that a project of this significance must be fully understood by all who would be affected. The opportunity for study and comment has been unnecessarily brief. While I understand that recent storms have prompted a call for urgent action, we must not rush into construction and permanent change to the nature of the river until we have public approval to proceed."
– Congresswoman Nita Lowey, Letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 30, 2018
"Connecticut residents rightly have comments and concerns about each of these proposals, particularly those that call for building a barrier around the Throgs Neck Bridge. Even though this project is still in its early stages, what alternatives are chosen for further study have great implications for Connecticut. Ensuring our constituents have the ability to include their voices in public comment at this stage is critical."
– U.S. Senators Chris Murphy, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, Congressman Joe Courtney, Congressman Jim Himes, Letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 16, 2018
“I strongly urge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to hold additional informational meetings on the proposal. Every community member impacted by this project should have the opportunity to be part of the conversation.”
– Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, Letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 17, 2018
"The public needs to be involved and be present at these meetings, because our Hudson River comes above all else."
– New York State Senator Terrence Murphy
“We do not have to kill our river to save it.”
– Dominick Calsolaro, The Alt
"I have a great respect for the river, and I want to see the health of the river & our river communities maintained."
– Mary Arnold, Poughkeepsie
“The biggest problem we've had in trying to control flooding is that we throw concrete at everything. This does the same thing. You’re just pushing the water somewhere else.”
– Gil Hawkins, Hudson River Fishermen's Association
"You essentially shut off the tide, which brings in oxygen and nutrients and basically cleans the water system. You turn a living, breathing estuary into a stagnant lake."
– Greg Remaud, executive director of NY/NJ Baykeeper
"When they're proposing that kind of massive proposal, they need to do a full environmental impact study and have better engagement."
– Shino Tanikawa, SWIM Coalition, NYC
“In theory, one way to achieve the City’s goals for its coastline may be the construction of massive protective infrastructure, such as harborwide storm surge barriers at the entrances to New York Harbor. As attractive as the concept of a single ‘silver bullet’ solution may be, though, a closer examination of this strategy strongly suggests that relying on such a solution would pose significant risks to the city that far outweigh its theoretical benefits.”
– New York City Economic Development Corporation, “A Stronger, More Resilient New York,” 2013
"Many communities in Westchester County have experienced coastal storm and flooding damage and have already taken significant actions to protect their communities, residents, environment, critical infrastructure, and improve their resiliency to impacts associated with a changing climate. I urge you to first prioritize ways to work cooperatively with these communities to support and build on the actions they already have underway.
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should consider ways to support and work with these well researched and publicly supported programs and actions rather than constructing physical barriers that will impact the tidal flows to this unique and irreplaceable river and estuary.
"Instead of a focus on building massive man-made structures to control our environment, I urge the federal government to focus on taking immediate and meaningful actions to reduce the human impact on climate change."
– Westchester County Executive George Latimer, Letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
"As a city that has been directly impacted by large coastal storms, including Superstorm Sandy, we understand and appreciate the need to become more resilient against future storms that bring damaging coastal flooding. ... The measures being considered as part of the NYNJHAT Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study, particularly those which include in-water barriers, would have far reaching impacts that could affect the health of the entire Hudson River Estuary and the many communities that thrive along its shores. I am concerned that despite the significance of the potential impacts and cost to taxpayers for the measures under consideration, there has been a lack of outreach, involvement and information on this project provided to both the public and local municipal leaders."
– Yonkers Mayor Mike Spano, Letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 1, 2018
"This extension would allow for additional public meetings to be scheduled in the Hudson Valley and other areas of the state, and will give more New Yorkers the opportunity to join the conversation," said Senator Murphy. "In addition to extending the comment period, I also request that more information be shared with the public, including the studies that the United States Army Corps of Engineers is using to evaluate alternatives. A longer comment period and the availability of more information will create a more transparent and productive dialog between New Yorkers who will be affected by this proposal and the federal government."
– New York State Senator Terrence Murphy
"The Hudson River is the lifeblood for so many of our local communities and protecting and preserving it needs to always be one of our highest priorities. While we understand the critical importance of properly preparing our area for extreme weather, in doing so, we need to hear directly from the communities that would be impacted. I join today with Senator Murphy and Senator Phillips in calling on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the DEC to extend the public comment period for these proposals so that our communities have the chance to be heard."
"With communities still recovering from the devastation of Superstorm Sandy, it is paramount to include the insights and concerns of our residents. If another storm hits our region, Long Island will undoubtedly face the brunt of the disaster given our proximity to water. I call on the Army Corps of Engineers and the State DEC to make sure that Long Islanders have the opportunity to be heard and have our needs addressed."
– New York State Senator Elaine Phillips
"Given the enormous and eternal consequences that would result from the project alternatives listed in the NYNJHAT Feasibility Study, any initial selection or prioritization of alternatives is unconscionable without knowledge of the full range of impacts."
– League of Women Voters of the Rivertowns
"I have four requests: Provide 120 days for the scoping comment period; Provide more information on the proposals; Require a full Environmental Impact Statement and a National Environmental Policy review; Set a public hearing in the Lower Hudson Valley on the proposals."
“Rising sea levels pose an extreme, immediate danger for the 500,000 New Yorkers who live near our shores. Frankly, it’s shocking the Corps is giving an incomplete answer to the question of how we make New York City more resilient. The public deserves to give its say on these proposals, which I strongly urge the Corps to reconsider altogether.”
– New York City Council Member Costa Constantinides
Municipal resolutions
Comments on 'scope' of study
“The Corps has been tasked with answering the wrong question. The current feasibility study is focused solely on addressing threats from increased storm surge and fails to grapple with sea level rise concerns. The in-water barriers included in several of the Corps’ proposed project alternatives would do absolutely nothing to protect people in New York and New Jersey against flooding from sea level rise associated with climate change. Any proposed project alternatives must address the whole picture, and any alternative that does not address sea level rise is, from the start, fatally flawed and should not be a matter for study.”
“For the NY/NJ HAT Feasibility Study to be scientifically sound and for the agency to meaningfully engage the public, the Corps must slow its pace, fix the flawed process, and seek to protect New Yorkers from both storm surge and sea level rise in a way that allows our rivers to run free.”
"As far as the upriver estuary is concerned, large, pie-in-the-sky solutions are not the way to resolve this problem; we must look to the power of the small for the solutions for these communities. Here is an opportunity for USACE—that great corps of engineers that originated here on the Hudson River in the West Point Military Academy—to step up to the bar and assert its birthright by creating new science in enabling our survival in a troublesome and difficult future. ACE is to be commended for stepping up to its responsibilities under Public Law 71 of 1955, but the agency should be more aggressive and act more responsibly toward the local communities (responding to their questions is a good start), and develop realistic recommendations in a realistic context."
– Vernon Benjamin, Special Operations Coordinator, Town of Saugerties, November 4, 2018
"Due to the prospect of long-term climate change and sea-level rise, which are not adequately accounted for in the available information presented to date, the in-water fixed-elevation storm-surge barrier alternatives are likely to become rapidly obsolete. Furthermore, there is an enormous risk of irreversible unintended consequences in disrupting the present estuarine system by obstructing free tidal exchange of water to the open ocean."
– Timothy T. Eaton and Gregory D. O'Mullan, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Queens College CUNY, November 5, 2018
"Four of the six conceptual plans under consideration by the Corps represent a scale of
unprecedented in-water development within the NY Bight and Hudson River Estuary that
demands intense public scrutiny and discussion. The sheer magnitude of some of the proposals,
stretching from Sandy Hook, N.J. to Breezy Point, N.Y. with major barriers and gates on interior
waterways could have major unintended consequences upon the Hudson River estuary and
beyond."
"The costs and benefits of maintaining a healthy ecosystem are every bit as tangible as real estate property values. In fact, among the many important ecosystem services that should be factored into Tier I analysis is the protection afforded by marshes and other shoreline natural features from future storms, protection that could be jeopardized by some of the current ACOE proposals."
"In general, we find the USACE’s structural approach to storm resiliency identified in the Feasibility Study to be self-defeating in the battle against the effects of climate change. In the event that the massive in-water barriers are constructed, tens of thousands of properties would still face risks on a daily basis due to future tidal flooding. Despite the enormous financial investment in infrastructure, the barriers would fail to protect residents and property in the long-term and would have long-lasting, wide-spread adverse ecological consequences."
"The construction of in-water storm barriers across Western Long Island Sound near Throgs Neck (Alternatives 2 and 3A) and at the mouth of the Hutchinson River (Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 4) poses serious threats to the health of Long Island Sound and the safety of multiple coastal communities. ... Of the alternatives presented, Alternative 5, which consists of shoreline (“Perimeter Only”) solutions, is the only alternative we support exploring. We urge the Army Corps to include natural and nature-based features with the shoreline measures in Alternative 5. Nonstructural approaches such as flood-proofing, raising structures, and planned retreat should also be pursued and reflected in the Army Corps plans, along with all other post-Hurricane Sandy resilience projects planned and underway. This multilayered approach, combined with a public engagement process that includes all the impacted communities, will result in a more flexible and affordable resiliency plan that does not externalize the serious costs and impact of protecting the NY/NJ Harbor and Tributaries on its neighbors or on the waterbodies that are its lifeblood."
– Tracy Brown, Save the Sound, and other individuals and groups including Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor, Audubon New York and NYC Audubon
"Clearwater recognizes the critical need for robust measures to protect coastal communities from strengthening storm surges and sea level rise. We support the project's stated need and purpose of the feasibility study to 'manage the risk of coastal storm damage in the New York and New Jersey Harbor and tributaries study area, while contributing to the resilience of communities, critical infrastructure, and the environment.' That said, the level of analysis and assessment of the proposed alternatives completed to date is insufficient to define a well-considered decision for action moving forward. Clearwater strongly urges the Army Corps to include an Environmental Impact Statement and a complete cost-benefit analysis for each alternative as part of the alternatives analysis and assessment process."
"While we recognize the need for action in the face of storm surges and sea level rise, there are more effective and affordable options that protect the people and environment of the region than the construction of offshore storm surge barriers, which could be expensive, ineffective, harmful to the environment, and injurious to the
health and economic well-being of communities throughout the region. Any actions should be part of a comprehensive approach that considers ecological effects, impacts to vulnerable communities, and long-term effectiveness."
"There is only so much water on earth, so it is a precious resource. As people, we need to learn how to live together in our watershed. Today, we face highly populated urban and suburban places. Many people crowd homes or businesses into historically vacant low-lying places which were and should remain our sponge on the waterfront. These comments reflect the need to return to nature and natural systems, known to many as ecosystem services."
"We urge a more robust analysis that considers the full, long term impacts on water circulation and retention as well as impacts on existing and potential natural systems and the ecosystems services they provide. The large-scale interventions (harbor-wide storm barriers), especially those contemplated in alternatives 2 and 3, could dramatically alter critical natural systems. As restoration ecologists, we're deeply concerned about the impacts on sediment transport, fish and shellfish survival, water quality and sewage pollution retention.
"The current timeline does not allow for the authentic and robust engagement of the communities most vulnerable to climate change and most likely to be impacted by these solutions. We urge a public process that includes these communities."
Learn more
Related campaigns
Strengthening protections against a changing climate
Supporting nature-based solutions to adapt to the impacts of climate change
New York City adaptation
Advocating for climate solutions for our waterways and communities in our nation’s largest city
Sewer and stormwater pollution
Working to keep sewage and street pollution out of our waterways