Mass. Case Cheers Filter Plant Foes Federal Court Gives Discretion on Filtration By JORDAN MOSS A federal appeals court has upheld a decision by a district court judge in Massachusetts, allowing that state to avoid filtration of a water system, giving hope to local filtration opponents seeking a similar outcome for the Croton system. The decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on July 16 allows the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) to pursue watershed protection and alternative methods of keeping the water clean, such as ozonation and pipeline rehabilitation. Local activists were particularly cheered by language in the decision that interpreted federal law as giving Judge Richard J. Stearns discretion in determining whether or not filtration was necessary. "The manifest purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Act is safe drinking water, not filtration," the decision read. Though the relative condition of New York City's Croton system would seem to offer hope to opponents of filtration in New York City - it is in much better shape that the Quabbin and Wachusett reservoirs outside of Boston - the situation in New York is considerably different. While the MWRA has aggressively fought the federal government's order to filter, the city's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has been decidedly less combative. At least one reason why the city has accepted the fate of filtration is that a federal district court judge in Brooklyn ordered the city two years ago to site and build the plant according to a strict timeline. But, unlike the MWRA, the city ended up in court because it did not find a site fast enough for the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not because it opposed construction of the facility. Charles Sturcken, chief of staff at the DEP, first heard about the Massachusetts decision first when the Norwood News asked him about it. He wondered aloud what the case might mean for New York City. "Do we plead to Judge Gershon in the court?" Sturcken asked, referring to Judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District, who is enforcing the timetable to build the plant. "I don't know." He added that he would have to read the entire decision before commenting further. Because the state's highest court in February prevented the city from building the plant at Mosholu Golf Course in Van Cortlandt Park without the state legislature's approval, the city is presently being supervised by a federal magistrate on the filtration issue. The city has been submitting potential sites to the magistrate. The Jerome Park Reservoir has been included, irritating many local activists who forced the city to abandon that decision before it went on to officially select the golf course. But those who oppose the city's plans to build the filtration plant in the Bronx were pleased that the city had included Eastview, in Westchester, a site the city owns and has never officially proposed. Karen Argenti sees two reasons to be encouraged by the recent developments. The Massachusetts case proves "the law did not require you to filter unless you had a violation," she said, "and if you really needed to do this [build a plant], Eastview is one of the best sites there is since the city owns the land already."
News | Opinion | Schools
| Features | Ongoing Story | Home |
