TAKE THE HIGH ROAD TO VAN BUSKIRK ISLAND

By Maggie Harrer,
President of the Board of the Water Works Conservancy, Inc.

On February 21, 2002, the New Jersey Historic Sites Council rejected—by a 9–0 vote—Bergen County’s request to demolish the historic Hackensack Water Company (HWC) site on Van Buskirk Island. The Council said the County needed to preserve this nationally important historic site. Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell plans to issue the final decision this month.

The Council concluded that the County has not fully recognized the historical significance of this site.

Bergen County also insisted that flooding at the site would prevent preservation. The Council challenged that concern. Most of the historic sites in the nation and in New Jersey lie in similar flood plains including Harper’s Ferry, New Bridge Landing and the Trenton War Memorial. Expert witnesses, engineers and architects testified that flooding is a manageable issue.

The hearing made it clear that this is not a choice between park or preservation. Historic preservation with environmental restoration is a win-win for Bergen County. The WWC’s and the County’s proposals contain exactly the same amount of open space and parkland. The key difference is whether the historic site will hold:

· A beautifully preserved 19th-century water treatment plant with a museum and 100 years of technology, an innovative education center, and Hackensack River Research Center; or

· The County’s proposed artificially created "Roman ruin" standing in a formal garden, with office space, an amphitheater, and a landfill "knoll" behind it.

As a member of the Council remarked, "Bergen County should celebrate this wonderful historic resource. It is National Landmark eligible, and National Landmarks are few and far between. Bergen County is very lucky to have one."

The County deems it "cheaper" to spend $9.1 million ($5.1 million in to demolish the historic site and $4 million to create a park) than to work with a national coalition of organizations to save and restore the historic site—at no cost to taxpayers.

The County’s proposal raises serious environmental issues: the proposed "embayment" further damages the already flow-compromised Hackensack River by diverting even more flow from the River; the bay becomes a collection pool for debris that float upriver with each tide; and the landfill "knoll" adds to the flooding problems.

Now is the time for Bergen County to walk a new path.

By choosing preservation, Bergen County will join thousands of citizens and experts in this unique endeavor. The Water Works Conservancy (WWC) offers its full support and advocates a feasible, innovative environmental and historic restoration of the site. WWC is joined by a large majority of citizens who value the environmentally sound preservation of our heritage. The State and National Coalition to Save the Water Works— comprised of a host of state, national, and international organizations—has offered expertise and resources, both financial and professional.

The goal: transform the historically significant site into a multipurpose facility within a 10-acre restored habitat park. The HWC site, which operated uninterrupted until 1990, is nationally significant because it is a rare, surviving example of a 19th Century water works and includes the oldest existing example of the American system of mechanical filtration that enabled the processing and delivery of clean, safe water.

The HWC exemplifies the early 20th-century development of a pure municipal water supply, crucial to a nation whose citizens drank water with foul taste, foul odor, and bacteria from untreated sewage dumped into rivers. In 1901, diarrhea, dysentery and typhoid were rampant. Most of this remarkable complex, buildings and equipment, pre-dates World War I, and survives with remarkable integrity. The site is the only intact facility of its kind in the nation.

WWC calls on Bergen County to choose the high road without further delay. Work with WWC and environmentalists, save our historic waterworks and save taxpayers over $5 million.

Our children and future generations should be able to walk along natural paths, discover the Hackensack River, stand in awe in the Pump House watching the rotating wheels of a four-story steam engine, and discover the excitement of hands-on science in the restored labs and Environmental Education Center. That’s priceless.

If you agree, please e-mail or write Commissioner Bradley Campbell, NJ DEP, Division of Parks & Forestry, Historic Preservation Office, PO Box 404, Trenton, NJ 08625- 9494, email <Bcampbel@dep.state.nj.us>.

---

Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell plans to issue the final decision by June 25, 2002. The Commissioner requested a 90-day extension to the previous March 26deadline, so that he may meet with all the stakeholders on this issue prior to deciding on the NJ Historic Sites 9-0 Resolution to reject the County’s plan.

---

THE NEW JERSEY HISTORICAL SITES COUNCIL HEARING

on

Bergen County Application for Project Authorization for

Alterations to New Milford Plant of the Hackensack Water Company

December 20, 2001, Hackensack, NJ

Expert opinions on the Bergen County Proposal

Full Transcript, available at Oradell, River Edge and New Milford Public Libraries

Annotated Historic Sites Council Hearing Transcript, December 20, 2002

PRESERVATION OF NATIONAL AND STATE HISTORIC SITE

1) Pg. 36 – Dan Saunders of NJ DEP: "The applicant [Bergen County] has not taken the single most difficult and simultaneously most important step: to allow a non-profit to have the site control necessary to exercise the current grant from the NJ Historic Trust and to pursue other grant opportunities."

2) Pg. 37 – Dan Saunders, NJ DEP: " Preservation through a partnership with another governmental body or non-profit is impossible until such an entity interested in preservation of the site has been given site control necessary to fund a larger preservation project and to undertake physical work."

3) Pg. 115 – Barbara Mitnick, Chair of the NJ Historic Trust Fund Board of Directors: "We [the NJ Historic Trust Fund] did not and we do not fund demolition…Although it seems Bergen County would like to define the demolition as some kind of preservation, by all definitions it is not preservation. It is in fact absurd, making a passive park out of a viable and important site is an act of organized vandalism."

4) Pg. 118-120 – Pat Huizing, Director, Preservation NJ: “We certainly are in opposition of the County’s proposal to demolish a large portion of the site, and we’re very disturbed about this course of events. We thought a plan was being put forth [to save the site], this [application] changed all of that. So as a result, three lead groups, the Architects Institute of America (AIA), New Jersey branch, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Preservation new Jersey (PNJ) began developing a coalition of the groups that consists of those three groups plus the Society for Industrial Archeology, the Save America’s Treasures Program, the U.S. International Council of Monuments and Sites, the New Jersey Historical Commission and Advocates for New Jersey History, to advocate for [saving] this state and national treasure.”

5) P.124-126 – Michael Calafati, Chair of the AIA New Jersey’s Historic Resources Committee: “Today, I represent the entire chapter of the AIA of New Jersey. We oppose the application before the governing body. We recently voted unanimously to become a member organization of the State and National Coalition to Save the Water Works. The application fails to grasp the NJ Rehabilitation Subcode. It poses technical solutions that are risky and outside what qualified practitioners consider intervention. Lastly, it is contrary to what is now a well-developed ethic of the proper treatment of historic sites. The code issues raised by the County fail to incorporate the significant beneficial role that the rehab subcode would have in a reuse scenario and incorrectly leads the reader to believe that code compliance would be a difficult undertaking…[The County’s}Partial removal will accelerate deterioration and be at least as expensive to maintain in a semi-ruinous state as moth balling the building while they await a useful future…. {The Secretary of the Interior’s standards} clearly warn against the creation of a false sense of history. It would seem that the [County’s] application before you would throw away the yet unrealized potential of this unique site important to New Jersey’s industrial and technical prowess for a sentimental and poorly conceived walled garden of ruins.

6) Pg. 128 – Eric DeLoney of National Park Service: " The troubling thing about the proposal is one thing I did not hear mentioned at all by Mr. DiGeronimo is the Secretary of the Interiors standards for rehabilitation. If you’re dealing with a landmark property or even a national registered property and the activity has an adverse impact... you trigger something called Section 106. From Mr. DiGeronimo, not once was there a whisper of the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation.

7) Pg. 134 – Adrian Fine, Northeast Field Office of National Trust for Historic Preservation (225,000 members) "The National Trust firmly believes that the preservation and reuse is not only feasible but viable architecturally, financially and environmentally. The Water Works deserves full consideration.”

Page 136 – "We feel strongly that the current proposal [Bergen County’s] is not the best alternative and should not be an option at this point. It would disregard clear alternatives and would have an irreversible impact on New Jersey’s and the nation’s industrial heritage. The arguments are not compelling in our opinion, and other clear alternatives are ignored. The Trust and Save Americas Treasures are willing to work with any relevant groups, including the County and others, in a plan to preserve and reuse the sites."

8) Pg. 137-139 – Elizabeth Merritt, Deputy General Counsel to the National Trust, Washington, DC: "Through Section 106 the Corps will encourage creative approaches. Especially important are the conditions required for preservation of key structures required and the County to continue seeking a partner, public or private for the project. We would like to see a much higher level of preservation in this project."

9) Pg. 256 – Chairman Al Buchan, Historic Sites Council: " I think the big problem is the Secretary of the Interior’s standards have been totally overlooked. By and large, you know, I don’t want to – you just haven’t got the whole story from your consultant as far as I’m concerned." (Perhaps read the entire exchange from Pg. 251-260)

FLOODING

1) Pg. 99-100 – Michael Henry, member of NJ Historic Sites Council: "If we took the very ultra-conservative view that I hear being presented about flood danger, there would be a lot of buildings in New Jersey that would not be fit for occupancy. And I’m also a little troubled by the presentation by Mr. DiGeronimo about the need for an occupancy permit for Alternative A [The County’s plan] and no need for an occupancy permit for Alternative C [WWC’s plan]. I don’t believe it."

2) Pg. 104 – Michael Henry: " What I find troubling about the application is that although certainly a lot of these restrictions [flooding] are hurdles to be overcome, there are a number of examples where they been overcome, and I know that just from looking at other projects. I think there are probably other members on the Council who can present similar examples, but they’re not overwhelming or unsolvable."

3) Pg. 104 – Chairman Al Buchan, Historic Sites Council: "I feel that the restrictions have not been properly evaluated."

4) Pg. 106 – Chairman Al Buchan: "I also find it very interesting that you are so concerned with people visiting the museum being caught in the flood in these two alternatives, but not that concerned with people visiting this museum with this alternative [the Countys plan], when in fact you have a destabilized structural character by eliminating elements as tie-ins that Michael so well spoke of.

5) Pg. 121-123 Andy Anderson, American Academy of Environmental Engineers: "The embayment has problems. It will do little to reduce flooding. In fact, the building of the knoll for the amphitheater will reduce flood storage capacity, so it is likely to increase the probability of flooding and so, in general, the application tends to overestimate the environmental problems associated with preservation, whereas it underestimates the environmental problems [of this proposal]."

6) Pg. 129 – Eric DeLoney, of historic engineers of Bureau of National Park Service: "We have learned to deal with floods on the Potomac with a historic property with visitation in excess of 1.5 million people every year. I don’t think I have to belabor the point that that was somewhat glossed over in the [County’s] presentation. I think that Mr. Daylor in his presentation probably over-emphasized the effect of the flooding. I don’t think that flooding is that much of an issue."

7) Pg. 252-253 – Mr. Henry of Council : "While you [Bergen County] may have made a clear statement with respect to the life safety issues, your presentation has not been persuasive in that regard and you need to hear that loud and clear, at least from me."

8) Pg. 254 – Chairman Buchan: "I agree, you’ve gone down the street. I thought I had made that clear. You picked a street. You’ve gone down it. My personal opinion is you’ve gone down the wrong street."

ENVIRONMENTAL

1) Pg. 121-123 – Andy Anderson, American Academy of Environmental Engineers: "The embayment has problems. It will do little to reduce flooding. In fact, the building of the knoll for the amphitheater will reduce flood storage capacity, so it is likely to increase the probability of flooding and so, in general, the application tends to overestimate the environmental problems associated with preservation, whereas it underestimates the environmental problems [of this proposal]."

2) Pg. 174-175 – Michael Henry, member of Council: When I look at Alternative C versus A, under Alternative C or A, we have an embayment created or recreated. but the footprint of the buildings is pretty much the same, so I am having a little difficulty understanding the advantage of C over A from the standpoint of creating wildlife habitat. What I heard from the WWC was its intention to deal with environmental education, and I’ve seen projects like this in the past that seem successful with both historic and natural habitat issues, and in my mind they’re not necessarily mutually exclusive."

---

Recycling Buildings