Last we heard in the great Gowanus Canal Clean-up debate, developers in the area were concerned with the Superfund stigma, and would choose the city cleanup efforts over the EPA's even though their consultants found levels of hydrogen sulfide in the water that they said would create a "significant odor impact."

The Brooklyn Paper now reports that according to the EPA even the federal clean-up "would not correct the deficiencies of the aging city sewer system that dumps untreated sewage into the foul waterway each year," because their efforts would focus on removing the toxic sediments, not "preventing 300 millions of gallons raw human waste that pours into the Gowanus after heavy rainfall." Though they did say they would fix the sewers if they prove to be a significant source of toxins (though that scenario is unlikely).

At a civic meeting on Monday the agency also noted that Mayor Bloomberg’s alternative to the Superfund clean-up program wouldn't do the job either. Their plan will use taxpayer investments to bring up organic waste and build an infrastructure increasing water flow to the canal. While the city's plan would be quicker, their motives are in question. The paper notes that "Bloomberg also opposes the Superfund listing because it might deter some or all of the expected $400 million in private investment near the Gowanus, an industrial area he’s targeted for residential development, and because the EPA might sue the city to pay for some of the clean-up."

Have something to say about this mess? The EPA is taking public comments through July 8th. Pro-Superfunders can go here to sign a petition.