Concern over water tanks' impact on Great Falls district

An official from the U.S. Department of the Interior has cautioned local and state officials that construction of controversial water tanks at the Stanley M. Levine Reservoir in Paterson could diminish the integrity of the entire Great Falls historic district.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department are both participating in the federally mandated review of the controversial tank project, known as a Section 106 review.  It is the EPA's clean-water rule that is the driving force behind the Passaic Valley Water Commission's plan to partially drain the Levine reservoir and replace it with two 2.5 million-gallon storage tanks.

Opponents of the project fear that the tanks, if constructed, would loom large on the landscape. The Levine reservoir is part of the Great Falls Historic District and sits on the border of the Paterson-Great Falls National Historical Park, which Congress established in 2009. The national park this year recorded more than 170,000 visitors, a record.

The Department of the Interior, which oversees the National Park Service, recently waded into the controversy on behalf of the preservationists. Roslyn J. Fennell, the Interior Department's deputy regional director for the Northeast region, wrote a letter last month to state and local officials involved in the Section 106 review, warning that construction of tanks could diminish the integrity of "the entire [Great Falls] district."

WATER: N.J. drought easing just in time for peak water demand

GREAT FALLS: Paterson eyes $2.5M for open space despite tax issue

EDITORIAL: Hamilton helps the Great Falls again

"The district provides the historical setting from which the park derives its significance, and diminishment of the integrity of the district would also diminish the integrity of the park," Fennell wrote. "The integrity of the park's and the district's setting, feeling and design may be altered by changes to the reservoir."

Fennell wrote that the "Area of Potential Effect" in the Section 106 review should be expanded to include "the entire National Historic Landmark district and the park." The review must also include simulations of what the tanks would look like once constructed, shown from various vantage points. "Once the effects to historic properties are better understood, we would like to explore ways of avoiding or minimizing the effects prior to discussing mitigation and a way of ensuring that any potential harm to the National Historic Landmark is minimized to the maximum extent practicable," she wrote.

David Soo, the director of the Friends of the Great Falls, a non-profit group, said other national parks enjoy iron-clad protection against encroaching development, and Paterson should be treated the same way.

"Nobody would even think of allowing the demolition of buildings at George Washington's home in Mount Vernon," Soo said. "Why should Paterson be any different?"

The Levine tank project is Phase I of the water commission's $135 million plan to replace its three open-air reservoirs on Garret Mountain. Under its clean-drinking-water rule, known as LT2, the EPA has ordered all utilities that store finished drinking water in open-air reservoirs to cover those facilities, re-treat the water or build storage tanks. The goal of LT2 is to better protect treated water from runoff and fecal contamination by wildlife.

The Levine reservoir dates to 1885. Although it played no role in the story of water power that is at the core of national park, Levine is considered a contributing asset to the Great Falls National Landmark District, and it is protected under federal law.

The EPA is overseeing the Section 106 review with the help of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a federal agency whose members are appointed by the president. The council is responsible for safeguarding historic properties that are threatened by actions undertaken by the federal government.

Matt Spangler, a spokesman for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, said the Section 106 review is still in the early stages. "Stakeholders should feel free to share their concerns with the EPA throughout the review process, and to share those concerns with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office," he said.