On January 7 2013, the Community Board 2Environmental Committee hosted a meeting to hear a proposal to protect Manhattan and portions of Brooklyn, Staten Island, and New Jersey from tidal surges like the one we experienced from Hurricane Sandy. The program was introduced by board member Bob Trentlyon who traced his concern with the problem to 2009 when he alerted officials and contacted Malcolm Bowman, Professor of Oceanography who heads the Tidal Surge Research Group at Stony Brook. He agreed to speak at Judson Church along with Jonathan Goldstick, vice president of CH2M Hill an engineering firm based in Colorado with an office on Cortland Street in Manhattan .Trentlyon said that the cost of protecting New York City would be one quarter of the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure damaged by Sandy.
First, David Gmach, Director of Public Affairs for Consolidated Edison, explained how Con Ed began planning for this flood seven years ago. Building codes were changed and power companies around the country were organized to provide mutual aid to respond to a disaster. Facing a storm surge of 9 ft. above high tide which exceeded any experienced since the 1820s, Con Ed had alerted power companies well in advance from as far away as California, Missouri, and Omaha which arrived with fleets of trucks and trained technicians. Power was turned off in advance of the flood peak to avoid even worse damage and more extensive outages. 1.1 million customers were affected, most for at least five days, others for many more. The South Street Seaport still remains without power. Flooding went beyond the predicted A Zone to the B Zone to roughly where the shore line was in the 1830s.
Professor Bowman followed with descriptions and maps showing how the flooding could have been prevented if storm surge barriers had been erected similar to those being built in Russia around St. Petersburg. Forty high sand dunes were built to protect the town of Monster in the Netherlands. While these held back the sea, they block the views of the sea from the seaside village of Strand Monster. Gates built to protect Stamford, Connecticut, after the 1937 hurricane lashed the coast protected it from Sandy’s surge.
Professor Bowman proposed a combination of dunes and sea gates similar to those being built for Rotterdam, large pivoted curved shields which remain open for ship passage, but can be closed as a storm approaches. A similar barrier, proposed to protect New York Bay, would stretch five miles from Sandy Hook National Park in New Jersey to Breezy Point in Far Rockaway. It would be flanked at each end by an additional five miles of sand dunes some 40 ft. high, a significant alteration to the existing landscape. It would not only radically transform a national and city park, but would also require costly replenishment as the natural forces of the ocean and wind eroded the manmade forms. A supplementary barrier is also proposed across the upper East River. The barrier system would protect not only Manhattan, but portions of Staten Island, northern New Jersey facing the bay, Brooklyn, Queens, Port Elizabeth, JFK and LaGuardia Airports, but not the coasts of New Jersey and Long Island.
“Without taking action “warned Professor Bowman, “we are playing Russian Roulette with the city.” He recommended a five year study by the US Army Corps of Engineers. “We did not experience a tsunami,” he added, “but a rise of the ocean at its edge from North Carolina to Maine.” A friend who sails the Atlantic annually, explained that the ocean off shore actually depressed six inches; but 6 inches spread over thousands of square miles will result in ten ft. or more at the edge of an aqueous dish.
This might be called the policy of “arm and defending” response to New Jersey Governor Chris Christy’s shouting, “New Jersey has been attacked by Hurricane Sandy.” I could just see him, his gloved boxer’s fists extended toward this elusive opponent, an opponent who does not recognize state or national boundaries or even attack anyone. A storm happens and nothing will stop it, but we can roll with the punches.
The contrary response is one of “retreat and resilience.” Speaking on January 15 at the Historical Society, the architect, Robert A.M. Stern admonished, “We are not going to build a giant sea wall. We need to soften our edges.” The newly created Brooklyn Bridge Park absorbed the flood. Last year the Museum of Modern Art exhibited a team project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation which sought to rebuild Lower Manhattan with flood absorbing fins stretching into the harbor. Low coastal wetlands and reefs have also been observed to soften the peak tides. Hardening the edges makes them more vulnerable. The financially most irresponsible response from public agencies such as FEMA would be to subsidize the rebuilding of homes and infrastructure in the same locations as were damaged by Sandy, to rebuild beaches to protect those same houses as were just washed out, whose owners did everything possible to prevent public access to those same beaches. One hopes that we will adopt a policy which is both financially and publicly responsible. As Columbia professor Douglas Hill PE succinctly stated in testimony before a New York State Senate committee on January 17, “The most practical means to reduce risk is to keep people and property our of flood prone areas.”
