The new federal push to clean the Gowanus Canal is getting super tricky, super fast.

Instead of being met with widespread support, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to place the canal on its Superfund cleanup list is generating strong opposition from community groups, developers, and even the Bloomberg Administration, which rejected the plan as meddlesome at a public forum.

The EPA's unexpected announcement surprised everyone from city officials to local residents, and immediately raised questions as to when and how the Superfund work might be carried out.

EPA officials appeared at the first public forum on the project to persuade critics the federal plan represents the best and perhaps only real opportunity to clean the polluted water way.

"I'm here to tell you that the only way this canal is ever likely to be cleaned up is by becoming a federal superfund site," said Walter Mugdan, director of the EPA's Emergency and Remedial Response Division, at the April 14th information session.

A representative from the mayor's Environmental Remediation office said federal involvement would only stymie ongoing city and state efforts to clean up the Gowanus Canal.

"At this point we don't believe a Superfund listing is the best way to do this," said the official, Daniel Walsh.

Walsh said the EPA should leave the clean up to the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the city, which he said has pledged $175 million towards the project.

It was the state DEC, however, that requested the EPA take over the Gowanus Canal cleanup by placing it on the Superfund list. This has been viewed by some as a tacit admission by the state that it is not capable of carrying out the project, contributing to frustration that the federal government has to step in.

In interviews with this paper after the meeting, Mugdan and U.S. congresswomen Yvette Clarke and Nydia Velazquez said they were not surprised by opposition to the EPA plans. Velazquez said the state simply recognized it was not capable of cleaning the canal.

"The state DEC decided, based on the resources that they have, that this was a job they cannot do," Velazquez said. Velazquez said federal involvement could help jumpstart the project.

Yet many are questioning whether the EPA itself has the funding to clean the canal. Residents opposed to the Superfund listing expressed doubt at the forum that the EPA could complete a cleanup in a timely, cost-efficient way.

One community board member cited a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology report which found that it takes the EPA on average between 12 and 15 years to clean a site once it is placed on the Superfund list.

Others said EPA involvement would place a so-called "Superfund stigma" on the neighborhood, and hurt any revitalization of the area.

In a statement Toll Brothers, the development company planning a large residential redevelopment of the canal area, said Superfund status would negatively impact growth there. As part of its plan, the developer has pledged to help clean the canal in a public-private partnership with the city, which the Bloomberg Administration has embraced as the preferred alternative to the EPA's takeover of the Gowanus.

Mugdan argued that the neighborhood's redevelopment hinges on a clean canal. He said a Superfund cleanup would, in the long term, improve the quality of life for the surrounding community. He said the EPA would not stand in the way of Toll Brothers or other developers moving forward with their own plans for the area.

"Our express goal is not to slow down, and not to hinder in any way the redevelopment aims of the community," Mugdan said.

When asked if the EPA has the funds right now to complete the project, Mugdan admitted the agency does not. Mugdan said the costliest early portion of the process – preliminary study work before a remedial investigation can begin - has already been done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The work was completed with funds secured by Velazquez.

Mugdan said the EPA does have enough funding to continue work on the canal and "get us down the road a good way." The EPA would presumably pay for the remainder of the cleanup through more federal funding and by taxing property owners (known as potentially responsible parties - or PRPs) who contribute or have contributed in the past to dirtying the canal.

In most cases, PRPs are commercial properties. Mugdan said the EPA almost never taxes individual property owners at Superfund sites, quieting fears residents might be charged for cleanup work.

Mugdan did not say how much a cleanup of the canal is expected to cost, or when it might be finished, but stressed that the Gowanus project would be high on the EPA's agenda.

"This site is very high profile, and it is a very, very high priority for us," said Mugdan. If the site does make the Superfund list - proposed sites are a virtual lock for designation - Mugdan said the project would receive a lot of attention from the EPA. "I guarantee that the time [it takes to clean the canal] will be slower than many of you wish," said Mugdan, "but I guarantee it will be faster than you fear."

This was welcome news to supporters of the EPA plans, many of whom have been waiting for years for the federal government to take notice of the Gowanus. Community activists pointed out the difficulty of landing a city site on the Superfund list. There has not been one in New York for at least the past decade, since a Superfund site in Queens was decontaminated and removed from the list.

"It's a catalyst for good things," said one man, Kevin Duffy-Acevedo, who has lived by the canal and fought for its cleanup for years. "It's the first time we're getting sponsorship on any level," said Duffy-Acevedo, who dismissed the city and state plans to clean the Gowanus as fanciful at best.

The proposed Superfund listing has drawn cautious support from some elected officials, including State Senator Daniel Squadron. Squadron challenged opponents of the EPA plan to come up with a better alternative.

In remarks at the meeting, Congresswoman Clarke urged community residents to participate in the ongoing, 60-day public comment period on the proposed Superfund listing.

"This is one of those defining moments for our community," Clarke said. "There is not a monolithic approach here at all, and I think we need to be cognizant of that when we try and create a win-win situation."