In closing the most recent hearing on the Gowanus Canal, Community Board Six Chairman Richard Bashner remarked that it was a pleasure watching the city and federal governments argue over who would get the right to pay for and clean up the fetid waterway.

Indeed, if debates on improving the environment often come down to money, and who will pay, the Gowanus Canal cleanup is proving to be no exception.

Bashner’s comment, highlighting a reality few would have imagined just months ago, came after city officials opposed to a Superfund listing presented their own plans in what is fast becoming an against-the-odds, last-minute drive to stop the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from taking over the project.

Under the city’s plan, presented at a May 26th public hearing, a comprehensive environmental remediation would be subsidized through a specific combination of Congressional funds, as well as monies provided by private polluters along the canal. The plan is one variant of several remediation plans recognized by the EPA under its official Superfund Alternative (SA) approach program.

The SA proposed by the city would have the EPA partner with other federal and state agencies and departments to clean the site using Superfund remediation guidelines without actually placing the site on the Superfund list.

This approach is usually favored by Superfund opponents who want a polluted site cleaned to federal standards, but are opposed to the Superfund process itself, which relies heavily on taxing polluters to pay for the clean up and can take decades to complete.

Top EPA and city officials involved with the project who were interviewed for this article disagree as to the efficacy of the SA program outlined by the city.

At the hearing, Cas Holloway, a special advisor to Mayor Bloomberg and the deputy chief of staff to Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler, said the city’s plan would be more efficient than a full-fledged Superfund-listed clean up.

“Our ultimate goal is to clean the canal to the same standard as the Superfund, faster than the Superfund, and more efficiently,” Holloway said.

He said the city would prepare its clean-up plan by continuing the contamination study already started by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a process expected to take at least two more years - about the length of time the EPA has said it would need to complete a feasibility study of its own before starting remediation work.

If by then, or at any point before that, it becomes clear the city’s alternative approach is not working, or cannot be properly funded, said Holloway, the city would not object to the EPA placing the site on the Superfund list.

“If we fail, then [the EPA] can list after two years,” said Holloway.

Because somebody has to do the two-year assessment work anyway, if the city facilitates that work but is then forced to hand the canal over to the EPA nothing would be lost by allowing the city to try its alternative approach, Holloway said.

“There’s no need to rush to list,” he said.

The city’s plan, fairly complicated by its own admission, begins with the assumption that the cost of a federally regulated remediation would cost between $300 and 400 million, a figure first reported in the Star.

Working with the lower figure of $300 million, Holloway said under the city’s official SA plan Congress, through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), could pay for the Army Corps to complete up to $100 million of the work. This would leave the remaining $200 million to be paid for by private property owners, known as potentially responsible parties (PRPs), who are found to be responsible for contamination in the canal.

This plan hinges on the city’s ability to convince PRPs to pay their share for cleaning the canal, something PRPs at other Superfund sites across the country often resist doing. If the site is not placed on the Superfund list, the city would have no legal authority to force PRPs to pay. The EPA does have that authority, and Holloway said if the site were Superfunded, the EPA would likely force PRPs to pay for the entire $300 million clean up, assuming it costs that much.

Therefore, Holloway said, if the city’s plan is adopted and succeeds, it would save PRPs along the canal $100 million.

In an interview, he said that savings alone represents a strong enough incentive to bring private polluters to the table to help pay for a comprehensive environmental remediation.

“To the extent this is about money, and at the end of the day it is, this is a pretty powerful incentive,” said Holloway.

He acknowledged that the city’s plan could only work if Congress appropriates the necessary funds and PRPs agree to cooperate. But when asked if because of this the city’s plan represents a gamble, or at the least a risk, Holloway said “we don’t think so.”

He did, however, concede that the Bloomberg Administration is taking a keener interest in resolving the issue since the canal was proposed for Superfund status in early April, something made clear by his presence, and the detailed presentation, at the May 26th hearing.

“The Gowanus is a big issue,” Holloway said. “It certainly has been more of a focus.”

Walter Mugdan, the EPA official in charge of the federal government’s proposed Gowanus Canal Superfund remediation plan, told the Star the city’s plan is in fact risky. Mugdan said the city’s reliance on an appropriation from Congress through WRDA was tenuous at best.

“That’s the only way their approach works, and they’ve acknowledged that,” Mugdan said. Securing full congressional funding “looks to me like it’s a long shot, a very long shot,” he said.

In addition, Mugdan questioned the city’s ability to get PRPs, like the Brooklyn gas supplier National Grid, to pay up if it has no legally binding authority to make them do so.

Mugdan acknowledged community misgivings about the Superfund listing, but dismissed criticism that the EPA simply plans to do what it pleases as concerns the canal. Nevertheless Mugdan said the EPA has already started the preliminary investigative work for a feasibility study to follow a Superfund listing. He said EPA contracted on-the-ground studies would continue through the summer.

Robert Zuckerman, the Environmental Committee chair of CB6, echoed skepticism that the city’s plan is realistic.

“My initial reaction is that it’s not a real plan, it’s a plan to have a plan,” Zuckerman said. “After seeing both presentations tonight, I’m leaning strongly in favor of supporting the Superfund listing.”