1
Flooding – FACT SHEET – Last updated 9.10.08
1974 North Plainfield Master Plan Excerpt (pages 78-79)
FLOOD CONTROL
Perhaps the most serious problem which North Plainfield has experienced in recent years
is frequent flooding of lands adjacent to Stony Brook and Green Brook. The more
extensive floods occurred in 1969, 1971 (Hurricane Doria) and 1973. The latter flood
proved to be the most serious.
The damage caused by flooding in the Borough has been extensive and has exceeded that
experienced by most municipalities in the State. Although there is no way of defining
precisely the amount of damage caused by flooding, estimates of damage to private and
public property resulting from the 1973 storm alone range from $2,000,000 to
$3,000,000. In addition, clean-up and repairs following this storm cost the Borough
$400,000.
The flood damage that has occurred in the past is very much the result of the fact
that development has taken place in flood plain areas which should have been left
undisturbed. In addition, as more area upstream becomes developed, these flood
plain areas stand the chance of being expanded. Therefore, prompt action must be
taken if the Borough is to avoid repeated flood damage and the resulting expense.
Flooding of Stony Brook and Green Brook is largely a regional problem which is beyond
the ability of the Borough alone to solve. Cooperative efforts of other municipalities are
needed and, most importantly, action by higher levels of government. To date, activities
in this area by County, State and Federal agencies have been tentative and incomplete
and no firm or specific solutions have been presented despite the urgency of the problem.
Obviously, immediate actions are necessary if the Borough is to avoid repetition of flood
damage.
Historically, solutions to flood problems have largely involved structural improvements,
including dams and piping. In all probability, the ultimate correction of flooding of Stony
Brook and Green Brook will necessitate drainage and flood control structures ot this
nature. In addition, facilities for upstream detention will be desirable and should reduce
volume downstream.
This document was prepared by Katherine Watt, co-founder of North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights, and Blog Editor
for Grassroots Groundswell (www.npccr.org), based on information and documents gathered by NPCCR volunteers between
May 2007 and September 2008. Please send corrections, clarifications, additions, etc, to communityrights@gmail.com or call
814-237-0996.
2
However, such measures will be extremely costly and may not provide the complete
solution in North Plainfield. The Borough has more improved properties in the
floodways than any other municipality in the County and many of these properties
may continue to be faced with the threat of flood damage despite structural
improvements.
The alternate solution in the Borough and the one which would be most expeditious,
would be to acquire properties within flood hazard areas and return them to their
natural state. Such an approach could prove to be far less expensive than structural
improvements and should increase the water retention capacity of land adjoining the
streams.
A number of attempts to define flood hazard areas and to identify properties that have
experienced flooding have been made by Federal and State agencies. Review of the
results of these efforts reveal apparent discrepancies between the flood delineations and
what has been actual, local experience. Therefore, there is a need for more precise
information before properties which should be acquired can be identified and reflected
for this purpose on the Master Plan.
This will involve further studies which should address themselves to the following:



(a) Identification of properties which should be acquired either as a result
of final structural solutions that may be developed by the Corps of
Engineers or out of consideration for safety and protection of life.
(b) Preparation of a plan for the acquisition of the properties so identified
utilizing every available and prudent funding source at the Federal and
State government levels.
(c) Establishment of a local, flood hazard area delineation which will
serve as the basis for sound and rational land use and development
regulations within flood prone areas.
GREEN BROOK FLOOD CONTROL COMMISSION

North Plainfield is a member community.

Commission meets monthly, met in North Plainfield in May 2008.

North Plainfield’s representative on the Commission is Councilman Frank Righetti, who
did not attend the meeting.
This document was prepared by Katherine Watt, co-founder of North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights, and Blog Editor
for Grassroots Groundswell (www.npccr.org), based on information and documents gathered by NPCCR volunteers between
May 2007 and September 2008. Please send corrections, clarifications, additions, etc, to communityrights@gmail.com or call
814-237-0996.
3

NPCCR reps spoke about the Villa Maria and flood and erosion impacts along Stony
Brook and Green Brook. Sent follow-up letters requesting Commission intervention in
Villa Maria development plan to Chair Joe Debler and Commissioners. No response.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Brook_Flood_Control_Project (includes links to
official project websites maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers)
Green Brook Flood Control is a flood control project in Somerset County in central
New Jersey first proposed in the early 1970s in the wake of two major flooding events: a
1971 flood event and a major flood in August 1973, which ravaged the Green Brook and
Raritan River basins with flooding, causing millions in property damage and several
deaths in central New Jersey...
The worst flooding in the Green Brook basin occurs in Bound Brook, which partially lies
on a natural flood plain of the Raritan River at the junction of the Green Brook and
Raritan River.
To address this flooding problem, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has
proposed the Green Brook Sub Basin Flood Control Project, which entails numerous
flood walls, levees, channel diversions, widening projects and retention basins throughout
the Green Brook basin.
The Green Brook Flood Control project has languished for decades due to a lack of
federal funding. Hurricane Floyd in 1999 caused yet more property damage and deaths in
the Green Brook basin, especially in Bound Brook, and reinvigorated the flood control
project. As of 2006, two levees have been built on the western and eastern sides of Bound
Brook. However, an important levee (R2) on the southwestern side of Bound Brook,
which would prevent the Raritan River from flooding the downtown and nearby
residential areas, has not been built, but is expected to be completed by the beginning of
2010.
The April Nor'easter of 2007 flooded Bound Brook with the second highest crest ever
recorded in the area, as the envisioned flood protection systems were not yet fully in
place. However, the April 2007 flooding did reinvigorate efforts to complete the flood
levee protection system around Bound Brook, to protect it from future flooding.
March 2008 – Resolution Adopted by the North Plainfield Borough Council, regarding federal
funding for the Green Brook Flood Control Project
Excerpts:
This document was prepared by Katherine Watt, co-founder of North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights, and Blog Editor
for Grassroots Groundswell (www.npccr.org), based on information and documents gathered by NPCCR volunteers between
May 2007 and September 2008. Please send corrections, clarifications, additions, etc, to communityrights@gmail.com or call
814-237-0996.
4
WHEREAS, the Green Brook Sub-Basin in central-New Jersey has continually been
subjected to severe and sometimes devastating flood damage for decades, causing many
millions of dollars in damages from flooding as a result of storms, as well as resulting in
8 deaths as recently as 1973 and 1999…
WHEREAS, the Green Brook Sub-Basin is becoming increasingly susceptible to
flooding due to water drainage problems caused by sources within and outside of the
Green Brook Sub-Basin which causes an increasing financial strain on the State of New
Jersey, the Counties of Middlesex, Somerset and Union and the municipalities of Bound
Brook, Bridgewater, Dunellen, Green Brook, Middlesex, North Plainfield, Piscataway,
Plainfield, Scotch Plains, South Plainfield, Warren and Watchung as a result of
emergency planning, evacuations, street, road and property damage, as well as
undue hardship to the affected residents and businesses subject to such flooding
within the Green Brook Sub-Basin; and
WHEREAS, the recent lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have
demonstrated the enormous human and economic costs of not taking appropriate
proactive precautions to safeguard communities located in regions that are susceptible to
flooding…
PARSA – Plainfield Area Regional Sewerage Authority

North Plainfield pays fees to PARSA based on the volume of sewage sent into the
system.

North Plainfield’s PARSA Representative is James Freeman, who reported to the
Borough in June 2007 about floodwater in the sewer system during the two heavy
rainfalls in April. Mr. Freeman presented a chart showing how raw sewage flow
increased during the storms. The town pays PARSA to manage the sewage, based on the
volume of sewage sent through the system.
“You have a sewage system that leaks like a sieve,” he said, explaining that “I&I” refers
to inflow and infiltration. (Inflow is rainwater that gets directly into the sewer system
through, for example, pipes from water detention basins built by contractors who didn’t
link the pipes to the proper, stormwater system, or from homeowner sump pumps linked,
again improperly, to the sewer system instead of the stormwater system. Infiltration is
when ground water seeps into the sewer system through leaks in the pipelines....costing
the town a lot of money...
This document was prepared by Katherine Watt, co-founder of North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights, and Blog Editor
for Grassroots Groundswell (www.npccr.org), based on information and documents gathered by NPCCR volunteers between
May 2007 and September 2008. Please send corrections, clarifications, additions, etc, to communityrights@gmail.com or call
814-237-0996.
5
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Attempting to identify the individuals and agencies ultimately responsible for protecting North
Plainfield residents from flood dangers and property damage, NPCCR’s Linda Darge contacted
FEMA’s Region II office in Fort Monmouth, finally referred to Richard Einhorn, natural hazards
program specialist for FEMA. (Mitigation Division - 732-427-1543) Conversations 8/19 and 9/8.
Linda gathered:











North Plainfield Borough is a member of the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program
since 08/20/71 – their Current Effective Map Date listed as 9/28/07.
FEMA sets minimum standards for flood control and stormwater management that the
NFIP member must meet and enforce.
The Borough is responsible for ensuring that the requirements are met, on behalf of
FEMA, with DEP involvement
The “member” is a designated ‘position’ that is appointed by the borough to be the
enforcer. In North Plainfield, it’s the Borough Engineer, formerly Daniel Swayze of
PMK Engineering, now David Testa (Borough Engineer) and Julio Vega (Assistant to
Engineer), both of Birdsall Engineering, which acquired PMK.
FEMA makes sure, through each state (NJDEP) that each municipality (North Plainfield)
is enforcing flood management programs to comply with the NFIP. NJDEP is the agency
that would work with any developer and the borough, outlining what is required of the
developer to adhere to the new stormwater management rules, etc.
Storm-Water Managements’ role is to help control this development (or developer?) so it
does not cause an impact. More on Storm-Water Management below.
Einhorn of FEMA stated that the development itself, i.e., Villa Maria, should be the only
property impacted. No water should run off onto other properties, limiting flood risks.
More development, faster run-off.
Revised Flood Plain Map: Borough has copies of new flood maps, most likely with the
Borough Engineer.
FEMA has digitized maps online http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/mscjumppage.shtm
When FEMA updates flood plain maps, they invite the communities to be involved, and
they have the opportunity to bring up new issues or areas that are a problem.
New Storm Water Regulations in NJ are going to impact lots of things and especially the
development of this property.
This document was prepared by Katherine Watt, co-founder of North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights, and Blog Editor
for Grassroots Groundswell (www.npccr.org), based on information and documents gathered by NPCCR volunteers between
May 2007 and September 2008. Please send corrections, clarifications, additions, etc, to communityrights@gmail.com or call
814-237-0996.
6


CONCLUSION: “…FEMA does not have a role in this at all… NJDEP is the key player
here and [Einhorn said] that because of where the structures are on the Villa Maria
property, that the impact to the flood-plain should be minimal. McNerney will definitely
need to meet all the requirements of the DEP such as a retention/detention basin, etc.
“…I did bring up the issue of 'who watches over the designated North Plainfield
Borough person assigned to ensure that FEMA's requirements are met.' [Einhorn]
chuckled...
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
Storm-Water Management via Division of Land Use Regulation
www.njstormwater.org/ Information about the storm water permitting and management
programs and other useful ideas on how you can help keep our state's waters clean.
New Jersey’s Stormwater Management rules (N. J. A. C. 7:8 eff. date Feb. 2, 2004)) are
implemented by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
through the review of permits issued by the Division of Land Use Regulation (DLUR)
(Flood Hazard, Freshwater Wetlands, CAFRA, Waterfront Development and Coastal
Wetlands).
The Stormwater Management rules … are also implemented by local authorities through
the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) and the Residential Site Improvement Standards
(RSIS). Per the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, the RSIS are applicable
to any residential application that goes before a local board.
Through the RSIS, the Stormwater rules are activated whenever a municipality requires
the control of runoff from a site that is the subject of a site or subdivision application.
Therefore, consistent with its duly adopted ordinances, a municipality may require
compliance with the Stormwater rules through the RSIS whether or not a development is
a "major development" as defined in the Stormwater rules.
Please note that local implementation may differ, particularly with regard to their
jurisdiction. Consequently, the municipal ordinances must be examined to determine
development thresholds at which the Stormwater rules will apply. The rule clarification
and interpretation offered herein are consistent with the current application of the
Stormwater rules by the Department, and do not supersede local authority under the
MLUL.
This document was prepared by Katherine Watt, co-founder of North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights, and Blog Editor
for Grassroots Groundswell (www.npccr.org), based on information and documents gathered by NPCCR volunteers between
May 2007 and September 2008. Please send corrections, clarifications, additions, etc, to communityrights@gmail.com or call
814-237-0996.
7
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING RULE: N.J.A.C. 7:15 – Effective
Date: May 20, 2008 – Readoption July 7, 2008 - Amendments, Repeals and New Rules
Rule Expiration Date: May 21, 2013
National Flood Insurance Program




This year (2008) Tom Mullen’s (Council Candidate – R) flood insurance for his home at
Glenside Place went from somewhere around $850 to $1,900 because the FEMA maps
have changed because of runoff from the Watchung Square Mall, built in the late 1990s.
The mall developers complied with all applicable rules and regulations to prevent
flooding (drainage systems, basins etc.) and the development still increased flooding and
changed the FEMA map.
“Externalization of Costs” - Financial burden caused by private development, facilitated
by compliant local government, shifted onto private taxpayers/homeowners shoulders.
Class action suit against the Borough? If the Villa Maria gets built on and it worsens
flooding and expands FEMA flood zones again, Mullen’s whole neighborhood could
potentially be condemned.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:






1974 North Plainfield Master Plan
April 2007 PARSA flow report- http://bp2.blogger.com/_nolnujV6AE/Rm6_PTm59aI/AAAAAAAAAGs/NkBRM85B2Jo/s1600-h/flow+chart.jpg
June 2007 - Borough Engineer Daniel Swayze Report on Villa Maria Development Plans,
including concerns about stormwater management plan.
http://communityrights.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/swayze-villa-report.pdf
March 2008 North Plainfield Borough Council Resolution on federal funding for Green
Brook Flood Control Project.
2008 Updated FEMA Flood Zone Maps (GIS)
http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/mscjumppage.shtm
http://hub.gmnews.com/news/2008/0320/front_page/031.html
This document was prepared by Katherine Watt, co-founder of North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights, and Blog Editor
for Grassroots Groundswell (www.npccr.org), based on information and documents gathered by NPCCR volunteers between
May 2007 and September 2008. Please send corrections, clarifications, additions, etc, to communityrights@gmail.com or call
814-237-0996.