New Superfund site

The New York Times reported today that the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn will now be listed as a Superfund site, despite city objections. The EPA estimates clean up of the canal to cost between $300 and $500 million and that it will take 12 years. Pollutants include pesticides, metals, and "cancer-causing chemicals known as PCBs." The canal's history dates back to the 1860s when it was an industrial zone. Past Times articles on the topic reported that New York City wanted to be in charge of the cleanup. The city estimated costs of $175 million to reduce odors and prevent pollution. The article said nothing about cleaning up past pollution. The city has argued that a Superfund listing would put a stigma on the area, which could stunt development and hurt real-estate prices. However, the EPA and some residents argue that a more extensive, coordinated effort is needed, which the Superfund can provide. The EPA is requesting information from 27 potential contributors to the canal's pollution.

What do you think? Should the EPA have stepped in, or should it have allowed the city to tackle the problem? To me, it seems like the city plan did not adequately resolve the pollution in the Gowanus Canal. In addition, this pollution probably started 150 years ago -- it seems like the city had plenty of time to take action and failed to do so.