Flooding in the Passaic River Basin: Past, Present and Future

1. Overview
2. Key Points
3. PRC’s Recommendations
4. Flooding is Natural: Damages are Not
5. Development in Flood Hazard Areas
6. Understanding Flood Risks
7. Flood Damage Reduction: Plans and Actions
8. Constraints on Flood Damage Reduction
9. Conclusion: What Works and What Hasn’t
10. Cited Materials

Overview

Flood damage to human development has occurred in the Passaic River Basin for as long as there has been human development. The Passaic River Coalition (PRC) has been working on this issue since 1969, when our organization was formed. The Federal, State and local governments have been working on this issue for even longer. The result? Flood damages still occur every time a major rain event occurs. Why? Because this issue is complex, expensive and requires actions that many people are unwilling to take. In this blog, we provide an overview of the issue, past efforts, opportunities for the future, and the PRC’s general recommendations.

The Passaic River Coalition advocates for flood damage reductions through a variety of incremental improvements, including the following major actions:

• Development restrictions
• Buyouts of homes at greatest risk of flooding
• Improved stormwater management to reduce neighborhood flooding
• Redevelopment designs that reduce flood damage risks
• Flood-proofing of existing buildings in flood prone areas
• Robust flood warning and preparedness systems
• Improved post-flood response programs
• Improved transportation corridors to ensure emergency access to and across flooded areas
• Municipal involvement in FEMA’s Community Rating System
• Limited structural projects in strategic areas

Credit: Northjersey.com, 2018

Back to top

Key Points

Decades of experience, studies, research and advocacy provide the following key findings:

• All rivers flood at times. Upstream development, poor stormwater management, and more frequent large storms from climate change all make the flooding worse.
• Flood damages occur when development is in the wrong place. In other words, floods happen, but flood damages are caused by humans, not nature.
• Flooding in the Passaic River Basin is concentrated in the Central Basin where large wetlands were formed after the glacial period. Development of these wetlands in many municipalities put homes and businesses at risk.
• Flooding also occurs directly along the major rivers where historic industrial towns used water access for water supply, hydropower, and wastewater disposal. These older urban areas, such as Denville, Morristown, Paterson and Newark, face high risks of flooding.
• Development in flood prone areas can be appropriate (e.g., transportation corridors, recreational access) or not (e.g., housing, commercial). Much inappropriate development occurred before regulations started controlling new flood plain development, beginning in 1972.
• Current mapping of flood hazard areas is not up to date, is getting worse, and doesn’t account for neighborhood flooding from inadequate stormwater systems.
• The most appropriate policy is reducing flood damages, as it is almost impossible to reduce the total volume of floodwaters. This is especially true in the tidal Passaic River, where storm surge such as with Hurricane Sandy can cause immense damage.

Improvements have been implemented, but to date have been inadequate: 

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been creating plans for flood damage reduction since 1936. No major projects ever reached implementation, as most current options do not show strong benefits relative to costs. The one exception is a design focused on the most frequently flooded areas (the 10-year or 10% probability flood). 
• Several smaller Corps projects have been constructed along the Pompton, Ramapo and Saddle Rivers, and Molly Ann Brook. A new project for Peckman Brook is in active consideration.
• The NJ Department of Environmental Protection serves as the non-federal sponsor for Corps projects. NJDEP also is the primary regulatory agency for minimizing impacts of new development in flood hazard areas, and it administers Blue Acres program funds to remove homes from the highest risk areas.
• County governments have been involved in the purchase of riverbank lands for county and municipal parks, reducing flood damages.
• Municipalities can play a major role in development control, stormwater management, Blue Acres project implementation, and interaction with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) programs to reduce local flood losses.
• Non-profit land trusts have been involved in buyout and parks development projects, including the Passaic River Coalition (Little Falls and the tidal Passaic River), The Land Conservancy of New Jersey (Pequannock) and many organizations regarding Newark’s waterfront parks.

Credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Back to top

Passaic River Coalition Recommendations

As the following sections show, we must face the facts that flooding is a major issue, no “grand scheme” major project will be easily accepted or quick in coming, no solution will be cheap, and New Jersey itself will face significant costs – the federal government isn’t going to pay all costs. Many people will remain at risk while we incessantly plan and study.  The PRC is helping to untie this Gordian knot. Our primary objective is to focus attention on actions that will help reduce threats to public health and safety, property, and emergency services in the areas most frequently flooded. A combination of buyouts, floodproofing, strategic local structural options, warning systems, and local projects have a far greater potential for benefits in the near future. The PRC recommends specifically:

• Buyouts: Major infusion of funding are needed for “Blue Acres” type projects in the floodway and 10-year flood plain, especially on lower-density housing developments. These funds should also be provided for removal of neighborhood commercial buildings that are dependent on customers from the housing being removed. Large scale commercial and office buildings should not be eligible, as they have a revenue stream that can address flood insurance needs and any flood damages. Buyouts must be equitable and include relocation funds, so that people who sell can afford to move.
• Urban redevelopment: Urban redevelopment projects within any portion of the flood plain should be designed with flood damage avoidance in mind, regarding the buildings, personal property (including vehicles), public health and safety, and emergency services. Over time, the normal process of redevelopment can greatly reduce urban flood damages. We can emulate the Dutch “room for the river” approach, or efforts such Columbus, Ohio, on the Scioto River. Municipalities can play a critical role here through their zoning and site plan ordinances.
• Limited structural flood damage reduction projects: Channelization, levees and floodwalls should be minimized but can appropriate in strategic locations. Structural projects are a cause of environmental degradation and can be overtopped by storms larger than their design storm. They also have maintenance and operational costs and responsibilities that must be addressed.
• Access and Travel Through Transportation: All roads, railroads and bridges should be redesigned and rebuilt to ensure that they are not subject to flooding. Due to the cost of this work, it should occur when the facilities are ready for major retrofits or replacement due to age and degradation. Because old bridges often restrict flows, retrofits must work at the watershed and basin level to ensure that downstream flooding doesn’t increase. This process can begin quickly but will take decades to complete; priorities should be established for the most critical transportation corridors, including consideration of emergency evacuation and access.
• Flood Warning Systems and Emergency Planning: NJDEP and relevant federal agencies (e.g., USACE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service) should develop a regional, automated flood warning system that provides direct notification of residents and businesses. State, county and municipal emergency services managers should then incorporate this system into pre-flood planning regarding how to prevent stormwater and stream blockages ahead of time, stage supplies and vehicles, educate and notify residents and businesses regarding flooding and evacuation routes, and respond during flood events (see FEMA 2007, Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding: A Guide for Communities, Chapter 6, Warning and Emergency Services). 
• Municipal Participation in the FEMA Community Rating System (CRS): All municipalities with significant development in flood hazard areas should participate in CRS, which improves local capacity to mitigate, prevent and respond to flood damages. The more a municipality does, the lower the costs of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) coverage for landowners. For example, as of 2023, Lincoln Park, Little Falls, Pompton Lakes and Pequannock have secured a 25% discount on NFIP policies for eligible landowners, while Fairfield Township and Ridgewood have secured a 20% discount. However, of the 119 New Jersey municipalities in part or entirely withing the Passaic River Basin, only 15 municipalities are involved in CRS, and four of those have not achieved any NFIP discounts. Of the six New York municipalities in the Basin, only one, Suffern, is involved in the CRS. Major improvements to these numbers are needed. Municipalities can incorporate CRS actions into their master plans, ordinances, natural hazard management plans, open space and recreation plans, Sustainable Jersey actions and more.

Back to top

Flooding is Natural:
Damages Are Not

All rivers flood, everywhere in the world. A famous example is the Nile River, providing critical floods that supported agriculture for the historic Egyptian empire.

Rivers flood because of their structure. Most days, river flows are low and remain within the river channel that naturally forms between two river banks (see graphic below). During small storms, a river will generally stay within its river channel. Larger storms generate flows that exceed the river channel capacity, forcing water out over and beyond the river banks into the flood plain, which may include wetlands and dry lands. There, the fast-moving flood waters slow and spread out, eventually moving back into the river banks once the storm has passed and flood flows decline.

This process is both natural and necessary. Each component of a river channel and flood plain provides ecological values, supporting aquatic, wetland and flood-tolerant species and ecosystems. This flooding process also helps protect downstream areas by slowing and temporarily storing flood waters.

Flood damages, on the other hand, are not natural. They are a result of human decisions to place land uses within areas that flood, whether farms and fields, recreational facilities, roads or buildings. In the more elevated areas of a flood plain, the likelihood of damage is relatively low. In lower parts of the flood plain and especially in the areas where rapid flood flows exist (the floodway), the potential for frequent and severe damage is high. For this reason, experts often will say that “natural disasters” are really “human disasters” where development conflicts with natural flooding. Natural flooding is made worse by development outside of the flood plain, also, because increased stormwater flows are quickly sent to streams and rivers, increasing flood flows and heights. 

However, there is also another component to flood damages – storms are becoming more severe with climate change. The percentage of rainfall that occurs in larger storms has greatly increased in the northeastern United States, including New Jersey; average annual rainfall has also increased. The result is more frequent flooding, especially in low-lying areas near rivers. Development in the wrong places, increased flood levels due to poor stormwater management, increased storm severity – these combine to create the potential for devastating floods in some areas, and more frequent nuisance floods in other areas. Flooding is happening in places that rarely if ever experienced floods before, and at worse levels.

Back to top

Development in
Flood Hazard Areas

All of this raises a fundamental question: why have people built in natural flood hazard areas? There are many reasons, both historical and modern.

• To get from here to there: Society requires mobility, and that means crossing streams and rivers to get from one place to another. Historically, river fords were often used where traffic was minimal and river depth minimal. Deeper rivers and more traffic led to bridge construction. Flooding disrupts traffic, so roads and railroads are built higher. The result is transportation infrastructure across flood plains and rivers. Many bridges were built before modern times, with inadequate openings for flood flows. Many bridges and roads were built high enough for most times, but they are flooded during the largest storms.
• Access to water: Some land uses require access to water, especially historically. Think of mills that use water power, such as the large mill complex in Paterson, the nation’s first planned industrial city. Sawmills and grist mills required access to water power. Many of these buildings still exist. Drinking water and wastewater treatment plants also have often been built close to rivers where they either get water supply or discharge treated wastewater effluent.
• Evolving development: In some cases, people built seasonal homes along rivers. Living with flood risks was accepted because these were vacation homes; people could go home when it flooded. Over time, some seasonal communities became year-round residences, despite the flood risks. Some people decided that the location justified the risk, while others were attracted by more affordable housing.
• Inadequate understanding of flood risks: Some development occurred because people either accepted or didn’t fully understand the flood risks for a specific location. This was more common before better flood hazard mapping, property owner notification, and land use regulations.
• Profit: Some developers either ignored flood risks or decided that the “buyer beware” concept applied. In other cases, commercial developers decided that the risk of damages was sufficiently small that they would build in flood plains; Willowbrook Mall is a good example. Prior to modern regulations, some developers even deliberately avoided mentioning or lied about flood risks. This was a frequent problem in the mid-1900s, before and especially after World War 2 (through the 1960s), as the Passaic River Basin rapidly suburbanized in response to the creation and expansion of state and interstate highways. Restrictive state regulations only began with the 1972 Flood Hazard Area Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:16A (50-66).

The result is a development pattern where many thousands of homes, businesses, roads and bridges are within the flood plain and at risk of flood damages. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2015) estimated that over 2.5 million people live in the basin, of which perhaps 50,000 (2 percent) live in the 100-year floodplain, including roughly 20,000 homes, businesses and public buildings in 35 communities.

Back to top

Understanding Flood Risks

A critical point is that every part of a flood plain has its own level of flood risk, based on the strength of the storm flows, the land elevation, and how the landscape directs flood flows toward or away from buildings and infrastructure. The risk of flooding is calculated as the probability of flooding over time. A common metric is the “one hundred year flood”, which is often incorrectly perceived as a flood that will occur only once in a hundred years. More accurately, this is a flood that has a one percent chance of occurring in any year, a statistical approach. Likewise, a “fifty year flood” has a two percent chance of occurring in any year, and a “ten year flood” has a ten percent chance of occurring in any year. The use of percent probability is technically more accurate, but many people struggle to understand statistics and the terminology is a mouthful, so we will use the more common approach here.

These flooding metrics are estimated based on the history of flooding events; only floods occurred that are measured can be used. A major concern is that historical events are becoming less useful in predicting future risks, due to changes in the landscape (where development has increased stormwater runoff or filled enough of the flood plain to increase flood levels) and changes in storm frequency and severity from climate change. What was a one percent probability flood in 1950 has a significantly higher probability of occurring now. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2013), “Predicted flows for the 100 year storm event have generally increased between 6% and 34% and some water surface elevations (WSELs) have increased up to 1.6 feet. The risk of larger flood events has increased while the smaller storm events have decreased based upon updated hydrology.” In other words, what was a 100-year storm now is more likely to happen, and further changes are expected (NJDEP, 2023).

Credit: Moody Engineering

The important point is that some areas will flood very rarely, while others will flood frequently. Flood frequency drives the costs of flood damages; homes in a ten-year or five-year flood plain will be damaged over and over, with repair and redevelopment costs each time. Not only will they be flooded more frequently, but they also face catastrophic flooding during severe floods. Of the 20,000 buildings estimated to be in the Passaic River Basin flood plain (USACE, 2015), roughly 7,400 are within the 10-year flood plain where most damages occur.

The result is that total flood damages over time are highly concentrated in the most frequently flooded areas. Reducing damages in those areas is more likely to be economically beneficial for society, as the costs of flood damage reductions will often be much less than the benefits (i.e., the damages avoided). For areas that rarely flood, the costs of protection will be high relative to benefits, because development at the very outside edge of a 100-year flood plain is rarely damaged by floods.

According to the USACE, a repeat of the flood of 1903 (considered the record flood) would cause roughly $2.24 billion in damages; annualized costs of all flooding was estimated at $161 million (2012 dollars) (USACE, 2015). Many major floods have occurred since 1903, though not all floods are basin-wide. Notable floods occurred since 1980: April 1980; April 1984; April 1987; May 1989; October 1996; September 1999; April and October 2005, April and December 2007; March 2010; March, April, August (Irene) and September (Lee) 2011; September 2021 (Ida) (National Weather Service, 2016; web search). These dates indicate a pattern of spring floods and fall floods; many of the fall floods are associated with remnants of tropical storms. Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy is a noteworthy absence; its heavy rains did not hit northern New Jersey. The major flooding areas are shown in this USACE map; the largest are in the Central Basin where a glacial lake created large flat areas with many wetlands (shown in green).

Back to top

Flood Damage Reduction:
Plans and Actions

The first step in reducing flood damages is to prevent new development in hazardous areas. New Jersey began doing so in 1929, but effective regulations began in 1972 with the Flood Hazard Area Control Act (FHACA), N.J.S.A. 58:16A (50-66). Over time, the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has adopted more stringent regulations. The Central Passaic River Basin was the first area of the state for which a “no net fill” requirement was adopted; any new fill in the 100-year flood zone must be offset by a reduction in fill, so that the overall flood storage capacity remains at least equal. The FHACA rules also help ensure that changes to existing development (e.g., roads and bridges, protection structures such as dikes and levees) do not increase flood levels elsewhere. The Passaic River Coalition supports stringent development control in flood hazard areas. For more information, see: NJDEP| Watershed & Land Management | Flood Hazard Areas. 

However, preventing new at-risk development doesn’t reduce flood damages to existing development. In essence, there are only three ways of reducing damages. First, at-risk development can be either removed or flood-proofed. If a building no longer exists, it can’t be damaged; if the water can’t get into a building, damages are reduced. Second, flood waters can be contained or controlled, using dams, dikes, walls and levees, so that developed areas are protected from flooding up to some flood level (i.e., a wall keeping out a 100-year flood will be overtopped by a 500-year flood). Third, flood waters can be rerouted around flood-prone areas, such as through a canal or tunnel. All of these methods have been studied for the Passaic River Basin and some have been implemented in places.

The Passaic River Basin has a long history of flood damage reduction studies and actions involving federal agencies (primarily the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), state agencies (primarily the NJDEP and its predecessor agencies), county governments and municipalities. A complete list would be very lengthy, but here are some key examples:

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): The civil works branch of the USACE is the primary national agency involved with major flood damage reduction projects. (The Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has a similar role focused primarily on more rural, small watersheds.) This USACE national role was first authorized by Congress in 1936, and biennial Water Resource Development Acts (WRDA) provide both authorization and funding for planning, design and implementation efforts; costs are shared with non-federal sponsors.

The USACE was first authorized to study the Passaic River Basin in 1936, resulting in five major federal reports through 1973 (one of which spurred creation of the Passaic River Coalition), and then additional reports based on a 1976 authorization. The early studies often involved massive structural projects that would flood large areas of the Central Basin, including wetlands, to prevent flooding of downstream areas. The current study goals are for protection to at least the 100-year flood (which is increasing, as noted above) while minimizing adverse impacts to the environment. A result of the 1976 study was NJDEP’s 1984 selection of a major project, including: an underground diversion tunnel from the Central Basin to Newark Bay (20 miles of 42-foot diameter tunnel); preservation of natural storage areas; limited buyouts of developed property; and some structural components such as levees, channelization and floodwalls where the flood diversion tunnel would not sufficiently protect property. This project was authorized by Congress, but it was removed from consideration by Congress under the WRDA of 2000. 

The state then requested a new study of buyouts and nonstructural options in the 10-year flood plain for comparison, followed by a request for analysis of six alternatives, one of which was the 10-year flood plain nonstructural alternative. Over time, several planning updates and reanalyzes have been developed, but no formal recommendations have been made. A major concern for all six alternatives is that the ratio of benefits to costs was below 1 for three alternatives (i.e., costs exceed benefits), roughly 1 or slightly higher for the tunnel project (which has been de-authorized) and a levee/nonstructural plan, and significantly positive only for the 10-year nonstructural plan (1.3 to 1.9) (USACE, 2014). Based on the review of six alternatives, NJDEP selected four for a more detailed analysis, including the 10-year nonstructural option, the tunnel option, a levees and nonstructural option, and a no action option. New economic analyses have been provided to the NJDEP showing that only two options had a benefit to cost ratio greater than 1 – the diversion tunnel at 1.05 ($4.7 billion cost) and the 10-year nonstructural option at 2.1 ($1.2 billion cost) (personal communications, 2020); this study has not been released for public review as of early 2024. These findings are important because the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally gives priority to USACE projects with a benefit to cost ratio greater than 2.

Meanwhile, some local projects have been implemented through the USACE/state partnership to address issues separate from the regional plan, such as Molly Ann Brook (Paterson/Haledon area), the Ramapo River at Oakland, Pompton Plains, Harrison, and the Minish Riverfront Park in Newark. A separate project on Peckman Brook is also in active consideration. On the other hand, an initiative for the Tidal Passaic is feasible and cost-effective but requires cleanup of many contaminated sites before the USACE could start construction. (The Passaic River Coalition has formally supported the Tidal Passaic project and certain actions in Newark to reduce street flooding from tidal flooding.) Likewise, a Saddle River initiative is on hold due to hazardous sites; in this case NJDEP believes that site cleanup is feasible, but the USACE lacks sufficient funding to study the area (personal communication, 2020). 

• NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP): Beyond its regulatory role in protecting existing flood plain capacity, the NJDEP plays a critical role as non-federal sponsor for all USACE projects, including the authority to sign off on USACE projects before they can be implemented (to the extent that funding is provided through the State budget). As part of that role, NJDEP facilitated the Passaic River Basin Flood Advisory Committee, formed in 2010, which in 2011 approved 15 recommendations including reevaluation of the USACE plans (see results above). Another recommendation was expansion of the Blue Acres concept, where buildings are acquired and removed from the flood plain; federal funding from the Hurricane Sandy appropriation has been combined with Green Acres and other funding to help implement this recommendation. Improved flood risk maps have been completed, but a regional flood warning system with direct notification of residents has not been developed. Some other recommendations, such as a moratorium on new floodplain development, are primarily a municipal focus and in most cases have not been implemented. 
• County Governments: Counties have little authority and funding to implement major flood damage reduction projects. However, several counties have purchased flood-prone lands along rivers to create riverfront parks. The parks are allowed to flood, providing flood storage. Morris County specifically allocated funds from its open space tax to support removal of frequently-flooded buildings and creation of park space; a project in Pequannock Township involving the Township and The Land Conservancy of New Jersey is one result. Counties have periodically been involved in small-scale efforts to reduce local flooding caused by excessive tree-fall into rivers (i.e., desnagging).
• Municipalities: Municipalities have even fewer resources than counties to implement major flood damage reduction projects, though they also have been involved in creating riverfront parks, purchasing and removing frequently-flooded buildings, and desnagging projects. For example, after Hurricane Irene hit in 2011, Denville used $3.4 million in state and county funding to remove 11 badly-damaged houses along Riverside Drive, creating Denville Park Meadow, a recreational area (Condon, 2023). Municipalities also play a primary role in limiting flood damages through land use management, such as zoning, subdivision ordinances, site development ordinances, and open space preservation. They can also implement green stormwater infrastructure that slows the movement of stormwater to rivers and thus reducing flood heights. Finally, municipalities can engage state and federal agencies in planning for flood damage reduction projects, including NJDEP, the NJ Office of Emergency Management (NJ State Police), FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture).
• Non-profit organizations: Many land trust organizations have preserved undeveloped forests and wetlands using donor funds, county and municipal open space funds, and NJ Green Acres funding. These preservation efforts help reduce the potential for increased downstream flooding from new stormwater discharges. Two non-profit organizations have gone further. The Passaic River Coalition has worked with Little Falls Township to acquire homes along the Passaic River that flood repeatedly. These homes have been demolished and the lands turned into a riverside park, planted with the help of volunteers from Anheuser-Busch in Newark. As mentioned, The Land Conservancy of New Jersey has worked with Pequannock Township and Morris County to acquire and remove frequently-flooded homes along the Pequannock River, creating a riverside park.

Pequannock Riverside Park. Credit: Google Maps

Woodcliff Ave, Little Falls. Credit: Google Maps

Back to top

Constraints on
Flood Damage Reduction

Three major constraints exist regarding flood damage reduction. One is that our current situation was caused by thousands of individual development decisions over hundreds of years, resulting in risks and damages affecting many thousands of properties and individuals. Damage reduction will require an enormous amount of coordination, funding and hard decisions that will engender major opposition from anyone who feels aggrieved by the decisions. 

Second, upland development and climate change are gradually but certainly making the situation worse, so damage reduction efforts constantly must catch up to a changing reality. 

Credit: Shope, et al. 2022. 

Third, there is a natural tendency for people to want some major project to solve their flooding problems without modifying their neighborhoods or homes, preferably funded by someone else (i.e., suggesting that landowners help pay for projects from any increased land value is a non-starter, even though it is rational). History shows that major “grand scheme” projects take many decades to plan, fund and complete, if they ever reach the implementation stage at all; many projects never get started unless a major disaster triggers funding, which means that people would need to be grievously harmed before they can be helped. Nearly a century has passed since the USACE started planning in the Passaic River Basin; while some local projects have been implemented successfully, the primary result of the planning has been a demand for more studies.

An additional constraint involves assigning responsibility and paying for construction and for operation and maintenance (O&M) of any structural controls on flood damages (buyouts for parks by their nature have no ongoing operational or maintenance costs). Construction generally requires a contribution by the non-federal sponsor (i.e., the State of New Jersey) to match federal funds. O&M costs are generally borne by the non-federal sponsor, which may require local government contributions.

Back to top

Conclusion: What Works…
and What Hasn’t

Structural projects on specific river segments have been completed because they could be separated from the larger regional projects, involved smaller costs, and gained local approval. In addition, “Blue Acres” type buyout programs have worked (albeit too slowly) at a local level to provide immediate reduction of damages, remove people from harm’s way, reduce safety threats for emergency response personnel, and create valuable riverfront parks (e.g., Hoffman Park, Wayne; Pequannock Township; Little Falls Township; City of Paterson). Both local projects and buyouts share a trait – they are aimed at reducing damages in the most at-risk areas. Finally, land preservation and land use regulations work to minimize increased flood levels.

What hasn’t worked so far is the concept of a “grand scheme” project that solves everyone’s problems out to the 100-year (or greater) flood plain limit. The costs either outweigh the benefits or are nearly equal, due in part to the fact that much of the development to be protected is modest suburban housing. National experience shows that federal rules favor projects that protect high-value development such as dense urban centers and expensive homes. Post-war homes built during the 1940s through 1960s in flood plains of the Passaic River Basin tend to be relatively small. Earlier development in the urban flood areas is often old and located in poor neighborhoods, providing fewer protection benefits in dollar terms. A major issue facing the Passaic River Basin and New Jersey is one of equity for flooded residents.

What has worked in other regions but is not fully developed in the Passaic River Basin is a robust flood warning and preparedness system that would help people protect their belongings and safety, provide clear expectations for emergency services, and improve post-flood responses.

The Passaic River Coalition encourages a focus on actions that can be started soon or increased to provide quick and certain benefits for reducing flood damages and harm to human health and the environment, using incremental steps that achieve major long-term improvements. Waiting for the “solves all problems” project hasn’t worked for more than 80 years. People of the Passaic River Basin need initiatives that work immediately, not perpetual planning.

Back to top

Cited Materials

Condon, Mike. December 1, 2023. For one Morris County town, fighting floodwaters has been a decades-long endeavor. The Citizen of Morris County. https://www.newjerseyhills.com/the_citizen/news/for-one-morris-county-town-fighting-floodwaters-has-been-a-decades-long-endeavor/article_dc69b958-8578-11ee-b1e6-cbf964284243.html {subscription required for link}

National Weather Service (2016). Major Floods of the Passaic River Basin. Downloaded from Historical Floods, Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center, Passaic Basin. https://www.weather.gov/marfc/HistoricalFloods 

NJ Department of Environmental Protection (2023). Climate Change in New Jersey: Impacts and Effects. Precipitation. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/311582f534fd485faccda6fd7f3a0519?item=4 

Passaic River Basin Flood Advisory Committee (2011). Report to the Governor: Recommendations of the Passaic River Basin Flood Advisory Commission. Published by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection.

Personal communications (2020). NJDEP Director of Dam Safety and Flood Engineering 

Shope, J., Broccoli, A., Frei, B., Gerbush, M., Herb, J., Kaplan, M., Langer, E., Marxen, L., & Robinson, D. 2022. State of the Climate: New Jersey 2021. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2013). Passaic River Main Stem Flood Risk Management: Preliminary Alternative Reevaluation Report, Phase 1. United States Army Corps of Engineers New York District & New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NJ Department of Environmental Protection (2014). Passaic River Main Stem Flood Risk Management Project: Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report: Briefing to Elected Officials. 6 March 2014.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2015). Passaic River Main Stem and Tributaries, New Jersey, Flood Risk Management Project. Public Information Session, Wallington Civic Center. Includes “FACT SHEET-Passaic River Mainstem New Jersey.”