Correcting the record on Croton

I was glad to see The New York Times take an interest in the decades-long question of public access to the Jerome Park Reservoir (“Reservoir’s Neighbors Want More Than Return of Their Water Views,” March 3) and was happy to be interviewed for the article. However, there were many inaccuracies and half-truths in it.

When the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) claimed “the reservoir is especially sensitive to terrorism” with “security concerns… after the terror attack of Sept. 11,” this has little to do with the reality today. It may have been true a few years ago, as tons of chlorine were stored at JPR making it a target. However, the DEP reconstructed the whole system when they built the filter plant in Van Cortlandt Park and took the chlorine out of the entire reservoir drinking water storage loop.

The statement that “the twin fences have protected the reservoir for decades” is also not true and is ludicrous on its face. Those fences have less to do with terrorism than safety. The reason there are two fences is that the DEP could not maintain the outer fence (as teens would unfortunately break in for a swim — a very dangerous and deadly concern).

So they put in another fence closer to the reservoir. There would be no problem if they took down the original one that they could not secure and protect the reservoir and the public with the one interior fence, improving its integrity as necessary. In addition, if the public could walk along the inner fence, they could be the eyes and ears to assist the DEP police.

And as I pointed out to the reporter (which she chose not to include), think of how stupid it is to insist that a chain fence is going to keep terrorists from polluting that water. The fact is, if terrorism was a concern, they should have built the plant in Westchester as we told them to and taken this reservoir completely off-line. But it’s pretty disingenuous at best to keep the JPR as part of the water system and then complain about terrorism.