Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

My Dream House and the Pond

News Feed
Tuesday, March 12, 2024

I can’t talk about our house in the Bronx without telling you first about the pond out front. Given how much worse flooding can be elsewhere in New York City—even just two blocks to the east along the valley of Broadway, where the sewer is always at capacity—not to mention elsewhere in the world, I’m embarrassed to gripe about my personal pond. These days, such bodies of water are everywhere. Mine is not the only pond, but merely the pond I can’t avoid.The pond dilates and contracts according to water levels. After a string of dry days, it may shrink to a puddle. After a storm, it may stretch to the length of a freight car, spilling into the middle of the street. It’s bad for curb appeal. Its sources are environmental, structural, and complex. On the rare occasion the pond dissipates, it leaves behind a residue like black mayonnaise.The pond is almost always there. Our region is getting wetter as the climate changes. More rain, more storms, more often. The infrastructure of our city, at the edge of the rising sea, isn’t fit to handle so much water. Sudden, torrential downpours overwhelm our outdated drainage systems, especially at high tide; drench the subway system; and, in some low-lying places nearby, turn streets into sewers and basements into death traps.In summer, the pond breeds mosquitoes and collects litter: cigarette butts, scratched-off lotto tickets. In winter, I worry the pond will become a slipping hazard. This is what I say when dialing 311, the city’s helpline, in hopes of remediation. An elderly neighbor could slip on the ice and break a bone. The pond could collapse into a sinkhole.Tell it to the DOT, lady, says the Department of Environmental Protection. I do. Nope, says the Department of Transportation; because of the tree, this is a problem for Parks. I follow up. Weeks pass. The Department of Parks and Recreation directs me to the Department of Health. Months pass. What you need to do for ponding, says the DOH, is try the DEP. I write to my city-council member: I’m being given the runaround. Weeks pass without reply. Surely, this wouldn’t happen in the rich neighborhood up the hill. As a city worker myself, I know this dance well—this absurd, disjointed roundelay.[Olga Khazan: Why can’t I just rent a house? ]I ruminate over the pond. It has caused me not just embarrassment but shame. It has turned me scientific, made me into a water witch. I understand that the pond is beyond the scope of any one person, or any one agency, to handle, and that it’s perilous to ignore. The pond is a dark mirror; in it, our house appears upside down, distorted. It reflects deeper problems of stewardship and governance and the position of our house in relation to both. We are privileged to own a home. Yet we live on land that will drown, that is inundated already. The pond is a portal. Sometimes it smells, this vent hole of the netherworld. Beneath its surface, something lies concealed. Given the fact of the pond, why did we buy the house? Now that we dwell in the house, what to do about the pond?Technically, the pond isn’t on our property at all. Our home inspector had no reason to suspect it. It belongs to the city, along with the street where it spreads. This is what we were told on the rainy day we arrived for the final walk-through before closing on the house in the deadly spring of 2020: The pond was up to the city to fix, with taxpayer dollars.Plenty of folks were deserting New York then. I mean hundreds of thousands. That we were committed to staying in the city was both an act of necessity and a point of pride. For my husband and I, the house was a step up from the crowded three-room apartment in Washington Heights where we’d sheltered in place, away from the mad snarl of highways whose traffic had given our boys asthma: a place to stretch out, a sign of our upward mobility. The American dream. To a Black family without generational wealth, some of whose ancestors were property themselves, it signified even more: Shelter. Safety. Equity. Arrival. A future for our children.We fell in love with the house as soon as we saw it, a run-down detached brick home in a working-class neighborhood with a little garden in back and windows on all four sides. The house had solid bones. We rejoiced when our offer was accepted. Yet until the day of the final walk-through, we had never visited the house in the rain.That morning, the pond greeted us like the opposite of a welcome mat, giving shape to whatever latent misgivings we had about making this move. I felt hoodwinked. Buyer beware! I waded into the middle of that bad omen to gauge its depth. Murky water sloshed over the tops of my rain boots, drenching my socks. Good Lord. It was so much more significant than a puddle. I wondered what it was, how to name it, and why it was here. Was what I stood on actually land, or something less concrete? Could it have been a wetland, once? Why hadn’t the pond been disclosed? Because it didn’t have to be, said the tight-lipped seller’s agent representing the estate of the previous owner, an old man named Jeremiah Breen.That night, my husband and I lay awake in bed, discussing our options. Sirens sounded up from the street. People were dying of COVID all around us. Purportedly, the house sat outside the floodplain. But what if the pond got bigger with worsening weather? Would it pour into the basement? Was the house’s foundation as solid as we’d been told? We doubted that the city would handle the underlying issues—not while hobbled by the pandemic. Would flood insurance be enough? Would the house be around to bequeath to our children, or would it be underwater? Was it an asset or a millstone? How high would the waters rise? How soon? Did we even believe, deep down in our souls, of ownership of this kind? Why fake like we or anyone else could own the land?Such questions of capital consumed us deep into the night. The bottom line was this: If we pulled out of the deal, we’d lose our down payment, amounting to two years of college tuition for one of our kids. By dawn, we admitted our disillusionment. We’d already crossed the Rubicon, imbricated in the twisted system that brought about the pond. Or so we said because nevertheless, we still loved the house.We renegotiated the purchase price; we moved in.Later, I learned that many current maps for flood risk overlap with maps of historic housing discrimination. Geography determines a neighborhood’s risk and, this being America, so does race. Neighborhoods that suffered from redlining in the 1930s—when our house was built—face a far higher risk of flooding today. The pond suggested a submerged history beneath the daily surface of things.The house was not just a risk but a wreck. Its rusty tanks sweated out oil that looked like blood onto the basement floor. Most of its windowpanes were cracked; its floors, uneven; its doors, out of plumb. It lacked adequate insulation. Under the creaky old planks, we discovered a newspaper dating back to the Depression. The front page addressed the use of antiques in home decoration. It featured a photo of a card room with an 18th-century Queen Anne table being used for bridge. How far back could I imagine? The paper flaked into pieces like the wings of moths when I tried to turn the page.By the time Jeremiah Breen took possession of the house, bridge had fallen out of fashion. At the time the table was carved, this part of the Bronx was marsh. When I input our zip code into the online archive of the U.S. Geological Survey, I can see on a century-old map what this wetland looked like before it was developed into the grid of streets, shops, houses, schools, and apartment buildings that make up the neighborhood now. In 1900, the land is still veined by blue streams. A pin in the shape of a teardrop marks the spot of our present address, smack-dab in a bend of a waterway called Tibbetts Brook. The brook was named after a settler whose descendants were driven off the land for their royalist sympathies during the Revolutionary War. Before that, it had another name. The Munsee Lenape called it Mosholu. We live on the ghost of this rivulet, just one of the city’s dozens of lost streams.[Hannah Ritchie: A slightly hotter world could still be a better one]The teardrop confirmed what I sensed about the true nature of my pond, which was so much more than a puddle, and not mine at all, but rather a part of a much larger body of water.Waterways like Tibbetts Brook were once the lifeblood of the city. As New York grew, in the 17th and 18th centuries, into the world’s supreme port, it counted on such freshwater streams for transportation, drinking water, fishing, and waterpower for grain mills and sawmills. The brook became polluted; eventually, railroad lines overtook waterways as transportation routes. Waterpower was replaced by steam. Steam was replaced by electric power. The banks of the streams became industrial wastelands, which became Black and brown neighborhoods. Plundered water bodies. Plundered peoples.The works of Eric Sanderson, a landscape ecologist, and Herbert Kraft, a scholar of the Lenape, help me imagine a preindustrial, pre-European version of my home place. The Wiechquaeseck community of Lenape lived in a settlement nearby, around Spuytin Duyvil Creek, fed by the waters of Mosholu. They lived mostly out of doors and owned no more than they could carry. Wealth was being in communion with one another, and in balance with the abundant natural world, “filled with an almost infinite variety of plants, animals, insects, clouds and stones, each of which possessed spirits no less important than those of human beings,” according to Kraft.All I have to do to see a remaining pocket of that natural world that was once my home is walk three blocks east to Van Cortlandt Park, where a narrow belt of lowland swamp forest still survives along a trail around open water. This small freshwater wetland is ecologically precious, home to many plant and animal species. It slows erosion, prevents flooding by retaining stormwater, filters and decomposes pollutants, and converts carbon dioxide into oxygen.Hunting the swamp are barred owls and red-tailed hawks. Water lilies, swamp loosestrife, and arrowhead each grow at different water depths, thickening the open water by midsummer. Mallards and wood ducks feed, nest, preen, and glide among dense strands of cattail, buttonbush, arrow arum, and blue flag. Eastern kingbirds and belted kingfishers screech from the treetops while painted turtles sun themselves on the lodges of muskrats. These, too, are my neighbors.The Van Cortlandt Swamp is fed by Tibbetts Brook, before the brook divides down into the concrete conduit, its tail buried. This little swamp is a patch of the 2,000 acres of freshwater wetland remaining in the city today, out of the 224,000 acres it boasted 200 years ago.“All water has a perfect memory and is forever trying to get back where it was,” Toni Morrison once wrote. From that point of view, the pond in front of our house is not a nuisance but rather the brook remembering itself. Mosholu. How might Thoreau have described my pond? The pond is a gift to the birds who stop there to bathe, and a place for wildlife to slake their thirst at night: possum, coyote, skunk. The pond is a lieu de mémoire, a reservoir. When the sun hits it at the right angle, the pond’s surface dances with jewels of light. When night comes, the pond throws back the orange glow of the streetlight. The pond is the paved-over wetland, reasserting its form.The Lenape believed that everything in nature has a spirit, and should be given thanks, and asked permission before taking from it. I doubt Jacobus Van Cortlandt, landowner, enslaver, and mayor of New York, asked permission when he had the Black people he owned dam up Tibbetts Brook in 1699 to install a sawmill and gristmill on his plantation. Some of the skeletons of those he enslaved were unearthed by construction workers laying down railroad tracks in the 1870s. The mill operated until 1889, when the city purchased the land for its park. At that point, the millpond became a small, decorative lake. Sometimes I walk to this lake, next to the African burial ground, to watch the damselflies and contemplate what lies beneath.At the lake’s south end, in 1912, the brook was piped into a storm drain and rechanneled into an underground tunnel that merged into a brick sewer below Broadway. This enabled the construction of streets and buildings south of the park, including our house, on top of backfill and city trash. What does it mean to live in a place where rivers are harnessed to carry our waste away, so we don’t have to think about it?According to the Department of Environmental Protection, 4 million to 5 million gallons of water flow into the Broadway sewer on a dry day from Tibbetts Brook and the millpond alone. That water runs through the sewer, where it mixes with raw household sewage, and then on to Wards Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. But when it rains, the amount of water can be five times that. At least 60 times a year, the treatment plant gets overwhelmed by rainwater and shuts down. Untreated sewage and rainwater are then discharged into the Harlem River, in violation of federal law.Now there are plans to “daylight” the subterranean stretch of Tibbetts Brook, bringing it back to the surface. This restoration will alleviate flooding by rerouting the buried section of the brook directly into the Harlem River, not exactly along its historic route, upon which our house sits. Instead, it will flow slightly to the east, along an old railway line that accidentally reverted to an urban wetland after the freight trains stopped running in the 1980s. This gully runs behind BJ’s Wholesale Club and the strip mall with the nail salon and the Flame hibachi and the Staples—already rewilding with tall marsh grasses and reeds.There is talk of undoing the past, of giving some of what was taken from nature back to nature. There is talk of a bike path along a greenway costing millions of dollars. If the project comes to pass by 2030 as planned, it will be New York City’s first daylighting story, and we will be in the watershed. Unburying the brook seems like a good thing. I hope, when it beautifies the landscape, that my neighbors can still afford to live here.We were still living out of boxes in early September 2021 when the National Weather Service declared New York City’s first flash-flood emergency. Our boys were by then 8 and 10. More than three inches of rain fell in just one hour, shattering a record set by a storm the week before. Was it even correct to call it a 500-year rainfall event when the past had become such a poor guide to the present? The remnants of Hurricane Ida turned the nearby Major Deegan Expressway back into a river, stranding cars, buses, and trucks in high water. That image, from our new neighborhood, became an international symbol of the city’s unpreparedness. Every single subway line in the city was stalled. A thousand straphangers were evacuated from 17 stuck trains. “We are BEYOND not ready for climate change,” a city-council member declared on Twitter.The pond in front of our house was whipped into waves by the wind. It was as sure a sign as any that we were living on borrowed time. But in the weeks that followed Ida, against our better judgment, we had Con Edison connect us to the gas line under the kettle in the street where the water gathers. We’d have preferred to heat the house with geothermal energy, but couldn’t find anybody yet trained to install it. At times, the house feels like a snare. I mean to say, if I remain embarrassed as a homeowner, it is not on account of the pond.Just as remarkable as the pond out front is the garden out back. Down on my knees with my hands in the soil, I weed and tend the beds. My mother has given me a Lenten rose. It is the first thing to bloom in spring. I marvel at the shoots coming up from the bulbs planted before me by Mary, wife of Jeremiah, whose name was not on the deed but was told to me by our neighbor Eve. Daffodils, peonies, hyacinths, and tulips.I live in Lenapehoking, the unceded territory of the Lenape people, past and present. Generations before we bought this land, it was stolen. I believe we have a responsibility to honor them by becoming better stewards of the land we inhabit. I want these words to be more than words; I want them to be deeds.I’m learning to grow food for our table, sensing that the truest sacrament is eating the earth’s body. I have planted lettuce, tomatoes, sweet peas, and beets. I collect water in a barrel under the gutter spout. I see that our land is a quilt; that our house is only a structure among structures among pollinating plants visited by bees.The pond is part of the place where we live. To prevent stagnation, I sometimes stir it with a stick. Through the front windows, I watch it swell when it rains. I observe the birds who stop there to bathe: warblers, tanagers, grosbeaks, sparrows. Some of them are endangered. A small reparation: I am teaching our children their names.This essay has been adapted from Emily Raboteau’s forthcoming book, Lessons for Survival: Mothering Against “The Apocalypse.”

Would the house be around to bequeath to our children, or would it be underwater?

I can’t talk about our house in the Bronx without telling you first about the pond out front. Given how much worse flooding can be elsewhere in New York City—even just two blocks to the east along the valley of Broadway, where the sewer is always at capacity—not to mention elsewhere in the world, I’m embarrassed to gripe about my personal pond. These days, such bodies of water are everywhere. Mine is not the only pond, but merely the pond I can’t avoid.

The pond dilates and contracts according to water levels. After a string of dry days, it may shrink to a puddle. After a storm, it may stretch to the length of a freight car, spilling into the middle of the street. It’s bad for curb appeal. Its sources are environmental, structural, and complex. On the rare occasion the pond dissipates, it leaves behind a residue like black mayonnaise.

The pond is almost always there. Our region is getting wetter as the climate changes. More rain, more storms, more often. The infrastructure of our city, at the edge of the rising sea, isn’t fit to handle so much water. Sudden, torrential downpours overwhelm our outdated drainage systems, especially at high tide; drench the subway system; and, in some low-lying places nearby, turn streets into sewers and basements into death traps.

In summer, the pond breeds mosquitoes and collects litter: cigarette butts, scratched-off lotto tickets. In winter, I worry the pond will become a slipping hazard. This is what I say when dialing 311, the city’s helpline, in hopes of remediation. An elderly neighbor could slip on the ice and break a bone. The pond could collapse into a sinkhole.

Tell it to the DOT, lady, says the Department of Environmental Protection. I do. Nope, says the Department of Transportation; because of the tree, this is a problem for Parks. I follow up. Weeks pass. The Department of Parks and Recreation directs me to the Department of Health. Months pass. What you need to do for ponding, says the DOH, is try the DEP. I write to my city-council member: I’m being given the runaround. Weeks pass without reply. Surely, this wouldn’t happen in the rich neighborhood up the hill. As a city worker myself, I know this dance well—this absurd, disjointed roundelay.

[Olga Khazan: Why can’t I just rent a house? ]

I ruminate over the pond. It has caused me not just embarrassment but shame. It has turned me scientific, made me into a water witch. I understand that the pond is beyond the scope of any one person, or any one agency, to handle, and that it’s perilous to ignore. The pond is a dark mirror; in it, our house appears upside down, distorted. It reflects deeper problems of stewardship and governance and the position of our house in relation to both. We are privileged to own a home. Yet we live on land that will drown, that is inundated already. The pond is a portal. Sometimes it smells, this vent hole of the netherworld. Beneath its surface, something lies concealed. Given the fact of the pond, why did we buy the house? Now that we dwell in the house, what to do about the pond?

Technically, the pond isn’t on our property at all. Our home inspector had no reason to suspect it. It belongs to the city, along with the street where it spreads. This is what we were told on the rainy day we arrived for the final walk-through before closing on the house in the deadly spring of 2020: The pond was up to the city to fix, with taxpayer dollars.

Plenty of folks were deserting New York then. I mean hundreds of thousands. That we were committed to staying in the city was both an act of necessity and a point of pride. For my husband and I, the house was a step up from the crowded three-room apartment in Washington Heights where we’d sheltered in place, away from the mad snarl of highways whose traffic had given our boys asthma: a place to stretch out, a sign of our upward mobility. The American dream. To a Black family without generational wealth, some of whose ancestors were property themselves, it signified even more: Shelter. Safety. Equity. Arrival. A future for our children.

We fell in love with the house as soon as we saw it, a run-down detached brick home in a working-class neighborhood with a little garden in back and windows on all four sides. The house had solid bones. We rejoiced when our offer was accepted. Yet until the day of the final walk-through, we had never visited the house in the rain.

That morning, the pond greeted us like the opposite of a welcome mat, giving shape to whatever latent misgivings we had about making this move. I felt hoodwinked. Buyer beware! I waded into the middle of that bad omen to gauge its depth. Murky water sloshed over the tops of my rain boots, drenching my socks. Good Lord. It was so much more significant than a puddle. I wondered what it was, how to name it, and why it was here. Was what I stood on actually land, or something less concrete? Could it have been a wetland, once? Why hadn’t the pond been disclosed? Because it didn’t have to be, said the tight-lipped seller’s agent representing the estate of the previous owner, an old man named Jeremiah Breen.

That night, my husband and I lay awake in bed, discussing our options. Sirens sounded up from the street. People were dying of COVID all around us. Purportedly, the house sat outside the floodplain. But what if the pond got bigger with worsening weather? Would it pour into the basement? Was the house’s foundation as solid as we’d been told? We doubted that the city would handle the underlying issues—not while hobbled by the pandemic. Would flood insurance be enough? Would the house be around to bequeath to our children, or would it be underwater? Was it an asset or a millstone? How high would the waters rise? How soon? Did we even believe, deep down in our souls, of ownership of this kind? Why fake like we or anyone else could own the land?

Such questions of capital consumed us deep into the night. The bottom line was this: If we pulled out of the deal, we’d lose our down payment, amounting to two years of college tuition for one of our kids. By dawn, we admitted our disillusionment. We’d already crossed the Rubicon, imbricated in the twisted system that brought about the pond. Or so we said because nevertheless, we still loved the house.

We renegotiated the purchase price; we moved in.


Later, I learned that many current maps for flood risk overlap with maps of historic housing discrimination. Geography determines a neighborhood’s risk and, this being America, so does race. Neighborhoods that suffered from redlining in the 1930s—when our house was built—face a far higher risk of flooding today. The pond suggested a submerged history beneath the daily surface of things.

The house was not just a risk but a wreck. Its rusty tanks sweated out oil that looked like blood onto the basement floor. Most of its windowpanes were cracked; its floors, uneven; its doors, out of plumb. It lacked adequate insulation. Under the creaky old planks, we discovered a newspaper dating back to the Depression. The front page addressed the use of antiques in home decoration. It featured a photo of a card room with an 18th-century Queen Anne table being used for bridge. How far back could I imagine? The paper flaked into pieces like the wings of moths when I tried to turn the page.

By the time Jeremiah Breen took possession of the house, bridge had fallen out of fashion. At the time the table was carved, this part of the Bronx was marsh. When I input our zip code into the online archive of the U.S. Geological Survey, I can see on a century-old map what this wetland looked like before it was developed into the grid of streets, shops, houses, schools, and apartment buildings that make up the neighborhood now. In 1900, the land is still veined by blue streams. A pin in the shape of a teardrop marks the spot of our present address, smack-dab in a bend of a waterway called Tibbetts Brook. The brook was named after a settler whose descendants were driven off the land for their royalist sympathies during the Revolutionary War. Before that, it had another name. The Munsee Lenape called it Mosholu. We live on the ghost of this rivulet, just one of the city’s dozens of lost streams.

[Hannah Ritchie: A slightly hotter world could still be a better one]

The teardrop confirmed what I sensed about the true nature of my pond, which was so much more than a puddle, and not mine at all, but rather a part of a much larger body of water.

Waterways like Tibbetts Brook were once the lifeblood of the city. As New York grew, in the 17th and 18th centuries, into the world’s supreme port, it counted on such freshwater streams for transportation, drinking water, fishing, and waterpower for grain mills and sawmills. The brook became polluted; eventually, railroad lines overtook waterways as transportation routes. Waterpower was replaced by steam. Steam was replaced by electric power. The banks of the streams became industrial wastelands, which became Black and brown neighborhoods. Plundered water bodies. Plundered peoples.

The works of Eric Sanderson, a landscape ecologist, and Herbert Kraft, a scholar of the Lenape, help me imagine a preindustrial, pre-European version of my home place. The Wiechquaeseck community of Lenape lived in a settlement nearby, around Spuytin Duyvil Creek, fed by the waters of Mosholu. They lived mostly out of doors and owned no more than they could carry. Wealth was being in communion with one another, and in balance with the abundant natural world, “filled with an almost infinite variety of plants, animals, insects, clouds and stones, each of which possessed spirits no less important than those of human beings,” according to Kraft.

All I have to do to see a remaining pocket of that natural world that was once my home is walk three blocks east to Van Cortlandt Park, where a narrow belt of lowland swamp forest still survives along a trail around open water. This small freshwater wetland is ecologically precious, home to many plant and animal species. It slows erosion, prevents flooding by retaining stormwater, filters and decomposes pollutants, and converts carbon dioxide into oxygen.

Hunting the swamp are barred owls and red-tailed hawks. Water lilies, swamp loosestrife, and arrowhead each grow at different water depths, thickening the open water by midsummer. Mallards and wood ducks feed, nest, preen, and glide among dense strands of cattail, buttonbush, arrow arum, and blue flag. Eastern kingbirds and belted kingfishers screech from the treetops while painted turtles sun themselves on the lodges of muskrats. These, too, are my neighbors.

The Van Cortlandt Swamp is fed by Tibbetts Brook, before the brook divides down into the concrete conduit, its tail buried. This little swamp is a patch of the 2,000 acres of freshwater wetland remaining in the city today, out of the 224,000 acres it boasted 200 years ago.

“All water has a perfect memory and is forever trying to get back where it was,” Toni Morrison once wrote. From that point of view, the pond in front of our house is not a nuisance but rather the brook remembering itself. Mosholu. How might Thoreau have described my pond? The pond is a gift to the birds who stop there to bathe, and a place for wildlife to slake their thirst at night: possum, coyote, skunk. The pond is a lieu de mémoire, a reservoir. When the sun hits it at the right angle, the pond’s surface dances with jewels of light. When night comes, the pond throws back the orange glow of the streetlight. The pond is the paved-over wetland, reasserting its form.

The Lenape believed that everything in nature has a spirit, and should be given thanks, and asked permission before taking from it. I doubt Jacobus Van Cortlandt, landowner, enslaver, and mayor of New York, asked permission when he had the Black people he owned dam up Tibbetts Brook in 1699 to install a sawmill and gristmill on his plantation. Some of the skeletons of those he enslaved were unearthed by construction workers laying down railroad tracks in the 1870s. The mill operated until 1889, when the city purchased the land for its park. At that point, the millpond became a small, decorative lake. Sometimes I walk to this lake, next to the African burial ground, to watch the damselflies and contemplate what lies beneath.

At the lake’s south end, in 1912, the brook was piped into a storm drain and rechanneled into an underground tunnel that merged into a brick sewer below Broadway. This enabled the construction of streets and buildings south of the park, including our house, on top of backfill and city trash. What does it mean to live in a place where rivers are harnessed to carry our waste away, so we don’t have to think about it?

According to the Department of Environmental Protection, 4 million to 5 million gallons of water flow into the Broadway sewer on a dry day from Tibbetts Brook and the millpond alone. That water runs through the sewer, where it mixes with raw household sewage, and then on to Wards Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. But when it rains, the amount of water can be five times that. At least 60 times a year, the treatment plant gets overwhelmed by rainwater and shuts down. Untreated sewage and rainwater are then discharged into the Harlem River, in violation of federal law.

Now there are plans to “daylight” the subterranean stretch of Tibbetts Brook, bringing it back to the surface. This restoration will alleviate flooding by rerouting the buried section of the brook directly into the Harlem River, not exactly along its historic route, upon which our house sits. Instead, it will flow slightly to the east, along an old railway line that accidentally reverted to an urban wetland after the freight trains stopped running in the 1980s. This gully runs behind BJ’s Wholesale Club and the strip mall with the nail salon and the Flame hibachi and the Staples—already rewilding with tall marsh grasses and reeds.

There is talk of undoing the past, of giving some of what was taken from nature back to nature. There is talk of a bike path along a greenway costing millions of dollars. If the project comes to pass by 2030 as planned, it will be New York City’s first daylighting story, and we will be in the watershed. Unburying the brook seems like a good thing. I hope, when it beautifies the landscape, that my neighbors can still afford to live here.


We were still living out of boxes in early September 2021 when the National Weather Service declared New York City’s first flash-flood emergency. Our boys were by then 8 and 10. More than three inches of rain fell in just one hour, shattering a record set by a storm the week before. Was it even correct to call it a 500-year rainfall event when the past had become such a poor guide to the present? The remnants of Hurricane Ida turned the nearby Major Deegan Expressway back into a river, stranding cars, buses, and trucks in high water. That image, from our new neighborhood, became an international symbol of the city’s unpreparedness. Every single subway line in the city was stalled. A thousand straphangers were evacuated from 17 stuck trains. “We are BEYOND not ready for climate change,” a city-council member declared on Twitter.

The pond in front of our house was whipped into waves by the wind. It was as sure a sign as any that we were living on borrowed time. But in the weeks that followed Ida, against our better judgment, we had Con Edison connect us to the gas line under the kettle in the street where the water gathers. We’d have preferred to heat the house with geothermal energy, but couldn’t find anybody yet trained to install it. At times, the house feels like a snare. I mean to say, if I remain embarrassed as a homeowner, it is not on account of the pond.

Just as remarkable as the pond out front is the garden out back. Down on my knees with my hands in the soil, I weed and tend the beds. My mother has given me a Lenten rose. It is the first thing to bloom in spring. I marvel at the shoots coming up from the bulbs planted before me by Mary, wife of Jeremiah, whose name was not on the deed but was told to me by our neighbor Eve. Daffodils, peonies, hyacinths, and tulips.

I live in Lenapehoking, the unceded territory of the Lenape people, past and present. Generations before we bought this land, it was stolen. I believe we have a responsibility to honor them by becoming better stewards of the land we inhabit. I want these words to be more than words; I want them to be deeds.

I’m learning to grow food for our table, sensing that the truest sacrament is eating the earth’s body. I have planted lettuce, tomatoes, sweet peas, and beets. I collect water in a barrel under the gutter spout. I see that our land is a quilt; that our house is only a structure among structures among pollinating plants visited by bees.

The pond is part of the place where we live. To prevent stagnation, I sometimes stir it with a stick. Through the front windows, I watch it swell when it rains. I observe the birds who stop there to bathe: warblers, tanagers, grosbeaks, sparrows. Some of them are endangered. A small reparation: I am teaching our children their names.

This essay has been adapted from Emily Raboteau’s forthcoming book, Lessons for Survival: Mothering Against “The Apocalypse.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Cruz, Cornyn push new retaliatory legislation that blocks U.S. water from going to Mexico

The bill is the latest effort from the Texas delegation that demands the U.S. get tougher with Mexico for failing to honor a 1944 treaty that in part governs Rio Grande water.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. See our AI policy, and give us feedback. McALLEN — U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn want to limit the U.S.’s engagement with Mexico after the country failed to deliver water to Texas under a 1944 international water treaty. The Texas senators filed legislation Thursday that would limit the U.S. from sending Mexico future deliveries of water and would allow the U.S. president to stop engaging with Mexico in certain business sectors that benefit from U.S. water. The treaty requires the U.S. to deliver 1,500,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River to Mexico every year. In exchange, Mexico is required to deliver 1,750,000 acre-feet of water to the U.S. every five years, or 350,000 acre-feet per year, from six tributaries. The delay in water continues to frustrate local farmers and ranchers who depend on water for their irrigation needs. Water received from Mexico is typically stored at two international reservoirs. When water is released, it feeds into the Rio Grande. However, combined levels at the reservoirs reached a record low last year and continue to be in limited supply due, in part, to lack of rainfall. When reservoir water is in short supply, irrigation water for farmers is the first to be cut off. This has had a devastating impact on the Rio Grande Valley’s agricultural community, prompting the shutdown of Texas’ last sugar mill in Santa Rosa, though investors announced they plan to revive it. “The Mexican government exploits the structure of the treaty to defer and delay its deliveries in each individual year until it becomes impossible for it to meet its overall obligations, and it continues to fail to meet its obligation to deliver water to the United States under the 1944 Water Treaty,” Cruz said in a statement. “These failures are catastrophic for Texas farmers and ranchers, who rely on regular and complete deliveries by Mexico under the treaty and are on the front lines of this crisis, facing water shortages that threaten agriculture and livestock.” Mexico has struggled to meet its obligations. When the most recent five-year cycle came to an end on Oct. 24, Mexico still owed 865,136 acre-feet of water. Because of drought conditions, Mexico has the next five years to pay back its debt. The bill would try to compel Mexico to make minimum annual deliveries instead of allowing Mexico to pay what it owes at the end of the five years. It also requires the U.S. secretary of state to submit a report to Congress on the status of Mexico’s water deliveries within 180 days of the bill’s enactment. The report would determine whether Mexico had delivered at least 350,000 acre-feet of water the previous year. The report would also assess whether Mexico is capable of delivering the full 1,750,000 acre-feet of water by the end of the five-year cycle, and would identify economic sectors and activities in Mexico that benefit from the water it receives from the U.S. and from water from the six tributaries managed by the treaty. If Mexico fails to deliver at least 350,000 acre-feet in the previous year, the bill would require the president to deny all emergency requests from Mexico for the delivery of water under any amendments to the treaty. However, exceptions would be made if the water were used exclusively for an ongoing ecological, environmental, or humanitarian emergency or if fulfilling the request is vital to U.S. national interests. The president may also limit or terminate engagement with Mexico related to those sectors or activities that benefit from the water it gets from the U.S. or from the six tributaries. Exceptions would be made for engagement that relates to countering the flow of fentanyl and other synthetic drugs. Hoping to enact consequences for failing to comply with the water treaty, the Valley’s congressional delegation — including U.S. Reps. Monica De La Cruz, a Republican from Edinburg, Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, and Cornyn — said they favored including the water treaty in trade talks next year when the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement is up for review. “Mexico has repeatedly failed to uphold the 1944 Water Treaty, including last month when they missed the five-year deadline to deliver the 1.75 million acre-feet of water owed to the United States,” Cornyn said. “I am proud to cosponsor this legislation alongside Senator Cruz, which will put added pressure on Mexico to live up to its obligations under the Treaty, ensure the South Texas agriculture community has the water it needs, and impose harsher penalties on Mexico should they choose to continue withholding the water we’re owed.” The bill could potentially work faster to add an enforcement mechanism to the treaty if it is passed. “Without stronger congressional pressure and oversight, Mexico will continue to fail to meet its obligations,” Cruz said. Reporting in the Rio Grande Valley is supported in part by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc.

Will Texas actually run out of water? Your questions about the state’s water supply answered.

You asked our AI chatbot about Texas’ water supply. We answered some of the questions that it couldn’t.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. See our AI policy, and give us feedback. For most of this year, Texas Tribune reporters have aggressively reported on the state’s water supply crisis. As part of our special report, Running Out, we created a chatbot that we trained to answer your questions based on our reporting. Y’all asked a lot of questions! And in some instances, the bot could not answer those questions. Technology! Can’t live with it, can’t live without it. Those queries were sent to us. We read each one and began saw some themes. Many of you had specific questions about your own region. If you still do, you can use this tool to look up the water situation in your county. Many of you wanted to know when the state was going to run out of water, who is in charge, and how much we should worry about climate change. We identified the six most commonly asked questions and answered them below. Texas voters this week once again voted overwhelmingly to fund water projects for the next 20 years. As the Tribune reported, the money will help. And yet, the $20 billion sum falls far short of what might be needed. Our reporting on the state’s water supply and the looming crisis will not end, even as this year comes to a close. Keep the questions and story ideas coming. Will Texas actually run out of water? There are some scary estimates out there. The Texas Water Development Board projects in the state’s 2022 water plan that towns and cities could be on a path toward a severe shortage of water by 2030. This means everything, from drinking water to wastewater, and water for agricultural uses, could run low in the next few years. However, there are several factors that go into that, including if there is a recurring, record-breaking drought across the state and if water entities and state leaders fail to put key strategies in place to secure water supplies. Those strategies range from creating new sources of water supply — think desalination, conservation, and aquifer storage and recovery — to fixing the failing infrastructure that causes water lines to break and gush water out all around the state. Other estimates give us a little more time, but don’t look much better. The state water plan projects that groundwater availability, which is found underground in aquifers, makes up half of the state’s water supply, will drop by 25% by 2070. Our total water supply — groundwater paired with surface water — is estimated to decline by 18% by the same year, in part because of how many people are expected to live in Texas by then. This is why advocates say the dedicated funding approved by voters this year was so critical. That money goes toward repairing aging infrastructure and projects that create the new sources of water supply that the future of the state will rely on. What are the most affected regions in Texas by water shortages and why? Texas has 16 regions for water planning. Each faces unique challenges and are tasked with managing their own water supply. Generally, East Texas is more lush and water-rich, while West Texas is much dried. South Texas, especially the Rio Grande Valley, has been plagued by an ongoing drought. A binational tussle over water with Mexico, also isn’t helping the region. All of Texas water supply is impacted by a combination of the following: limited supplies, population growth, and climate pressures. In their planning, regional leaders are supposed to project their water supply and water demand for the following years to come. Since water supply varies by region, the Texas Tribune created an address-search tool based on that data. This tool shows where your local water supply comes from and what supply and demand projections look like for the future. You can find it here. What role does the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality play in protecting the state’s water supply? Surface water — the stuff in lakes and rivers — in Texas is owned by the state. The TCEQ, the state’s environmental regulator, oversees those rights. Since 1967, the TCEQ has issued permits granting farmers, ranchers, cities, industries, and businesses the right to use it. These permits are issued on a “first come, first served” basis, with each one assigned a priority date that determines seniority. During droughts, permit holders with the earliest dates have the right to get water before those with newer dates. Each permit also specifies the volume of water the holder may use each year. In addition to managing surface water rights, the agency enforces laws by the federal government meant to keep water quality safe enough to drink and protect ecosystems. Agency staff also respond to any contamination events that could threaten the state’s water supply. The TCEQ is different from the Texas Water Development Board, which serves as a bank that funds water projects and is responsible for long-term water supply planning. How does the state gauge how much groundwater is available? The Texas Legislature passed in 1949 the Texas Groundwater Act, which authorized the formation of groundwater districts, but it wasn’t until close to 50 years later that the state explicitly recognized groundwater districts as the state’s preferred method for managing groundwater resources in Texas. Today, 98 Texas groundwater districts cover nearly 70% of the state’s land area. These districts implement various management strategies, including developing and enforcing rules and balancing property rights with preservation goals. A key aspect of this is using groundwater modeling, monitoring wells and data to make decisions about groundwater quantity and quality. Each groundwater district sets goals that describe how much water can be pumped without depleting aquifers for future generations. These “desired future conditions” are key for understanding and managing groundwater availability long-term. To set such goals, districts monitor wells and get water level measurements to track changes and trends in aquifers, a body of rock or sediment underground that holds groundwater. Districts also model how much water they anticipate will get extracted across certain periods. This data and predictions are submitted to a regional groundwater management area and are run through groundwater availability models to project aquifer conditions if these extractions occur as planned. The districts then review model results and set their goals. The Texas Water Development Board independently reviews the models to ensure the projected extractions are feasible and will achieve the goals as well. The water board then calculates the amount of water that can be pumped annually while staying within the goals set by the districts. How will reservoirs be affected by climate change? Climate change will have a significant impact on reservoirs in Texas, and it could get ugly fast. One report studied the effect climate change has on water quality in Texas reservoirs. The researchers expect the weather pattern shifts will lead to increased water temperatures, sulfate and chloride. At the same time, it will cause decreasing levels of oxygen and pH, meaning water in reservoirs could become more acidic. Not only would this combination affect the ecosystems in the reservoirs, but it will affect the quality of water for Texans, both for consumption and recreation. A 2022 Texas Tribune analysis found that the hotter Texas gets, water levels in the reservoirs will also drop. That year, which holds the record for the hottest July recorded, led to a devastating drought and pushed municipalities to call for mandatory water restrictions. It’s a domino effect — higher temperatures cause soil to dry more quickly, which then causes less rain to flow into Texas’ rivers and streams. The longer and more intense hot temperatures continue, climate change also accelerates water evaporation from Texas’ reservoirs. Since surface water, which is mainly stored in Texas’ rivers and reservoirs, accounts for about half of the state’s water supply, climate change makes it less and less reliable. Which region or city has the highest quality of water supply? Water quality varies throughout the state. However, a 2024 statewide competition crowned Dallas for having the best drinking water in Texas. There were 23 water providers in the competition who provided unlabeled water samples for the judges, and it was judged by the taste and smell of the water. The runner-up was Denton, so by this competition alone, it could be North Texas that has the highest quality of water. That’s not to say water in the region doesn’t have problems. According to the North Texas Municipal Water District, taste, odor and hard water can still occur from naturally occurring minerals present in the lakes across the region. They are one of many water districts in the region that has rigorous monitoring of water conditions and test samples on a regular basis to ensure water meets or exceeds standards set by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Texas set to make $20 billion investment in water after voters approve Proposition 4

Texas will use $1 billion in sales tax a year for the next two decades to help secure the state’s water supply.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. See our AI policy, and give us feedback. Texas is poised to make the largest investment in its water supply in the state’s 180-year history as voters on Tuesday are on track to approve Proposition 4, which authorizes $20 billion to be spent on water projects over the next two decades.  The vote comes at a time when communities are scrambling to find new water supplies to meet the needs of their growing population, all the while deteriorating infrastructure, and a warming climate threatens the state’s water supply.   Throughout Texas’ history, ensuring water supply has rarely been a partisan issue. Many see it as a precious resource essential to both survival and the prosperity of the state’s economy. However, this year proved that water is personal and deeply emotional too. Proposed reservoirs and groundwater exports in East Texas have outraged many in the water-rich region, desalination projects along the Coastal Bend region have sparked political debate amid a water crisis, and data centers expanding across arid West Texas have locals worried about their dwindling groundwater supply. These challenges and others pushed lawmakers to make big investments in water at the Capitol this year. “Prop 4 is the culmination of almost 30 years of bipartisan work to create reliable and predictable funding for Texas water,” said Sarah Rountree Schlessinger, CEO of Texas Water Foundation, a nonprofit that educates Texans on water issues.  “We are thrilled that Texans showed up, asked deep questions, and that they chose to prioritize water infrastructure needs across the state. That tells you a lot about the state of Texas water.” A portion of existing state sales tax revenue — up to $1 billion annually — would be deposited into the Texas Water Fund each year, starting in 2027 to help fund water, wastewater and flood infrastructure projects.  The funding comes from existing revenue, meaning no new taxes would be created. However, the money would only be transferred to the fund when sales tax collections exceed $46.5 billion in a given year. The past two fiscal years have surpassed that amount. Assuming the state’s growth continues, there will be enough money available to dedicate the $1 billion to the fund.  The $20 billion is far short of what the state needs to maintain its water infrastructure. According to one estimate, Texas communities need nearly $154 billion over the next 50 years for projects. Both rural and urban communities will be able to tap the fund to address their existing infrastructure needs. The money will be managed by the Texas Water Development Board, the state agency that oversees the state’s water supply. Funding would be divided into two categories: water supply projects, and other existing water programs.  Water supply projects would expand the overall volume of water available in Texas. Projects that could be paid for include desalination, which cleans salty water for drinking and agricultural use, fixing leaking pipes, water reuse, which includes treating wastewater and  produced water from the oil and gas industry, conservation strategies and constructing permitted reservoirs. Existing water programs include improving flood control infrastructure and flood mitigation, ensuring clean drinking water, and agricultural water conservation.  While oil and gas, and big statewide water groups in Texas supported the proposition, some environmental groups were concerned that certain projects, like reservoirs, will be prioritized as a form of new water supply and take the land of farmers and residents who live in areas where they plan to be built.  Other organizations feared it will help fund mega projects like desalination, which they believe will help industry expansion in their communities, and that local communities will be cut out of water decisions. Some conservative groups argued that spending should not be written into the Texas Constitution.   The proposition does not greenlight projects, but rather provides a way to finance projects. Any particular project that receives funds from the Water Development Board will go through a regular application process. The Texas Water Foundation said that the proposition prohibits the transfer of groundwater. The fund also comes with some oversight. Lawmakers have created a special committee to oversee the water board’s administration of the funding. The water board will be required to report on how the money is being distributed and the impact they are having in meeting state needs and the public will have a chance to give input.  Disclosure: Texas Water Foundation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Ofwat letting water firms charge twice to tackle sewage, court to hear

River Action bringing legal action against water regulator over who should foot bill for firms’ past failures to investOfwat is unlawfully allowing water companies to charge customers twice to fund more than £100bn of investment to reduce sewage pollution, campaigners will allege in court on Tuesday.Lawyers for River Action say the bill increases being allowed by Ofwat – which amount to an average of £123 a year per household – mean customers will be paying again for improvements to achieve environmental compliance that should have been funded from their previous bills. Continue reading...

Ofwat is unlawfully allowing water companies to charge customers twice to fund more than £100bn of investment to reduce sewage pollution, campaigners will allege in court on Tuesday.Lawyers for River Action say the bill increases being allowed by Ofwat – which amount to an average of £123 a year per household – mean customers will be paying again for improvements to achieve environmental compliance that should have been funded from their previous bills.Ofwat has approved a £104bn injection of cash by water companies to the end of the decade, in what is referred to as its PR24 decision, to tackle record sewage pollution into rivers as a result of underinvestment over many years.Customers of some of the worst-performing companies are facing huge bill rises. Thames Water customers are being charged 35% more, raising average bills from £436 to £588, and Southern Water customers are being charged 53% more, increasing from £420 to £642 a year on average. United Utilities is raising bills by 32% to an average of £535 a year.Lawyers are using the case of Windermere as an example to argue that customers are being unlawfully charged twice. They argue that any investment to repair historic under-investment in infrastructure should be paid for by shareholders, not customers. According to Ofwat rules, customers must only pay for new infrastructure investment, not investment to bring a company into compliance with environmental legislation.Emma Dearnaley, the head of legal at River Action, said: “It is fundamental that the public should not be made to pay twice for water companies’ past failures to invest in improvements to stop sewage pollution. But River Action is concerned that Ofwat’s approach means customers could be paying again. Meanwhile, degraded infrastructure keeps spewing pollution into rivers and lakes across the country that should have been clean decades ago.”The case argues that Ofwat must ensure the billions it approves results in legal compliance by water companies and that customers are charged fairly from now on.Ricardo Gama, of Leigh Day, who is representing River Action at the hearing in Manchester, said: “Our client believes that this case shows that Ofwat has failed to make sure that water bills are used for infrastructure upgrades.“River Action will argue that the money that could and should have been used to make essential infrastructure improvements is now gone, and customers are being asked to foot the bill for those improvements a second time over.”The hearing takes place at Manchester civil justice centre on Tuesday and Wednesday.An Ofwat spokesperson said: “We reject River Action’s claims. The PR24 process carefully scrutinised business plans to ensure that customers were getting fair value and investment was justified.“We stated that customers should not pay twice for companies to regain compliance with environmental permits, and have included appropriate safeguards in our PR24 determinations to monitor this, which we will monitor closely, taking action if required. We cannot comment further at this time due to the ongoing hearing.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.