Concerns on Cost, Safety and Environmental Impact Add To Need for Transparency

Concerns on Cost, Safety and Environmental Impact Add To Need for TransparencyPhoto byCanva.com

Berkeley Heights faces a complex decision regarding the potential lease of the Lower Columbia property and the proposed installation of an artificial turf (AT) field. While much of our concern resides in the Council's continued strategy of throwing the lease agreement into negotiations to shield it from public scrutiny on factors such as revenue sharing with our students, the board must also prioritize the safety and well-being of our community and ecosystem.

Proponents of the AT field often cite the availability of grants as a primary reason for the project—two issues with this. The first is the highly opaque and contradictory narrative on how the field will be funded. One moment, it's "We have the money, and we are ready to go," the next, it's "We might get the money but won't know for sure until you lock into a 25-year agreement." The board should consider the long-term implications rather than rushing to judgment. Grants are available annually, and some funding has already been secured. A more comprehensive approach outside of just "How are we going to pay for this?" is necessary.

Emerging research indicates that natural turf (NT) fields may pose a lower risk of injury compared to AT fields for various sports. The board should carefully examine injury rates by sport to determine the best surface for different athletic activities. Maintaining a natural field for some sports may be feasible, while considering artificial turf for others.

Beyond safety, the environmental impact of installing an AT field must be thoroughly assessed. The proposed location is situated in a flood zone, raising concerns about the field's sustainability and potential safety hazards.

The area to the west of the field is declared wetlands by the state. These are protected lands. Research has shown that runoff from the fields may be laced with substances that have a negative impact.

Artificial turf does not eliminate the need for water; in some cases, it is irrigated with water in order to temporarily bring down high surface temperatures. Maintenance can include treatment with antimicrobials, as well as periodic addition of infill to replace the infill that migrates off the field into the environment. A recent article in Architectural Digest notes that artificial turf’s plastic material “traps heat during the day and holds it through the night, meaning runoff water will leave turf hotter than it would natural grass” - which can have negative effects on aquatic ecology.

Can artificial turf pollute the water or air? Evidence indicates cause for concern. Chemicals in tire crumb can volatilize into air or leach into rainwater. Some study results suggest that scrap tire materials in artificial turf may affect surface water or groundwater, warranting more study. Contaminants harmful to aquatic life, like zinc, have been found in stormwater runoff from artificial turf. For example, a study by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection noted high zinc concentrations in artificial turf stormwater runoff as a particular concern for aquatic organisms. It also noted the potential for leaching of copper, cadmium, barium, manganese and lead. A recent study found that a chemical derived from car tires, 6-PPD quinone, is lethal to coho salmon.

It is a fact that the field drains toward the wetlands. In addition, given what parents and youth I’ve spoken have experienced in that location, there are concerns that whatever price tag has been put on the field is likely inadequate for both construction and maintenance.

The board should not base its decision solely on financial considerations, but rather on a comprehensive and balanced evaluation of all relevant factors, demonstrating responsibility and diligence in this matter.

As the election approaches, we should also question candidates who are willing to hand over school property for 25 years without having seen the lease agreement. Mrs. Terrero, a member of the "Education, Inclusion, and Communication" ticket, has not seen the lease agreement and cannot answer some critical questions. Yet, she consistently berates members of the public who express concerns on this issue at public meetings - while this has been a common practice for her historically, as a potential BOE Member her responsibility is to the District - not the special interests who want to see this project completed.

We should also ask why former BOE members, who had every opportunity to make this happen and did not, are currently injecting themselves into the discussion pushing the both parties to “make this happen”.

The community will be watching closely as the decision-making process unfolds. The board's commitment to protecting student interests, student safety and our local environment should be crucial in determining the future of our school’s resources, regardless of what an inherently uninformed vote on the ballot tells us.

Read All Articles on the CMS Turf Field Lease Agreement

Reach Out To Your Representatives

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free