Community witnesses urge reevaluation of Río Piedras channelization amid expropriation and maintenance concerns

San Juan — Residents, scientists and lawyers told the Puerto Rico House Committee on Older Adults and Social Welfare on Feb. 23 that the proposed Río Piedras channelization project risks widespread displacement, heavy long‑term maintenance costs and irreversible environmental damage unless it is fully reevaluated.

Community leaders and experts testified during a public hearing on Resolution 438, the measure directing the committee to investigate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) plan for the channelization and widening of the Río Piedras and associated quebradas, and the potential social, fiscal and environmental effects on neighborhoods such as Reparto Metropolitano, Villa Nevares, Jardines Metropolitanos and University Garden.

Why it matters: Witnesses said the project could require mass property acquisitions and long, disruptive construction while leaving municipalities and the commonwealth responsible for expensive, recurring maintenance. That combination, they said, threatens older residents’ access to services and stable housing and risks destroying mature urban forest and aquatic habitats that provide flood mitigation.

What witnesses said: Xiomara Rodríguez Román, a Reparto Metropolitano resident, told the committee the community fears expropriations and prolonged disruption. “Nos oponemos a todas aquellas acciones y decisiones que vayan en detrimento de la comunidad,” she said, describing repeated, unanswered complaints and a October 27, 2024 canal collapse that affected about a dozen mainly older residents.

Cynthia Manfred Fernández, a member of Guarda Río and the Coalition Comunitaria de la Cuenca del Río Piedras, called for pausing the current plan and demanded an integrated watershed approach. “El mantra es paralizar el proyecto,” she said, arguing that the design as drafted would enlarge and deepen the channel and produce sediment traps that require costly dredging.

Frank Icerni Milán, an attorney who coordinated expert input, pointed the committee to a PowerPoint by hydrologist Gregory Morris and urged lawmakers to push USACE for a scientific reevaluation rather than a simple halt. He warned that past phases required emergency dredging after Hurricane María — expenses the federal project funds did not cover. “Eso fue un gasto de $8,000,000,” he said of the post‑María dredge of a related canal.

Data and process gaps: Several presenters said they have been unable to obtain complete USACE documentation. Xiomara told the committee that USACE replied to a records request with a cost estimate of $4,032 to locate and produce documents on property acquisitions, a fee residents and advocates called a barrier to transparency.

Project status and scope: Witnesses described the work as phased. Presenters said the contractor activity now visible corresponds to contract 2 (a Roosevelt‑area bridge and related works), while contracts that would widen the channel downstream (contract 3) and acquisition phases (various 5‑series contracts) remain at different design stages. Community groups said preliminary USACE materials mention roughly 13 properties in a narrowly described parcel but that other segments could affect many more homes if the full scheme proceeds.

Alternatives proposed: Experts and community leaders pressed for nature‑based and distributed stormwater solutions: reforestation, rain gardens, retention basins, pervious parking and modernization of the city’s storm sewer network. Those measures, they argued, reduce runoff and preserve habitat while avoiding mass displacement.

Legal and social protections: Legal counsel and community organizers explained that when a federal project causes displacement, the non‑federal sponsor (here, the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, DRNA) must plan relocation assistance and other URA (Uniform Relocation Assistance) protections before actions that cause displacement begin. Witnesses said they have not seen evidence DRNA has capacity or a concrete plan to house or advise potentially displaced residents.

What the committee can do next: Witnesses urged the committee to exercise its investigatory powers to demand full documentation from USACE and DRNA, request cost estimates for long‑term maintenance, require a site inspection by legislators, and coordinate with U.S. congressional offices (including the office of Rep. Nydia Velázquez) seeking scientific reevaluation.

The hearing record: The committee received multiple written memorials and technical summaries, including the hydrologist’s slides and historical reviews prepared by community allies. The hearing closed with members pledging to continue oversight work and to compile a report for possible further action.