Residents urge scaled-back approach to Union County's Clark Reservoir plan, criticize proposed amusement-style amenities

Union County officials presented a state-funded plan to dredge and redevelop the Clark Reservoir on Monday, describing work that county consultants say is needed to remove sediment, improve drainage and add trails and limited non-motorized boating access. The proposal, which county staff said is backed by roughly $43,000,000 in state grants including ARPA funds, also shows concept amenities — including a children's train, a carousel and a synthetic seasonal rink — that many residents said would transform the wooded preserve into an amusement-style park.

The project team's lead presenter, Mike McClellan of CME Associates, outlined the scope of work the county plans to seek permits for, including mechanical dredging of the headwaters, West Lake and Central Lake. McClellan said the design estimates roughly 154,000 cubic yards of sediment would be excavated across the lakes, that the overall property is about 162 acres (roughly half water and half land), and that operations would be phased to minimize traffic and environmental impact. He told the meeting the excavation material was tested and described the sediment as "non-hazardous regulated material" destined for landfill disposal and said stormwater filters and buffer-tree replacement are part of the design.

Residents who spoke during more than two hours of public comment generally split two ways: nearly uniform support for targeted dredging to address siltation and flooding, and persistent opposition to the plan's larger recreational features. "Nobody wants to see deforestation in favor of amusement park like development," Adriana Silva read from a petition she brought on behalf of another resident. Beverly Diane Greene, 76, said a proposed 10-foot asphalt walkway inches from her yard with lights every 50 feet would "invade my privacy" and leave her feeling "trapped inside my house." "This plan is from hell," said Daniel Green, who called the train and carousel proposals "reckless and irresponsible."

Speakers raised a range of environmental and operational concerns: loss of mature trees and habitat, increased impervious surface and stormwater runoff, noise and lighting near homes, parking overflow onto neighborhood streets, emergency-response logistics and ongoing maintenance costs. Multiple residents asked why some of the recreational features could not be moved to an alternate Union County park such as Oak Ridge to preserve the Clark site as a habitat-focused reserve. "If something like this is unavoidable, would you consider putting it into Oak Ridge Park?" Danny McCaffrey asked.

County staff and CME answered technical questions during the meeting. They said the plan remains a concept, that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection review is required and ongoing, and that the New Jersey Conservation Foundation has signed on to the project application before the DEP. McClellan said tree replacement would occur in buffer areas, that the design would tie into an existing sanitary sewer near St. Agnes, and that pedestrian bridges would be engineered to carry police vehicles for emergency access. He also confirmed the county intends to post the presentation on its website.

Environmental groups and watershed representatives delivered more nuanced critiques. Clea Cartia, executive director of the Rahway River Watershed Association, said the RRWA supports mechanical dredging and certain trail elements but urged removal of carnival-style amenities that would require substantial clearing and impervious surface. "We support the dredging of the water body," Cartia said, "but the train, carousel and large buildings go beyond what is necessary to support the watershed and habitat."

The meeting produced no votes or formal county direction. County staff emphasized the plan is not finalized: multiple permits and engineering reviews remain, DEP approval is required, and community input will be considered as design continues. The county said the PowerPoint will be posted on ucnj.org and that no other meetings are currently scheduled, leaving next steps contingent on the regulatory review and further public engagement.

What's next: the plan remains in design and under DEP review; the county will post the presentation online and accept additional feedback. Residents can also pursue petition and advisory channels already in motion; at the meeting organizers said they had collected about 1,100 signatures against current concept elements.