Every government document I read offers up more absurd developments
[Update below]
I just read the Pinelands Commission’s February 2021 Monthly Report and thought I’d share the latest in crazy down the Pines:
1. End Run Around Highlands Septic Density Standards?
The Pinelands Commission staff met with the Highlands Council staff – at the request of the Highlands Council – to discuss septic systems and receive a briefing on the Pinelands’ Alternate Design Treatment Systems Pilot Program. That program is designed to promote development and provide flexibility and basically relief from strict regulations.
There is no valid scientific or regulatory rationale for such a meeting between the 2 staffs. Scientifically, the geology and groundwater recharge are fundamentally different. From a regulatory perspective, the Highlands benefit from a strict “Septic Density Standard” and that standard is based in NJ DEP regulations.
Here’s how the Pinelands Report summarized that meeting:
New Jersey Highlands Council: At the Council’s request, staff provided a briefing on the Commission’s Alternate Design Treatment Systems Pilot Program. The use of advanced treatment septic systems for both residential and commercial development was discussed.
The only reasons for the Highlands Council to request such a briefing is to undermine or find a work around the DEP’s strict Highlands Septic Density Standard by developing a similar sham alternative pilot program under the Council’s jurisdiction.
This is a bad idea that needs to be nipped in the bud, and soon before it gains any momentum.
2. Climate Blues – Over-Regulation Of Solar
Here is another reason why the Pinelands needs a climate policy and renewable energy policy and CMP amendments to implement that policy, see
The Commission’s February Management Report reveals that they are already implementing renewable energy regulations for solar in the absence of an over-arching climate policy to promote renewables:
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU): Applications for participation in Year 2 of BPU’s Community Solar Pilot Program were due by February 5, 2021. If any such application proposed a ground‐mounted solar facility in the Pinelands Area, BPU required the applicant to obtain a letter from the Commission on the consistency of the project with Pinelands regulations. Commission staff issued letters on nine proposed community solar facilities. In each case, the letter stated whether or not the proposed solar project’s scope and location were consistent with CMP land use priorities. Staff also met with an applicant seeking to construct a community solar project in Pemberton Township, outside the Pinelands Area, that has the potential to provide solar energy to the Commission’s offices.
So, the Pinelands Commission is conducting “consistency reviews” for solar.
What are the policies and standards that are applicable? Is solar given any preferential treatment, or is it treated like any other less desirable land use? Are there barriers to solar? Is this done publicly?
And too bad BPU did not require this “letter” of consistency review before they approved the SJG pipeline. BPU approved the pipeline BEFORE the Pinelands Commission reviewed it.
So why should a solar project be more strictly regulated than a fossil pipeline? Absurd.
And the Highlands Council is not even trying to develop a climate policy.
3. Privatizing Water Regulation
After many years of delay, it looks like the Pinelands Commission is finally moving forward with CMP amendments and new regulations to implement the science behind the Kirkwood-Cohansey Project, see:
But it also looks like the Pinelands Commission is gutting the program before it is even designed or regulations are adopted by contracting out the regulatory reviews (and don’t you just hate that passive voice?):
Kirkwood‐Cohansey: Research was conducted into potential partners or contracts for review of drawdown models that will be required for well applications when new rules are adopted.
These reviews must be conducted by Pinelands staff.
They are regulatory reviews that can not be contracted out and effectively delegated to a private third party.
If the Commission doesn’t currently have staff with the necessary expertise, they must hire some.
Where are Pinelands advocates on this?
[Update: 3/10/21 – and while we’re speaking of crazy, just a few miles north, the good folks at Catskill Mountainkeeper just put out an alert on 2 terrible projects (too bad that the NY folks don’t have a Highlands Act! They have “forever wild” in the NY State Constitution and the Adirondack Park Agency, but not a regional planning and regulatory model like Highlands)
1. First, a power company from Southern California called Premium Energy Holdings wants to create an enormous underground hydroelectric plant adjacent to the Ashokan Reservoir. If this project moves forward, the company would be digging into valleys in the towns of Olive or Shandaken and damming streams to create reservoirs as part of “pumped storage” for electricity to be generated using associated water transport tunnels. Tapping into any energy generated would require a massive new high power electric transmission network. New York needs clean energy, but this is not the way to go.
Scroll to the bottom of this email for a sample comment you can copy/paste into the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) online portal and make your comments part of the official record.
The proposal caught everyone by surprise, as Premium Energy Holdings had not reached out to New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) or the local communities that would be impacted by the project. It’s a shame that the idea of hydroelectric power in our region came forward this way, because this ill-advised proposal for massive construction adjacent to the drinking water reservoir that supplies a portion of the water for nine million people seems totally implausible. Any reasonable ideas about generating hydroelectric from the reservoir system may now become harder to discuss, and local communities, already addressing more pressing issues, are being forced to divert attention to mobilize in opposition.
We believe this really bad project is unlikely to move forward, yet we must stay vigilant in our opposition until we are sure it’s been shut down for good. Remember: scroll down for a sample comment and instructions to submit your thoughts to FERC.
2. the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) is seeking permission to release turbid (muddy) water from the Ashokan Reservoir downstream into the clean flowing waters of the Esopus Creek in West Hurley, Kingston, Saugerties, and eastern Ulster County, a stretch sometimes called the Lower Esopus (see https://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/122281.html). The turbid waters have to go somewhere, and NYCDEP obviously doesn’t want to send the muddy water into their drinking water system, but these releases would carry particles of clay and silt out of the reservoir and could go on for months at a time, especially following heavy rains and storms.
Turbid, muddy waters harm the ecology, economy, and quality of life along the stream, which flows into the Hudson River, and new information suggests that the turbidity may be contaminating drinking water for the Town of Esopus and other communities along the Hudson. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement released by NYCDEP supporting its request does not address solutions that would prevent both flooding and further contamination, like investing in stream bank restoration and flood resilience projects both upstream and downstream of the Ashokan Reservoir.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is accepting comments on the NYCDEP’s proposal through June 16th. Please speak out and tell NYSDEC to send NYCDEP back to the drawing board! SEND COMMENTS TO NYDEC