WolfeNotes.com

Sprawl destroys rural character and will not revitalize downtown New Egypt

Homeowners subsidize developer & pay to build, connect to & operate new sewer system

I don’t think Plumstead would be jumping up and down for joy to have 450 homes built here, if there wasn’t an over-riding need for a sewer system ~~~ Robert Calabero, Lennar (6/21/16)

The Lennar Development Corporation is seeking a “General Development Plan” (GDP) approval from the Plumsted Land Use Board (Board) for a 454 unit development on an approximately 180 acre parcel of active farmland adjacent to the Crosswicks Creek, known as “Greenbriar at Crosswicks”.

The proposed development is intended to finance the new sewage treatment plant and sewer system, allegedly necessary to spur downtown revitalization of New Egypt.

Somehow, Plumsted officials managed to get an active farm mapped into a designated “Downtown Redevelopment Zone” – a blatant abuse of the intent of the NJ Redevelopment Law, which targets blighted properties and promotes public subsidies to private redevelopers.

During the initial presentation of the development to the Board on June 21, 2016 (see set up story), there were some remarkable things said – including physical threat by the Board Chairman and verbal threats from the Lennar spokesman.

*(The Chairman also interrupted my testimony and made 2 significant factual errors that must be corrected in the record.  The first regards NJ DEP stormwater recharge requirements @NJAC 7:8-5.4; 5.5 and 5.6, which he mistakenly claimed were Pinelands requirements that did not apply. The second error was the Chairman’s claim that the law prohibited the Board from considering fiscal impacts. Lennar’s team made a legal error via a false challenge of my “standing” to testify because I was not a resident. That too must be corrected in the record.) More to follow on all that in a future post.

There were also some amazing statements by the Lennar project team.

The project manager and spokesperson for Lennar, Tri-State Regional Manager Mr. Robert Calabero, made the “real” objective perfectly clear in his amazingly revealing testimony to the Board on June 21 in this exchange, provided under sworn oath: (verbatim, based on a recording of the hearing I obtained via OPRA. Emphases are mine, based on inflection of Calaberos’ voice. MP3 provided upon request, I am trying to post it):

Question: As the redeveloper here, how do you think this project integrates with the goals of upgrading and revitalizing the downtown area?

Response by Calabero: Well, the town, in my judgement, needs this project in order to fund what it really needs, which is a sewer system. And that’s really the reason why I think we’re here.

I don’t think Plumstead would be jumping up and down for joy to have 450 homes built here, if there wasn’t an over-riding need for a sewer system to help them revitalize their downtown and to help improve the vitality of the waterbodies they have.

So, with that said, they put a lot of work and effort into getting to a point where its possible to have a sewer system, and we’re happy to be a partner with them and to try to make it financially feasible for them to execute.

In other words, Calabero virtually admitted that the people of Plumsted would normally oppose such massive new sprawl development, if not for a desperate water quality problem due to failing downtown septics and cesspools and the false promise of redevelopment (and implied subsidies to construct the new sewer plant).

Confirming our point about DEP reversing over 20 years of sound watershed planning and increasingly stringent “anti degradation policy” under the Clean Water Act by discouraging new sewage treatment plants on low flowing streams to serve new sprawl development on farmlands, Mr. Calabero stated he had 30 years of professional experience, and that the recently issued DEP sewage treatment plant permit was “the first of its kind” that he was aware of in his entire career.

At the hearing, I testified and made 17 specific recommendations, most of which were rejected by the Chairman of the Board as outside the scope of the Board’s jurisdiction or otherwise “prohibited by law” (that is a quote by the Chairman in response to my testimony on the economic and fiscal impacts of the sewer plan and proposed development.) I’ll post on these points in future.

But for now, I just want to provide some information that those concerned about this project can use to pose questions to the Board and/or to flag deficiencies in the Lennar GDP application and/or urge the Board to reject or modify the Lennar proposed General Development Plan (GDP).

Here are the relevant purposes – i.e. the goals and objectives of the NJ Municipal Land Use Law (NJSA 40:55D-1 et sq.).

Note the broad consideration given to energy and natural resources, the explicit objective to “n. To promote utilization of renewable energy resources” and the equally broad objective of protecting the environment.

That broad language means that Lennar and the Board must consider and address things like climate change (greenhouse gas emission and adaptation to projected impacts, like extreme weather as a “natural disaster”), carbon footprint, mitigation or offset requirements for emissions, energy efficiency, inclusion of solar and geothermal renewable energy resources, electric car infrastructure, water conservation, recycling, water quality and flow impacts on Crosswicks Creek, et al.

a. To encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this State, in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare;

b. To secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other natural and man-made disasters;

c. To provide adequate light, air and open space;

d. To ensure that the development of individual municipalities does not conflict with the development and general welfare of neighboring municipalities, the county and the State as a whole;

e. To promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions and preservation of the environment;

f. To encourage the appropriate and efficient expenditure of public funds by the coordination of public development with land use policies;

g. To provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens;

h. To encourage the location and design of transportation routes which will promote the free flow of traffic while discouraging location of such facilities and routes which result in congestion or blight

j. To promote the conservation of historic sites and districts, open space, energy resources and valuable natural resources in the State and to prevent urban sprawl and degradation of the environment through improper use of land;

[k. – l.]

m. To encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land;

n. To promote utilization of renewable energy resources

Because Lennar is seeking a GDP approval, here are the relevant requirements in the MLUL for a General Development Plan (GDP) – note especially the “fiscal report” requirements in 40:55D-45.2 j. below.

The fiscal impacts on taxpayers and ratepayers and users of the new sewer system must be considered.

The total costs of the sewer system are not known by the community. The total costs of financing the system through bonds and total annual debt service payments are not known by the community.

The costs to homeowners and businesses to connect to the sewer system – known as a “connection fee” – and monthly sewer bills are not known by the community.

The financial risk of relying heavily on Lennar’s development to finance this system are not known to the community.

I am now reviewing the complex 90 page Redevelopment Agreement with Lennar, which suggests that Lennar will pay $19,500 per unit housing at the time those housing units receive their final Certificate of Occupancy (CO).

I have not yet seen how these payments cover the total capital and operating costs of the complete new sewer plant and sewer system project and the debt service on the bonds, from a cash flow perspective, or how these costs and financial risks are allocated to the community in the form of user fees, connection fees, and/or local property taxes.

What I do know is that these fiscal issues and financial risks are relevant and within the scope of the Board’s jurisdiction, because the GDP section of the MLUL includes

j. A fiscal report describing the anticipated demand on municipal services to be generated by the planned development and any other financial impacts to be faced by municipalities or school districts as a result of the completion of the planned development.

See relevant GDP provisions below (emphases are mine):

40:55D-45.2. Contents of general development plan. A general development plan may include, but not be limited to, the following:

[a.]

b. A circulation plan showing the general location and types of transportation facilities, including facilities for pedestrian access, within the planned development and any proposed improvements to the existing transportation system outside the planned development;

c. An open space plan showing the proposed land area and general location of parks and any other land area to be set aside for conservation and recreational purposes and a general description of improvements proposed to be made thereon, including a plan for the operation and maintenance of parks and recreational lands;

d. A utility plan indicating the need for and showing the proposed location of sewage and water lines, any drainage facilities necessitated by the physical characteristics of the site, proposed methods for handling solid waste disposal, and a plan for the operation and maintenance of proposed utilities;

e. A storm water management plan setting forth the proposed method of controlling and managing storm water on the site;

f. An environmental inventory including a general description of the vegetation, soils, topography, geology, surface hydrology, climate and cultural resources of the site, existing man-made structures or features and the probable impact of the development on the environmental attributes of the site;

g. A community facility plan indicating the scope and type of supporting community facilities which may include, but not be limited to, educational or cultural facilities, historic sites, libraries, hospitals, firehouses, and police stations;

h. A housing plan outlining the number of housing units to be provided and the extent to which any housing obligation assigned to the municipality pursuant to P.L. 1985, c. 222 (C. 52:27D-301 et al.) will be fulfilled by the development;

i. A local service plan indicating those public services which the applicant proposes to provide and which may include, but not be limited to, water, sewer, cable and solid waste disposal;

j. A fiscal report describing the anticipated demand on municipal services to be generated by the planned development and any other financial impacts to be faced by municipalities or school districts as a result of the completion of the planned development. The fiscal report shall also include a detailed projection of property tax revenues which will accrue to the county, municipality and school district according to the timing schedule provided under subsection k. of this section, and following the completion of the planned development in its entirety;

k. A proposed timing schedule in the case of a planned development whose construction is contemplated over a period of years, including any terms or conditions which are intended to protect the interests of the public and of the residents who occupy any section of the planned development prior to the completion of the development in its entirety;

More to follow – please attend and speak up at the hearing on July 5 – if only to ask questions!!!!

* Denotes an update

Transco files 4th of July request to Commence Construction without DEP permits

In search of a Left Handed Monkey Wrench at “This Old House”

Prologue

We all have been victimized by some version of the cruel joke of the Left Handed Monkey Wrench.

You know the drill: the friendly uncle working under the hood of the car asks the helpful and enthusiastic awed young boy watching him work to do him a big favor and fetch a left handed monkey wrench from the toolbox.

After a frantic search, the flummoxed boy returns red-faced and ashamed to say he can’t find it.

The cruel uncle persists: Go ask you dad for his left handed monkey wretch.

Hahahahaa! You moron, there’s no such thing as a Left Handed Monkey wrench!!!

The boy is crushed and humiliated – by those he loves and trusts. Real funny, eh?

The public television show “This Old House” runs a kinder version of this same joke at the end of the show, where the experts bring out some bizarre and bewildering contraption and make up funny and implausible stories about what the tool is used for.

The phrase “On a Wild Goose Chase” connotes a similar phenomenon of cluelessness and futile searching for a non-existent solution to a problem.

Well, at best, the NJ environmental community purportedly “leading” the anti-pipeline citizen activists across the state are on a wild goose chase in search of a left handed monkey wrench at the end of a segment of This Old House.

I say at best, because, at worst, they are knowingly playing a losing game because that’s the only game they know how to play and that benefits their organization more that achieving a real victory.

The activists camp, groups like Food and Water Watch, hold protest events that target the wrong policymaker or the wrong issue or at the wrong time and/or are devoid of technical credibility and therefore easily dismissed and ineffective.

The organizing oriented issue focused groups, like Clean Water Action and Environment NJ, like to deploy a field canvass that knocks on doors. But they are more interested in campaigns that raise money than those that are effective.

The political and media oriented groups, like Sierra Club, focus their efforts on getting in the press or criticizing political foes or providing cover for friends. The soundbite reigns supreme, in superficial media coverage (or alternatively, too little too late lawsuits, filed after decisions are made, lacking sufficient public support, get routinely rejected by courts. The days of the controversial solo legal victory, lacking democratic consensus, have been over for decades now – unless, of course, they benefit corporations or the wealthy or the police.).

The conservation and watershed groups elevate the interests of their boards and members and funders above the aggressive tactics needed to win, and design advocacy efforts that reflect the corporate, economic, political or land ownership interests of their conservative elite members and funders.

The climate groups are generally AWOL or climate is not made a part of the debate or is not front and center in the debate. Still!

All these groups compete for a shrinking media, declining membership, and strings attached foundation funding. They rarely work effectively with each other and even more rarely build broader coalitions with labor, grassroots, social and economic justice, or religious communities.

A significant exception to this pattern of misdirection and floundering leadership was the first round Pinelands pipeline victory, where an informed and effective coalition kicked ass!

Even the burning down of This Old House – the earth literally on fire from global warming – they continue to search for and can’t seem to find that left handed monkey wrench.

Transco seeks FERC approval to commence construction

Now to the substance of the topic of this post.

At 4:49 pm, just 11 minutes before the close of business on Friday July 1 – before the 4th of July weekend – Transco requested approval to commence construction of portions of the pipeline project in Chesterfield by Friday July 8.

That request would give FERC just 3 days to review and approve the request – and even less to pipeline opponents to craft a response, like filing an injunction to stop the commencement of construction.

The Transco request comes despite the recent Bordentown-Chesterfield rehearing request FERC just delayed responding to (tolled) which highlighted the legal flaws of FERC issuing an approval before the NJ DEP issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate, in violation of the Clean Water Act.

But, aside from all these procedural outrages by FERC, Transco put the real substantive issue – the one that I have been urging the Left Handed Monkey Wrench crowd to focus on for almost 2 years now – right out there in the open for all who read their letter to see:
Got that?

While pipeline activists engage in all sorts of stunts, generate tons of misdirected media, organize field campaigns and fundraise, and focus aggressively on FERC, the NJ DEP is about to grant the only regulatory approval that could kill the pipeline that has been totally ignored.

Let’s repeat the core of that Transco casual “Oh, by the way” (emphases mine):

Transco must also obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certificate and Section 404 Permit for construction of those facilities. The NJDEP is responsible for issuing the CWA Section 401 certificate and Section 404 Permit as part of its FWWIP [freshwater wetlands individual permit] under the permitting scheme in the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act and implementing regulations. Transco submitted its FWWIP application in July 2015 and continues to work with NJDEP to resolve outstanding issues.

For those who want to get into the weeds on the implications of that, see:

• Connecting the Dots Between Pipelines and Clean Water

As I’ve repeatedly warned, the CWA Section 401 approval comes with a 1 year clock, as the attorney who is currently representing Chesterfield wrote years ago:

However, sometimes states waive their rights under these federal statutes by failing to act within the required time frame for making a decision (for example, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires states to act on an application within one year of the date that it is filed or the need for the approval is deemed waived). ~~~ Knowing and Protecting Your Rights When An Interstate Gas Pipeline Comes To Your Community :

Keep in mind, we repeat, with a finer point:

Transco submitted its FWWIP application in July 2015 and continues to work with NJDEP to resolve outstanding issues.

Yet even this 401 elephant in the room (pun intended) was somehow ignored by the left handed monkey wrench crowd, who persist in a focus on FERC, property rights, and stunts.

Of course, they get FERC’d again.

Happy Independence Day. I’m done. That thing about straws and camels’ backs.

[End note: While it is possible, I am not necessarily suggesting that the DEP and anti-pipeline activists have let the 401 WQC expire.

Actually, it looks like DEP is working with Transco to issue that 401 WQC approval, and with zero pushback from activists or press coverage:

Transco submitted its FWWIP application in July 2015 and continues to work with NJDEP to resolve outstanding issues.

Just in case some anti-pipeline people out there still believe that DEP is their friend, a few facts:

1. Governor Christie’s Energy Master Plan supports significant expansion of gas infrastructure – pipelines and power plants. DEP answers to the Governor.

2. The BPU approved the SRL pipeline (and all others that I am aware of). Although by law an independent regulatory commission, the BPU effectively reports to the Governor.

3. DEP would never contradict the Governor and a sister State Agency.

4. DEP Commissioner Bob Martin is a former corporate energy consultant who is very pro energy industry and pro-gas.

5. DEP Commissioner Martin takes the position – incorrectly – that FERC preempts DEP environmental permitting. In recent testimony to the Legislature, Martin said:

They (FERC) are the overall controlling entity on it at the end of the day. They could over-ride anything we could even do from the State of New Jersey. […]

We can not fight that .. If we did reject a pipeline it would end up in court very quickly.

6. Martin’s incorrect view on preemption is echoed by Democratic lawmakers, including Assemblwoman Liz Muoio, who works closely with the PennEast activists.

At a recent legislative hearing, Muoio whined about NJ’s powerlessness:

… there is little we can do as a State to stop them [FERC].

How could Muoio, who works closely withPennEast opponents, possible have that false legal view?

Who is whispering those lies in her ears?

Who has failed to educate her – and fellow activists, the press, and the public – on the law of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act?

7. Lastly, DEP has been a rubber stamp and cheerleader for pipelines.

If you doubt that, just recall their performance before the Pinelands Commission in support, see:

• DEP Does a Cameo at Pinelands Pipeline Farce

The only way DEP does the right thing is in response to huge political pressure mounted by pipeline opponents.

That has not happened –

And please don’t be so deluded to don’t think a hail mary lawsuit – with no public support – will win the day.

Why would Sweeney appoint industry hired gun to a panel to protect public health?

Public disclosure and recusal requirements must be imposed

Yesterday, we broke the story that a high level chemical industry official who works for a chemical industry member organization with ties to Dupont was appointed to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI).

Apparently, the appointment was quietly made by NJ Senate President Sweeney.

The DWQI is responsible for the science that supports NJ’s drinking water quality standards.

Potential conflicts of interest emerge from the fact that, among other things, the existence of chemical industry liability by his employer’s members for chemicals under review by the DWQI. For example, the DWQI is now considering controversial recommendations on drinking water standards for a Dupont manufactured chemical known as PFOA (or AKA C-8).

Today, we filed an ethics review request with the State Ethics Commission.

At a minimum, the new chemical industry representative should be required to issue a public disclosure statement listing all his RIMF corporate industry clients, and all his work on their behalf (prior and ongoing – including prior PSEG work).

He should also be required to recuse himself from any DWQI review and recommendation on any chemical which any of his RIMF industry member groups manufacture, sell, or distribute in NJ or have any liability for any release of any chemical to any environmental media or any contaminated site or any water supply source (including his prior employer PSEG).

NJ DEP is required to adopt an Ethics policy that meets the requirements of the State ethics law. NJ DEP also has ethics and scientific conflicts of interest policy that applies to members of the Science Advisory Board.  The new DWQI appointment should be required to comply with both.

The NJ press corps and citizens need to ask Senate President Sweeney if and why he would make this kind of appointment, that fails to represent the public interest and reflect necessary independent scientific integrity at the DWQI.

Below are our complaint to the State Ethics Commission and our related letter to the DWQI Chairman, Dr. Keith Cooper of Rutgers asking him to conduct an ethics review as well.

July 1, 2016 – via email

Dear State Ethics Commission:

I am writing concerning a recent appointment of an individual, Salvito, Daniel, Ph.D, Vice President, Environmental Sciences, Research Institute for Fragrance Materials.  to serve on the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI).

The DWQI was established by the Legislature as “in but not of” executive branch entity in the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). From the DEP website

http://www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply/g_boards_dwqi.html

About DWQI

1984 amendments to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act (Act) at N.J.S.A. 58:12A- 20, established New Jersey’s Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) as well as the drinking water standard setting process. The DWQI is responsible for developing Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) or standards for hazardous contaminants in drinking water and for recommending those standards as well as recommendations for the implementation of the drinking water quality program to the Commissioner of the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

Membership 

The DWQI has 15 members – six members serve ex officio and nine members are appointed, three each by the Governor, the Senate President, and the Speaker of the Assembly. Appointed members are from the academic scientific community, members public with background in environmental health and from regulated public water supply systems. The Chairman is designated by the Governor.

Accordingly, I assume that the State Ethics Law and the DEP Ethics Policy applies to the DWQI and its members, see New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law, N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq. and implementing regulations (emphases mine):

The Legislature finds and declares:

(a) In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials and employees shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.

(b) To ensure propriety and preserve public confidence, persons serving in government should have the benefit of specific standards to guide their conduct and of some disciplinary mechanism to ensure the uniform maintenance of those standards amongst them.

I am concerned that the appointment of Salvito, Daniel, Ph.D and his deliberation and voting on DWQI issues raises significant potential perceived and/or actual conflicts of interest that may rise to violations of NJ’s ethics laws and policies.

The Legislature defined membership of the DWQI to include representatives of regulated entities, but those entities were limited in scope to “regulated public water supply systems”, not the manufacturers of chemicals who may contaminate public water supplies.

Mr. Salvito Daniel is employed in a management capacity by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM). RIMF is comprised of and funded by members of the chemical manufacturing industry who manufacture and/or distribute chemicals that may be under the review of the DWQI.

In his capacity at RIFM, Mr. Salvito Daniel owes a duty and professional loyalty and obligation to RIMF and its member groups.

As as member of the DWQI, Mr. Salvito Daniel owes a duty and loyalty to the public interest and the legal responsibilities of the DWQI.

There obviously are issues before the DWQI which involve and may conflict with the financial and legal interests of RIMF and its member companies.

In addition, the head of the RIMF is the former Director of Regulatory Affairs for the Dupont corporation, a company with significant liability for chemicals, including PFOA, now undergoing review by the DWQI.

Given these facts, there is a significant potential for appearance and substantive conflicts of interest that undermine the public’s respect, trust and confidence in the independence and scientific objectivity of the DWQI.

I request that the Ethics Commission conduct a review of the ethics compliance implications of this appointment, including the establishment of appropriate conflict of interest standards, recusal, and public disclosure requirements regarding conflicts between the missions of RIFM, its members and the NJ DWQI.

Below please find my related correspondence to the Chairman of the DWQI.

I am available to provide additional information to support this request, and look forward to your prompt and favorable review.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

From: “Bill” <bill_wolfe@comcast.net>
To: cooper@aesop.rutgers.edu
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2016 10:10:52 AM
Subject: DWQI appointment

Fragrance Industry now has a role in setting NJ drinking water standards

Fragrance Industry group headed by former Dupont Director of Regulatory Affairs

[Update below]

As they say, you can’t make this shit up.

One of the chemical industries that poisons people and the planet with toxic chemicals has just been rewarded with a seat at the table of the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute. The DWQI develops the scientific basis for NJ’s drinking water standards.

Yesterday, the DWQI’s welcomed its newest member, Salvito, Daniel, Ph.D, Vice President, Environmental Sciences, Research Institute for Fragrance Materials.

RIFM delivers well-documented conclusions from comprehensive analysis that translates into enhanced Product Management for its members, resulting in safer and more life enriching products for the consumer. Membership in RIFM is open to all companies that manufacture, sell, distribute or engage in business related to the fragrance industry for at least one year.

Right. Take a look at RIFM’s members.

According to the DWQI website, Mr Salvito, Daniel was appointed by the NJ Senate as an “environmental health expert” – that means appointed by Senate President Sweeney.

I could not find any paper trail on this appointment or when and how it was made. Or any news reports. So, consider this a scoop!

Meanwhile,  Bloomburg reported:

Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Announces Executive Changes

The new president of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) is James C. Romine, Ph.D. Dr. Romine was V.P., Product Stewardship and Regulatory Affairs at DuPont in Wilmington, Del. He succeeds David K. Wilcox, Ph.D., who retired May 1, 2015. Dr. Romine was the first to lead DuPont’s functional competency for managing product stewardship and regulatory compliance in all markets and geographies.

So, the RIFM has ties to Dupont, the major manufacturer with BILLIONS of dollars of liability due to pollution caused by their teflon chemical C-8, or PFOA.

The NJ DWQI is currently considering the science for developing drinking water standards for PFOA.

Only in NJ.

Meanwhile, today NJ Spotlight reports that the DWQI has stalled in developing those standards.

Right.

More to follow on this and yesterday’s DWQI meeting.

[Update – One other “Senate” appointment to the DWQI is almost as bad:

The “academic” appointment slot is Sheng-lu Soony, PhD, Chief Chemist at United Water (now Suez).

An employee of private for profit water corporation is not an “academic”. The potential conflicts of interest are just as bad as RIFM. (But of course, chemical industry polluters are far worse than private water companies.)

In contrast, the “academic” slot appointed by the Assembly is Judith Klotz, M.S., Dr. P.H., Adjunct Associate Professor, Rutgers University and Drexel University

The private water purveyors are given two slot on the DWQI – the Senate “academic appointment” makes that 3.

No wonder the DWQI is stalled in developing recommendations for standards – the regulated community controls it.]

Sweeney spins

 Inappropriate to negotiate back room political compromises on regulatory protections

Yesterday former Governor Tom Kean wrote a strong Op-Ed urging the Legislature to veto the Christie DEP’s Flood Hazard rules and today the Star Ledger weighs in with a strong supporting editorial:

• Will Sweeney protect our clean water from Christie’s bulldozers?

My jaw dropped reading this line from Senator Sweeney:

Sweeney’s rationale for the delay is that he’s trying to find a middle ground. He says he plans to meet with the head of the state Department of Environmental Protection to work out a compromise. “You have my commitment,” he said this week. “If we can’t fix this, on Aug. 1, we’ll pass it.”

Compromise? “Fix” it?

The thought of Senator Sweeney meeting with DEP Commissioner Bob Martin to discuss complex regulations and “fix” them absolutely boggles the mind.

It is totally inappropriate to negotiate back room political compromises on regulatory protections (for an example of exactly how Sweeney abuses the process, see: “Political Pressure On DEP: How The Game Is Played”).

Talk about the blind leading the blind! (and Sweeney is expressing no confidence in Senate Environmental Committee Chairman Bob Smith, who has rigorously, openly, and fairly considered the DEP proposal.)

There have been several hours of testimony by experts, including DEP, before the Senate Environment Committee, over a period of months. EPA and FEMA lawyers and experts reviewed the rules as well.

The rule proposal was over 900 pages and there is another several hundred pages of DEP’s responses to hundreds of public comments. And, of course, another hundred pages or more of a “concurrent proposal”.  Of course, DEP Commissioner Martin will tell Sweeney that the proposal has been fixed already.

Sweeney can knowledgeably participate in this debate? Are you kidding me? (Sweeney’s “experts” are likely Dennis Toft and Dale Florio)

Sweeney probably didn’t think he’d face press scrutiny about his failure to post the SCR 66 veto Resolution. He is spinning.

Just as we warned:

The public and the Committee will be drowned in the weeds of a lengthy adoption – response to public comments document on the original proposal along with an entirely new and complex re-proposal document. This is a formula for political manipulation. It will take weeks to decipher the documents. Meanwhile, by the time the dust settles, the original proposal will be adopted into law and the Veto Resolution will have withered on the vine (faded into the budget debate) and the Legislature adjourned for the summer.”

Sweeney has never been a supporter of strong environmental regulations, and he has supported the Christie DEP rollbacks.

Obviously, the Star Ledger editorial board didn’t know that Sweeney opposed the Category One buffers back in 2007.

Back in 2007, then Senator Sweeney joined then Republican Senate President Bob Littell in attacking the C1 stream buffer program:

404. COMMENT: The proposed Category One designations would appear to be more about curbing development than enhancing water quality standards. Unfortunately, this new regulatory proposal tips the balance even more against the economic prosperity of the areas, district 24 and 3. (127, 221)  (source: DEP regulatory document)

Tell Sweeney No Deals on Clean Water!

[End note: Truly “fixing” these rules would require, among other things, that stream buffer protections and surface water quality standards are enforced.

As we wrote, that would provide a regulatory basis to kill major development, like pipelines. Legislative veto of DEP rules for failure to protect buffers and water quality would also be used in anti-pipeline litigation.

Sweeney is a strong supporter of not only development, but pipelines in particular.

And we will never forget how he twisted arms to make the Pinelands pipeline happen. ]