WolfeNotes.com

Proposal Based on Gov. Christie’s Energy Master Plan Promotion of Gas

Another Fracking Christie Legacy and Another Huge Missed Opportunity for Renewables

Test of of the Pinelands Commission’s Integrity and Independence:

“Would you risk the public’s water supply for a business deal?”

“If you say ‘Yes’ to this, what can you say ‘No’ to?”

[Updates below and in text]

At the conclusion of the meeting, I asked a series of questions of Counselor Roth, forcing her to admit that the Commission had no science, no standards, no criteria, no methodology, no policy, no technical Guidance, and no review procedures for an “equivalence” or “offset” demonstration.

I suggested that perhaps work on developing and adopting a science based offset policy should preceed an ad hoc review of the pipeline project. ~~~ Bill Wolfe

When I recently heard of a proposal to build a $65 million 22 mile private gas pipeline through the Pinelands National Reserve to [spend $400 million] to [convert] re-power the B.L. England coal power plant [to natural gas], I thought it was some kind of April Fools joke – or Onion story.

[Update: according to South Jersey Gas (SJG), the pipeline cost is now $90 million, a huge increase from prior estimate. Final costs likely to be even higher.

Also take a look at the arrogance of SJG, in this April 29, 2013 press release touting BPU approval, which, according to SJG, “Enables the Natural Gas Conversion of the BL England Electric Generation Plant to Proceed.” 

No mention of the Pinelands Commission!

Aditionally, this statement about the capacity of the project is inconsistent with the BPU presentation, which implied that the pipeline would provide backup fro 63,000 customers, not 267,000!

Once online, the annual throughput of gas to the BL England facility will be about 20 million dekatherms, essentially equal to the amount of gas SJG currently provides to approximately 267,000 homes in a year. The plant is expected to begin operating in 2016. – end update.]

So, without having read the documents, I had to go down to the Pinelands Commission meeting yesterday to hear about the proposal (good news, if I can call it that, is that the route appears to follow existing road right of way – but it was not made clear how much forest disturbance  would result – see PPA analysis linked below).

Sure enough it’s real – or should I say surreal.

I kept expecting to see Jack Nicholson escorted out of the hearing: “Forget it Jake, its Chinatown” (watch that famous scene).

Because this one is Chinatown – its all about money, politics, and installing energy infrastructure to fuel more fossil power and drive coastal development.

A boondoggle again paid for by the ratepayers.

By their own words, the Christie Administration is about to make another huge energy policy blunder – at the expense of the Pinelands and the integrity of the so called “independent” Pinelands Commission – by making political commitments and huge investments of ratepayer money in fossil fuel infrastructure – all while denying climate change and missing a huge opportunity to shift direction to renewable power.

Only the Pinelands Commission can stop it.

Part One: Upside down Energy Policy – BPU as an arm of the Gov.’s Office

The representative of the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) spoke and responded to the Commission’s questions for almost 2 hours and made the policy and politics driving this pipeline abundantly clear (the BPU spokesman and lawyer arrogantly walked out and left after their marathon, before listening or responding to public comments, which prompted loud angry denunciations from the crowd).

The BL England part of the story began with DEP’s 2006 enforcement order that required shut down of the B.L. England Beesely’s Point coal and oil fired power plant for longstanding serious failure to meet air pollution standards and comply with pollution control requirements for NOx, SOx, mercury, and fine particulates.

That original 2006 DEP shut down Order was based on traditional air pollutants, not greenhouse gas emissions.

But it did include an option, under certain conditions, for the plant to be re-powered.  But, at the time it was issued, the expectation was that the plant would close. Plant closure was opposed by local officials and south jersey legislators.  And certainly, there was no mention under the original DEP Order of re-powering the plant with Marcellus shale fracked gas from a 22 mile pipeline through the Pinelands National Reserve.

But now, in a stunningly hypocritical move, the anti-regulatory, anti-enforcement Christie DEP is spinning to take credit for the air quality benefits of the 2006 Enforcement Order. But at the same time, DEP has refused to enforce it, extended its deadlines, and renegotiated the original 2006 Order last year to pave the way for re-powering and Pinelands pipeline.

Worse, ironically they are using a DEP enforcement Order that sought to protect air quality, to be the vehicle to drive a dirty fossil re-powering deal, with dirty fracked gas, via a new pipeline through one of the most environmentally significant places in the state, a national treasure.

[I didn’t fully realize that paragraph #20 of the Christie DEP revised Order mandates re-powering – thereby using regulatory enforcement to drive corporate profits and assure BPU approval (i.e. BPU virtually must approve cost recovery for expenditures to comply with DEP mandates). The new Christie DEP Order also virtually promises that DEP will approve permits for repowering too, all prior to ANY public review.]

On top of all that, it was a stringent, nationally leading 2004 DEP mercury emission rule that led to that 2006 Order, a rule adopted under the McGreevey administration (to read the 2006 Order, hit link and scroll to page 37, sorry, this is the only place I could find a copy!).

[Note to readers: Gov. Christie ended NJ’s national environmental and regulatory leadership under Executive Order #2  (“regulatory relief”) and as a result, the Christie DEP has  done nothing on the regulatory front. So it is remarkable hypocrisy for them to take credit for the 2006 closure Order, particularly so when they are using it to drive a dirty re-powering private pipeline deal.]

A self congratulatory DEP press release ignores all this and just says his:

One of the New Jersey’s oldest power plants, B.L. England in Cape May County, will significantly reduce air pollutants by shutting down one of its coal-fired units and converting two others to clean-burning natural gas, steps that will significantly improve air quality while ensuring continued energy reliability for the southern shore region, Commissioner Bob Martin announced today.

While ignoring this DEP enforcement history and violations by BL England, the BPU representative’s presentation was astonishing.

He began by noting that the Board had issued 2 Orders already this year, approving the pipeline project. These approvals were issued without consultation or participation of the Pinelands Commission (or the public).

Although there are conditions of these BPU approvals that require that the project receive all other permits and approvals, its Chinatown – it was clear that the deal is done.

To emphasize to the Commission just how done this deal is, the BPU spokesman explicitly linked the Board’s approvals to Gov. Christie’s policy initiatives, expressly making this pipeline a Christie legacy.

In a revealing and extensive statement, BPU said that the project was approved by the BPU because it was consistent with Gov. Christie 2011 Energy Master Plan policy that promotes in-state gas fueled generation capacity and expansion of natural gas pipeline infrastructure, especially for South Jersey.

Despite strong opposition by environmental groups to the Gov.’s Energy Master Plan, Commissioner Ashum and others seemed unaware of the Gov.’s pro-gas energy policy and asked questions about it. So, here it is, read it and weep:

The pipelines that serve New Jersey benefit from increased production by the Marcellus Shale region. Existing pipeline connections allow for the transportation of shale gas from Marcellus in addition to conventional production from the Gulf Coast. Shale gas is expected to increase substantially in the decade ahead, and may continue to capture increased market share for decades. There are a number of competing new pipeline proposals that are expected to expand pipeline deliverability into New Jersey and the New York metropolitan area, which would provide Marcellus Shale gas producers with improved access to these markets. New Jersey’s pipeline and LDC infrastructure is likely to be strengthened by these new pipelines. The Christie Administration seeks to leverage New Jersey’s natural gas infrastructure to foster the State’s environmental and economic goals. (@ p. 58)

Source: NJ BPU "Energy Master Plan" (p. 57)

1) BPU admitted that BPU has no regulatory authority over “merchant” generation facilities, no requirement that they demonstrate a need, and consideration of energy alternatives.  Merchant generators sought and were driven by profits, not sound energy policy  and BPU had no role or power in any of that under energy deregulation. Left unsaid was that this market chaos is the legacy of Christie Whitman’s energy deregulation legislative initiative.

2) BPU never once mentioned consideration of renewable energy or the impact of the BL England plant fueled by low cost fracking gas on the investment or economics of renewable power;

3) BPU enver once mentioned greenhouse gas emissions and climate change;

4) BPU held out a fig leaf by concluding the project was justified by the need for “reliability” and redundancy in the south jersey gas infrastructure supply. This surprised the Commissioners, who thought that the pipeline would be dedicated exclusively to the B.L. England power plant.

5) The pipeline is an intra-state pipeline under the control of NJ state officials. This is very different from the north jersey gas pipelines, which are under FERC jurisdiction and FERC can pre-empt any NJ efforts to block them. In fact, DEP has held out the possibility of FERC preemption as an excuse for sweetheart State land lease deals and rubber stamped land use pemits DEP issued.

The BPU spokesman made a series of contradictory, questionable and/or vague assertions on several important issues and unknowns regarding the capacity the 24 inch pipeline; how that capacity was allocated; how it was paid for; how it could enhance “reliability” for 63,000 gas users in Cape May; and why, if this “reliability” was so critical, the BPU had not mandated that South Jersey Gas Co. install it years ago.

Part Two: Pinelands Commission on the Hot Seat:

• What does “equivalent protection” mean?  
• Is an “offset”, a political deal or a science based public policy?
• Just Say No to MOA!

Chairman Lohbauer - Will he keep his head down and duck?(appointed by Gov. Christie)

Before I make a few observations, see the Pinelands Preservation Alliance analysis and news coverage of the meeting (and take a look at the happy faces of Commissioners and staff):

• Plan to put gas pipeline in Pinelands spurs ire
• Proposed 22-mile Pinelands gas line draws opposition

As usual, Kirk Moore of the Asbury Park Press has seen this all before and smells the dirty deal in the works. Kirk  frames the core question before the Commission:

New pipelines are not a normally permitted use in the commission’s forest area zoning, and the 24-inch diameter pipeline would go underground for 14 miles through the forest alongside Route 49, from Millville to Tuckahoe. […]

The Pinelands board is facing a situation not unlike when it granted permits for Conectic (sic) to build a power line west of the Garden State Parkway in southern Ocean County, and as part of the agreement got $13 million from the power company to buy land for preservation. Such “offsets” could be part of any agreement on the natural gas line, but “we’re not prepared to discuss that,” said Stacey Roth, a lawyer for the commission.

Director Wittenberg also has hand over mouth syndrome (appointed by CHristie)

The Commission lawyer acknowledged the possibility of approving the pipeline project under an Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Board of Public Utilities (BPU):

Under normal circumstances, the Pinelands Commission expects that a public agency’s development plans will conform to all of the land use [N.J.A.C. 7:50, Subchapter 5] and development standards [N.J.A.C. 7:50, Subchapter 6] of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan [CMP]. However, there may be instances where a public agency believes that a specific development plan can not conform to all of the CMP’s requirements.

Although the Pinelands Commission expects these types of situations to be very rare, the CMP [N.J.A.C. 7:50 – 4.52 (c)] does allow the Commission to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that authorizes a public agency to undertake development activities that are not fully consistent with Pinelands land use and development standards.

Commissioner Rohan Green seems perplexed by BPU (appointed by Christie)

But, under Commission regulations, a MOA is limited to public agencies – as Commissioner Ed Lloyd noted during the meeting when he questioned Ms. Roth on how the BPU could be considered the applicant, when the pipeline was a project initiated by a private energy company, South Jersey Gas.

Because the pipeline is not consistent with the Comprensive Management Plan (CMP), if approved, the project would have to demonstrate an “equivalent level of protection” as provided under the regulations, a concept the Commission implements via “offsets” (this is sometimes referred to as “mitigation”.)

At the conclusion of the meeting, I asked a series of questions of Counselor Roth, forcing her to admit that the Commission had no science, no standards, no criteria, no methodology, no policy, no technical Guidance, and no review procedures for an “equivalence” or “offset” demonstration.

Chief Planner Grogan - professionalism or politics?

I suggested that perhaps work on developing and adopting a science based offset policy should preceed an ad hoc review of the pipeline project.

During my testimony, I questioned the trustworthiness of pipeline company engineers and mentioned some of the risks of pipelines in light of recent problems in Vernon, and the washout that destroyed Lake Lookover, and sinkhole collapses in Montague  and Louisiana.

But I forgot to mention tis little bit of humor by South Jersey Gas presentation about gas pipleine safety, which I’ll close with:  NJ Natural Gas “Resiliency Strategy”:

Natural gas infrastructure is underground and protected    

Commissioner Ashmum - longtime member, reappointed by Christie. Will she allow a pipeline deal to taint her legacy?

Right.

A 19 year old young man, studying economics, posed the real question:

Would you risk the public’s water supply for a business deal?

His question was followed up on by the final commenter of the day, who had the shortest comment of the day – she asked in full:

If you say Yes to this, what can you say no to?

[Update: Curiously, South Jersey Gas Co. engineers concluded that horizontal directional drilling under Great Egg Harbor would pose unacceptable risks – someone should tell DEP this, because DEP is allowing drilling under the Wanaque Reservoir!

Rare Summer Recess Legislative Session Generates Heat

Land Use Policy Working At Cross Purposes 

Amidst the third heat wave this year, the Senate Environment Committee met today in a rare summer recess session (move along, no need to mention climate change, an allusion is sufficient).

The Committee’s agenda included:

• a bill  to define standards for and mandate bio-diesel content for home heating oil.
• a legally required public hearing on a proposed Concurrent Resolution to authorize a ballot question to amend the Constitution to dedicate $200 million to open space preservation (Green Acres/Garden State Preservation Trust).

I hardly know where to begin in sharing the day’s contradictions with you, so I’ll just lay out a short list off the top of my head, starting with the morning news clips:

1. Audit of DEP reveals that Mr. Management Metrics – DEP Commissioner Bob Martin – can’t collect and keep track of permit and enforcement fines

NJ Spotlight reports that the most recent Office of Legislative Services (OLS) audit of DEP found:

Not collecting fines for violations of land-use regulations. Issuing permits without checking whether the applicants have paid their fees. Taking no further action when polluters fail to pay penalties assessed by the agency.

Those were among the recurring problems that the State Auditor in the Office of Legislative Services uncovered in the state Department of Environmental Protection’s Land Use Management and other programs.

Wow.

So much for Commissioner Martin’s private sector financial and management “expertise”.

What’s the status of prior OLS audits that found fault with DEP’s collection of revenues by the Office of Leases and Concessions?

What is the status of collection of the millions of dollars expected under the 120 Natural Resource Damage (NRD) lawsuits filed by DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson?

Lots of money to be shaken from those trees.

2. Bio-Diesel bill would expand investments and commitment to a fossil fuel

The bill (S 2268) would establish a market for bio-diesel by mandating minimum content requirements (from 3-5%) in home heating oil. Industry representatives said this would increase investment in bio-diesel processing capacity in the northeast, and perhaps NJ.

Hearing a fossil fuel bill in the midst of another heat wave does raise a certain sense of whistling past the graveyard, no?

Instead of searching for incremental ways to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuels, a sane policy would be looking to reduce reliance on and ultimately phase out the use of oil as a home heating fuel.

But, even in the midst of another extreme heat wave – consistent with predictions of global warming models – a transition away from or phase out of fossil fuels was not remotely on the policy horizon and there was no sense of urgency. Just a narrow focus on perpetuating the existing carbon based home heating oil market.

Aside from ignoring the big picture on climate and the need to phase out fossil fuels, there are:

a) conflicting studies on environmental, land use, agricultural impacts and life cycle assessment studies regarding whether bio-diesel from soybeans creates net energy or reduces greenhouse gas emissions;

b) bio-diesel can not meet projected increases in demand for diesel, which undermines the energy independence myth; and

c) concerns about impacts on food prices, as soybean crops for fuel displace and compete with crops for food markets.

Chairman Smith concluded that there were net energy, environment, and GHG emission benefits and took strong exception to claims that the bill would drive up food prices, rejecting testimony that the bill would increase food prices for poor children.

The Committee voted to release the bill.

3.  Open Space Funding – Sales Tax Option

Chairman Smith began the hearing by noting that the Green Acres fund is out of money.

But no one mentioned the fact that the Gov. – during the 2009 campaign – promised to create a sustainable source of funding and that he failed to honor this commitment for almost 4 years, while letting the fund go broke.

This failure of leadership is what has brought us to these last minute emergency legislative maneuvers to meet deadlines to get the question of the fall ballot (which is highly unlikely).

No one mentioned that Gov. Christie set the terms of debate at the outset by rejecting any new taxes or debt, leaving the only option the unacceptable raid on existing revenues.

Smith then noted that the public hearing was a legal formality, requiring no Committee quorum or vote.

So, from my perspective, the hearing was not a time to persuade the Committee but to put arguments on the table and – frankly – shame the KIG coalition.

Chairman Smith began by summarizing what went wrong with the prior approach to dedicate a specific fraction of the sales tax.

Smith explained that with the sales tax projected to increase at 4% annually, revenues also would grow over the 30 year period (compound interest, for the math challenged). Based on this growth rate, the the OLS generated a $17 billion fiscal impact that “shocked the fiscal conscience” on the Assembly (OLS did not do a NPV analysis, but lets not get technical here.)

To remedy that problem, the new Resolution caps the revenue amount at $200 million per year.

Concurrent Resolutions are now before the Senate and Assembly, who both must meet and approve them before August 1 in oder to meet deadlines to be on the November

That is unlikely to happen, but supporters all agreed to redouble their efforts to generate public pressure on legislatures to meet.

Here are the highlights of the testimony:

a) former NJ Senator Gordon MacInnes, now head of NJ Policy Perspective, opposed the dedication of the sales tax. He urged that the historical debt funding approach was preferable, and had been approved by the voters 13 times over 40 years. His concerns focused on State fiscal issues. He talked about impacts on the budget, given structural budget deficits, austerity policy, cuts to existing programs, and inability to raise new revenues to meet important unmet needs.

I strongly urge people to listen to his testimony (here).

b) I’ve ranted here previously in opposition to the sales tax option.

I ranted again in testimony today, on the following grounds:

• Policy is working at cross purposes

Gov. Christie is promoting growth and infrastructure enveywhere. Open space acquisitions are like putting expensive band aids on huge self inflicted wounds. THis is crazy from a and use planning perspective and a financial perspective (i.e. land targeted for growth is dramatically more expensive).

Land acquisition is just one part of land use management.  It is supposed to complement State and regional Planning and land use Regulation. But planning and regulatory tools are  are being dismantled – and even worse – now being used to promote economic development, not preserve environmentally sensitive land.

Examples:

1) The Gov. is promoting shore rebuild in hazardous locations. Yet the opens space funding is justified on the need for Blue Acres buyouts of flood prone properties. It makes no sense to promote rebuild unconditionally which increases risks, while buying out property to reduce risks.

2) The Gov. dismantled the State Plan (as a land use plan) and is using it instead to promote economic development, not manage growth and preserve land. That policy includes infrastructure and development everywhere  – and it works at cross purposes with a strategic and planning based open space policy , while it also perpetuates the current flawed ad hoc “shotgun” approach to buying land. This is tremendously expensive and not a cost effective way to conduct business.

3) The Gov. has stacked and used the regional planning bodies – the Highlands and Pinelands – also to dismantle regional planning and growth management and promote growth instead of preserve land. Again, this absence of planning policy undercuts and conflicts with the open space policy. Why should taxpayers be paying top dollar for lands that could or are regulated and should not be developed?

4) DEP is using its regulatory land use and enforcement tools to promote development of environmentally sensate lands, not protection of them. Examples abound: DEP added 40,000 acres of environmentally sensitive lands to sewer service areas. Land outside a sewer service are has much lower development potential than land in a sewer service area.

This sets up not only land use conflicts between sewering and open space acquisition, , but the inclusion of land in a sewer service area dramatically increases the development potential and thus the appraised value of land (e.g.  from 10,000/acre to $50,000/acre).

Why should taxpayers pay top dollar for environmentally sensitive land DEP foolishly mapped in a sewer service area to promote development?

• Fairness: Sales tax is regressive – benefits of open space are regressive

In addition to the state budget concerns Senator McGuiness raised (e.g.  dedication of $200 million would force cuts to other important social programs, including DEP’s budget), there are distributional and equity concerns of who pays for open apse and who benefits from open space.

The sales tax is regressive, e.g. those with low and middle income pay a disproportionate share of their income, compared to the wealthy.

At the same time, the benefits of open space are regressive in several ways: e.g. 1) higher socio-economic rural/suburban allocations consume about 80%, while higher population and  poorer urban areas get about 20% for much more pressing urban open space and parks needs; 2) the owners of land purchased tend to be corporations or wealthy people; 3) the external benefits of open space accrue to land owners who live near the acquired open space.

At a time of growing wealth and income disparities, this is just wrong.

• Stewardship is a vague objective that invites abuse

For the first time, open space money would be used for “stewardship” –

The word is not defined, and there is a huge debate right now about “stewardship” of state forests, with some defining that to include commercial logging.

NJ Audubon testified in support and recommended allocation of 20% of the Fund to stewardship.

This is way over the top – and I called it out.

It’s selfish enough to be stealing sales tax revenues from the general fund when there is a climate of austerity and a structural budget deficit.

But, calling for 20% of the stolen money to go to support your own organization’s “stewardship” programs is just beyond the pale.

So, that about the end of my head exploding day of contradictions.

Oh, but wait, before I go I must share the Hopewell Chutzpah.

Hopewell is one of the wealthiest towns in the State.

They seem oblivious to that, and to the equity principle that the most privileged and wealthy in society owe a larger obligation to those less fortunate (the makers versus the takers, and all that jive).

I know. I built a home there and sent my kids through their outstanding K-12 school district.

The sent a contingent, including the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and the Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association.

Seemingly oblivious to equity arguments and the perception that open space advocates are a bunch of selfish wealthy elitists, the Mayor said she understood the negative impacts on the state budget and other programs, but hey, she needed to look out for her property taxpayers – who benefit from Statre open space money.

The Deputy Mayor – get this – spoke in support of open space from his experience as a black man who grew up in Camden. As if Hopewell and Camden were even in the same universe these radical days of gross disparities in income, wealth, and political power.

Other than that, just another day in paradise.

Methodology for Calculating Costs & Benefits Is Key

Too Many “Free Riders” on the Storm – Huge Social Costs

this is what a natural dune looks like - Long Beach Island State Park, NJ

I hope that when they do a real economic analysis to determine the value of “just compensation”, that ALL of the “free rider” benefits and social costs are calculated and the net result is negative – resulting in a BIG stiff fee to those selfish folks who brought this lawsuit, and their reckless fellow fools who live in similar locations. ~~~ Bill Wolfe

Yesterday’s NJ Supreme Court decision on the issue of whether oceanfront property owners should be compensated for their loss of views caused by building a protective dune on their property is getting lots of media play, e.g. see Tom Johnson, NJ Spotlight:  High Court Finds in Favor of Dunes, Not Beach-Front Views

I haven’t read the  opinion yet, but from what I can tell, the Court agreed that “just compensation” was required for the taking, but that the amount of compensation must consider the benefits provided to the property owner by the dune.

So, I thought I’d make a few points on all that.

First of all, the coverage fails to distinguish natural dunes from engineered dunes. As I’ve written, there’s a big difference, see:  Orwell: On Dunes and “Seaside Recreation Platforms”

More importantly, in emphasizing the

widespread consensus emerged that communities with established dune systems fared far better than towns without such established natural barriers

the coverage also is reinforcing the false notion that dunes are a panacea.

Like beach replenishment projects, dunes create a false sense of security and invite inappropriate development in hazardous locations.

Before DEP was taken over by the Christie amateurs, DEP used to consider this false perception an “impediment” to coastal management goals and DEP used to warn the public about this:

All of the impediments to meeting this 309 programmatic objective that appeared in the last New Jersey Coastal Zone Section 309 Assessment and Strategy remain. These include lobbying efforts of special interest groups, legal challenges to DEP permit decisions, provision of flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program, and public perception that large-scale beach nourishment projects eliminate vulnerability to coastal hazards.

But, in rejecting a huge compensation payout, the Court apparently required some form of more sophisticated economic analysis of the calculation of “just compensation”.

It appears that, at a minimum, this calculation must include consideration of the economic benefits provided by the protective dunes.

The scope and methodology of this analysis are key – both with respect to the economic benefits provided by dunes, but also to the costs of coastal development in hazardous locations.

From what I suspect – without having read the opinion – I assume that the  new compensation calculation the court directed is narrowly limited in scope to the economic benefits provided by the dunes to the individual property property owner – as opposed to, for example, properties that lay behind the dune or further away along the back bay.

But, the full costs and benefits are much broader than the individual property owner.

Similarly, development in a hazardous location imposes significant “external costs” to neighbors, the community, and all taxpayers – federal, state, and local.

People who build in hazardous locations should not be compensated one thin dime.

Just the opposite, they should pay premiums, taxes, and fees for all the costs they impose on their neighbors, community, and taxpayers and for all the benefits they receive as “free riders”.

Here are just some of those costs:

1. Houses is hazardous locations do not pay the true costs of insurance – all federal taxpayers subsidize those federal flood insurance program below market rates. Make those people pay higher premiums. Give the rest of us a tax break.

2. Development in hazardous locations increases the entire community’s risk ratings, and thus insurance costs. Make those in the most hazardous locations – like beach and bay fronts and along rivers and streams – pay a fee for this cost they impose on the community.

3. Homes in hazardous locations require more emergency services, and put first responders at risk. They also require additional public services and maintenance. Make them pay special assessments to pay for those services.

4. Development in flood hazard areas displaces natural flood storage and makes flooding worse for nearby properties (think of putting a cinder block in a full bath tub). They should pay a fee for the volume of water they displace, which makes flooding worse in other locations.

5. Houses hit by flooding can become projectiles and damage nearby homes and public infrastructure. We all pay for this damage caused by floating unmoored homes sand debris.

6. And then when the catastrophic storm hits, we all pay billions to pay for the damages – emergency response, cleanup, and rebuilding. This bailout amounts to a HUGE subsidy and welfare to those who choose to live in hazardous locations.

And of course, irrespective of storms, private property owners reap huge benefits from public investments like roads, sewer, water, sidewalks, parks and schools, not just protective dunes.

All the benefits of public investment to private property owners should be recouped.

All the costs imposed on society by private development should be captured and compensated for.

So, I hope when they do a real economic analysis to determine “just compensation”, that ALL of these private benefits and social costs are calculated and the net result is negative – resulting in a BIG stiff fee to those selfish folks who brought this lawsuit, and their reckless fellow fools who live in similar locations.

Riders on the storm, riders on the storm

Into this house were’ born, into this world we’re thrown.  ~~~~ Riders on the Storm – The Doors

Normandy Beach, NJ - dunes eroded, homes vulnerable (before Sandy)

Bill Ignores Afforestation and Urban Forestry

A Craven & Corrupt Effort To Commodify & Privatize Public Forests

[Important Notes and Updates below]

How could a so called forestry bill – sponsored by Democrats from urban districts – not include findings, policy, program requirements, and funding for urban forestry?

How could a bill that purports to provide a state policy for forest “stewardship” not include afforestation?

[Note: yes I know that the new Section 6 mentions the word “regeneration”, but it is cynical lip service. Forest Regeneration should be a primary stewardship objective and a mandatory requirement of all “stewardship plans”. But the bill does not say that. Rather, the bill pays lip service. The bill relegates a basic goal to a voluntary part of an biennial report, leaving it up to DEP to decide whether regeneration should be included or not. Here’s the language – note the use of the word “any” – and lack of mandates in the substantive sections of the bill – makes regeneration purely voluntary:

The [biennial] report shall include but need not be limited to an explanation of the process developed for the adoption of forest stewardship plans, a list of the forest stewardship plans adopted, a description of the locations of the  forest stewardship activities performed pursuant to the plans, ecological goals for each area on which forest stewardship activities have occurred, any forest regeneration procedures employed, cost effectiveness of the stewardship techniques used, environmental  problems encountered in the program, the costs of the program, and any other information the State Forester deems appropriate.

At both policy and political levels of analysis, those two questions just astound me.

Failure to address urban forestry perpetuates a long standing massive gap in state forestry, climate change, and urban policy.

Urban forestry is the careful care and management of urban forests, i.e., tree populations in urban settings for the purpose of improving the urban environment. Urban forestry advocates the role of trees as a critical part of the urban infrastructure. Urban foresters plant and maintain trees, support appropriate tree and forest preservation, conduct research and promote the many benefits trees provide. Urban forestry is practiced by municipal and commercial arborists, municipal and utility foresters, environmental policymakers, city planners, consultants, educators, researchers and community activists.

Cities are where the large majority of people live – they face the most severe environmental challenges. 

That’s where state resources need to be allocated and policy needs to focus the most. Yet these areas tend to get the least, while bearing tremendous and disproportionate burdens.

Problems stem not just from population density, but are a function of poor design, land use planning, and management of the urban landscape. [Note: here is an interesting project]

We can do much, much better to improve the urban landscape and the quality of life for the people who live there. Trees and urban forestry are a major component of that effort, and can not be ignored (e.g. look at Maryland’s urban tree canopy goals and program).

Urbanized ares have the harshest environments to deal with: lots of pavement and buildings, and relatively  few parks, open spaces, and trees (see US Conference of Mayors Report “Protecting and Developing the Urban Tree Canopy”).

Urban areas face the largest – and deadly – threats from climate change and the “urban heat island effect”.

That’s why it blows my mind that the “forestry stewardship” bill – sponsored by urban democrats – provides ZERO, NOTHING, NADA for urban forestry and NJ’s cities.

Similarly, it seems obvious that concept of “forest stewardship” – particularly in an age of  accelerating climate change – would include goals, objectives, and a funded program for “afforestation”:

Afforestation is the establishment of a forest or stand of trees in an area where there was no forest.^[1]Reforestation is the reestablishment of forest cover, either naturally (by natural seeding, coppice, or root suckers) or artificially (by direct seeding or planting).^[2] Many governments and non-governmental organizations directly engage in programs of afforestation to create forests, increase carbon capture and sequestration, and help to anthropogenically improve biodiversity.

[Note: DEP recommendations to meet the deep emission reduction goals of the 2007 Global Warming Response Act envisions a role for carbon sequestration from forestry, and specifically rather paltry goals for urban forestry (read DEP Report here).

Similarly, DEP set a low bar for overall urban and forest canopy cover:

But even those meager recommendations (also see recommendation #13) have not been implemented and Gov. Christie diverted and then terminated the funding source through RGGI.]

Proponents of the legislation have ignored these issues and have absolutely no response to these criticisms of major and fundamental flaws in the bill. (hit this link and scroll down to read other criticisms – some of which relate to prior versions of the bill, but still remain mostly valid)).

This bill is nothing more than an outrageous attempt by a selfish coalition of forestry consultants, craven bureaucrats, hunters and gun nuts, corrupt conservation organizations, and commercial logging interests to “make a market”, commodify and privatize publicly owned forest resources, and line their pockets and fund their organizations at the expense  of the public interest and our future.

Shame on the Democrats who sponsored and voted for this bill.

Gov. Christie “Veto that bill!”

[Update #3 – here are related DEP’s GWRA recommendations:

[Update #2 – Here are key excerpts from the US Forests Services’ New York-New Jersey Highlands Regional Study – 2002 Update that challenge the premises and objectives of the “Forest Stewardship” bill and DEP’s implementation of those concepts.

The key findings on forest health are found on page 50. Logging, timberland, and “forest stewardship’ lands are small and clearly subordinate to other goals management objectives.

Here are the stewardship goals:

Here are findings on declining bird habitat (note species of concern, habitat type, and key threats – page 58):

Key findings on biodiversity are found on page 59:

[Update #1- Two additional important points:

1) We’ve already shown numerous other major flaws in the bill – e.g. see this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this.)

2) I would remind the bill’s sponsors, who also sponsored the Highlands Act, of two facts:

a) I was involved in developing and drafting the Highlands Act.

We made damn sure, both technically and politically, to build linkages between the protection of Highlands forest and the interests of urban residents who relied on clean water from those forests.

b) The scientific logic of the Highlands Act was built on the US Forest Service’s 2002 Report. The basic logic prioritized preservation of large blocks of contiguous forest and, in order to maximize canopy cover, severe restriction on additional forest fragmentation and disturbance.

There was NO discussion of any need to create early successional new growth forests to protect habitat for declining species like golden wing warble and no talk of promoting a forestry industry and no talk of overabundance of mature “single age class” forest. NONE.

Not only was there NO discussion of any of the purported justifications for the “stewardship” bill during the Highlands Act, but the basic logic of and justification for the Forest Stewardship bill is the exact opposite of the Highlands Act –

and there is no way to reconcile those contradictions other than to suggest that money and commercial logging interests are driving the bill. – end update]

 Reflections on “Independence Day” Amidst the Surveillance State

the author debates history (Bordentown, NJ - 4/27/13)

The debates spawned by the Snowden NSA domestic spying disclosures have cast a long shadow on this year’s “Independence Day”, forcing reflection on the importance of dissent, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom from government control, also sometimes thought of as the right to privacy.

Snowden’s disclosures were classic whistleblower acts of conscience –  exposing massive government wrongdoing and violations of the Constitution and laws against warrantless surveillance and restrictions on NSA encroachment in domestic affairs.

The NSA domestic spying operation monitored all phone calls, emails, and internet activities, disclosing not only the “metadata” pattern of an individual’s communications, but also the content of the communications.

Yesterday, the NY Times reported that domestic surveillance even includes the monitoring of snail mail. Some mail monitoring was targeted on individuals and political groups defined by the FBI as “eco-terrorists” (for an example that it does happen here, see my prior post: Green is The New Red).

[Update – watch this presentation of the 10 stages and tactics corporations have used to manufacture “domestic terrorist” rhetorical and legal frameworks for targeting animal rights and environmental activist – and the story, “From Activist to Terrorist” – scary.]

But long prior to Snowden’s disclosures, there have been numerous troubling reports of  FBI and Homeland Security abuses, including infiltration and spying on domestic political groups.

Other credible reports suggest that Homeland Security was involved in monitoring and even coordinating the national crackdown on the Occupy Wall Street Movement (outrageous and illegal tactics that take us back to the days of “Cointelpro” and the Church Committee).

I personally have witnessed the repressive tactics and experienced abuses by the Surveillance State – [and been manhandled by police repression,  part of crushing the Occupy Movement].

In regard to first hand experience with “Homeland Security”, in 2008, I was detained by local police, photographed, and my car was illegally searched.

Days later, I was investigated – visited at my home – by FBI and US Homeland Security agents, accompanied by the Hunterdon County Prosecutor. All merely for taking photographs of what Homeland Security laws define as “critical infrastructure”  – south jersey oil refineries and chemical plants.

One investigator even went so far as to suggest that I might be  “Chechen rebel” (I was observed near a chemical plant close to a school with a backpack on). (a later FOIA request revealed I had triggered a regional FBI/Homeland Security alert, and may have involved the Fusion Center. Since then, several episodes and police stops strongly suggest I am on some kind of watch list).

It mattered not one whit to those local police and federal investigators that I was a columnist for the Star Ledger (@ NJ Voices) engaged in journalism and in political advocacy as a blogger and environmental activist. They showed nothing but contempt for my constitutional rights.

And prior to that, in 1994, I learned exactly how far government will go to crush whistleblowers who embarrass powerful high level officials, like Governor Whitman.

Which all takes me to the title of this post on “Independence Day”.

Many historians agree that Thomas Paine’s writings, pamphlets, dissent and political organizing and agitation were instrumental  in the American Revolution.

Paine’s most famous pamphlet “Common Sense” was published in January of 1776, which helped spark the Declaration of Independence later that year.

Paine worked secretly, essentially what we call today underground. He met and spoke with confidential and secret sources and had secret affiliations. He published “Common Sense” anonymously.

He had to do that because publication was treason – virtually the same  crime some have accused Snowden of, including the US government, who has indicted him under the Espionage Act.

Paine functionally was today’s equivalent of a blogger, a protester, a dissident, a political activist and organizer,  a reporter, a publisher, and a media outlet.

He stomped on some powerful toes and posed an extreme existential threat to the then established government.

Paine was the Wikileaks, Guardian, NY Times, and Snowden of his time – all rolled into one.

If King George had a domestic Colonial equivalent of the NSA, do you think there would have been any chance for Paine to actually publish “Common Sense”?

What impact would Paine’s imprisonment prior to publication have had on the Revolution?

Something to think about, as the US National Security Surveillance Police State proliferates.

Read the history:

Publication history

Thomas Paine began writing Common Sense in late 1775 under the working title of Plain Truth. With the help of Benjamin Rush, who helped edit and publish it and suggested changing the title, Paine developed his ideas into a forty-eight page pamphlet. He publishedCommon Sense anonymously because of its treasonable content. Rush recommended the printer Robert Bell and promised Paine that, where other printers might say no because of the content of the pamphlet, Bell would not hesitate nor delay its printing. Paine and Bell had a falling out, but Bell still felt strongly about printing a second edition. Bell added the phrase “Written by an Englishman” to his second edition without Paine’s permission.^[7] Paine had stressed that it was “the Doctrine, not the man” that was important. Paine wanted to remain anonymous for as long as possible and felt that even such a general phrase as Bell’s addition would take attention away from the ideas in his pamphlet.^[7]

That didn’t seem to matter, though, because printed by Bell, Common Sense sold almost 100,000 copies in 1776,^[8] and according to Paine, 120,000 copies were sold in the first three months. One biographer estimates that 500,000 copies sold in the first year (in both America and Europe – predominantly France and Britain), and another writes that Paine’s pamphlet went through twenty-five published editions in the first year alone.^[3][9] Aside from the printed pamphlet itself, there were many handwritten summaries and whole copies circulated. At least one newspaper, the Connecticutt Courant, printed the entire pamphlet in its February 19th issue (1776), and there may have been others that did the same.^[10] While it is difficult to achieve a fixed figure for the number of circulated copies, what is certain is that Paine’s words reached far and wide out to most of America’s 2.5 million colonists. His pamphlet was read at countless town meetings and gatherings even to those who could not read.

Paine managed to carefully maintain his anonymity, even during potent newspaper polemics generated by Robert Bell, for nearly three months. His name did not become officially connected with the independence controversy until March 30, 1776.^[11] He donated his royalties from Common Sense to George Washington‘s Continental Army, saying:

As my wish was to serve an oppressed people, and assist in a just and good cause, I conceived that the honor of it would be promoted by my declining to make even the usual profits of an author.^[12]

—Thomas Paine