WolfeNotes.com

Environmental Groups Unified in Support of Barnes’ Regional Planning Legislation

[updated, below in text]

Proposed legislation (A3920) to create a 19 member Coastal Commission to oversee land use planning and zoning, environmental regulation, and reconstruction of the NJ shore was released from the Assembly Environment Committee yesterday by a 4-2 vote. The two Republicans on the Committee (Schepisi and Rudder) followed Governor Christie’s lead and opposed the bill. (listen to the hearing here.)

The participatory and deliberative public planning process envisioned by the bill is a sharp contrast to Governor Christie’s governing approach to Sandy recovery.

Christie has consolidated policy and decision-making power in his Coastal Czar, Mark Ferzan, and virtually dictated unilateral “Action Plans” developed behind closed doors by his Department of Community Affairs for spending billions of dollars appropriated by Congress for Sandy recovery. To expedite rebuilding, Christie and his DEP have deregulated reconstruction of infrastructure (in the same vulnerable locations and at the same elevations, repeating the mistakes of the past and virtually guaranteeing future wipeout), exempted rebuilding from DEP permit reviews, and relied exclusively on elevating rebuilding to the new (and inadequate) FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevations. Christie also has ignored climate change and sea level rise, rejecting them as “esoteric issues” he has no time for.

Assemblyman Barnes (D-Middlesex), the prime sponsor, emphasized that his legislation originally was the vision of former Republican Governor Tom Kean, a man Barnes praised as an intellectual and thoughtful public policy expert and advocate of good government, regional planning, and environmental protection. Barnes spoke highly of how, in the late 1980’s, Gov. Kean proposed legislation to create a Coastal Commission. But that effort, by an extremely popular and powerful governor, was blocked by powerful special interests and the development lobby who then controlled – and still dominate – the NJ Legislature.

In the wake of Sandy, finally recognizing that NJ can no longer rely on parochial local interests and flawed site specific DEP CAFRA regulation, the bill finds that:

New Jersey’s shore area is a vital component of the economy, welfare, and cultural landscape of the State and the existing land use and environmental regulatory system cannot adequately protect the region

The bill drew praise and strong support from virtually all of NJ’s environmental groups, including the typically more moderate coastal and conservation groups that have been close to Governor Christie, including Clean Ocean Action, American Littoral Society, and NJ Audubon Society. Tim Dillingham of ALS gave particularly articulate and compelling testimony. Going forward, it will be interesting to see if these groups mobilize their members in a serious effort to back the bill, which is a heavy lift and will require a major battle to pass (and overcome a likely veto by Governor Christie, if Democrats can get on the same page before the election).

I also supported the bill, but, because this is the beginning of the legislative process and the bill will be amended significantly, did not get into the policy weeds. There will be plenty of time to work with Assemblyman Barnes, the sponsor, who recognizes that his bill will spur much needed public dialogue with diverse perspectives on these critical issues.

But from a big picture standpoint, as I’ve written here multiple times (see this and this and this and this) the bill needs significant revisions to more effectively and explicitly address climate change, vulnerability assessment and adaptation, and protective regulatory policies on water resources, public access, and coastal natural resources. The bill also needs to be expanded to include the Delaware Bayshore, which is already within the delineated CAFRA regulated and federally designated  “coastal zone”

Creation of a Coastal Commission also has been supported by professional planning groups like NJ Future and former DEP Commissioner Mauriello, a coastal expert, both of whom did not testify yesterday, but are expected to support the legislation.

[Update: 5/16/13 – NJ Future Op-Ed on Sandy rebuild “resiliency” does not mention a Coastal Commission. NJF previously testified to Senate Budget Committee on February 11, 2013 in support of a Coastal Commission and they did polling on a regional planning approach. So, it looks like pure partisan politics have over-ridden their judgement in support of good planning and compromised their prior support of a Commission.  I suspected that when they did not testify at the hearing.  If in fact that is true, i.e. that they do not support a Coastal Commission now, that would be a major blow to their integrity. Just sayin’ – end update]

The position of other key coastal players, like recreational and commercial fishing groups, boaters, outdoor recreational businesses, scientists and research institutions, surfers, Barnegat Bay and watershed groups, good government groups like the League of Women Voters, tourism, and the sea food industry is not known at this time, as none testified on the bill.

The bill was opposed by the League of Municipalities and of course the NJ Builders Association.

The League defended local home rule land use powers that the bill would eliminate and shift to the regional Coastal Commission. The League’s planner used surprising harsh language to denounce the bill as a “radical” initiative that would spawn litigation and gridlock, despite the fact that the concept was proposed by a moderate Republican Governor and the bill itself is based on longstanding and extremely successful regional planning bodies in the Hackensack Meadowlands, Pinelands, and Highlands.

Instead, the League recommended an alternative approach, whereby DEP would develop a non-regulatory Shore Master Plan to guide towns and beef up CAFRA regulation. I assume that they were referring to Senator Van Drew’s bill (S 2575) that would require DEP to update the Shore Protection Master Plan.

The League did have one positive suggestion, and that was to hold public hearings on the bill along the shore to seek the input of coastal communities. I’m sure that that will happen and the sooner the better. Legislators should not wait for their annual summer special joint environment committee shore hearings in Toms River – they should move now to schedule hearings on the bill now and through the summer and into the fall.

I urge folks to read the bill and work with one of the many environmental groups supporting the bill.

First step – get a Senate sponsor and get the bill moving in the Senate – perhaps Senator Kean (R) would like to follow in his father’s footsteps and build a legacy – and show that Republicans still care about the environment, are not merely loyal lapdogs of Governor Christie, and want to protect the future of the shore.

More to come on this.

[Update: press coverage:

Kirk Moore, Asbury Park Press:  Assembly environment committee releases Coastal Commission bill

Sarah Watson, Press of Atlantic City:  New Jersey legislation would create state coastal commission

Tom Johnson, NJ Spotlight: Democrats Want Coastal Commission to Oversee Rebuilding of Jersey Shore – For GOP, bill would just add another layer of bureaucracy, slowing push to restore the Shore

Citing a study by a university planner, Bill Wolfe, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of Public Environmental Employees for Responsibility, warned that the state needs to change its policies. “New Jersey has become the laboratory of how not to develop your coast,’’ he told the committee.

Sorry, the Star Ledger, as predicted, was AWOL and – you can’t make this shit up – too busy writing about the Eagles Cheerleaders shore calendar and Prince Harry and the roller coaster and Angelina Jolie’s breasts. Now, there’s a revealing set of journalistic priorities if I even saw one – it’s called “tabloid”.

In fairness, exactly as I predicted, the Ledger’s shore reporter covered the Supreme Court case and the State House reporter actually wrote TWO stories about bills that moved yesterday, one from the same COmmittee, but curiously did NOT write about the Coastal Commission bill. I don’t think that’s an accident because they are terrible on land use issues and rarely report policy stories, especially those that challenge Governor Christie.

Media Gets It Wrong Because They Write Story Based on DEP Press Releases

News Management – Again

Source: Rutgers, Office of the State Climatologist

Mistakes can be extremely revealing.

Follow me as we look at the chronology and content to illustrate how a relatively minor factual mistake reveals a serious set of problems, I’ll call them “news management“.

My rant will bounce back and forth between the specific factual mistake and the systemic problems it reveals, so try to follow my bouncing ball, which may not connect all the intermediate dots between the particular and the systemic. I close with perhaps the most significant observation and a prediction, so before you hit the delete button, at least scroll down to read that!

Let’s start with the specific factual mistake (in boldface) made in this May 12 south jersey story: ‘It’s a mutual fight’ to keep mosquitoes from infesting N.J.

A wet spring means that 2013 is already looking to be a boom year for mosquito broods. Coupled with the lingering aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, this summer could be overwrought with the pesky pests.

Whether you look at the Rutgers rainfall data (above) or the DEP stream flow and groundwater data, 2013 was a dry spring, not a “wet spring”. 

That’s why last week I wrote that NJ could be slipping into an early drought.

So, how did this reporter get the completely opposite idea that it was a “wet spring”?

Most likely from her sources, who have a strong bias. The reporter obviously did not independently research the readily accessible and simple data from Rutgers and DEP. [Or the maps on Todd Bates’ blog.]

The reporter’s sources were DEP and the County Mosquito Control Commission – sources with strong institutional and professional bias.  [The national weatherman was not quoted on NJ data and was not the source for any “wet spring” claim, and instead offered a wet summer forecast – a projection of future conditions, not current conditions.]

Basic reporting methods should prevent this kind of problem, but they didn’t. Why?

So, lets go back and take a look at exactly how this story developed.

Just days after I wrote that “slipping into drought” May 4 post, which harshly criticized DEP’s failure to update the NJ Water Supply Master Plan, DEP issued a press release on May 7 –

CHRISTIE ADMINISTRATION ENCOURAGES RESIDENTS TO REMOVE STANDING WATER ON PROPERTY TO REDUCE MOSQUITO POPULATION

Gee, I thought it was very odd for DEP to be warning about standing water, at a time when it hadn’t rained in 2 weeks and conditions were dry as a bone.

[The heavy rainfall of the last few days came after DEP issued the press release. Conditions were dry when DEP issued that May 7 press release – and not conducive to mosquito breeding. That rainfall is not included in the Rutgers or DEP data. Regardless, DEP did not mention a forecast for a wet summer.]

Until I realized that this was a typical DEP spin and divert tactic – tactics which have been magnified tremendously by Superstorm Sandy.

Instead of focusing on any potential drought or explaining why we need a Water Supply Master Plan Update,  DEP  warned the public about this: (even the timing is odd, because a mosquito warning even DEP admits is not typically issued until “until late summer”):

Concerns are elevated this year because of Superstorm Sandy has increased potential opportunities for mosquito breeding, which could increase the risk of mosquito-borne diseases, including WNV.

“This season will be especially challenging because Superstorm Sandy has created new places for mosquitoes to breed such as wet debris piles and depressions left by fallen trees,” the [Health] Commissioner explained.

Sandy has become the universal cover story – sucking the oxygen out of virtually every other environmental story, marginalizing critics, and providing DEP plenty of cover.

And sure enough, literally within hours of that DEP press release, the Start Ledger ran the DEP’s story, with the Sandy hook – a  remarkable piece of stenography based exclusively on the DEP press release.  Another outcome of Sandy: More opportunities for mosquitoes to breed

As I Tweeted at the time, this is the responsive spincycle you get when a former Star Ledger reporter, Larry Ragonese, heads the DEP Press Office.

But that’s no biggie, DEP Press Office spin and Star Ledger stenography are routine at this point. In fact, I have documented that the Christie DEP Press Office has broken all records for issuing press releases (see: DEP Press Office Wins Prize)

And in addition to the number of press release, the subject matter of those releases in highly suggestive.

On would presume that DEP press releases should reflect scientific priorities, in terms of subject matter.

One would be wrong.

DEP has failed to warn the public about the highest priority and most pressing problems, which scientists, the public, and DEP’s own science found are the risks of climate change, air pollution (which has now become a matter of individual behavior), water pollution (similarly narrowed to residential fertilizer use), public health and safety threats from toxic chemicals, land use, loss of wildlife habitat, forests, and farms to development, crumbling infrastructure, etc, –

There is a common theme: these are all traditional regulatory governed issues caused by economic development and industrial activities.

But to the Christie DEP, government, nature and individual human behaviors are the cause of problems, not business and industry.

Illustrating these bizarre priorities, we note that while DEP Press Office virtually ignored all the above issues, DEP press releases have warned the public – repeatedly – about the hazards associated with naturally occurring or individual consumer behavioral things like mosquitos, and litter, and hungry bears and lawn fertilizers and recreational boating and wildfires and horny deer and abandoned buildings and boats and killer trees and deadly camping and naturally occuring radon and pheasant killing snowstorms and celebrating weakness in a climate change program and viral deer and “naturally occurring” algae blooms and dams and tree killing bugs and wood stoves and fireplaces and DEP culture and turning industrial pollution prevention into a homeowners program and oyster poachers and scary snakes and “red tape” and even fucking bedbugs!

There are common themes here amongst these warped perceptions and priorities too – nature is scary (not industry, chemicals and technology); government regulation is the problem; volunatary personal behaviors are the solution, and don’t bother business and industry with costly red tape.

But the initial Star Ledger story was accurate factually, while the followup regional south jersey story was not.

Getting an important fact wrong is very different.

So – how did the south jersey story get the “wet spring” fact so wrong?

My theory is that it was intentional – just like the motive behind the original May 7 DEP press release.

That error was fed to the reporter, and it was designed to avoid:

1) asking why DEP was warning of standing water during a dry period and warning of mosquitos and WNV far earlier than typical “later summer”

(of course, a dry period could not be related to climate change!. Despite strong science and observations that demonstrate we are now experiencing climate change,, the “objective” and “professional” media can never “speculate” about that, but speculation – based on false information no less! – about this summer’s mosquito populations and risks from West Nile Virus are legitimate issues to engage in HIGHLY speculative bullshit.)

2) to prevent coverage of the dry spring issue and therby open the can or worms of DEP’s longstanding failure to Update the Water Supply Master Plan.

I’ve seen this happen so many times that this is no conspiracy theory – its news management by the spinmeisters at DEP press office.

(today’s hyped Star Ledger cover story – “A Date with Fate” – on Delaware Bayshore/red knot is another example of news management- and that story is running on the day before an Assembly Committee will consider a major controversial  Coastal Commission bill!

Prediction: that Assembly Committee hearing will be ignored by the Ledger, or at best a very short story will get buried. Tomorrow’s big coastal story will be the Supreme Court hearing on dune leases – another painful irony, for sure.)

Power of the Purse Provides Opportunity to Hold Administration Accountable

DEP Budget Up In Assembly Tomorrow

Assembly passed Waiver rule veto. Will they stand by that and rise to the larger occasion?

You may not know it, but Governor Christie has used his executive authority essentially to rewrite and weaken all of NJ’s environmental laws.

So, let’s start with the politically obvious – framed by a recent AP story:

TRENTON, N.J. – New Jersey Democrats have an election-year issue that could make Gov. Chris Christie squirm , but they’ve been too divided so far to use it to their advantage.

Yes, Dems sure do have environmental issues to make the Gov. squirm –

[Q: Commissioner Martin, why did you withdraw and subsequently fail, as promised, to adopt a previously DEP proposed drinking water standard to protect pregnant women and young children from exposure to perchlorate, a chemical found in rocket fuel that scientists warn is harmful to pregnant women and fetuses?]

But  that Inquirer/AP story was about gun control.

And in writing that story, there was no hesitation by the media or political pundits to connect the dots between the Governor’s highly unpopular policy position and the partisan interests of the Democratic party and Gubernatorial candidate Senator Barbara Buono:

Christie’s re-election challenger, the mostly unknown Sen. Barbara Buono, is now trying to make gun laws an issue in the governor’s race, hoping to push the popular Republican into uncomfortable territory as he seeks re-election in his blue-leaning home state while stoking national ambitions to become the 2016 GOP presidential nominee.

Just like gun control, protection of public health and the environment is a very popular issue with NJ voters.

But unlike gun control, few know that Governor Christie has a very bad record on the environment (or that Senator Buono has been a longtime environmental champion).

[Q: Commissioner Martin, we note that you have some background in economics. So, when conducting cost benefit analysis required by Executive Order #2, how does DEP quantify the value of human life and disease and weigh them against industry compliance costs in crafting regulations?]

Worse, on top of his unpopular bad policy, the Gov. has deployed unilateral executive branch power to essentially rewrite NJ’s environmental laws.

[Q: Commissioner Martin, Governor Christie recently said that climate change was an “esoteric issue”  that he had no time to consider in Sandy recovery efforts, and that people “don’t give a damn” about anyway.  Do you share those views? If not, please describe how DEP considered climate change in coastal programs before and after Sandy, and describe the specific actions DEP has taken to implement the 2007 Global Warming Response Act.]

His unprecedented series of executive branch moves – via executive orders and DEP regulatory actions – have had the effect of essentially rewriting environmental laws and making new policy, thereby raising fundamental separation of powers issues.

Under our Constitutional scheme, the Legislative Branch writes the laws, makes policy, and backs that up with the power of the purse. The Executive Branch implements and enforces the laws and powers delegated by the Legislature – the Gov. can not make new law.

Examples of Gov. Christie’s abuses abound:

• Do laws enacted by the legislature authorize DEP to issue waivers?
• Do laws enacted by the Legislature require that public health and environmental protection be based on or subordinate to industry compliance costs outlined in a “cost benefit analysis”?
• Did the Legislature authorize a non-governmental private industry dominated body to control the scientific basis of DEP regulations, like safe drinking water standards?
• Did the Legislature delegate important clean water protections to local government?
• Did the Legislature direct DEP to exit the Northeast State’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative?
• Did the Legislature establish a policy of providing “regulatory relief” from environmental and public health protections?
• Did the Legislature prohibit the Drinking Water Quality Institute from meeting?
• Did the Legislature define DEP’s Mission to include “promotion of economic development”?
• Did the Legislature pass a law or otherwise establish a policy to rollback or make NJ’s strict standards equivalent to or consistent with their counterpart federal minimums? That alone would reverse 30 years of NJ environmental leadership in passing some of the strictest laws in the nation. A bill to do just that was heard in the Assembly, but has failed to move, demonstrating little legislative support for the Governor’s actual policy expressed in Executive Order #2.

But despite no legislative authorization, Gov. Christie and DEP have done all this and more.

Will the Legislature continue to sit on the sidelines while the Governor abuses executive power and rewrites NJ’s environmental laws?

Thus far, the only Legislative pushback has come from a Concurrent Resolution (ACR 37 and SCR 59 (1R) ) declaring the DEP Waiver Rule inconsistent with legislative intent.

When that Waiver rule was adopted last year, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported:

“It is so vague that it opens the door to all forms of abuse, which will result in protections of the environment and public health taking a backseat to politics and economic development,” said Bill Wolfe, director of New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

The Assembly version to legislatively veto the waiver rule passed last May by a 47-31 party line vote (R’s backing the Gov.), but the Senate version – co sponsored by Senator Buono HELLO! – is stalled and has not been posted for Floor vote, for many of the same political reasons as the gun control divide.

It is likely that the Legislature’s inaction in vetoing this rule was seen as a green light by the Appellate Division, who upheld the waiver rule in a March 21, 2013 opinion.

Despite finding the origin of the DEP waiver rule explicitly in Gov. Christie’s Executive Order #2, the Court nonetheless looked the other way, relied on a fig leaf highly questionable DEP assertion, and allowed the Gov. to implement his Order through DEP rules. The Court wrote:

Although acting almost immediately after the Governor’s mandate, DEP made clear that the agency was “not draw[ing] its authority to promulgate the waiver rules from Executive Order No. 2, but from its comprehensive legislation.” 44 N.J.R. 1001. Relying on this delegated legislative authority, DEP explained its reasons for proposing the waiver rules. …

We find the promulgation constitutes a valid exercise of the DEP’s implied authority incidental to the extensive powers vested in the agency by the Legislature. We also find the waiver rules establish appropriate and clear standards for the exercise of agency discretion.

“Implied incidental powers”? That’s right up there with “penubras and emanations”.

Or how about this statement by the Court, which has echoes of another infamous judicial standard: “we know it when we see it”:

“There are some concepts which, by their nature, defy precise definition.” In re Revocation of Access of Block No.1901, Lot No. 1, Borough of Paramus, 324 N.J.Super. 322, 332 (App.Div.), certif. denied sub nom. In re Access of Block No.1901 (Parkway 17 Assocs.), 162 N.J. 664 (1999). We consider “net environmental benefit” to be one of those concepts.

Could you imagine DEP imposing a new strict regulation on industry, mandating that all permits include a demonstration that the permittee has created “net environmental benefit“, all based on DEP asserted “implied incidental powers” that implement a concept that “defies precise definition”? Are you kidding me?

The Legislature has not acted to reverse the Appellate Division opinion and the case is now on appeal by environmentalists to the Supreme Court. Will that court concur with concepts that “defy precise definition”?

If the Legislature continues to fail to veto the waiver rule, it is likely that the Supreme Court also will view that as a signal of  concurrence with the court’s finding of “implied legislative authority” for DEP to issue waivers based on “concepts that defy precise definition”.

Getting back to the DEP budget.

The Senate Budget review hearing largely gave DEP a pass. That was expected, given the political leadership of the Senate (the failure to pass the Waiver Rule veto is just one indication).

So, tomorrow’s Assembly Budget Committee hearing on the Christie DEP’s FY’14 budget provides a crucially important opportunity to hold the Governor accountable to his record, while using legislative powers of the purse and oversight.

The Assembly passed the Waiver rule veto. Will they stand by that and rise to the larger occasion?

The Governor’s record provides a target rich environment – see:

• Metrics for Mr. Martin
• DEP Budget Up In Senate Tomorrow – Will Dems Give Gov. Christie And DEP Commissioner Martin A Pass?
• DEP Budget Hearing a Bust

1. Sandy Preparedness – 

DEP is required under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act to submit bi-annnual Reports to NOAA concerning, among other things, coastal hazard assessment (Section 309 Report). This DEP led assessment preceded and is in addition to DEP’s subordinate role in NJ State Emergency Planning via OEM. historically, this work was supervised by DEP’s Office of Coastal Planning, which was housed in the Commissioner’s Office, reflecting its priority and stature. That Office had embarked on a local government Pilot Program, known as the  Coastal Community Vulnerability Assessment Protocol (CCVAP) 

DEP Commissioner Martin dismantled all this, including officially downgrading coastal hazards from “high” priority to “medium”, thereby undermining State preparedness.

It is clear that lack of preparedness led to the AshBritt emergency contract for debris removal. Lack of preparedness also led to NJ Transit loss of over $100 million. There are others, including DEP’s neglect of a Pilot Program on Coastal Community Vulnernability Assessment adn DEP’s failure to monitor and enforce current rules on water infrastructure emergency planning. 

2. Implementation of the Global Warming Response Act  – climate change policy and performance including development of renewable energy (although the latter is an Energy Master Plan question better address to BPU)

The Global Warming Response Act was enacted in 2007. In 2009, DEP submitted a report with over 20 recommendations regarding how NJ could secure deep emissions reductions necessary to meet the goals of the Act.

DEP Commissioner Martin has dismantled all that.

3. Drinking Water – Status of the Drinking Water Qulaity institute and DEP promulgation of “MCL’s” (drinking water standards) recommended by DWQI scientists

The DWQI was created by the Legislature almost 30 years ago, and tasked with the exclusive role to make scientific recommendations on drinking water standards to DEP. The DWQI has not met for almost 3 years now, at the order of Commissioner Martin. He has ignored dozens of their recommendations to strengthen standards. Martin outsourced the DWQI science to the private SAB, a body that includes Dupont and others with severe conflicts of interest and scientific bias. 

4. Fracking

What is the Administration’s position on legislation to prohibit the processing of fracking residuals at NJ facilities?

What is the Administration’s position of the DRBC moratorium and DRBC regulations? Do you support adopting DRBC regulations that would end the current moratorium and open the floodgates to over 18,000 wells in NY and Pennsylvania portions of the Delaware River watershed?

5. Waiver rule

a) lack of enabling authority

b) executive branch usurpation

c) status of litigation

d) status of program

6. Alternate Dispute Resolution

a) is ADR program authorized by Legislation?

b) Is ADR program authorized by DEP regulation? DEP Guidance?

c) cases heard, settlements reached (list)

d) transparency and public involvement lacking

7. Regulatory Policy under Christie Executive Orders #1, #2, #3 and #4.

a) Role of the Executive Branch

b) consistency with Legislative intent 

c) conformance with enabling statutory decisions rules; and 

d) “regulatory relief” policy: balancing compliance costs and adverse public health and environmental impacts .

8. Science Advisory Board (SAB)

a) Role – examples of mission creep into policy and regulation, which is prohibited under the prior DEP Commissioner’s Order that created the SAB

b) Membership

c) conflicts of interest

d) Bias

e) lack of Legislative authorization

f) transparency and public participation

g) scientific integrity and peer review

9. Enforcement policy:

a) staff, budget, inspections (by program area)

b) violations

c) penalties assessed

d) penalties collected

e) referrals to the Attorney General’s Office

f) contested cases pending at OAL

10. Site remediation

a) Status of Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRP) Program

b) # cases

c) # audits

d) # cleanups – permanent unrestricted use versus engineering and institutional controls

e) community involvement and transparency

f) Natural Resource Damages collected and mitigation 

But Media Print the Press Releases and Miss the Story (Again)

NJ’s $229 million share of the $60 billion Congressional Sandy bailout appropriated for water infrastructure got a lot of media play and press releases this week (e.g. see:  

• Feds to give N.J. $229 million to strengthen Sandy-damaged water and sewage plants
•  N.J. to get $229M from EPA for post-Sandy water upgrades
•  Lautenberg, Menendez Announce $229 Million in Sandy Aid to Rebuild and Strengthen NJ Water Infrastructure

So I want to take a moment to make a few important points that were ignored in that coverage (readers: please hit the links in this post, there’s a lot of meat there).

First, while Gov. Christie and DEP have issued scores of press releases and done many PR events about  Sandy recovery and NJ’s receipt of federal aid, both were curiously silent about this particular $229 million tranch of federal money.

Where was the Gov.? Where was DEP Commissioner Martin?

They don’t want to talk about clean water?

They don’t want to take credit for getting federal money?

Why is that?

Answer: Because they are highly vulnerable.

EPA’s Region 2 Administrator Judy Enck revealed why, i.e. these are not new problems, they were well known and existed long before Sandy hit, but were ignored:

As of now, a project vying for the money must have been affected by Hurricane Sandy, and it must propose fixes that would allow it to withstand future disasters. That includes upgrades such as submersible pumps, backup power sources and barriers to prevent flooding, [EPA Regional Administrator] Enck said.

“As of now”? What? Is that some variant of Obama’s “look forward, not backward”?

Did the world begin anew after Sandy? Is this all down the memory whole via the dismissive phrase “As of now”?

Even the most cursory probe or investigative journalism would reveal that:

1) NJ DEP ignored multiple warnings and performed miserably in preparing for and preventing the severe water infrastructure problems we experienced during Superstorm Sandy;

2) existing DEP emergency planning regulations and permits are weak and unenforceable;

 NJ DEP NJPDES regulations (@ NJAC 7:14A-6.12) specify limited emergency planning provisions for certain wastewater treatment facilities, including back up power provision. These are not mandatory enforceable permit conditions and DEP has lax oversight of these important functions.

NJ DEP Water Supply Planning regulations (@ NJAC 7:10-2.3 Plan for provision of potable water in emergencies) task NJ DEP with the responsibility to develop emergency plans for public water supply systems across the state.

On January 24, 2013, DEP denied my OPRA request for these emergency plans that are mandated by DEP’s own regulations.

3) there are no new DEP plans, regulations, enforcement initiatives, or funds for preventing the same problems from occurring – in fact, DEP has effectively deregulated Sandy infrastructure rebuilding;

4) aside from Sandy damage and vulnerability, there are HUGE multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficits and a complete lack of asset management that DEP and BPU are sweeping under the rug; and

5) Failures can be directly tied back to Governor Christie’s policies and Executive Orders!

The second major issue ignored by media and environmental critics  is that President Obama CUT the clean water State Revolving Fund by $447 million.

Those cuts are reflected in the Christie FY’14 budget.

As I wrote:

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight was the only media to put the story in context (i.e. to mention huge infrastructure deficits) and to include criticism from environmentalists – but even Tom did not mention the Obama cuts or the DEP performance issues (see:  Number of the Day – $229 Million)

When a plane crashes, it’s page one news and we spare no resources to conduct detailed investigations to learn why and take steps to fix the problem and prevent a recurrence of whatever failed.

But water and sewer plants fail and we don’t care?

We can live without a plane for a week – try living without water for that long.

Do Below Normal Stream Flows and Unusual Weather Pattern Portend Drought?

Just Like Sandy, State Unprepared- Water Supply Plan Decades Old

Where is the DEP Water Supply Master Plan Update?

Hit links below for data (Source USGS - h/t Todd Bates

Todd Bates of the Asbury Park Press, posted some interesting data and maps on his “EnviroGuy” blog:

New Jersey’s dry spell has led to below-normal stream flows in most of the state, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

In part of North Jersey, stream flows are equivalent to what happens during a moderate drought, according to a USGS map.

And it looks like it will remain dry through Monday, at least in Neptune, according to the National Weather Service.

Check out these maps:

[Note: the DEP drought monitoring indices rate stream flow and groundwater as “extremely dry” – but curiously, the declared drought status is “normal”]

The stream flow data reflects an unusual weather pattern, written about by Stephen Stirling the “Weather Guy” at NJ.com – This is the same “blocking pattern” that brought Superstorm Sandy, another example of extreme weather:

see:  Same type of weather pattern that brought N.J. Sandy will produce beautiful conditions across state this week

A blocking weather pattern has set itself up over the continental United States and New Jersey is in the sweet spot. A blocking weather pattern centers around a ridge of high pressure that locks itself in place, slowing and redirecting the typical train of storm systems across the country.

Some scientists  – including at NOAA – suggest that the unusual “blocking pattern” is linked to climate change and related to melting of arctic sea ice and is another driver of “extreme weather”.

If that “blocking pattern” lasts for awhile, NJ could be slipping into an early drought cycle – a spring drought would create deficits going into a potentially dangerous dry summer, more of NJ’s cycle of “lurching from drought to flood”.

If an extended dry period were to occur, NJ is unprepared for drought.

The legally mandated update of the Water Supply Master Plan is many years over-due and nowhere in sight. DEP has been promising to update the plan for years, with no action and no accountability for lack of action.

Curiously, the public members of NJ’s Water Supply Advisory Council are totally silent in calling for DEP to act, a disturbing sign of abdication of their public responsibility .

As we wrote, these are highly significant issues for NJ:

Since the last Plan Update in 1996, there have been major changes on the ground that effect water supply management:

• water demand has soared due to population increase, more McMansion residential lawn watering, swimming pools, and golf course and agricultural irrigation;
• water supply has been reduced due to landscape changes, higher temperatures, less rainfall, less groundwater recharge, and higher pollution levels that eliminate summer river flows in the Passaic, Pompton, Hackensack, and Raritan rivers for water supply purposes;
• An aging infrastructure has gotten older and leakier – a multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit has gone unfunded;
• over 300,000 acres of forests, wetlands, and farmlands have been lost to development, which significantly modifies the hydrological cycle;
• The ecological effects of diminished stream/river flows; loss of wetlands, riparian buffers, and vernal pools; and declining groundwater levels have become pronounced;
• The Highlands Master Plan process documented significant deficits in many watersheds;
• new science on water quality and unregulated pollutants has documented increasing public health and ecological risks; and
• global warming is increasing temperatures and changing rainfall, snowfall, and spring snowmelt patterns, thus altering fundamental hydrology and creating new demand and stressors.

So, if the dry pattern continues, will that wake DEP and the WSAC members up?

To issue that wake up call, we will repost some of the huge issues involved (don’t bother hitting the links to the outdated 1996 Water Supply Plan, DEP took down those documents to cover their tracks!)