WolfeNotes.com

Assembly Committee Focused on Subsidies To Gas Stations, Not Drinking Water

At the height of the storm, 94 wastewater treatment systems suffered failures or disruptions, …

The vast majority of New Jersey’s community water supply systems were impacted: 427 of 604 community water systems experienced power loss during the event. As a direct result of the service interruptions, 362,334 New Jersey residents were placed under a boil water advisory. ~~~ Gov. Christie’s Sandy Recovery Action Plan 3/12/13

The Assembly Homeland Security and State Preparedness Committee met today.

Getting ahead of myself for a moment, normally, very few bills released from Committee’s get any attention from the media – but amazingly, today this Committee got not one, but two news stories, both of which miss the most important issue: see:

• N.J. Assembly committee approves bill to help gas stations install generators and
• Bill allowing towns to use surplus snow removal funds for debris removal clears committee (a bill Dems should have used to illustrate the folly of Gov. Christie 2% cap, but didn’t)

[and the wrongheaded, cosmetic, and ineffective bill (A3928) about reservoir lowering to prevent flooding got no press coverage, but did have the Chair waiting and searching the halls for Jeff Tittel. Jeff forgot to mention the Christie/Martin stunt on this, to create a false appearance of preventive steps prior to Sandy landfall.]

But, lets get back to my story.

Frankly, I never heard of this Committee despite the fact that they have oversight and jurisdiction over State Hazard planning and preparation, an issue I’ve been working on for some time.

This morning I noted that the Committee’s agenda included bills related to Sandy, so I thought I’d show up and try to brief the Committee on issues I’ve been trying to get some focus on.

One would think that the Democratic Legislature would be looking for issues to engage the Governor on, particularly in the wake of last week’s AshBritt oversight hearing and a day after the release of the Governor’s $1.8 billion Sandy Recovery Plan, for which the Committee has oversight.

During his opening remarks at last week’s AshBritt hearing, Senate Chairman Gordon stated that he was interested in reforming state hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness planning.

Picking up on Senator Gordon’s lead, I signed up testify on a bill, A3625. That bill would require  emergency operations plans in certain senior occupied buildings:

to prepare for any possible loss of essential services, such as adequate heat, water, hot water, electricity, gas, or telephone service, and any other substantial disruption to daily living that could result during an emergency.

Sandy knocked out power, and seniors were trapped in high rise buildings that lost elevators.

I figured I’d explain to the Committee that the bill was very similar to the problems experienced by water and sewer plants that lost power and lacked emergency plans and adequate back up power systems.

I was wrong –

Although the Committee had time for testimony and questions about Gov. Christie’s Proclamation of March as “Red Cross Month”, Chairwoman Quiajano wanted to hear nothing about all that and took the unusual move to exercise the power of the chair to shut me down immediately as testifying “off the bill”.

I have no patience for such narrow minded petulant exercises of raw political power, which prompted me firing off this letter, something an access driven lobbyist would never do:

Chairwoman Quijano:

Respectfully, despite begging the Committee’s indulgence and explaining the nature of unique and exigent circumstances, it was unfortunate that I was not allowed to bring the following issues to your attention that warrant the Committee’s oversight.

I’ve been testifying on legislation for over 25 years, and that was the first time I can recall being asked to stand down while attempting to deliver important testimony.

Below is what I was trying to bring to your attention in the context of A3625, regarding very similar problems that the bill seeks to address regarding critical failures due to lack of emergency preparedness and back up power systems:

1. The Assembly Homeland Security and State PreparednessCommittee is the Committee of jurisdiction over state emergency preparedness planning.

2. The Governor’s Sandy Recovery “Action Plan” was released yesterday directly relates to State Preparedness subject matter and important policy considerations under the jurisdiction of the Committee.

There is a limited 7 day public review and comment period on the Governor’s Action Plan which ends on March 19 . There have been no legislative oversight or public hearings on that plan.

3.  For the first time in a public document, the Governor’s Action plan documents that there was massive failures at wastewater treatment and water supply infrastructure across the state due to lack of preparedness planning:

“At the height of the storm, 94 wastewater treatment systems suffered failures or disruptions, including inadequate treatment, broken sewer mains, and other operational issues. The loss of electrical power rendered many water systems unable to maintain service. Even at plants where backup generation was available, the disruption of the petroleum production and delivery system caused generator fuel supplies to be limited.

The vast majority of New Jersey’s community water supply systems were impacted: 427 of 604 community water systems experienced power loss during the event. As a direct result of the service interruptions, 362,334 New Jersey residents were placed under a boil water advisory. One month after Superstorm Sandy made landfall, eight drinking water systems in Ocean County, serving approximately 10,000 households, were still subject to a boil water advisory. “

Those were largely preventable and are completely unacceptable conditions that must never be allowed to occur again.

However, the Governor’s Action plan does not propose any funding or outline and reforms to address these critical failures.

4.  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.

5. 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.

Christie Plan Lacks Funding for Buyouts and Restrictions in High Hazard Locations 

No Recognition of Vulnerability Due to Climate Change and Risks of Sea Level Rise

Weasel Words, Loopholes, and Unfunded Aspirational Rhetoric

 Plan fails to leverage federal money to secure policy “beyond regulatory compliance”

The program is expected to help 6,000 homeowners, but it’s first come, first served.

The program came as a surprise to some residents Tuesday night, many of whom have been confused and overwhelmed by the maze of programs and agencies offering help and the daunting task of rebuilding quickly. Record, 3/13/13

[Important update below]

Governor Christie released NJ’s Sandy Recovery Plan yesterday, proposing uses of the first $1.828 billion of the $60 billion in federal disaster relief funds appropriated by Congress (to read the plan, hit this link).

As we expected and due to limitations in the federal HUD block grant programming requirements, the Governor’s Plan is driven by “Rebuild Madness” – rebuilding and economic development are its exclusive focus, with literally no consideration of climate change, sea level rise, extreme weather events, natural resources, land use planning, or coastal vulnerability.

There are no public hearings on the Governor’s Plan and the public has just 7 days to review and comment on the plan under federal HUD regulations. Comments may be submitted until 5pm on March 19, 2013 via email to Sandy.Recovery@dca.state.nj.us

We will be doing a more in depth review, but for now, let me just make a few brief points, mostly about what the Governor’s plan does not include.

1. There is virtually no public involvement or legislative oversight

The Governor claims that he developed the plan with “stakeholder” involvement:

The proposed Action Plan incorporates input from Sandy-impacted communities and stakeholder groups whose engagement will continue throughout the State’s recovery, rebuilding and restoration process.

Will all those stakeholders out there please raise your hands?

Senator Beck (R-Monmouth) publicly stated several times that she was meeting with the Governor and his Rebuild Czar on developing the plan, but I must have missed the legislative hearings on the Governor’s plan.

2. There is no planning in the “Plan”

Although HUD regulations target the most impacted counties and eligible uses of funds, States have broad discretion in how they propose to spend the money.

The Governor’s Action Plan is critical, because it lays out NJ’s framework, goals, objectives and recommendations for “long term recovery “.

The Governor is proposing to retain unilateral executive branch control of this planning process, with no legal or policy framework, legislative oversight, or structured planning process:

The State, through DCA and in coordination with the Governor’s Office of Recovery and Rebuilding and relevant State departments, will coordinate planning activities with communities statewide to ensure that the long-term planning process benefits New Jersey citizens and meets HUD CDBG-DR objectives.

The Governor’s long term recovery plan does not even mention the natural resources of the coastal zone – there are two content free sentences that mention the huge set of issues involving coastal hazards, natural resources, and adaptation planning:

… the State will undertake and promote hazard mitigation techniques and programs and seek to utilize green technologies and practices where doing so is feasible and cost effective.

.. efforts will be made to balance the need to preserve open space and promote sustainable communities.

Aside from allocating no money to support these objectives and the fact that they conflict with the rest of the plan, just what the hell does that mean?

The Governor’s unilateral “plan” is foreclosing options and determining the future of the shore.

That is one of the best reasons for the Legislature to create a Coastal Commission to replace this federal funds fueled Rebuild Madness.

3. There are no priorities in the “Plan”

The money is allocated under the NJ plan on a “first come, first served” basis, within the 9 most impacted counties targeted by HUD. That is the antithesis of planning.

Planning requires establishment of goals, objectives, and priorities and a geographic expression of policy.

The Governor has set no priorities, or risk based methods, or geographic targeting, or a planning process to assure the most effective use of funds for recovery and rebuilding and long term economic and ecological health of the shore region.

Section 3 outlines disaster relief and long-term recovery activities, focusing on the reconstruction and rehabilitation of primary residences and rental properties, assisting small businesses and promoting economic revitalization, and restoring critical infrastructure. Within each area, the State will focus on meeting the needs of low and moderate income populations and the most impacted counties as identified by HUD.

The geographic targeting implicit in the plan is based solely on the severity of damage to a structure, not whether the structure is highly vulnerable, located in a hazardous zone, or has suffered repeat flooding events.

All we see are vague assertions, like this:

Per HUD guidance (FR-5696-N-01), New Jersey’s Action Plan must account for and address sea level rise. New Jersey will incorporate, where applicable, appropriate mitigation measures and floodplain management throughout proposed programs. 

Or huge loopholes, like this:

No funds will be used for activities in areas delineated as a Special Flood Hazard Area in FEMA’s most current flood advisory maps unless it also ensures that the action is designed or modified to minimize harm to, or within, the floodplain. 

Or absolute bullshit like this:

Citizen participation is an essential component of the State’s planning effort. The State strongly encourages public participation to identify community needs. Citizens and other stakeholders are given an opportunity for reasonable and timely access to information and comment period relating to the Action Plan, any ensuing substantial amendments

The State has been in constant communication with its residents, local leaders, and other stakeholders since prior to Superstorm Sandy’s landfall. This continuous outreach has helped identify the needs and priorities of the many communities affect

4. There are no performance metrics in the Plan

HUD regulations require that States include metrics to evaluate the performance of expenditure of federal funds. The Christie plan fails to do that – despite, Mr. Metrics over at NJ DEP:

• Recreate NY Smart Home Buyout Program – $171 million:

•  Certain areas are at high risk for repeated flooding, causing damage to homes and risking the lives of residents and emergency responders. To reduce those risks and provide residents with an opportunity to leave their properties, New York State will offer voluntary Buyouts for homes that were:
• substantially damaged inside the 500-year flood plain, or
• located within designated buyout areas where damage occurred and where property may be susceptible to future damage due to sea level rise and other factors. These enhanced buyout areas will be selected in consultation with county and local government officials.
• In very high risk areas, there will be a prohibition on rebuilding and these areas will be used as buffer zones. Under the States proposal, and subject to approval by HUD, re-development of property outside of the100-year floodplain that is acquired through a buyout would be permitted, so long as the new structure is built to mitigate future flood impact. Homeowners will be notified if they are eligible for a buyout after HUD has approved this plan.

Homeowners eligible for a buyout will receive the full pre-storm fair market value for their home up to the FHA loan limit. An incentive of up to 5% will also be offered to families that relocate within their home county or borough.

INFRASTRUCTURE BANK

New York State will create a dedicated infrastructure bank to help coordinate infrastructure development and investment across the disaster region. An initial capitalization of $20 million from the first allocation of CDBG-DR funds will be combined with State funds and committed to financing eligible infrastructure projects that apply for assistance through the Bank. The Bank will benefit New York by introducing a centralized approach to infrastructure related decision making rather than a project-by-project, agency specific process. The focus of the Bank’s investments will be on projects that increase the resiliency of the area’s infrastructure to withstand future threats or provide redundancy of critical systems. It is expected that the Bank will be funded with up to $200 million dollars through subsequent allocation rounds or such other amount to be jointly determined with HUD.

The Bank will take several steps to carry out these goals, including developing a system for prioritizing infrastructure projects and initiatives, providing a centralized approach to the State’s infrastructure planning process, managing State recovery funds for infrastructure and other sources of capital, negotiating opportunities for private sector investment in infrastructure and financing approved projects. The planning processes and expertise of the New York Works Task Force will be embedded into the Bank’s functions.

The Bank may make use of funds from several sources, including federally allocated recovery funds, diverted or created revenue, proceeds from the sale of long-term debt and credit enhancements with other state entities. In addition, the Bank will work with both public and private investors to raise funds to finance infrastructure developments. An advantage that the Bank will have is the ability to combine several sources of funds (e.g., Federal funds with private funds) to finance projects as effectively as possible. The Bank will showcase potential projects to engage the private sector in opportunities for investment in infrastructure.

COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTION ZONES PROGRAM

New York State will establish the Community Reconstruction Zone (CRZ) program to facilitate community-driven planning to rebuild and revitalize severely damaged communities. The State anticipates allocating approximately $25 million from this first allocation to provide planning grants to communities that suffered community-wide impacts. Later allocations will be used to implement final CRZ plans. The planning grants will facilitate the retention of outside experts as consultants to a participating community’s planning committee, as well as the completion of critical studies to determine the key vulnerabilities and needs of the community. The State will provide information and guidance to the committees to assist them in identifying and using such outside resources effectively and efficiently. It is anticipated that the CRZ program will be funded up to $500 million or such amount to be jointly determined with HUD.

RESILIENCE RETROFIT FUND FOR CRITICAL FACILITIES

Energy-related mitigation is critical for essential services facilities including, in particular, hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities for vulnerable populations. Many essential services facilities did not have backup power systems or had ineffective backup systems that failed during the storm. As a result of this, numerous facilities had to evacuate patients which posed a greater risk to those patients than allowing them to remain in place during the storm.

To address this critical need, New York State will establish the Resilience and Retrofit Fund. The State anticipates allocating approximately $30 million from this first allocation of CDBG-DR funding to provide credit enhancement or leverage for private-sector financing of energy-related mitigation projects.

[Update #1- A friend just sent me a note with an excerpt of the following provisions of the Plan. They are a perfect illustration of how well meaning people can be duped by unfunded aspirational rhetoric, weasel words and loopholes. The plan is full of them: (emphases mine)

Reconstruction Standard: When applicable, replacement and new construction

will meet the 2009 Residential International Code and the green building standards

by requiring compliance with ENERGY STAR™.

Rehabilitation Standard: When applicable, the programs will adhere to the

following housing rehabilitation standards:

 The State of New Jersey’s Uniform Construction Code

 The Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Standard provided by the program

 The HUD CPD Green Building Retrofit checklist

All reconstruction, new construction and rehabilitation must be designed to

incorporate principles of sustainability, including water and energy efficiency,

resilience, and mitigating the impact of future disasters.

Obviously, the “when applicable” is determinative, because the standards in question are voluntary, e.g. “not applicable”. This is meaningless and manipulative bullshit.

Equally, the “principles” of sustainability, including water and energy efficiency, resilience, and mitigating the impact of future disasters are so vague as to be impossible to operationalize and implement. Again, weasel words.

Had I drafted this Plan, here’s how it would have read:

“In implementing the energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals of the NJ Global Warming Response Act, the State shall subject all federally funded projects to the following building standards: 

And backed those standards and program up with real money.

This plan fails to leverage the federal money to expand the scope of and secure “beyond regulatory compliance”.

[Update #2 – I am under no illusions on NY’s Plan, which is based on education and also is cost-effective voluntary initiatives:

As part of this effort, the Statewillcreate the Smart Rebuild NYS public awareness and educational campaign to provide homeowners, businesses, municipalities, organizations and building professionals with quality up-to-date information and instruction to facilitate the rebuilding of homes and properties and protect them from future extreme weather events and climate change. This multi-faceted outreach campaign will inform the public on how best to rebuild to protect homes and properties. The campaign will provide guidance onmandatory code requirements as well as cost-effective voluntary initiatives that go beyond the minimum code requirements to save homeowners money and better protect them from future natural disasters.

It’s Groundhog Day at the Jersey Shore

Still Crazy After All These Years

My opinion is to think regional, and think big. … Clearing the barrier island of people will never be realized even if a major storm did 100 million dollars in damage each and every year.  ~~~ Dr. Stewart C. Farrell, Stockton State College (1980)

So, catching up to that huge increase in scientific knowledge I cited previously, let’s fast forward 32 years to November 5, 2012, where that paper of record, the NY Times informs us: ( see: Costs of Shoring Up Coastal Communities)

But even as these towns clamor for sand, scientists are warning that rising seas will make maintaining artificial beaches prohibitively expensive or simply impossible. Even some advocates of artificial beach nourishment now urge new approaches to the issue, especially in New Jersey.

The practice has long been controversial.

Opponents of beach nourishment argue that undeveloped beaches deal well with storms. Their sands shift; barrier islands may even migrate toward the mainland. But the beach itself survives, because buildings and roads do not pin it down.

By contrast, replenishment projects often wash away far sooner than expected. The critics say the best answer to coastal storms is to move people and buildings away from the water, a tactic some call strategic retreat.

Supporters of these projects counter that beaches are infrastructure — just like roads, bridges and sewer systems — that must be maintained. They say beaches attract tourists and summer residents, conferring immense economic benefits that more than outweigh the costs of the projects. Also, they argue, these beaches absorb storm energy, sparing buildings inland.

New Jersey has embraced this approach with gusto. Stewart C. Farrell, a professor of marine geology at Stockton College of New Jersey, said that since 1985 80 million cubic yards of sand had been applied on 54 of the state’s 97 miles of developed coastline: a truckload of sand for every foot of beach. […]

But as the climate warms, sea levels are rising and bad storms may come more frequently. And New Jersey is particularly vulnerable because of tectonic forces and changes in ocean currents. …

“We cannot sustain the shoreline in the future as we have in the past,” said Mr. Williams, of the Geological Survey. “Particularly from a beach nourishment standpoint.”

Right.

Not One Word on Climate Change, Environment, Renewable Energy, Coastal Planning, Open Space, or Parks

Doubles Down on “Rebuild Madness” –  “at maximum speed” – “regardless of federal timelines”

Instead, Christie champions austerity, dismantling of government, and corporate welfare

 NJ has become a place where Facebook’s Zuckerberg, Opra, MTV, and Snooki drive policy

I feel compelled to offer a few words on Gov. Christie’s budget speech (full text here, for those who can stomach it)

The headline above pretty much sums up the lowlights, and for an expansion of that, read Tom Johnson’s article over at NJ Spotlight, see:

 Christie’s Spending-Plan Priorities Have ‘Green’ Community Seeing Red – Governor pays little attention to environmental issues while again tapping into clean-energy fund to help balance budget

Tom hits the nail on the head and adds important information not in the Gov.’s speech, but in his proposed budget, most disturbingly this:

… there was not a word about what the state will do to combat climate change, only four months after the worst storm in 100 years devastated wide sections of the state’s coast.

Christie’s proposed budget once again raids a ratepayer-financed fund of $152 million used to promote energy efficiency and cleaner ways of producing electricity, steps clean-energy advocates say are vital to achieving the state’s aggressive goals to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Not that the move was unexpected. Since taking office, Christie already has tapped New Jersey’s clean-energy funds for more than $680 million, steps approved by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, to plug holes in the state budget.

This is astonishing and remarkably irresponsible – and actually a far worse policy than the far right wing climate change deniers.

The radical climate deniers are blocking progress – that’s bad enough, but Christie is dismantling existing effective programs. 

Christie would steal $832 million in clean energy money – in part to pay for $1.57 BILLION in tax subsidies to corporations, like Goldman Sachs.

That’s intolerable and the Democrats simply must restore those clean energy funds in the final budget they vote for.

There were a few other aspects of the speech that I thought hit new lows:

• With former Gov.’s Byrne, Florio, and DeFrancesco present and staring him right in the face, he called them liars:

Those who were supposed to be responsible for controlling taxes and spending before we came to office fundamentally deceived the people of our state. They said yes to everything — yes to higher taxes. Yes to more spending. We must not return to that era of recklessness and deceit.

Gov. Byrne’s a fighting Irishman, but a little over the hill to take on our morbidly obese Governor.

But Jim Florio was a boxer in the Navy, still looks fit, and one would assume he’d like to kick Christie’ ass for that disgraceful smear.

• Christie learned absolutely nothing and is repeating mistakes of the past. Instead, he doubled down on Sandy “Rebuild Madness”

The Governor’s remarks here are quite disturbing – I highlight the troubling text in boldface, and will break down their meaning for policy:

I want to make sure we can move ahead quickly, and without endangering resources for other key priorities.

So today, I am proposing the establishment of a $40 million Sandy contingency fund for those expenses not reimbursed by the federal government. This will ensure that we can move ahead with maximum speed, and that those things that fall through the cracks do not bankrupt families, businesses or local governments.

This will allow us to get small businesses back on their feet, without delay.

It will allow us to continue to make progress on restoring key roads and infrastructure, regardless of federal timelines.

It will help us rebuild the shore. I grew up going to the shore every summer, and I still do. It is the heart of New Jersey. It still beats strong, in every one of us.

The shore will come back — as I’ve said, it will come back stronger than ever. And I will tell you this: I expect to go the Jersey Shore every summer for the rest of my life, including this summer of 2013.

Here’s why those statements are so disturbing:

1. The rush to rebuild is driving out any policy discussion of climate change and planning for adaptation and coastal “resilience”. This cries out for legislative and public oversight BEFORE these decisions are made.

2. The Gov. is proposing to use state and federal relief money for GRANTS to business, presumably including lost profits. This is totally unacceptable when thousands of people are homeless, living in hotels, and critical natural resources are not restored. This cries out for legislative and public oversight BEFORE these decisions are made.

3. “Small business” is not defined – there are no policies, plans, or oversight of how “small business” assistance will actually be implemented. This cries out for legislative and public oversight BEFORE these decisions are made.

4. Christie’s policy of rebuild “at maximum speed” “regardless of federal timelines” is inconsistent with federal policy and may even violate federal regulations, thereby jeopardizing allocation of and timely and full receipt of federal money.

[Update 2/28/13 – Gov. Christie’s warning about risks of not qualifying for full FEMA reimbursements is exactly the risk the Gov. is taking by pursuing “Rebuild Madness”. I was at this Union Beach press conference where today’s APP quotes the Gov.:

“The risk is, as I said at the time, if you don’t use one of these companies who are experienced with dealing with FEMA paperwork and the FEMA bureaucracy, that if you don’t make your request right, you’re not going to get reimbursed,” Christie said.

This all cries out for legislative and public oversight BEFORE these decisions are made.

• The continuing attacks on government are a disgrace

The Governor continued his ideological attack on government – he used the word “government” 20 times, perhaps his most frequently used word – and it was all attack, all the time:

Aside from the deep contradiction in the fact that the Governor’s favorable public opinion polls are driven – exclusively – by his use of government in responding to Sandy, there’s a much deeper and disturbing thing going on.

Christie didn’t talk about and may have rhetorically backed away from his controversial and unpopular privatization or deregulation policies. But he is quietly implementing those policies (e.g. see Christie Executive Orders on both, EO #2 on “regulatory relief” and EO # 17 on privatization.

There is loads of evidence that the Governor’s policies undermined the capacity of State government to prevent, plan for, and respond to Sandy, a storm that scientists and DEP experts had warned about for years, see:

• Critics: Christie Deep-Sixed Climate Change Prep
• Hurricane Sandy Damage Amplified By Breakneck Development Of Coast
• Leadership Matters – How DEP Buried Report on Coastal Storm Risks
• Catastrophic Failures and Catastrophic Fools 
• The Deafness Before the Storm
• A Dirge To McHarg and Mumford – Who Are Rolling Over in Their Graves 
• Christie Administration Outsources Climate Change Adaptation Planning – Monmouth County Pipeline Collapse Illustrates Vulnerability

This should be a huge scandal and prompt investigative media and legislative oversight.

But the Gov. has been given a pass on all that.

Even the scandal that was reported – the AshBritt politically connected no bid $100 million contract – has failed to note the fact that Gov. Christie was forced to rely on political connections to manage storm response because he reduced the priority of and dismantled States programs to plan and prepare for storm events.

Similarly, Christie has rhetorically backed away from his discredited “job killing red tape” attacks under Executive Order #3, but the policy fallout continues.

And in addition to all that, under Gov. Christie, NJ has become a place where Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Oprah fund and drive education policy, not government.

Where MTV and Snooki fund and drive coastal protection policy, not government.

We are a national joke.

[End Note: why does no one call BS on the fact that this statement is internally contradictory: how can both Christie assertions be true at the same time: 1) The Affordable Care Act is bad for NJ; 2) I sign up for and accept ACA funding and base judgments based on what is best for NJ?

NY Times story:

“Let me be clear: I am no fan of the Affordable Care Act,” the governor said. “I think it is wrong for New Jersey and for America. I fought against it and believe, in the long run, it will not achieve what it promises. However, it is now the law of the land. I will make all my judgments as governor based on what is best for New Jerseyans.”

Why Are Governor Christie and DEP Ignoring Their Responsibilities?

Why Are Legislators and Media Giving Them A Pass on All That?

Here’s What the Public Needs to Know

One of the objectives of this blog is to provide information to empower the public and hold government officials accountable.

So, because there is a virtual blackout out in media and government circles (and muted private conversations and feel good measures in some environmental group circles), I figured I’d post today on what the federal policy framework says we should be doing in response to Sandy (a particularly important issue, because the feds are providing billions of dollars in taxpayer money, so obviously they want it spent in accordance with federal policy).

This will be a long and in the weeds post that addresses:

• FEMA regulations
• President Obama’s Executive Order on Sandy Rebuild
• HUD Policy, Press Release, and Orders
• FEMA Climate Change Adaptation Policy

There seems to be a combination of misguided priorities, confusion, or lack or knowledge about that.

To respond effectively, I called for the formation of a Coastal Commission, outlined a response strategy, and severely criticized Governor Christie’s failure to learn any lessons from Sandy in terms of global warming or coastal land use planning. I have called Christie’s responses “Rebuild Madness”.

But Gov. Christie is not alone – many NJ Legislators, local officials, business groups, media, and residents either support the Christie agenda or simply are unaware of alternatives or what we should be doing.

Perhaps my harsh rhetoric has obscured the planning and policy issues at stake, or undermined my credibility.

So, I thought I’d lay out, in one place, a more detailed technical summary of what we should be doing –  here it is, so don’t say you don’t understand complex “red tape”:

1. Federal regulations set minimum standards and encourage States to be more stringent

The FEMA ABFE maps are under political attack and so is Gov. Christie’s move to adopt those maps under NJ law as DEP Emergency Regulations.

FEMA regulations explain that FEMA is the minimum standard and encourage states to be stricter.

NJ is highly vulnerable and should be going beyond federal minimums -but Gov. Christie strongly discourages going beyond federal minimums in his “regulatory relief” Executive Order #2.

Here’s the FEMA rule:

Subpart A—Requirements for Flood Plain Management Regulations

§60.1Purpose of subpart.

[(a) – (c)]

(d) The criteria set forth in this subpart are minimum standards for the adoption of flood plain management regulations by flood-prone, mudslide (i.e., mudflow)-prone and flood-related erosion-prone communities. Any community may exceed the minimum criteria under this part by adopting more comprehensive flood plain management regulations utilizing the standards such as contained in subpart C of this part. In some instances, community officials may have access to information or knowledge of conditions that require, particularly for human safety, higher standards than the minimum criteria set forth in subpart A of this part. Therefore, any flood plain management regulations adopted by a State or a community which are more restrictive than the criteria set forth in this part are encouraged and shall take precedence. (FEMA Regs)

2.  Federal regulations discourage infrastructure in flood prone locations

Federal regulations discourage infrastructure in flood prone locations.

But Gov. Christie’s DEP Commissioner Bob Martin issued an Administrative Order that deregulated the rebuilding of infrastructure – a reckless policy Professor Miller described thusly:

‘Hey, if you want to build it back the way it was, go for it, you don’t have to wait for us to approve that,’

Again, here are FEMA  regulations, which are impossible to implement under DEP Commissioner Martin’s Order that deregulates infrastructure rebuilding from DEP permit review:

(5) Require within flood-prone areas new and replacement water supply systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and

(6) Require within flood-prone areas (i) new and replacement sanitary sewage systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and (ii) onsite waste disposal systems to be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.

3. Federal Regulations Encourage Comprehensive Planning and Risk Reduction

Gov. Christie wants to “rebuild now!” and has opposed proposed legislation to establish a Coastal Commission to plan for the shore.

At the same time, DEP has been ordered to stand down, and has totally abdicated its lead State agency responsibilities for the critically important planning and regulatory work outlined below.

So, here’s 23 specific things what we should be doing on the planning and regulatory fronts at the State level (a State is defined as a “community” in FEMA regs):

§ 60.22Planning considerations for flood-prone areas.

(a) The flood plain management regulations adopted by a community for flood-prone areas should:

(1) Permit only that development of flood-prone areas which (i) is appropriate in light of the probability of flood damage and the need to reduce flood losses, (ii) is an acceptable social and economic use of the land in relation to the hazards involved, and (iii) does not increase the danger to human life;

(2) Prohibit nonessential or improper installation of public utilities and public facilities in flood-prone areas.

b) In formulating community development goals after the occurrence of a flood disaster, each community shall consider—

(1) Preservation of the flood-prone areas for open space purposes;

(2) Relocation of occupants away from flood-prone areas;

(3) Acquisition of land or land development rights for public purposes consistent with a policy of minimization of future property losses;

(4) Acquisition of frequently flood-damaged structures;

(c) In formulating community development goals and in adopting flood plain management regulations, each community shall consider at least the following factors—

(1) Human safety;

(2) Diversion of development to areas safe from flooding in light of the need to reduce flood damages and in light of the need to prevent environmentally incompatible flood plain use;

(3) Full disclosure to all prospective and interested parties (including but not limited to purchasers and renters) that (i) certain structures are located within flood-prone areas, (ii) variances have been granted for certain structures located within flood-prone areas, and (iii) premium rates applied to new structures built at elevations below the base flood substantially increase as the elevation decreases;

(4) Adverse effects of flood plain development on existing development;

(5) Encouragement of floodproofing to reduce flood damage;

(6) Flood warning and emergency preparedness plans;

(7) Provision for alternative vehicular access and escape routes when normal routes are blocked or destroyed by flooding;

(8) Establishment of minimum floodproofing and access requirements for schools, hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages, penal institutions, fire stations, police stations, communications centers, water and sewage pumping stations, and other public or quasi-public facilities already located in the flood-prone area, to enable them to withstand flood damage, and to facilitate emergency operations;

(9) Improvement of local drainage to control increased runoff that might increase the danger of flooding to other properties;

(10) Coordination of plans with neighboring community’s flood plain management programs;

(11) The requirement that all new construction and substantial improvements in areas subject to subsidence be elevated above the base flood level equal to expected subsidence for at least a ten year period;

(12) For riverine areas, requiring subdividers to furnish delineations for floodways before approving a subdivision;

(13) Prohibition of any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, except as part of an overall drainage basin plan. In the event of an overall drainage basin plan, provide that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse is maintained;

(14) Requirement of setbacks for new construction within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on a community’s FIRM;

(15) Requirement of additional elevation above the base flood level for all new construction and substantial improvements within Zones A1-30, AE, V1-30, and VE on the community’s FIRM to protect against such occurrences as wave wash and floating debris, to provide an added margin of safety against floods having a magnitude greater than the base flood, or to compensate for future urban development;

(16) Requirement of consistency between state, regional and local comprehensive plans and flood plain management programs;

(17) Requirement of pilings or columns rather than fill, for the elevation of structures within flood-prone areas, in order to maintain the storage capacity of the flood plain and to minimize the potential for negative impacts to sensitive ecological areas;

(18) Prohibition, within any floodway or coastal high hazard area, of plants or facilities in which hazardous substances are manufactured.

(19) Requirement that a plan for evacuating residents of all manufactured home parks or subdivisions located within flood prone areas be developed and filed with and approved by appropriate community emergency management authorities.

4. Federal regulations encourage states to prevent harms

Gov. Christie has not even mentioned directing development away from hazardous locations (strategic retreat), and opposes buyouts of flood prone properties, unless an entire community has reached a consensus.

That is totally inconsistent with federal policy.

§ 60.24 – Planning considerations for flood-related erosion-prone areas.

The planning process for communities identified under part 65 of this subchapter as containing Zone E or which indicate in their applications for flood insurance coverage pursuant to § 59.22 of this subchapter that they have flood-related erosion areas should include –

(a) The importance of directing future developments to areas not exposed to flood-related erosion;

(b) The possibility of reserving flood-related erosion-prone areas for open space purposes;

(c) The coordination of all planning for the flood-related erosion-prone areas with planning at the State and Regional levels, and with planning at the level of neighboring communities;

(d) Preventive action in E zones, including setbacks, shore protection works, relocating structures in the path of flood-related erosion, and community acquisition of flood-related erosion-prone properties for public purposes;

(e) Consistency of plans for flood-related erosion-prone areas with comprehensive plans at the state, regional and local levels.

5. Federal regulations encourage State leadership

Here is the State role under the federal framework – is Governor Christie and DEP doing any of this?

§ 60.25 – Designation, duties, and responsibilities of State Coordinating Agencies.

(a) States are encouraged to demonstrate a commitment to the minimum flood plain management criteria set forth in §§ 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5 as evidenced by the designation of an agency of State government to be responsible for coordinating the Program aspects of flood plain management in the State.

(b) State participation in furthering the objectives of this part shall include maintaining capability to perform the appropriate duties and responsibilities as follows:

(1) Enact, whenever necessary, legislation enabling counties and municipalities to regulate development within flood-prone areas;

(2) Encourage and assist communities in qualifying for participation in the Program;

(3) Guide and assist county and municipal public bodies and agencies in developing, implementing, and maintaining local flood plain management regulations;

(4) Provide local governments and the general public with Program information on the coordination of local activities with Federal and State requirements for managing flood-prone areas;

(5) Assist communities in disseminating information on minimum elevation requirements for development within flood-prone areas;

(6) Assist in the delineation of riverine and coastal flood-prone areas, whenever possible, and provide all relevant technical information to the Federal Insurance Administrator;

(7) Recommend priorities for Federal flood plain management activities in relation to the needs of county and municipal localities within the State;

(8) Provide notification to the Federal Insurance Administrator in the event of apparent irreconcilable differences between a community’s local flood plain management program and the minimum requirements of the Program;

(9) Establish minimum State flood plain management regulatory standards consistent with those established in this part and in conformance with other Federal and State environmental and water pollution standards for the prevention of pollution during periods of flooding;

(10) Assure coordination and consistency of flood plain management activities with other State, areawide, and local planning and enforcement agencies;

(11) Assist in the identification and implementation of flood hazard mitigation recommendations which are consistent with the minimum flood plain management criteria for the Program;

(12) Participate in flood plain management training opportunities and other flood hazard preparedness programs whenever practicable.

6. President Obama’s Executive Order Governs Federal Policy

On December 7, 2012, the President issued an Executive Order establishing the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force.

Among other provisions, the Executive Order directed the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to chair the Task Force and, to the extent permitted by law, align relevant programs and authorities with a long-term rebuilding plan that supports the region’s economic vitality, enhance infrastructure, and ensure appropriate accountability.    HUD Order (2/12/13) 

7. HUD is the new lead agency on disaster recovery 

HUD is taking the federal lead, instead of FEMA.

Why don’t we know any of this? Could it be because NJ’s new coverage follows Governor Christie’s press releases?

Maybe we don’t know this in NJ because NY State Governor Cuomo was once Secretary of HUD?

As a former HUD Secretary, Cuomo obviously has a huge advantage in securing discretionary funds from the Obama Administration.

Here is HUD’s interpretation of the Obama Executive Order

First, and most importantly, it will coordinate with all stakeholders to deliver cohesive, rebuilding strategies— creating a comprehensive regional plan within six months. We will gather and share the best practices of recovering communities, creating a vision for long-term rebuilding by State and local stakeholders—a vision that will be supported by more thoughtful planning and a focus on resilience and sustainability.

Second, it will reduce regulatory burdens and cut red tape.

Third, it will manage the flow of federal recovery funds and make sure that the resources the federal government provides are aligned with local priorities.

Fourth, we will monitor the progress and strengthen accountability measures. We know that at a moment like this, because Americans are anxious about the recovery, they have little patience for waste. The structure of the task force and the ability to monitor funds allow us to deliver this kind of accountability.

Finally, more than a checkbook, it will allow us to offer technical assistance and tools—providing critical support as those on the ground realize their vision for redevelopment and revitalization.  We will develop and track clear metrics to monitor and communicate progress, capture best practices and set standards for long-term disaster recovery.

This task force is not and cannot be simply federal oversight or mandate.  Rather, it must provide leadership and connections that actively support local visions. And with the expertise of virtually the entire cabinet represented, we are prepared to make those visions of this recovery a reality.  (HUD Press release (1/2/13)

8. Climate Change, Seal Level Rise, and Extreme Weather Must Be Considered

We repeatedly have written about and criticized Gov. Christie for climate change denial on influencing Sandy or considering it in planning for rebuild.

9. The federal law that appropriates $50+ billion requies a Plan from New Jersey

Here is language in the HUD appropriation:

“That as a condition of eligibility for receipt of such funds, a grantee shall submit a plan to the Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of such funds will address long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed area”

Why do we know virtually nothing about this?

Where is the Christie Plan?

Why is the Christie Plan not subject to Legislative oversight and public hearings?

NJ law requires a public hearing for things like converting a gas station to a coffee shop, building a deck on a home, or connections to a sewer line – are you telling me we get nothing – nothing – no public input on multi-billion dollar plans for the entire shore region?