WolfeNotes.com

Benchmarks to Evaluate the Governor’s Plan

According to today’s Bergen Record, Governor Christie will announce his post Sandy Rebuild standards and going forward plan today:  Christie to announce rebuilding standards in Seaside Heights.

He said on his monthly “Ask the Governor” radio show Wednesday night that he expected to release the state’s new rebuilding standards by the end of the week. Those standards, setting requirements for structures rebuilt after superstorm Sandy, are intended to give homeowners greater certainty when deciding whether or how to rebuild. New federal requirements will not be released for another 18 to 24 months, Christie said.

At his 100th town hall-style event in Stafford last week, he said he was crafting the new regulations himself.

“My goal is to try to give you the most aggressive protective standards I can give you,” he said in Stafford. “If they decide to lower them later on, then you’ll benefit from that in your flood insurance premiums because you’ll be built to a higher standard, the federal standard will be a little bit lower and then your flood insurance premiums will go down.”

He said he doesn’t want people rebuilding based on old standards because as the flood maps change, insurance premiums would go up.

So, in advance of those standards, I thought I’d lay out a few benchmarks to evaluate them:

I)  Climate change – Sea Level Rise, Storm Surge, Vulnerability/Adaptation – Need to Update State Flood Hazard Maps, both inland and Coastal

The Governor must acknowledge that climate change is real, man made, and played a role in Sandy (see: Critics: Christie Deep-Sixed Climate Change Prep).

According to Georgetown University Climate Center, NJ is the only northeastern state without a climate change adaptation plan – a serious deficiency noted in a recent federal Report:

Of the 12 states in the Northeast, 11 have developed adaptation plans for several sectors and have released, or plan to release, statewide adaptation plans (Georgetown Climate Center 2012). 

Will the press ask Gov. Christie about that??

FEMA’s recently proposed flood maps do not account for Sandy elevations or climate change impacts of sea level rise, storm surge, and increasing storm severity . Therefore, the Governor’s rebuild elevations and locations must consider these factors (see:  NEW JERSEY YET TO COME TO GRIPS WITH POST-SANDY FLOOD RISKS – Coastal Maps Do Not Account for Climate Change Effects; Inland Maps Decades Old

The Governor must pledge to take concrete actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, accelerate the transition to renewable power, and require vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning across state and local government. See:

• Christie Administration Outsources Climate Change Adaptation Planning 
• Leadership Matters – How DEP Buried Report on Coastal Storm Risks

II) Bans on Rebuilding in High Hazard Areas – Acquisition and “Strategic Retreat”

Rebuilding in certain low lying locations that were inundated by Sandy or otherwise certain to be washed out again must be restricted, if only to avoid repeat claims. A policy of gradual “strategic retreat” must be acknowledged as the way forward, not rebuild the mistakes of the past.

DEP’s 309 Coastal Hazard Assessment Reports have long explicitly recognized  that “strategic retreat” policy option- a finding and a policy that has changed under Gov. Christie – the most recent 309 Report excluded the “strategic retreat” concept. Here are the prior DEP findings that have been eliminated:

Titus demonstrates (link) that in certain instances, structural engineering solutions will not be practical or economically feasible. In these cases future public and private development and redevelopment must be directed away from the hazardous areas. While some derogatorily refer to this option as “retreat,” from the perspective of sound planning based on the best available science, the concept actually involves “strategic adjustment.” Prudent planning requires that we expand upon the existing studies of the societal, economic, and environmental costs of possible mitigative actions while the greatest number of alternatives exist.

[Read full 2006 DEP 309 Report]

III) Proposal to Eliminate the Right to Rebuild and Close CAFRA Loopholes

Current state law provides a right to rebuild and numerous loopholes, including CAFRA 24 unit jurisdiction. The Gov. must announce a legislative initiative to repeal the right to rebuild and reform these flawed laws in light of new science and Sandy experience.

IV) Former DEP Commissioner Mauriello Recommendations

Former DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello, a 30+ year coastal expert, announced a series of rebuild recommendations. See this for details: A Path Forward on the Shore

V)  President Obama Executive Order Policies

President Obama issued an Executive Order creating a Sandy rebuild Task Force and a set of policies to guide national reform efforts. See this for details:  Obama Executive Order on Sandy Provides Sharp Contrast With NJ Gov. Christie’s Response

VI) Governor Cuomo’s Policies and Programs

NY Governor Cuomo recently announced a set of state initiatives in his State of the State address. See this for details:  Stunning Contrast Between NY Gov. Cuomo and Christie State of State Addresses

VII) State Regulatory Teeth – No Reliance on Home Rule and Local Control

The Governor and DEP Commissioner Martin have said – numerous times – that rebuilding decisions must be made by private individuals, market forces, and local government policies. Both have denied a strong state role and DEP has deregulated both rebuilding of both public infrastructure and private development. Those policies and comments must be walked back.

Rebuilding must be guided by State regulatory mandates.

The DEP has outsourced adaptation planning to a private group and made the ssue a voluntary incentive based policy. DEP’s most recent 309 Assessment Report noted:

VIII) Financial Resources

The Gov. must open the doors on how federal and state rebuild money will be spent.

IX) Transparent Planning Process, not “Rebuild Czar”

The Gov. must provide a transparent and participatory planning process for making decisions that will affect the land use pattern and future of the shore.

The Governor’s “Rebuild Czar” lacks transparency, participation, and accountability – he must not be allowed to completely control decsion-making and policy (see:  NJ Gov. Christie Slams Door Shut on Coastal and Climate Change Reforms In Wake of Sandy – Appoints Corporate Crony As Czar to Oversee Redevelopment

X) Natural dunes and coastal processes – not engineering –  must be basis of planning and a top priority

The Governor has made numerous highly misleading statements alleging that “engineered” beaches protected coastal development.

The Gov. must distinguish the functions of natural dunes from beach replenishment.

Any rebuild plan must be based upon and “Design with Nature” see:  A Dirge To McHarg and Mumford – Who Are Rolling Over in Their Graves

Hurricane Irene brought a broad swath of very heavy rain (greater than five inches in total and 2 to 3 inches per hour in some locations), producing severe flooding from southern Maryland to northern Vermont from August 27 to 29, 2011. Satellite image shows Irene over the Northeast on August 28, 2012. The storm also took approximately 50 lives, and the economic cost was estimated to be approximately $15 8 billion (Avila and Cangliosi 2011; Avila and Stewart 2012). (Source: NASA Satellite Image)

• Hurricanes such as Irene and Sandy provided a “teachable moment” by demonstrating the  region’s vulnerability to extreme weather events and the efficacy of existing and evolving adaptation/response plans. ~~~ Northeast Assessment, Federal Advisory Committee Draft Climate Assessment Report – January 2013

• The “Frankenstorm” should be a teachable moment to show how “extreme weather” and lax regulations of greenhouse gas emissions and coastal over-development have put thousands of people and billions of dollars of property in harms way. … The storm should be a clarion call for finally addressing the rising global warming crisis. (Bill Wolfe, 10/26/12)

The Federal Advisory Commitee released a Draft Climate Assessment Report for public comment (the comment period closes April 12, 2013))

Here is a link to the webpage, which includes the Full Report (huge file).

Here is the Executive Summary and Here is the Northeast States. I excerpted some NJ stuff below:

Projected average increases in the number of days with a maximum temperature greater than 95°F between 2041-2070, compared to 1971-2000 assuming continued increases in global emissions (A2 scenario). (Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC. Data from CMIP3 Daily Multi-model Mean.)

Much of the southern portion of the region, including the majority of Maryland, and Delaware, and southwest West Virginia and New Jersey, are projected to experience more than 15  additional days per year above 95°F, which will impact the regions vulnerable populations infrastructure, and agriculture and ecosystems.

With News Coverage Like This ….

I can’t let three news stories today pass without comment, because they all get the story so remarkably wrong it’s actually hard to believe – exactly upside down backwards:

I)   Shore Towns did good planning to avoid harms from Sandy

Regular readers here know that I’ve been writing furiously about how failed coastal land use planning, over-development, and how local and state governments ignored multiple warnings about shore vulnerability all contributed to the devastation of Superstorm Sandy.

Well, you can forget all that folks, because today’s Bergen Record story – with embarrassing support from Jeff Tittel no less – just announced that the shore towns did a swell job in planning!:

Shore towns’ planning helped spare them Sandy’s worst

 

… Such measures and others taken by towns, agencies and businesses in the years preceding Sandy — including using discarded Christmas trees to bolster dunes — are being credited for speeding the recovery process from the October storm, which rocked the shoreline with storm surges and inland winds.

The initiatives lowered flooding levels and lessened damage, just as they were designed to do.

“One thing we know overall is that when towns protect the environment — whether they pass ordinances for stream buffers or limit development — that all comes to help those communities during storms,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “Environmental protections work.”

Yes, “environmental protection works” – but it was ignored by shore towns and DEP.

Shore towns have ignored repeated warnings on vulnerability, opposed sound local and regional planning and State land use regulation at every step, and over-developed the coast – to praise that irresponsible history is absurd.

For example, DEP recently did a pilot study with 3 shore towns and developed specific guidance on “Getting To Resilience”.  

Here it is (again) – and it’s right on point:

Full post – which identifies several other  ignored warnings:

II)    “Environmentalist” agrees with Dupont that EPA lacks authority to Order mercury cleanup

This Suburban Trends story on Dupont Pompton lakes RCRA permit mercury cleanup managed to get several issues flat out wrong – and has a so called “environmentalist” mouthing what could be a line from a Dupont lawyer:

Pompton Lakes residents want thorough lake cleanup

 

… In addition to the expanded cleanup, DuPont will be required to test for contamination outside of the Acid Brook Delta area of the Pompton Lake and perform long-term monitoring of the lake.

Ella Filippone, executive director of the Passaic River Coalition, said she was happy with the expansion but advised the EPA to include a provision in the permit to allow DuPont to clean any potential hotspots it may find under the existing permit.

“I don’t think that the permit as it is written now clearly directs DuPont or gives the EPA the authority to demand that hotspots be removed as soon as they are found. (If not) there’s going to be all of this additional discovery, and then there’s going to be a modification, public participation, and all the rest of those long drawn out things before the hotspots can be removed. If they are not removed right away, then they will migrate downstream so the contamination will continue to move. There will be continuous contamination only in areas downstream, which are our water supply areas. We all drink that water, so these are big issues that have to be addressed in this project,” said Filippone.

Where do I begin to correct all that? I’ll start in order of the claims in the quote:

1) Dupont lawyers – and Ella – may say that EPA lacks authority, but the fact of the matter is that EPA has tremendous enforcement authority – the problem is not lack of legal authority, but the political will at EPA to use it.

Besides, that “lack of authority” issue sounds an awful lot like the arguments made by GE in the Hudson River PCB cleanup or the corporate polluters in the Passaic River dioxin Superfund cleanup. Simply stunning to hear that from the “environmentalist” source.

2) Aside from the fact that it is absurd for an environmentalist to oppose “public notice: and “public participation” and “all the rest of those long drawn out things“, EPA is not required to do additional permit modification procedures to Order Dupont to do hotspot removal.  Dupont’s lawyers wouldn’t even argue that.

3) The drinking water threat is a false scare tactic bogeyman.

The contaminant of concern is mercury. The adverse impact of concern is ecological – bioaccumulation  – not water supply/drinking water risk.

If Ella is so concerned about drinking water, she should look at the DEP permits for those 80 or so industrial and sewage treatment plants that discharge tons (literally) of toxic chemicals to the Passaic and Pompton Rivers above drinking water intakes.

Or the failure of DEP to regulate over 500 chemicals DEP has found in water supplies.

Or the failure of DEP to adopt drinking water standards for dozens of chemicals recommended by the DWQI.

4)  The real problem with hot spot removal is the definition of “hot spot” –

In finalizing the Dupont RCRA permit and responding to comments, EPA agreed with Dupont and determined that the background mercury level in lake and river sediments is 0.5 ppm – Dupont can’t be required to remove any mercury below that level.

Did Ella attend or testify at the public hearing on the RCRA permit to raise any of these bogus issues so that EPA could respond to them?  No.

III)    It’s a “tragedy” NOT to build housing on top of old landfills in floodplains

This Star Ledger story is a real doosy:

Somerville may receive nearly $900K county grant for landfill redevelopment.

Building houses on an old landfill with toxic groundwater contamination in a floodplain – gee, what could go wrong?

Here’s the comment I submitted on that:

I get calls all the time from moms and dads hysterical that no one ever told them that their home was built on or near an old landfill.

They find out when the get a letter from a consultant asking to drill holes in the basement floor to measure toxic gas seeping into the house (google “vapor intrusion”).

Or maybe the sidewalks, foundation, floors, and walls crack after a few years in new construction.

Or maybe the air starts stinking so bad they have to close the windows, especially on damp or raining days. When they look into the problem, they find that some dirtbag landfill operator (maybe married to a DEP Deputy Commissioner?) just started taking construction debris and punctured the “cap”, releasing old toxic gas.

Or maybe their kids are sick all the time and have asthma and various respiratory symptoms and red eyes and runny noses.

Or their well is poisoned.

Or they can’t sell the home because the well test came up bad or the deed restriction for groundwater pollution scared away a buyer.

Or maybe they get flooded out and say no one ever told them they were located in a “flood prone area” and they don’t have flood insurance.

Or the nice guy who built the houses has changed corporate names and moved to Florida.

Does stuff like this ever happen to you or people you know, Mr. Driver?

Or Mr. Star Ledger reporer?

Have neither of you never heard these stories, which happen regularly across the state?

Maybe if we had a DEP that enforced environmental laws instead of promoting economic development, things might be different, no?

When reporters write these stories, do they even ask basic questions about similar experiences with building homes on old landfills that were never properly closed?

Do the reporters even read their own newspaper? My goodness, we just went through a major extreme weather flood event – and Fennimore landfill is still smoking right up in Roxbury.

Ask the people in Roxbury that live near the Fennimore landfill what its like when an old landfill gets “redeveloped”:

Four days after it closed, Fenimore Landfill in Roxbury reopens

Cuomo Promises Action on Climate Change – Christie in Complete Denial

First thing we have to learn is to accept the fact – and I believe it is a fact – that climate change is real. ~~~ NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo State of the State Address – 1/9/13

[Updates below]

I’ve been writing about how NJ Gov. Christie is in deep denial on global warming and ignoring the wake up call from Superstorm Sandy – most recently in Christie’s State of the State address see: Gov. Ignores Wake Up Call on Global Warming, Coastal Vulnerability, and Lax Regulation.

That is something that is even more stunning when compared to NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State address, delivered just one day later, on Wednesday.

[we previously noted a similar sharp contrast with President Obama’ Executive Order on Sandy Rebuild – a major story that has had zero coverage in NJ media circles.]

While Christie has spent 3 years in climate denial (and worse); abandoned the northeast states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI); diverted $680 million in Clean Energy Funds to pay for $1.57 BILLION in corporate welfare; ignored science and expert recommendations on shore vulnerability; recklessly promoted and deregulated rebuilding; consolidated political power in a Rebuild Czar; and engaged in demagogic emotional manipulation of Sandy’s victims, here’s what Gov. Cuomo did and said:

Responding to the crisis. We have to do everything we’ve outlined above but we also have the added responsibility of needing to address Hurricane Sandy. And let’s start by learning from what has happened. We empaneled four commissions right after Hurricane Sandy to look at the various aspects of the storm and lessons learned. They did extraordinary work and I’d ask us to give them a round of applause now and recognize the chairmen who worked very hard.

First thing we have to learn is to accept the fact – and I believe it is a fact – that climate change is real. It is denial to say this is – each of these situations is a once in a lifetime. There have been – there is a 100 year flood every two years now. It’s inarguable that the sea is warmer and that there is a changing weather pattern, and the time to act is now. We must lower the regional greenhouse gas emission cap. And let’s make a real difference on climate change by reducing the CO2 cap. We must also increase our use of local renewable power sources. We propose increasing the use of alternative power, distributed generation of electricity, which will reduce the reliance on the large power plants.

We must understand the needs of coastal communities. Because they pose special challenges and many of them are manmade. Let’s take a look at lower Manhattan. This was lower Manhattan in 1609. This is lower Manhattan now, all man-made filled areas. This is lower Manhattan with the Sandy storm surge. You can see that the man-made areas are the vulnerable areas to the storm surge. It’s the way they were filled; it’s the way they were constructed. We propose the Recreate NY-Smart Home Program, where rather than just rebuilding a home today – that we may very well rebuild two years from now, three years from now, four years from now – we build it back once but we build it back once right and we mitigate for the environmental damage and disaster.  I’d rather pay more and put a house on high links today than rebuild that house three times.

While Gov. Christie was working the Kleanex circuit, here are other examples of Leadership, Priorities, and Action Items Cuomo promised:

• We propose a Recreate NY-Home Buyout program.
• We must harden our infrastructure .
• We must harden the New York City Subway system.
• We must harden our airports
• We need to harden our fuel delivery system
• We should have a strategic fuel reserve
• We must really get ready for the next storm and have a PSC that’s going to require the utilities to come up with a real plan.
• We must “put real regulatory enforcement teeth into the Public Service Commission, which has for too long been a toothless tiger”
• The time has come to abolish Long Island Power Authority, period.
• We want to establish a world class emergency response network.
• We want to create a statewide volunteer corps
• We want to establish a statewide not-for-profit network to help coordinate the emergency response
• We want to have a citizen education campaign to prepare citizens

Below is a national story on the Cuomo speech – I am providing the complete text because it is a subscription service and no link is available:

Gov. Cuomo pledges to flood-proof New York’s subway system, raise regional carbon emissions cap

Colin Sullivan, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, January 10, 2013

NEW YORK — Dealing with climate change and protecting New York City from future superstorms featured high on the list of priorities during Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State address yesterday in Albany.

Cuomo, a Democrat, said he would work to make coastal areas and New York Harbor more resilient to climate change and storm surges thought to be intensified by the warming planet and rising seas. He also promised quick action to protect New York City’s subway system against flooding during future storms and tidal surges, describing inflatable bladders to block subway entrances.

He said flood-proof subways and bus depots would become a priority, with “vertical roll-down doors, vent closures, inflatable bladders and upsized fixed pumps (with backup power sources) … all options to harden New York’s subway system.” Although New York officials have weighed flood protection measures for years, their plans weren’t implemented, and Superstorm Sandy flooded and blacked out parts of the city’s subway and rail commuter systems in late October.

Cuomo talked at length of improving the state’s renewable energy capacity and lowering its carbon emissions. Citing the devastation brought by Sandy, Cuomo pledged to lower the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s carbon emissions cap. He also promised a $1 billion “Green Bank” to match private dollars with public on energy technology development.

The governor said redundancies must be built into the region’s fuel delivery network to avoid the long lines for gasoline and supply bottlenecks that hit the region after the storm. Cuomo said gas stations from here on out should have on-site backup power to protect New Yorkers from fuel disruptions.

A suggestion of harbor flood barriers

On carbon emissions, Cuomo urged the nine states participating in RGGI — a regional CO2 cap-and-trade program for electric power plants — to lower the current cap of 165 million tons of CO2. Cuomo noted that the target is well above the current emissions level of 91 million tons.

On New York Harbor, Cuomo said a long-term strategy should be developed to combine natural barriers with man-made obstacles to limit high tides and surges when a severe storm hits. He mentioned floodgates in his remarks but stopped short of backing specific proposals for the harbor, many of which would likely cost tens of billions of dollars to construct.

As he has before, Cuomo took a hard-line stance on so-called climate skeptics, saying they were living in a state all their own — “a state of denial.”

“Climate change is real,” he said, referring to Superstorm Sandy last year and Hurricane Irene the year before. “It is denial to say that each of these situations is once in a lifetime.”

Beyond that, Cuomo said he would abolish the Long Island Power Authority and hoped to privatize power generation and delivery on Long Island. Cuomo and others were downright hostile to LIPA in the wake of the storm last year as the power remained off through much of the island, and Cuomo said he would bring in another entity under stricter Public Service Commission regulation.

[Update #1: 1/12/13 – this makes the Christie denial and malfeasance criminal – it is finally sinking in, even at the NY Times:

Heat, Flood or Icy Cold, Extreme Weather Rages Worldwide

Ronald Reagan’s Coastal Policy A Test For Gov. Christie

[Update below]

Governor Christie calls himself a conservative Republican.

He often emulates and harkens back to the words of President Reagan.

So, as a test of the Governor’s avowed conservative principles, I thought I’d lay out a federal legislative initiative championed by President Reagan that reflects conservative principles that could guide and be part of the Sandy Rebuild effort.

Conservative principles are relevant, because it sure looks like the Democratically controlled NJ Legislature is taking a pass and allowing the Governor and his rebuild Czar to control the game.

Conservative principles also could influence Congress, and suggest ways to impose strings and apply existing federal programs to the Sandy rebuild.

What I am suggesting is that conditions in the federal bailout package could require additional designations of NJ barrier islands and lands under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (see map for currently designated NJ lands)

The real conservative principles I am talking about are:

• reliance on markets; 
• preference for small government solutions; 
• avoid incurring taxpayer obligations; 
• reduce wasteful federal spending; 
• state government control, not top down federal mandates; 
• personal responsibility

So, let’s hear how that would work, from the mouth of President Reagan: