WolfeNotes.com

I’ll get around to the mountaintop mining issue, via a long and circuitous route. So bear with me as I put a political context around it.

Today, Obama Administration EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck spoke before a large audience at Bergen Community College (for coverage of the event, see co-sponsor Bergen Record story)

I respect Enck, who is the real deal and emerged the old fashioned way: from the NY environmental activist community. She later served with Eliot Spitzer when he was NY Attorney General and NY Governor.

Enck spoke as a warmup speaker for the keynote address by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Kennedy did not disappoint – he made the case for the need to manage our planet and shared natural resources and respond to global warming (what Enck called “the gravest threat facing the planet”).

Seemingly contrasting our current challenges and gridlock, Kennedy traced the history of FDR’s leadership in converting the depression era US industrial base into a full employment, jobs producing war machine. He clearly longed – but did not call out Obama – for that kind of leadership to make the transition to a clean energy economy. He linked energy to national security and patriotism (2 arguments I tend to gag on).

As an example of the kind of inexorable change Kennedy claimed is rapidly being driven by market forces, Kennedy touted his own entreprenurial investments in electric car systems in Israel and the Netherlands (which only begged the question of why Kennedy seems unable to secure investments in similar US electric car production and why the US is lagging and missing these opportunities).

But perhaps Kennedy’s strongest remarks were delivered – in just one sentence – when he noted that the war in Iraq cost over $4 trillion. Less than that ($3 trillion) could provide a new alternative energy infrastructure and free energy forever. (I bet you won’t read that quote in the press coverage).

That linkage between war expenditures and domestic neglect evoked the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, who famously noted that the obscene costs of the Vietnam War diverted social investments in – and ultimately killed – the Great Society:

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white — through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

I was disappointed not only by Kennedy’s neoliberal emphasis on market forces (as opposed to government policy), but that he politically failed to call out Governor Christie or those he referred to as the “troglodytes” and “global warming deniers” in Washington DC.

Kennedy repeatedly criticized what he called the false choice between economic development and environmental protection. He noted that pollution is inefficiency, and that capitalism and “free” markets promote efficiency. He contrasted so called “free markets” with the “crony capitalism” and corporate monoploy we suffer.

But I don’t buy this argument. So called “free markets” are a myth. Basically, it’s only a question of whether the government is intervening in markets to side with the people and the environment, or for the corporations.

Capitalism, markets, individualism, competition,and consumption (and their public policy correlaries: privatization, deregulation, “free trade”, corporate subsidies, and neoliberal economics) are at the root of our ecological, economic, and social crises.

But if you’re going to make an argument, at least back it up politically. Kennedy did not deliver on that front.

Kennedy was speaking in NJ – the belly of the right wing Tea Party backlash beast – where Gov. Christie NOW is aggressively deploying exactly the false choice Kennedy rejected, between economic growth and environmental protection. Christie is using such specious arguments to rollback environmental protections. The Christie backlash model is being replicated in several other states and by the Republicans in the House in Congress.

How could Kennedy not directly challenge Gov. Christie in Christie’s backyard?

Kennedy needs a few basic economic theory courses. No economist on the planet would disagree that pollution and public health, respectively, are examples of “externalities” )costs or benefits not reflected in prices) and “public goods” (a resource for which ownership can not be assigned and access and use can not be excluded). Other public goods include common pool resources include clean air, clean water, oceans, wildlife, etc.

Economists agree that prices, assignment of property rights, and markets fail in these cases- amounting to so called “market failure” in neoclassical economic theory.

These market failures – which are pervasive in the environmental realm – justify government regulatory intervention.

While Kennedy correctly noted that corporations are private profit internalizing and social cost “externalizing machines”, Kennedy incoherently spouted nonsense about the wonders of so called “free markets”. If he doesn’t want to engage the economic theory debate, he at least needs to read fellow New Yorker Eliot Spitzer’s justification for government intervention to address market failure (see this).

But these are long and tendentious arguments, so let’s keep it simple and just post some photos.

I want to focus the photos on one small part of what EPA RA2 Enck said (we posted previously here).

Now we finally get to the mountaintop removal issue!

At the outset of her remarks, Enck highlighted EPA’s major historical contributions, including EPA’s recent decision to revoke a Clean Water Act permit for mountaintop removal coal mining operations in West Virginia.

Enck was careful to credit EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for that decision, and very clearly state that the mining permit was in West Virginia, not under her jurisdiction.

So I thought I’d repost photos of NJ mountaintop removal mining operations that are violating the Clean Water Act, just in case Enck is unaware of what is going on in her region on the mining front – or if she would like to launch EPA investigations or enforcement actions against same.

It’s time for the 2011 year in preview, highlighting the major issues and controversies that will ripen in 2011.

I forsee a series of train wrecks, as DEP implements Governor Christie’s pro-business “regulatory relief” policies that are codified in Executive Orders #1-4. The framework and foundation for implementation of those policies was laid during 2010.

The enormous magnitude of material makes it impossible to discuss the substance of each issue in a single post. However, we have discussed most of these issues in depth here, so those looking for that and links to documents should use the word search function in the top right corner of the webpage.

The sheer volume, scope, and systematic nature of the assault itself is highly revealing, both of the arrogance and the radical degree of dismantling sought by the Christie administration.

Looked at comprehensively, it is unprecedented and simply breathtaking.

My sense is that there is no way they can pull it all off, because they simply have bitten off far more than they can chew, if only from a DEP staff standpoint (the Christie Team appears impervious to public criticism and NJEF is working hard to provide political cover).

DEP Commissioner Martin is just learning that it takes almost as much staff effort to dismantle regulations and environmental programs as it does to create them. DEP is seriously understaffed, especially in policy analysts, lawyers, and regulatory experts required to do the job.

This reality will lead to another set of problems, as Commissioner Martin is frustrated by his inability to dismantle what he and his business cronies view as overly burdensome requirements via formal action. This frustration will lead to even less transparent and more abusive informal site specific case-by-case “regulatory relief” (e.g. negotiated deals), made necessary by the failure to ram through comprehensive rule changes.

Along these lines, the package of Red Tape bills passed by the legislature (now on the Governor’s desk) will prove very useful to Martin because they make it very easy for special interests to draft the text of DEP regulations. This abuse is now occurring in DEP’s toxic site cleanup “reform” process (SRP), where, for the first time ever, private sector representatives are actually drafting the text of DEP’s regulatory documents.

Industry influence on DEP’s SRP is now happening on the “front end” of the rule development process, before new rules are even proposed for public comment (a major SRP rule proposal is expected in May 2011). The Red Tape changes in administrative law –  to allow previously prohibited “substantive changes on adoption” – go even further and will allow industry to control the “back end” of the regulatory process and write the text of the final rules DEP adopts.

So, I’ve broken the issues down into six groups, based on how the DEP program, regulation, policy, or issue at hand emerged:

• I)  Killed (by EO#2 Moratorium and/or Red Tape Review)
• II)  To be Killed (new targets identified by Red Tape Review)
• III) Kills in Progress (targets already teed up by DEP Stakeholder review)
• IV)  Targets of DEP Transition Report
• V)  Other Likely Victims
• VI)  Progress Denied – what won’t get done in 2011

I) Rules or Programs Already Killed

As we recall, on his first day in office, Governor Christie issued Executive Order #1 which established a 90 day moratorium and forced reconsideration of about 23 DEP proposed rules in the pipeline.

From what I can tell, it looks like only 9 or 10 of those proposals were adopted  before they expired. Among the most prominent rules killed were new proposed green house gas monitoring/reporting requirements; a drinking water standard for the toxic chemical perchlorate;  readoption of surface water quality standards; and various underground storage tank and toxic site cleanup requirements. The DEP’s ability to adopt ecologically based cleanup standards also quietly was eliminated.

II)  To be Killed (targets identified by Red Tape Review)

Citing the need to streamline bureaucracy and promote economic development, Appendix H of the Red Tape Report called for regulatory relief from a score of existing DEP regulations. We can expect DEP rule proposals to implement Red Tape Report recommendations, including rollbacks to the following existing rules:

• Water Quality Management  rules which prohibit sewer line extensions into environmentally sensitive areas such as forests, stream buffers, and endangered species habitat;
• Rules to protect the New Jersey Highlands, a region of 800,000 acres that provides water supply to 5 million state residents, from degradation due to over-development;
• Stream buffers protections and flood hazard reduction regulations;
• Strict oversight of toxic site clean-ups managed by private consultants, under a new privatized site remediation plan enacted under Gov. Corzine;
• Coastal zone management protections, including public access rules;
• Air pollution control to allow wider variances for exceeding permit limits; and
• Relaxing rules under the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act to prevent a repeat of the disaster at a Dow Chemical plant in Bhopal, India, where 7,000 people died from poison fumes.
• The report cites compliance costs to industry and questions the need for any rules beyond federal minimums, as per the “Common sense” regulatory relief federal consistency policy in Executive Order #2..

III) Kills in Progress (targets already teed up by DEP Stakeholder review)

In addition to the above rules targeted by the Red Tape Report, and to implement the Red Tape Report recommendations and policies of Executive Order #2, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin has establish several “Stakeholder” processes. These meetings are by invitation only, off the record, and closed to the public and press. DEP programs and rules discussed for regulatory relief include the following, for which we can expect rule proposals, program plans, or Guidance in 2011:

• public access to the coast
• threatened and endangered species [Update: done: see this]
• Water Supply Master Plan (Eco-Flow Goals, water budgets, conservation, et al)
• Water Supply allocation rules
• waivers from regulatory requirements
• compliance and enforcement
• Permit coordination (one stop shopping, AKA “Let’s make a deal”)
• Toxic Site Remediation and privatized cleanup (AKA “Licensed Site Professionals” – LSP)
• stormwater management (also under attack as an unfunded State mandate under EO #4)

IV) Targets of DEP Transition Report

The Christie DEP Transition report was simply an angry radical screed. It proposed a systematic attack on DEP programs. Several of the Transition recommendations have already been implemented, as noted below (i.e. “done” or “ongoing”):

scale back or eliminate selected strategies that contribute the least to environmental improvement. (ongoing)

Reexamine regulations to ensure they are properly focused on specific, well defined goals, and minimize or eliminate peripheral requirements. (ongoing)

Eliminate the Office of Policy, Planning and Science and allocate policy and planning responsibilities to the appropriate regulatory programs (done)

Establish an advisory panel of external experts to advise DEP on matters of scientific and technological innovation. (done)

Reinstate the Alternative Dispute Resolution program under the Counselor to the Commissioner which had helped expedite settlements, thus reducing the number of disputes referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as contested cases. (done)

Establish an Office of Economic Analysis at the Department of State or the Office of the Governor as a shared service for all State agencies and tasked to provide advice directly to commissioners regarding economic drivers including the projected economic effect of new regulations. This office should also assist in risk assessment analysis for when agencies are setting regulatory policy. (done)

For every rule proposal, require a comprehensive discussion and peer review of the science the DEP considered in support of each element of the proposal, and for every rule adoption, the science relied upon by those commenting to support different policy choices, and any agreement, disagreement and uncertainty regarding the science. (done)

Require the Office of Economic Analysis to evaluate the economic and financial impacts of proposed rules or other major regulatory decisions (done)

Require the Office of Economic Analysis to evaluate the analyses of economic impacts received from interested parties during the public comment period (done)

Convene one or more informal meetings with stakeholders to discuss rulemaking objectives and accept input on policies, and whenever appropriate, distribute draft rule text to stakeholders for comment prior to the preparation of rule proposals. (done)

The DEP must fundamentally overhaul the way development projects are regulated and streamline the permitting process (ongoing). The State must create an office that provides a single point of entry with an accountable person to shepherd companies pursuing complex projects through the regulatory process (done). The DEP must immediately suspend the implementation of requirements that have not been properly adopted through rulemaking, and immediately reconsider existing regulations that impose requirements that are not grounded in sound science, are impractical to satisfy, and conflict with other State environmental and land use policies (done).

Create a business/project ombudsman in the Office of the Governor to create a single point of entry for complex projects. (done)

Provide that jurisdictional determinations (determinations as to whether or not a permit is necessary) may be requested and provided on-line. (ongoing)

Delegate land use permitting to the Meadowlands, Highlands, and Pinelands Commissions for the areas within their jurisdiction. (may be rejected)

Eliminate duplicative reviews by accepting the approvals conducted under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) from other governmental jurisdictions when appropriate; for example, stormwater management plans need not be subject to multiple reviews. (status unknown)

Delegate land use permitting at brownfields sites to the Site Remediation Program (ongoing – now implemented in certain cases)

Immediately suspend the inappropriate use of the Landscape Project mapping of purported Threatened and Endangered species habitat. (ongoing)

Immediately rescind Administrative Orders requiring the application of 300-foot buffers from certain streams or rivers where existing rules require a 150-foot buffer. (ongoing)

Immediately suspend the practice of conditioning permits on the imposition of conservation easements on portions of property not subject to the pending application. (status unknown)

Revise existing rules to allow for the greater use of waivers and exceptions to specific requirements when project applicants demonstrate that alternatives will yield the equivalent or better environmental results. Immediately direct, as a matter of policy, that hardship waivers allowed under existing rules be granted when justified. (ongoing)

Reexamine buffer requirements in urban/disturbed areas and Planning Areas 1 and 2 designated for growth under the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (hereinafter referred to as the State Plan) as applied to wetlands, C-1 waters and potential Threatened and Endangered species habitat under Flood Hazard, Stormwater, and Wetlands rules. (ongoing)

Revise the Water Quality Management Planning rules (WQMP); update and improve sewer service areas through regional planning and coordinate with the State Plan. (ongoing)

Utilize the previously recommended business ombudsman to overcome existing regulatory hurdles without undermining environmental protections. (done)

With respect to the State’s efforts to seek compensation for damages to natural resources (NRD), we recommend that NRD efforts fall under the jurisdiction of the Site Remediation Program, and that rules be adopted to provide transparency, certainty and consistency in the assessment of those damages. (ongoing)

Revise the Interim Rule to limit its scope to SRRA required elements (ongoing). For example, the provisions of the interim rule applying new requirements for vapor intrusion were not mandated by SRRA and should be subject to fuller pubic review and comment before adoption (done).

Apply the DEP’s efforts toward compliance assistance to all site remediation professionals and responsible parties (done).

Review and revise current requirements pertaining to vapor intrusion within building structures, including how and when to test, notification, and/or mitigate (done/ongoing)

Transfer all responsibility for NRD assessment restoration and recovery to Site Remediation (status unknown).

Adopt regulations regarding NRD assessment, restoration and recovery that are transparent, stable and predictable. (status unknown)

There needs to be a recognition that agriculture, like every other business in New Jersey, has been over-regulated and burdened by DEP rules (done). Farmers should be recognized as stewards to the land and treated as partners in land preservation not potential polluters. (done/ongoing)

Revenue generation should be maximized through the use of concessions, camping and park rentals and forest management. (ongoing)

There needs to be a full examination of DEP’s existing self-audit policy utilized by the regulated community, to ensure it does not create disincentives for voluntary disclosure and provides adequate and appropriate time to correct violations (done/ongoing).

There needs to be a full examination of DEP’s administrative penalty regulations to ensure they are fair and consistent (ongoing)

There needs to be a full examination of the implementation of the “Grace Period” regulations to ensure that they follow the legislative intent of the Grace Period statute. The Grace Period statute was aimed at making a distinction between minor and non-minor violations and providing an appropriate time to correct those violations. However, the DEP has inappropriately implemented the regulations by issuing automatic violations with limited time to respond. (ongoing)

Simplification of the permitting process: Title V Permits which are permits for certain large facilities, administered by the DEP as required under the federal Clean Air Act, have become extremely cumbersome and voluminous in New Jersey. Steps should be taken to reduce the complexity of these permits. (ongoing)

Chromium Standard: Re-evaluate the current chromium standard, taking into consideration natural baseline levels and peer reviewed scientific data. (ongoing)

Prevailing wage at brownfield sites: In order for the State to attract investment and compete for economic development with bordering states, New Jersey must eliminate the prevailing wage requirement under State reimbursement programs for brownfield sites. (status unknown)

V) Other Likely Victims

Other significant policy initiatives not specifically targeted by the above that will come to a head during 2011 include:

• Diversion of clean energy funds (last year Chrisite diverted $460 million)
• revisions to the Energy Master Plan, especially regarding renewables, new fossil power plants, and nuclear power
• elimination of the Societal Benefits Charge (SBC) a small energy surcharge that funds about $800 million/year of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
• DEP budget
• Barnegat Bay TMDL legislation
• implementation of the Red Tape legislative package regarding revisions to rulemaking procedures
• NJ’s policy on gas well hydro-fracking  and position on rules proposed by Delaware River Basin Commission
• federal and state permit review processes for the planned $5 billion new carbon capture and sequestration coal power plant in Linden
• the first round of recommendations are due from the controversia new Science Advisory Board
• Highlands “septic density standard (settlement of Farm Bureau litigation)
• Highlands water availability/deficit methodology
• Direction of the Pinelands Commission under new leadership of former NJ Builders Assc. lobbyist
• Will DEP expand Privatization to land use and water infrastructure programs?
• Will DEP propose new drinking water protections?

VI) Progress Denied – what won’t get done in 2011

Because Governor Chrisite and Commissioenr Martin have placed their entire policy focus on rolling back DEP programs and requirements to provide “regulatory relief” to corproate business cronies, here are some key new initiatives that are stalled or being totally ignored –

1. Urban environmental quality and environmental justice

2. Treatment based approach to drinking water protections

3.  Strengthening public health policies, and developing new ecological standards and cumulative impact assessment methods

4. Implementation of Global Warming Response Act

5. Preservation of NJ’s Last Remaining Natural Landscape – Delaware Bayshore

6. Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants

7. Strengthening Coastal and Ocean Protections

8. War On Sprawl

9. Environmental, Green Infrastructure, and efficiency/renewable energy investments

10. Enhancing Science and landscape planning tools

What have I forgotten? Your input is welcome!

[Closing note: in case anyone is offended, I knowingly and intentionally used what may be perceived as inflammatory “targeting” violent rhetoric. And I have no apologies for the use of the term “murderers row” to describe chemical and business lobbyists, as I think the policies they advocate increase death rates.]

[Update: further evidence of the BS spin: The Asbury Park Press reports that these key remaining two bills in the Barnegat Bay package passed the Senate today, but not the Assembly yet. Where is Christie on the tough choices? see: Senate passes two Barnegat Bay bills, despite unpopularity with Ocean County officials

One piece of legislation, S-1815, would permit creation at the county level of a new storm water utility, similar to sewer or water supply authorities, that would have the power to issue bonds and impose fees on local property owners to pay for the repair and maintenance of storm sewer systems. […]

A second bill in the Senate today, S-1856, would give the Ocean County Planning Board authority to charge new fees on developers to pay for dealing with storm water runoff pollution. That passed the Senate by a similar margin of 22 to 17, amid concerns that it is too burdensome on a building industry that’s already been flattened by the recession. [links to bills mine. End Update]

I’ve written about this issue extensively, but want to make a few points on yesterday’s Barnegat Bay bill signing by Governor Christie.

The alleged water quality benefits of the 3 bills the governor signed are being greatly exagerated. The Governor did not sign and DEP is still sandbagging the toughest and most effective bill in the package, the one that would mandate a TMDL. And the Governor’s plan ignores major problems, like land use and CAFRA reforms.

As Kirk Moore reported:

The administration has promised a less specific “narrative standard” for nutrients in all coastal waters. Environmental advocates say that won’t be enough to measure whether actual progress is being made.

“If they take out the (hard) TMDL, it’s a weak bill,” said Bill Wolfe of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a former DEP employee who’s worked on water issues.

If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “could do this with Chesapeake Bay, which is a much bigger and more complex system . . . then clearly EPA could put some money into this,” Wolfe said in a telephone interview after the bill-signing ceremony. [Note – in addition to EPA funding, I was comparing the Chesapeake timeframe with the 3 year deadline in the bill,a period that DEP finds “not feasible”]:

The DEP should commit itself to that goal this spring when the EPA formally reviews the state of New Jersey waters under the Clean Water Act, Wolfe said.

The state has an obligation under that federal law and “we need to move forward on that,” said Tim Dillingham of the American Littoral Society.

Now to my quick take on the bills signed:

I) Fertilizer bill

The bill exempts major nitrogen pollution sources, including farms, golf courses, septic systems, horse farms, historic chicken farm residuals, and atmospheric deposition.

Senator Beck (R-Monmouth), a prime sponsor of the bill, told me that more than 70% of fertilizers produced by Scott’s already meet the standards of the bill.

As I noted previously, it is mathematically impossible to get to a nitrogen pollution load reduction (i.e. in pounds) via a reduction in nitrogen concentration of the fertilizer without additional limits on application. 

A simple hypothetical illustrates this: [Note: see Josh’s comment and response below – these arbitrary number are provided solely to illustrate the relationship between concentration and loadings, not to specify actual reality].

1) Let’s say your neighbor fertilizes his lawn twice a year, applying 2 fifty pound bags of fertilizer each time, which contain 20 pounds of nitrogen per bag (N = 40%, by concentration).

2) Next year, he goes to Home Depot, where the salesman tells him that the new environmentally sound “Green” fertilizer has a 50% reduction in N concentration (to N = 20%).

Now what do you think that guy is going to do? Buy the same 2 fifty pound bags? Gimme a break. Anyone who has drank 3.2% beer knows better.

He’s going to buy 3 fifty pound bags, to offset the reduction and just to be sure that his lawn will be as green as last year.

After the spring application, he will be convinced by mid May that his lawn is looking less green than last year. Being a macho man, he will blame it on that damn weak stuff forced down his throat by the wacky enviro’s.

So he’s going back to Home Depot for more.

Result: he will apply 3 fifty pound bags 3 times a year, instead of twice.

Do the math – the net effect is NEGATIVE – MORE NITROGEN! The law makes the situation WORSE:

Before the law:

(2 applications per year) X (2 bags/application) X (50 lbs/bag) X (.40 Nitrogen) = 80 lbs nitrogen

After the law:

(3 applications per year) X (3 bags/application) X (50 lbs/bag) X (.20 Nitrogen) = 90 lbs nitrogen

Worse, keep in mind that there will be hundreds (or thousands) of NEW homes built in the watershed, most of which will be using septic systems and applying lawn fertilizer – at 90 lbs per home, that’s a major nitrogen load increase.

Then consider that the Bay requires a TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD REDUCTION.

You simpy can’t get there from here.

II) Soil Compaction bill

The soil compaction bill only applies to limited set of “post construction” activities that are regulated under the current ineffective Soil Conservation Service program.

Due to lobbying by the Builders Association, the bill exempted the following activities, all of which are the primary causes of soil compaction:

1) pre-construction activities, where builders destroy existing vegetation, scrape the soil from the site, and stockpile the soil. This destroys the natural soil structure, biological functions, and its ability to store water and otherwise function as soil;

2) After stripping soil from the site, builders then bring in huge heavy equipment which compacts the little natural soil that’s left;

3) after building is done, the soil is then redistributed and again compacted by heavy construction equipment.

These 3 activities are what cause soil compaction from construction – and ALL OF THEM ARE EXEMPTED.

The bill is riddled with loopholes and will not reduce current soil erosion and sedimentation problems.

III) Stormwater bill

There is no dedicated funding source to deal with significantly costly stormwater infrastructure and management issues.

The alleged $100 million local loan program is a fiction. Local stormwater management costs have long been eligible to receive loans from the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust. The Governor has not changed anything in the current NJEIT program with respect to eligibility or funding.

Towns will not voluntarily take on local taxpayer backed interest bearing loans – so the alleged $100 million is highly misleading.

The $10 million is a drop in the bucket and may merely result from a reallocation of federal EPA 319 grants – or current watershed management funds (whose revenue source is the constitutionally dedicated Corporate Business Tax).

No new state funding source for this $10 million has been identified. So, it may not be new money but merely a shift away from current uses of existing funds – thus, some other program may suffer while the Bay benefits.

This is a zero sum game, not environmental leadership.

IV) TMDL (on the Gov.’s desk, conditional veto expected to gut the bill)

I previously summarized  the key benefits of the TMDL program, including:

• a pollution budget, which sets an enforceable total cap on pollution, mandatory numeric pollution reductions, and allows monitoring and measurement of progress towards water quality goals, thereby promoting accountability
• regulation of ALL sources of pollution, including agriculture, golf courses, horse farms, new development, and atmospheric deposition;
• deadlines and schedules for discrete tasks, which promote efficiency, accountability, and public participation and oversight
• a “margin of safety” to account for scientific uncertainty
• a “reserve margin” to accout for future growth, limit additional new pollutant loads, and provide a framework for pollution off-sets and mitigation
• TMDL would triggger 300 foot buffers as water quality BMPs on all tributaries
• TMDL is a tool to enforce the current CAFRA statute, which says DEP may deny a CAFRA permit due to”impairment”. This leverage could reduce development intensity, reduce impervious surfaces, increase preservation of natural vegetation, and strengthen current DEP stormwater maangement at future CAFRA developments.
• provide federal EPA oversight and federal resources
• address all pollution sources, point source and non point source, regardless of ownership. The TMDL approach provides a framework to pursue the most cost effective retrofits and pollution source reductions in a phased manner over time
• TMDL allows for integration with ongoing scientific work, DEP permitting, and the overall BBay NEP management plan – no need to reinvent the wheel
• TMDL provides regulatory teeth.

Governor Christie did not sign the TMDL bill, DEP opposed the TMDL bill in the legislature, and DEP Commissioner Martin said the following in Kirk Moore’s story:

That bill, with its call for hard numerical limits within three years, is “too premature,” Martin said, because without new data and nutrient standards “it’s going to take a couple of years” for the DEP to decide if a Barnegat Bay TMDL is feasible and, if so, what the numbers should be.

And so it goes –

ps: and while we’re on the topic of bullshit, don’t forget:

During his remarks, Christie recognized Pringle as “a strong, strong voice for the environment, and a reasonable voice” who helped advocacy groups and the administration agree on action to save the bay.

Exactly these extreme weather events are predicted by global warming models

[Update 3: 1/25/11 – The New York Times does an interesting story, as explanations and theories begin to emerge: Cold Jumps Arctic “Fence”, Stoking Winter’s Fury –

The deeper issue is whether this pattern is linked to the rapid changes that global warming is causing in the Arctic, particularly the drastic loss of sea ice. At least two prominent climate scientists have offered theories suggesting that it is. But others are doubtful, saying the recent events are unexceptional, or that more evidence over a longer period would be needed to establish a link.

Since satellites began tracking it in 1979, the ice on the Arctic Ocean’s surface in the bellwether month of September has declined by more than 30 percent. It is the most striking change in the terrain of the planet in recent decades, and a major question is whether it is starting to have an effect on broad weather patterns.

Ice reflects sunlight, and scientists say the loss of ice is causing the Arctic Ocean to absorb more heat in the summer. A handful of scientists point to that extra heat as a possible culprit in the recent harsh winters in Europe and the United States.

Their theories involve a fast-moving river of air called the jet stream that circles the Northern Hemisphere. Many winters, a strong pressure difference between the polar region and the middle latitudes channels the jet stream into a tight circle, or vortex, around the North Pole, effectively containing the frigid air at the top of the world.

[Update 2: 12/29/10 – Ed Rodgers of NJN TV does a story on NJ’s extreme weather – but State Climatologist Robinson, as usual, rejects global warming links and actually says it is NOT climate change (while speculating about La Nina), says “meteorology trumped climatology”. Robinson should talk to Dr. Cohen, who has a very different analysis]

Update 1: 12/28/10 – Superb interview of Dr. Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Click on and Watch it! (w/transcript]

Global warming is real and it’s already here. (see broader Northeastern US impact assessment).

While science can not say for sure that global warming (climate change) “caused” this specific blizzard (weather), the news media should try to begin to educate the public about the relationships between weather and climate; the differences between “warming” and “weather”; and inform people that the bizzard is exactly the kind of extreme weather event predicted by global warming models.

This is a teachable moment. Millions of people watch their local weatherman every day!

People don’t associate blizzards with “global warming”. They associate them with Ice Ages, a false perception that the global warming deniers are taking advantage of.

But instead of doing this education, the public is getting bad information or having misperceptions reinforced and validated.

Here is Jim Hansen’s take:

The standard scientist answer is “you cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming.” That answer, to the public, translates as “no”. However, if the question were posed as “would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 [parts per million] ppm?”, an appropriate answer in that case is “almost certainly not.” That answer, to the public, translates as “yes”, i.e., humans probably bear a responsibility for the extreme event.

In either case, the scientist usually goes on to say something about probabilities and how those are changing because of global warming. But the extended discussion, to much of the public, is chatter. The initial answer is all important. Although either answer can be defended as “correct”, we suggest that leading with the standard caveat “you cannot blame” is misleading and allows a misinterpretation about the danger of increasing extreme events.

I am not an expert on this stuff and don’t hang at weather or global warming sites, so I did a quick Google turned up this discussion of whether global warming “produced” last October’s Nor’easter, but not much on yesterday’s blizzard.

So I thought I’d provide relevant excerpts from the recent NY State Sea Level Rise Task Force Report to the Legislature (great timing, it’s draft and now open for public comment!) and NJ’s Coastal Assessment (known as the 309 Assessment, August 2010 draft)

The Sea is Rising

Our climate is changing, causing the world’s seas to rise. Since 1970, New York State has witnessed incrementally higher increases in average temperatures than the rest of the United States, an increase nearly twice the global average. These changes have resulted in warmer winters and hotter summers and other changes in the form of fewer, but heavier snows and heavier, more intense rainfall and storms. The warming produced by global climate change causes the sea level to rise because warmer water takes up more space and higher temperatures are melting ice sheets around the globe. New York Harbor has experienced an increase in sea level of more than 15 inches in the past 150 years, with harbor tide gauges showing a rise of between 4 and 6 inches since 1960.

Findings:

1. Sea level rise and coastal flooding from storm surge are already impacting and will increasingly affect New York’s entire ocean and estuarine coastline from Montauk Point to the Battery and up the Hudson River to the federal dam at Troy. New York must act now to address the challenge of sea level rise.

 

2. The likelihood that powerful storms will hit New York State’s coastline is very high, as is the associated threat to human life and coastal infrastructure. This vulnerability will increase in area and magnitude over time.

 

Many parts of New Jersey’s densely populated coast are highly vulnerable to the effects of flooding, storm surge, episodic erosion, chronic erosion, sea level rise, extra-tropical, and to a somewhat lesser albeit not at all unimportant degree, tropical storms. The risk to the State’s coast posed by each of these particular hazards is also likely to be complicated by anticipated changes in regional climate in the future. Hazards identified as a high level of risk have been so identified through historical experience and vulnerability to coastal hazards as documented within each county’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (produced in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency guidance under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000) and assessments produced by both the federal government and regional academic institutions.

 

New Jersey’s coastal area is comprised of a variety of different landscape types ranging from elevated headlands to wave-dominated and mixed-energy barrier islands to extensive mosaics of tidal and freshwater wetlands. Although each of these areas has evolved uniquely in response to their respective environmental conditions over many millennia, the entirety of New Jersey’s coastal area is subject to the damaging impact of coastal hazards including riverine and coastal flooding and gale-force winds from hurricanes, nor’Easters and extreme rain events. Although the scale, duration and seasonality of each of these coastal hazards varies by storm, the proximity of much of New Jersey’s coastal population and infrastructure to areas impacted by these hazards, as well as long-term hazards such as chronic erosion, has resulted in the potential for damaging consequences to the welfare of people and property during future storm events. This circumstance is exacerbated by long-term biophysical and climate trends which indicate that New Jersey will likely be subject to higher sea levels, an accompanying loss of natural coastal buffers (leading subsequently to more extensive overland storm surges and periodic inundation/flooding) as well as a trend toward stronger storm events, albeit occurring with greater irregularity and/or frequency. The sum consequence is the need for coastal managers and planners to accurately identify natural hazard risks and vulnerabilities throughout New Jersey’s coastal area in order to provide proactive guidance in planning and mitigating against potentially damaging future events.

A recent characterization of the anticipated coastal impact of sea level rise was produced by Princeton University researchers in 2005¹. The researchers created projections of future sea level rise based on a combination of a derivation of the combined sea level rise from global and local factors, yielding an estimated range of between .31 and 1.10 meters by the year 2100. The researchers then applied sea level rise inundation levels considered to be most likely (.71 meters, which, due to limits in data precision at the time, was approximated as .61 meter/2 feet) and highest end (1.10 meters, approximated to be 1.22 meter/4 feet) upon available state elevation data. The result was that 1 – 3% of New Jersey’s land area would likely be subject to permanent inundation by the end of the century. Projecting these same sea level rise estimates onto the base flood elevations of present special flood hazard areas, the researchers concluded that 6.5 – 9% of the State would thus be subject to special flood hazard area designation.

Breaking: Ducks Cross Icy Delaware River Waters

Trenton, NJ – Six ducks were seen crossing the Delaware River at Titusville early this morning, as a Christmas nor’easter continued to dump heavy rains on the region. The lone female was accompanied by five male ducks, reportedly not her brothers. Flocks of geese also were seen flying overhead.

The Times sent a team of investigative reporters and artists to monitor duck developments and bring you exclusive coverage of this breaking news story (enjoy our exclusive illustrations!)

Religious leaders complained that publication of the illustrations would send the wrong message to young women about multiple sex partners and sex outside of marriage.

Government officials also opposed publication on the grounds that the ducks’ locations would compromise national security and be used by colonial insurgents as a recruitment tool.

Although no ducks were seen in the river by Trenton, Times reporters that are embedded with British Troops in Trenton Barracks also contributed to this Report.

According to British officials in Trenton, troops have joined with Hessian coalition forces to celebrate Christmas. They continue to work effectively together in the joint “surge” strategy announced early last year by King George.

The “surge” has tamped down insurgent forces, leading to greater security throughout the colonies.

Meanwhile, scientists at the College of NJ at Princeton warned that the rains could destroy vulnerable British forts and troop locations throughout the entire northeastern colonies. Such destruction would only work to build insurgent momentum, they say. Global raining models support their argument, they say.

Scientists noted that rainfall was the highest in a decade and that their calculations showed rainfall would increase. As rainfall continues to run off the ducks backs and feed floodwaters, this ultimately will devastate colonial military infrastructure, they claim.

Scientists’ models predict a humiliating defeat by insurgent colonists, whose momentum, military prowess, and support among flood victims and colonists are building.

The predicted destruction of British forces is caused by increasing rainfall levels, which fuel insurgents and lift the tide of the insurgency scientists conclude.

“We are witnessing a colonial catastrophy that will lead to complete imperial collapse in North America – the surge is a failure and the King and his military leaders are incompetent hacks”, warned Dr. Bill Wolfe.

Wolfe is an expert in global raining and insurgency and a frequent critic of government policy.

Wolfe claimed that his calculations projected that British control would be washed away and replaced by insurgents, who would establish a new North American government power that would dominate world affairs for the next 250 years, before collapsing from imperial over-reach, wars, greed, corporate control, and apathy sometime around 2000.

But the scientists views were scoffed at by the King’s spokesmen and high level British military and diplomatic officials, who requested to remain annonymous.

“The King’s surge in Trenton and throughout the colonies is working, particularly in the northeast colonies. The formation of our Hessian coalition and expanded security training of Hessian forces has shown great results“, a high level diplomatic source said.

“Our diplomatic and military counterinsurgency strategy has turned the corner and neutralized colonial insurgents. There is light at the end of the tunnel, and British prestige will be maintained” said British military leader, General Betray-Us.

“The King’s efforts are protecting the British homeland and are the glory of an expanding empire” concluded a high level King’s official.

Last week the King himself  joked that the theory of global raining and the alleged power of  colonial insurgents is a total myth, with absolutely no supporting evidence. The King summarily dismissed the consensus view of scientists as “a big lie crafted by left wing insurgent propagandists, like Tom Paine.”

Dave Pringle of the NJ Environmental Federation agreed with the King’s controvesial remarks.

“The King was speaking off the cuff” Pringle said. “King George’s leadership has created a model of military effectivenesss. I have commitments from the King’s Administration that British interests will be protected in the colonies.”

Pringle concluded that “We look forward to continue to work with the King and his officials in keeping Britain safe from insurgent forces.”

(see illustrations of river conditions below)