WolfeNotes.com

Hostages and Heavy Baggage In Hoboken

Yesterday, NJ Gov. Murphy issued Executive Order #89 and a press release. The Gov. held a press conference in Hoboken to announce his administration’s long overdue “Climate Resilience” initiative.

Once again, the Gov.’s rhetoric far surpasses the substantive reality of his policy.

But before we get to what the Gov.’s Executive Order actually does, let’s mention a few points on context and history, and describe what the Governor could have done, but failed to do. 

In Part I today, we highlight the context, outline what the Gov. failed to do and describe some of the opportunities he missed. Part II (forthcoming soon) will analyze the Gov.’s Executive Order.

I)  Past Is Prelude – Heavy Baggage In Hoboken

First of all, the choice of the city of Hoboken to announce the strategy and the naming of Dave Rosenblatt of DEP – Rosenblatt headed up DEP’s coastal engineering program for decades – as the “Chief Resilience Officer” is akin to a 2020 Democratic President Warren going to Tucson, Arizona to name Sheriff Joe Arpaio head of the US Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

That’s right – coastal engineering is to “resilience” what Arpaio’s practices are to justice.

They say that people and places are pillars of policy. For example, there was a reason that Ronald Reagan made a key speech in his 1980 Presidential campaign in Neshoba County, Mississippi.

Along those lines of symbolism, people, and policy, there’s a certain heavy baggage in Hoboken – that city was ground zero in Gov. Christie’s “Bridgegate” scandal.

How could people forget THIS? (especially at a time when Trump is under impeachment inquiry for a political quid pro quo – as  The New Yorker wrote in “A Hostage To Christie In Hoboken?”:

Hoboken and DEP’s Dave Rosenblatt are also core elements of and Christie’s failed post-Sandy “rebuild madness” strategy.

Surely Gov. Murphy and DEP Commissioner McCabe must know this.

Surely they must know that their chosen “Chief Resilience Officer” Dave Rosenblatt was DEP’s point person in dealing with former Gov. Christie’s “Sandy Redevelopment Czar” Marc Ferdan.

Surely they must know that Dave Rosenblatt was involved in the Hoboken Mayor Zimmer – Rockefeller Development scandal and was interviewed by the Mastro Report.

Surely they must know that Dave Rosenblatt has spent a 30+ year career in the trenches of DEP’s coastal engineering program. During that time, he has shown zero leadership or vision – a yes man – while supporting and cheerleading for fatally flawed (literally) coastal engineering policies, plans, regulations and projects that greatly increased NJ shore vulnerability and magnified the disastrous impacts of Sandy (see: “A Dirge To McHarg”).

Surely they must know that Dave Rosenblatt’s daughter Jane is Commissioner McCabe’s chosen “Deputy Chief of Staff” – a position she clearly is not qualified for by education and experience – making the administration highly vulnerable to a nepotism charge.

Hoboken and Rosenblatt are toxic – their selection demonstrates either gross incompetence or cowardice, or possibly lack of commitment or even intentional sabotage.

And the NJ press corps (that’s you Michael Aron) and the NJ environmental community surely know all this too – the fact that they unconditionally praised the Gov. and failed to mention any of this illustrates how craven and cowardly they’ve become.

II) Missed Opportunities – What Gov. Murphy Failed To Do

The climate emergency justifies major structural policy change – what the Gov. likes to call “transformational change” – not incremental reforms.

So let us consider whether the Gov.’s Executive Order measures up to the climate emergency.

First of all, the Gov. did not use his Constitutional Executive Power to declare an emergency.

The Gov. did not use his Constitutional power to declare a moratorium on DEP approvals of new development, redevelopment, or infrastructure construction in high hazard areas until the legislature acts to restrict such development and DEP adopt an enforceable plan and protective regulations.

The Gov. did not use his Executive powers to establish and articulate a policy and direct his administration to implement that policy and seek legislation to implement that policy..

Other NJ Governor’s – including Governors Byrne (Pinelands Protection Act), Kean (Freshwater Wetlands Act), Florio (garbage incineration), Whitman (Water Quality Management Planning rules – sewers) and McGreevey (Highlands Act) have used such executive powers to extract major legislative concessions and drive DEP planning and regulatory reforms.

The US Supreme Court has upheld such temporary moratoria pending development of a regional land use plan and adoption of implementing regulations (see:

• Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002)

The Gov. failed to direct DEP Commissioner McCabe to aggressively use her existing regulatory authority under NJ’s federally delegated Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act, and extraordinary Hazard Mitigation Plan powers.

The gov. failed to withdraw his DEP’s fatally flawed stormwater rule, that FEMA criticized, and directed DEP to re-propose a rule that reflects science, but he didn’t.

The Gov. failed to even coordinate with interstate regional bodies like the Delaware River Basin Commission and Interstate Sanitation Commission or adjacent state’s like NY, that are far ahead of NJ.

The Gov. failed to direct DEP Commissioner McCabe to aggressively use her existing regulatory and planning powers under NJ’s State Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) or Water Quality Planning Act or direct actions under the Pinelands Act/Commission, Highlands Act/Council or Hackensack development law.

The Gov. didn’t even integrate his “Climate Resilience” initiative with his Energy Master Plan process being led by BPU.

Recall that DEP and Rutgers – and many others – have issued numerous Reports which identify specific DEP regulatory weaknesses and gaps and have made specific reform recommendations to strengthen regulations. If DEP Commissioner McCabe and Gov. Murphy would even read NJ federally mandated DEP’s “Coastal Zone Section 309 Assessment and Strategy – 2016 – 2020″ (see p. IV-28), they would and this:

The Gov. ignored all this and treats these issues as if he invented the wheel – and a toothless one at that.

The Gov. failed provide his “Chief Resilience Officer” with any administrative powers or a specific charge to focus on CAFRA Coastal planning and DEP regulatory powers.  CRO Rosenblatt reports to DEP Commissioner McCabe and has no power on the InterAgency Council on Climate Resilience created by Murphy’s Executive Order #89. He’s not even Chair of that Council and the Council has only advisory powers.

Recall that Gov. Christie appointed “Sandy Redevelopment Czar” Marc Ferdan and gave him real powers – including an equivalent cabinet role and access to the Governor and budget authority. CRO Rosenblatt lacks any of these formal and administrative powers.

Recall that the legislature considered a bill to create a Coastal Commission – Gov. Murphy could have revived that proposal, but he didn’t.

Recall that the legislature considered a bill to create a “Catastrophic Fund” – Wall Street savvy Gov. Murphy could have revived that proposal, but he didn’t.

Recall that the legislature considered a bill to mandate that DEP update the State Coastal Protection Plan, which is implemented and enforced by DEP regulations – but he didn’t.

The Gov. could have announced a “one and done” policy and that he was seeking legislation to repeal the “right to rebuild” provisions under NJ coastal CAFRA and Flood Hazard Acts, which lead to filing multiple damage claims on the same property and rebuilding in high hazard areas, an abuse that NJ leads the nation on. But he didn’t. The Gov. is cluelessly unaware of his own DEP’s Section 309 Report on this issue: (see p. IV-28)

Repetitive Loss

According to the National Flood Insurance Program’s Claim Information by State report (http://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports/1040.htm) of November 30, 2014, New Jersey recently passed Texas as the second highest ranked state in FEMA total loss payments with $5,622,667,976.21 in losses. New Jersey is the fourth highest ranked state in the total number of losses at over 188,000.While these losses are not limited to New Jersey’s coastal zone, the statistics are indicative of the increasing risks to natural hazards.

In addition to no substantive policies or regulations, the Gov. made no commitment to funding or staffing the resilience program.

But, most importantly, the Gov. could have established a policy of “Strategic Retreat” – which DEP’s Coastal Zone Strategy has recommended for 20 years – but he didn’t.

Instead, Murphy’s EO89 is all process and no policy or legal substance and no resources (financial or human).

So, there is really no excuse for the Gov. to not pull any of these powerful & mandatory triggers – the fact that he hasn’t demonstrates that he is either too politically weak to take on the fight with developers, local governments, the business community, and his own party – or insincere – or grossly incompetent and poorly advised (that means you Catherine McCabe!)

Murphy’s Plan and Foundation Report Provide Cover For Failures and Dodge Key Issues

Wall Street Financed $500 Million Bond Program Provides Private Monopoly Profits

Why are infants and kids subject to weaker standards?

[Update: readers have accused me of being “soft”.

think you were soft – this a con – a plan to do plan with no teeth – more children will get lead poisoned – and nj future enj cwa gave cover for Murphy in action and negligence

I take that criticism but think it misrepresent most of my criticism below. I am not on the ground in NJ, I’m on the California coast. Here is the edge of the debate. ~~~ end update]

Just as we predicted at the outset and repeated 5 days ago, a private Foundation funded Panel released a flawed Report on lead in drinking water and Gov. Murphy immediately adopted the recommendations of that Report as his administration’s lead abatement plan.

That was quick!

And just as we predicted, the Report and the Gov. Plan dodge key issues (outlined below)(and the “transactional” frauds applauded right on que and even attended the Gov.’s event.)

But, contrary to our predictions, while the Report did provide cover for regulatory failures, it did not provide a “platform for privatization”.

In fact, the Gov. completely dodged the privatization issue by misleadingly calling private for profit water corporations “utilities”. Orwell lives.

Instead of allowing the private water companies to expand their profit empire by hostile takeovers of public systems, the private water companies were allowed to recover private monopoly profits on billions of dollars of public ratepayer backed investments.

That gravy train includes Wall Street bond finance fees and the lucrative legal fees for the law firms who serve as Bond Counsel.

Translation: what is being sold as a “no – cost to homeowners” program is really a $ billion pot of money to finance and recover a monopoly rate of return via special assessments on water bills. Here it is in the fine print of Gov. Murphy’s self congratulatory press release:

Financing

Governor Murphy proposes a $500 million bond to support the replacement of lead service lines and remediation of lead-based paint in homes across New Jersey. The Governor also supports efforts to allow water utilities to mitigate the cost of lead service line replacement for homeowners. 

Translation: “mitigate costs” means recover monopoly profits on investment of your money. There is no free lunch. You will pay higher  water bills. Period

Now to the details of the Foundation Report Gov. Murphy adopted as his plan’s framework.

In my set up post, I listed a bunch of issues I predicted the report would downplay or dodge completely.

1. The Whitewash starts in the first paragraph

Right off the bat, the whitewash begins in the first paragraph of the first page of the report, where they misleading provide a false assurance by stating as a fact (with no supporting evidence) that, aside from minor lead problems, that NJ drinking water is safe:

Most New Jersey residents take for granted that their tap water is healthy and safe. Federal and state regulations require drinking water utilities to test for nearly 100 primary contaminants and report the results annually; violations are unusual.

That misleading claim ignores over 500 “unregulated contaminants” that DEP knows are present in NJ drinking water but are not sampled for or regulated by DEP. It ignores DEP’s 2009 Report recommendation for a “treatment based approach” to regulation. It ignores the backlog of MCL recommendations at the DWQI and DEP. It ignores actual data on violations and notices of violations issued by DEP. It ignores the lack of followup DEP enforcement and corrective action Orders by DEP for violations. In fact, one of DEP’s many “Notices Of Violation” (NOV’s) to Newark for MCL violations actually contributed to the lead corrosion problem, because Newark altered the water chemistry in a failed attempt to comply with the DEP NOV.

2. No Sense of Urgency, no accountability and failed State leadership

I was pleasantly surprised by several of the recommendations on Executive Orders, legislation, regulation and monitoring.

The analysis and recommendations were far more detailed than I expected (they even took a bumbling stab at explaining statistics), but they were presented in such as way as to avoid criticism of the failure by regulators to tell the truth to the public about the various long known flaws and loopholes and failure by those regulators to seek stronger laws or enact stronger regulations.

In fact, instead of telling the truth, regulators have falsely assured the public that their water is safe, for decades.

First, In terms of urgency, the Report fails to note that NJ State agencies – like DEP and the Department of Health – have emergency rule-making powers. Rules become effective upon publication in the NJ Register.

That means that they could have corrected these long known regulatory flaws yesterday.

Second, the Report recommendations that critical public health policy and DEP regulations be addressed by DEP science and the Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI). That injects years of delay in implementation:

4.  Research health-based thresholds and expanded blood testing. (research) Study expansion of required blood testing to include pregnant women and infants. Engage DEP’s Drinking Water Quality Institute to review national studies and consider the advisability of adopting: 1) a state standard for lead in water that is lower than the existing federal threshold of 15 parts per billion; 2) a health-based household action level for lead in water; and 3) an appropriate standard for child care facilities.

That recommendation also is a major failure to adopt the longstanding policy that NJ adopt more stringent NJ state standards, compared to federal EPA standards.

Here it is again:

Given the health issues at stake, DWQI should seek to expedite its recommendations, and DEP should decide whether to pursue regulations that are more stringent than the federal LCR.

That is failed leadership and echoes the “federal consistency” policy dictated by the business community and adopted by former Gov. Whitman and Christie via Executive Orders.

Third, the Report’s recommendations completely ignore major policy, science and regulatory controversies, including:

• a new “precautionary” public health approach to DEP regulation, MCL’s, and “risk assessment”, including cumulative impacts, multiple chemical exposures, and multiple exposure pathways

• Regulatory mandates to consider environmental justice in DEP policy, rules, and decisions

• Addressing over 500 “unregulated contaminants” in drinking water via what DEP has recommended as a “treatment based approach” (including new treatment requirements for drinking water plants AND wastewater discharges)

• Lack of resources and professional expertise & capacity at NJ DEP

• Inadequate oversight, negligence, and lax enforcement by NJ DEP

• what really went on in Newark? The NY Times provided more detail in news coverage and the Op-Ed page.

These flaws are what caused the Newark crisis and have blocked effective drinking water protections in NJ.

3. Massive Loophole Guts The Entire Program

The Report recommends a longstanding DEP loophole strategy: “flexibility” via the waiver:

DEP should have flexibility to negotiate alternative deadlines through a Safe Drinking Water Act permit or Administrative Consent Order if a utility demonstrates that the 10-year deadline is not achievable.

You can kiss that alleged mandate and 10 year deadline goodbye – they do not exist.

4. Reliance on Flawed Current Law – Water Quality Accountability Act and School Program

As I suggested, this Foundation funded and corporate influenced group was designed not only to provide cover, but to not make waves or step on any toes.

Accordingly, the Report supports and suggests only cosmetic reforms to 2 current state laws and programs that are fatally flawed: the Water Quality Accountability Act and the school & daycare lead program.

5. False claim that there are “no costs” to homeowners

The Report claims that the lead line removal program will come at “no cost” to homeowners.

That is false (see above quote from Gov. Murphy’s financing plan). That approach is reflected in the Report’s recommendation:

Rate revenues are the source of funds for approximately 95% of water and sewer utility expenses, including capital improvements. Rates are not typically used to improve water infrastructure relating to private property; however, given the public health threat of lead in water, other states (e.g., IN, PA, MI) have authorized rate recovery to remediate such LSLs. Recognizing the unique nature of this situation, legislation would authorize both investor- and publicly-owned drinking water utilities to pursue rate recovery to replace LSLs located under private property during the 10-year plan

Homeowners will be paying for this “rate recovery”.

I’m sure that this rate recovery recommendation was the price of getting the water companies to support the Report.

6. Misleading claims about fairness

The Report creates the appearance that equity is a core policy objective.

But the fine print belies that commitment:

For example, if the rate increase required to fully address the LSL problem in a community with lead exceedances and/or a significant percentage of LSLs exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., 5%), and if that rate increase would make water rates unaffordable for more than a certain percentage of the population, that community would be eligible for the subsidy.

Get that? A “certain percentage” of the community will bear an unjust and unquantified burden.

7. Crocodile tears for Democracy – A Trojan horse?

The Report – mistakenly – recommends and states as fact that any debt issuance would have to be approved by the voters.

Program structure.               

Regardless of the funding source, voters would be asked to approve a constitutional amendment to ensure that the funds are not diverted.

This appears to be a faux appeal to democracy, but it is more likely a Trojan horse, because everyone knows that a lead abatement program, which, given the Newark crisis, will be politically spun as targeting NJ cities, is not going to be approved by the suburban voters.

This sense of faux Trojan Horse is bolstered by three facts:

One, the Report buries the fact that it is not really legally accurate – voter approval is NOT mandated:

If the borrowing were done through the New Jersey Water Bank (New Jersey’s State Revolving Fund), voter approval would not be required.

Second, no Constitutional amendment to prevent diversion of bond funds is necessary if financed by the NJ State Revolving Fund. The Official Statements on the Bonds, federal appropriation laws, and State pledges to bondholders legally would prevent diversion of funds.

Third, these people were nowhere to be found when the Legislature eliminated the prior requirement that any privatization be approved by local voters.

If they all are so committed to democracy and voters, they should have spoken up before our democratic rights were sold down the river by the Democratic Legislature’s privatization law.

8. Anti-regulatory ideology exposed

The Report calls regulation a “blunt instrument”.

This rhetoric could have come from the right wing Koch Brothers funded ALEC or The Federalist Society:

Rather than using regulation as a blunt instrument that treats all facilities the same, the State of Illinois applies regulatory pressure where it is needed most, varying testing requirements based on the compliance record of child care facilities.

9. The Report ignores Air emissions of lead, including from garbage incinerators

The Report identifies sources of lead exposure: lead paint, drinking water and “soil”.

While most of the lead in soil is from historical emissions from leaded gasoline, some of it is a result of contaminated toxic sites and industrial air emissions of lead, some of which is ongoing, like the garbage incinerators in over-burdened communities, Newark, Camden and Union County (se:

• Newark Garbage Incinerator Emissions: “A Billion Lead Bullets to the Brains of Newark’s Kids”

• DEP Discovers Discrimination – Dumps Environmental Justice Issue in Christie’s Lap

Garbage incinerators are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, lead and other pollutants.

They should be targeted and shut down.

10. Why Do Schools and Day Care Centers Have Weaker Standards Than Water Systems?

I leave the best – or worst – in the Report for last.

The Report properly goes out of its way to stress that infants and children are highly vulnerable to low level exposures to lead.

But, the Report absurdly support the current school and daycare program, which has far weaker standards and requirements that the drinking water systems do, in terms of monitoring and remediation.

Why are infants and kids subject to weaker standards???

First, with respect to monitoring and reporting, schools are on a 3 year schedule. Water systems are required to do far more frequent sampling and reporting. Why should sampling and reporting be weaker at schools and daycares, where even short term low level exposures can seriously or even irreversibly harm an infant or child?

Second, with respect to remediation of lead problems that are discovered, schools are not required to remediate:

Neither state-licensed child care facilities nor schools in New Jersey are presently required to remediate lead in water. Facilities served by a water utility can simply close off access to the water outlets involved and substitute an alternative water source, such as bottled water. (Note: The federal LCR requires facilities that use well water to remediate.).

Instead of closing these egregious loopholes and mandating remediation, the Report recommends a lame “Drinking Water Management Plan” submission process.

Finally, the Report inadvertently reveals why the lead problem should not be imposed on schools. In the recommendations on how to prioritize current $100 million funds available, the Report notes:

Focus funds where they will have the greatest impact on public health. Recognizing that childhood lead poisoning is particularly acute in older municipalities, many of which are fiscally distressed, the funding distribution should prioritize those municipalities to ensure that the greatest number of lead-exposed students are protected.

In addition to “fiscal distress”, most of these communities are urban, racially segregated, over-burdened and disproportionately impacted by pollution (i.e. the environmental justice argument), and lack the resources and expertise to address the complex science and regulation of lead.

Instead of tackling these major issues head on, the Report spews drivel and euphemism. 

Wall Street Financing and Corporate Profits Vastly Increase Costs

Democratically Controlled Public Power Reduces Cost & Accelerates Transition To Renewables

More Jobs With Better Pay & Benefits And More Equitable Treatment of Low Income People

Enough of the shakedowns, blackmail and ripoffs

NJ Spotlight is again reporting on an expanding crisis in the solar power sector, as Wall Street and Corporate America flex their political muscles and seek to leverage and continue current windfall profits (no pun) they are making from the current “market based” “incentive” approach to subsidizing renewable energy in NJ, se:

• Controversial New Funding Plan for Solar Sector Could Cause Big Disruption

Under the current “market based” approach, NJ homeowners, businesses, and workers are held hostage to the power and investment decisions of Wall Street and solar corporations.

Those private corporations decide when and where  and how much renewable power to invest in, how many jobs to create, how much those workers get paid, what benefits they are provided, who gets solar power, how much they pay for it, and how fast NJ can transition away from fossil fuels.

Most importantly, the need for Wall Street financing returns and corporate profits drives the cost of renewable power. Consumers are not only held hostage, they are paying a significant profit premium for renewable power.

I found this blatant blackmail threat to leave the state no different than the recent threat to shut down nuke plants in the “highway robbery” by PSEG in their nuke bailout: (NJ Spotlight)

If most developers agree with that assessment, it could lead to an exodus of large portions of the [solar] sector to other states, some said. By most accounts, the solar industry employs about 7,000 in New Jersey, more than 40% in the residential sector.

Get that?

If NJ ratepayers don’t provide sufficient profits to Wall Street banks and greedy solar investors, they will walk.

I say good riddance. Enough of the blackmail, shakedowns, and ripoffs.

Wall Street and the corporations have gone too far – their greed and arrogance know no bounds.

It’s time for public renewable power.

Public renewable power would put people of NJ in charge of the transition to renewable energy, democratizing current private market based decisions and significantly lowering the costs of that transition.

Public financing and ownership of solar and wind renewables would be FAR cheaper than relying on Wall Street financing and providing sufficient corporate profits for greedy investors.

Public ownership would allow real energy planning to occur, which would not only lower the costs, but greatly accelerate and rationalize the many technological, regulatory, and practical problems inherent in the massive transition away from a centralized fossil fuel based grid to energy efficiency and local distributed renewable power.

So, why not abandon the current market based approach and form a public NJ Solar Bank and Renewable Power Authority?

[Update – a veery old idea – check this out: (Washington Post, 6/21/79)

From the roof of the West Wing of the White House, President Carter called yesterday for creation of a $100 million solar energy bank to help move the country toward a goal of getting 20 percent of its power from the sun and other renewable sources of energy by the year 2000. ~~~ end update]

Legislation could build on the current NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust. The NJEIT is able to secure lower cost financing.

The Bernie Sanders Green New Deal plan calls for public power, in the form of redirecting and expanding the missions and jurisdiction of current federal Power Marketing Authorities (e.g. the TVA).

That federal approach is not inconsistent with State’s taking the lead in forming public power banks and publicly controlled renewable power authorities.

We are facing an existential crisis as a result of the accelerating climate emergency –

We can not put the fate of human civilization in the hands of Wall Street and greedy corporations.

Murphy Administration Essentially Outsourced Policy Role To Private Group

Report on lead likely to provide platform for privatization & dodge key issues

Lead issue tip of iceberg in a collapsing water infrastructure & regulatory framework

Back in January, a private Foundation created and/or funded group who claims exactly 544 members called Jersey Water Works publicly announced – in a press release – that they would:

produce report of best practices and recommendations for eliminating lead from drinking water statewide.

So, at a critical time, this private group basically took on the challenge of developing State policy, as the Murphy administration and Democratic legislature abdicated the policymaking role and dodged accountability for multiple failures. Accordingly, the Murphy administration was glad to assign DEP staff to support this private group, instead of having to do the heavy lifting in developing a real response to the multiple crises involved.

[Update – 10/8/19: Just 2 days after I wrote this, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that NJ Senate Democrats held a press conference stressing what the stenographic media called a “sense of urgency“. They are especially desperate to avoid any discussion of the privatization issue and their lead role in supporting it. But just like I said, it’s all BS:

Sweeney said New Jersey needs money to fix its water issues but he doesn’t want to raise fees. It’s something, he said, that could knock him out of office. ~~~ end update]

Jersey Water Works is another classic in NJ’s long history of allowing self selected, unaccountable, private sector special interest groups to frame the issues and dominate the public policymaking process. These groups are not subject to any public process, transparency, scientific peer review, or ethical restrictions. This is not only undemocratic, poor policy development, and ideologically biased, but it reeks of self dealing and conflicts of interest.

These “Stakeholder” groups typically form when a huge public controversy overwhelms state policymakers, exposes government negligence or failed regulatory oversight, and creates the need for political cover. Typically, the stakes are large: a huge pot of public money, deregulation, privatization, and/or economic opportunity is about to be created by government. Everyone then jumps on the gravy train.

Accordingly, following NJ longstanding pattern, JWW’s membership is dominated by a melange of those with huge economic interests in water: private water companies, consultants, banking & finance,  engineering and construction firms, real estate, and developers.

This economic development oriented private group is provided a veneer of legitimacy, “diversity”, “balance”, “building consensus”, and cover by the corrupt “transactional” planning and environmental groups that feed at the trough of government grants and Foundation funding (i.e. Sustainable NJ, NJ Future, American Littoral Society, Clean ocean Action, Clean Water Action, Environment NJ, et al).

Individuals and groups with an independent orientation (those groups that are membership funded and/or not dependent on in NJ state foundation funding) and those with a critical approach or what is viewed as a “radical” policy agenda (e.g. Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch, local grassroots community groups fighting for clean water, against privatization & toxic pollution, and active private citizens – i.e. anyone that works contrary to Neoliberal corporate interests) – are not invited and their views are marginalized.

So, with that said, first, let me set the policy context for this JWW Report.

The announcement came after increasing focus on: 1) longstanding multi-billion dollar water infrastructure deficits; 2) failure by State policymakers to enact a new revenue source to fund these deficits; 3) a series of drinking water crises across the state; 4) eight years of regulatory rollbacks and under investment by the Christie administration, and 5) passage of controversial privatization legislation by the Democratic legislature that deregulated and stripped voters of their rights to vote on whether or not to privatize their local water system.

The implications of how the privatization law stripped voters of their formal approval role was brought to light recently in Edison, where voters overwhelming rejected a proposed privatization plan, by over 84%, see:

• Edison’s voters force public control of water after yearlong political drama

As I’ve previously written, the JWW Report is very likely going to provide a platform for privatization (look for the euphemisms “public-private partnerships” and “asset management” to provide cover for privatization.)

But here are some important issues that I suspect that the Report will downplay or ignore completely (I’ll provide supporting text and links to these bullets over the ext few days. In the meantime, intrepid readers can word search Wolfenotes – I’ve posted stuff on almost all of this).

• Scientific flaws, gaps, and loopholes in current drinking water regulations and how they are monitored and enforced, including the federal EPA lead and copper rule and corrosion control that NJ DEP relies on
• Inadequate oversight, negligence, and lax enforcement by NJ DEP
• What really happened in Newark – what DEP knew and when they knew it
• Lack of resources and professional expertise & capacity at NJ DEP
• A specific new funding mechanism to adequately finance infrastructure upgrades (water tax)
• Regulatory mandates to consider environmental justice in DEP policy, rules, and decisions
• a regulatory based new Source water protection policy
• a new “precautionary” public health approach to DEP regulation, MCL’s, and “risk assessment”, including cumulative impacts, multiple chemical exposures, and multiple exposure pathways
• New regulatory restrictions on industrial polluters & sewage treatment plants
• New regulatory restrictions on land use and development
• New regulatory restrictions mandating retrofit of existing development
• Real enforceable timetables and milestones in combined sewer overflow permits
• New regulatory restrictions on agriculture and forestry (including bans of toxic pesticides and water quality based regulatory limits on fertilizers)
• Addressing over 500 “unregulated contaminants” in drinking water via what DEP has recommended as a “treatment based approach” (including new treatment requirements for drinking water plants AND wastewater discharges)
• Limits on surface and groundwater withdrawals – maintenance of river and stream flows
• Regulatory consideration of Climate change impacts on water resources and infrastructure
• New mandatory water conservation requirements
• Regulatory consideration of ecological impacts
• Enhanced DEP and State role in water supply planning and regulation
• Specific recommendations for new legislation and regulation

All of these issues in some way touch upon drinking water and the lead issue.

Frankly, the lead issue is the tip of the iceberg in a collapsing water infrastructure and regulatory framework.

More to follow when the Report is released.

Proposal Fails To Consider Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 

The Murphy DEP just extended the public comment period until October 22 on the DEP proposed  State Implementation Plan (SIP) For Regional Haze for the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

I don’t know why the public comment period was extended, but when DEP does so, it typically means either industry opposition or technical flaws with the original proposal.

[Note: Jeff Tittel of Sierra Club just sent this explanatory note:

We requested an extension and 2 week extension was granted .Taylor from Sierra was only commenter at the hearing we requested. ~~~ end Note]

On a positive note, SIP proposals are complex and typically take several years to develop, which can span administrations. Accordingly, sometimes an extension of a public comment period can provide the DEP Commissioner with the opportunity to reconsider policy in light of new science or different policy objectives than the prior administration that drafted a proposal.

Once again, the Murphy DEP has ignored an opportunity to regulate and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Firstly, the SIP ignores climate change. Even DEP’s own Global Warming Response Act Report (2009) notes the linkages between climate change and ground level ozone, particulates, and haze:  (@ page 10)

The DEP GWRA Report discusses that science further on page 24:

That DEP Report was written 10 year ago and is based on science even older than that. That science has only become stronger over the last decade.

Secondly, the DEP SIP gives short shrift to the air quality impacts of energy efficiency.

I have very little technical background in this issue, but I decided to do a quick review of the proposal, for key issues I am somewhat aware of. Based on that cursory review, I submitted the below 5 comments. Here’s the story:

The Regional Haze SIP is required by the federal Clean Air Act: (DEP SIP, p.1)

I urge those more familiar with this issue to ask DEP why they extended the public comment period and whether the proposal can be strengthened, (as it was likely developed during the Christie DEP anti-regulatory days).

With that in mind and based on a cursory review, I submitted the following comments.There could be many additional issues, including implications for the Pinelands.

Greetings – I submit the below comments on the DEP’s proposed regional haze SIP:

1. Climate change

The proposal fails to address emissions of greenhouse gases which cause and contribute to global warming, ground level ozone, and regional haze.

Based on consensus atmospheric and climate science, one of the known impacts of global warming is an increase in ground level ozone and an increase in atmospheric moisture.

Based on consensus atmospheric and climate science, increases in ground level ozone, fine particulates, and atmospheric moisture are precursors to regional haze and reduce visibility.

Therefore, the proposal is deficient and must be withdrawn until the Department considers emissions of greenhouse gases and imposes control strategies to reduce those emissions (also see above excerpts of GWRA Report).

2. Energy Efficiency

The SIP states:

“This MANE-VU Ask requires that States consider and report in their SIPs on measures or programs to decrease energy demand using energy efficiency and increase the use within their state of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and other clean Distributed Generation technologies including fuel cells, wind, and solar.” (p. 28, emphasis added)

The proposal failed to evaluate fuel cells, wind, and solar.

Additionally, today, NJ Spotlight reported on a study:

https://www.njspotlight.com/2019/10/nj-makes-small-gains-in-energy-efficiency-but-is-no-longer-a-leader-among-states/

“New Jersey, once a leader in energy efficiency, inched forward, ranking 17^th in the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, rising one place in the rankings.”

The SIP proposal is flawed because it did not address and report on the energy efficiency programs and haze control strategies documented in the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Report.

Despite these deficiencies, the proposal concludes that NJ is compliant with energy efficiency requirements.

“New Jersey has met the requirements for this Ask.” (page 29)

The DEP must analyze the air quality implications of distributed energy technologies and comprehensive energy efficiency and impose stricter regulation of those programs.

3. Prescribed Burns

The proposal states:

“Therefore, the MANE-VU Class I area states need additional help from the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Land Managers in pursuing important reasonable emission control measures.30 These include, but are not limited to:

1. Federal Land Managers to consult with MANE-VU Class I area states when scheduling prescribed burns and ensure that these burns do not impact nearby IMPROVE visibility measurements and do not impact potential 20 percent most and least visibility impaired days;”

The proposal is deficient in addressing prescribed burn impacts.

Accordingly the DEP should impose a moratorium on prescribed burns until impacts are assessed and regulatory control strategies in place.

4. Agricultural Burns

The proposal states:

“New Jersey is required to consider smoke management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and forestry management in developing reasonable progress goals in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D). New Jersey addresses smoke management through its Open Burning rules, as follows:”

The DEP open burning rules are deficient because they do not assess or control agricultural burns.

The proposal does not adequately assess or impose control requirements for agricultural burns.

Accordingly the DEP should impose a moratorium on prescribed burns until impacts are assessed and regulatory control strategies in place.

5. Residential Wood Burning

The SIP proposal states:

“Fine particulate matter from wood smoke contributes to regional haze. Residential wood burning from woodstoves and fireplaces is one of the largest sources of direct fine particulate matter, PM2.5, emissions in New Jersey“ (emphasis added, p. 36)

Yet despite this finding, the DEP does not regulate residential wood burning and relies exclusively on public eduction:

“New Jersey does not regulate wood stoves and fireplaces” (p. 36)

The proposal is deficient in this regard. It fails to adequately assess or impose control requirements on credential wood burning.

Accordingly the DEP should impose a moratorium on residential wood burning until impacts are assessed and regulatory control strategies in place – or equivalent emissions reductions can be achieved and demonstrated via regulation of other emission sources.

Sincerely,

Bill Wolfe