WolfeNotes.com

DEP Funds Sewage Pump Station Replacement at  Lake Como 

Sewage Infrastructure Above Drinking Water Supply Intakes Is Highly Vulnerable and Poses Significant Risks

DEP’s Funding Priorities Not Based on Plans

DEP issued a press release today touting a $2.95 million bridge loan to replace and relocate a sewage pump station at Lake Como in Monmouth County, see:

CHRISTIE ADMINISTRATION TAKES ACTION TO PROTECT WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AGAINST DISASTERS LIKE SANDY

TRENTON – The New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust (NJEIT), working in partnership with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), has closed on its first-ever disaster-emergency bridge loan, a $2.95 million package that will pay for the replacement and relocation of a sewage pumping station at Monmouth County’s Lake Como that was damaged by Superstorm Sandy, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin announced today.

The announcement left me scratching my head in wonder: what the hell are they thinking about over at DEP?

DEP is prioritizing protection of Lake Como? A tiny 8 acre lake in Monmouth County. Are you kidding me?

What about all the highly vulernable sewage pump stations and infrastructure located along NJ’s rivers just upstream on drinking water supply intakes? Like the Raritan, Passaic, Pompton, and Delaware rivers where hundreds of sewage plants discharge pollution upstream of drinking water intakes. )see

• Warning: This Map Could Make You Sick

As the entire nation just learned as a result of the West Virginia chemical spill – which shut down water supplies for hundreds of thousands of people for days –  drinking water supplies are at risk from upstream pollution sources.

NJ DEP should have learned this lesson from Sandy, where 94 sewage treatment plants and 400 community water supply systems were knocked out due to flooding or loss of electric power. As a result, we almost lost drinking water for major urbanized areas of north jersey, see:

• NEW JERSEY UNPREPARED FOR CLIMATE THREATS TO WATER SUPPLIES 

• CASCADING FAILURES THREATEN NEW JERSEY WATER SUPPLIES

What possible priority and risk is the Lake Como sewage pumping station compared to hundreds of other equally or more vulnerable infrastructure that could wipe out the water supply for hundreds of thousands of people?

This is nothing to brag about.

In fact, it illustrates DEP’ complete lack of priority and risk based infrastructure vulernability assessment, adaptation planning, and financial planning.

DEP’s absurdly self congratulatory press releases goes on to prove exactly that – i.e. DEP is not following a transparent and public vulnerability assessment and planning process based on rational criteria and standards:

The DEP and NJEIT are currently reviewing applications for short-term and long-term financing for a host of projects from other communities that include waterproofing of pumps and electrical equipment, installation of flood protection barriers and emergency generators, and studies to assess measures to prevent damage from floods and other disasters.

And finally, DEP ignores two important things:

• 1) Under the federal Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, there already is a capital infrastructure needs assessment, priority setting, and financial planing process for water supply and wastewater infrastructure.

That process is transparent, public, and based on objective  criteria. The Legislature authorizes the DEP recommended funding priorities and project allocations. (i.e Intended Use Plans).

DEP ignored all that and reinvented the wheel – no, it is more accurate to stay that they eliminated the wheel.

There is no map, no destination, and no one is steering the ship.

• 2) DEP issued permits for wastewater treatment & collection and water supply treatment & distribution systems already require emergency operations plans, including emergency backup power and infrastructure vulernability.

Most of those facilities either didn’t have emergency operational plans or had no ability to implement them.

Those permit requirements have been totally ignored by the water and sewer authorities and DEP did nothing to oversee or enforce these permit conditions.

DEP is not taking steps to strengthen the regulations or monitoring and enforcement of those permits.

All of that mismanagement and lax DEP oversight is now being swept under the rug and those negligent are not being held accountable.

This ad hoc approach illustrates NJ’s lack of any overall vulnerability assessment and adaption plan. 

And that is nothing to brag about in self congratulatory press releases.

BTW, there is over a $3 billion infrastructure deficit – just from Sandy – so a $2.95 million loan is a joke, not a press release.

It is truly amazing how the media just can’t seem to connect the dots on climate change – even when the evidence is staring them right in the face.

The NY Times ran a page one story today on the southern pine beetle infestation of pinelands forests – another example of global warming and climate change, see: In New Jersey Pines, Trouble Arrives on Six Legs.

The NY Times story closely follows what I’ve been writing here for months, on both the “forest stewardship” legislation and climate change, see: Will Climate Change Destroy The Pinelands?

But, in a critical oversight,  the NYT story failed to mention the current climate gorilla in the Pines – a proposed 22 mile gas pipeline to carry 20 billion cubic feet of gas to repower the BL England plant, creating well over 1 million tons of new greenhouse gas emissions at a time when we need to make deep emissions reductions to prevent catastrophic warming.

Or the fact that the Pinelands Commission’s review of the proposed new gas pipeline and the repowering of the BL England plant did not even consider climate change impacts or ecological impacts on the pinelands.

It is insane to be building more fossil infrastructure when we are on the verge of irreversible catastrophic warming and we need to make massive investments in efficiency & renewables and deep cuts in GHG emissions.

In another case of journalistic malpractice, NJ Spotlight finally jumped into the fray and covered the pipeline debate, see:  PROPOSED NATURAL GAS PIPELINE WOULD CUT THROUGH PINELANDS

Amazing,  that NJ Spotlight also ignored the most pressing climate issues as well – all while selectively excerpting supportive text from the MOA and suggesting that this project was no big deal and opponents’ criticism misguided, given the Commission’s claim of no impacts on the Pinelands and that there are other larger projects (all of which environmentalists have opposed).

The NY Times wrote a forestry story.  NJ Spotlight wrote an energy story.

And we’re all a little less informed and less effective as citizens after reading them.

And that is truly a shame.

Shocking and Blunt Discussion By Commission Unknowingly  Caught On Audio Tape

[Update: 10/19/13 – Kirk Moore, Asbury Park Press connects the dots: Report: Pinelands Commission Sidestepping Protections

I need to make one clarification, however, and it is important. Kirk reported that the tape was during Executive Session. That is not my understanding. The discussion on that tape occurred during the public session. This is important because the Commission will want to keep the substance of that discussion confidential and exempt from OPRA (see letter below), while creating the false impression that I somehow violated that confidentiality.

But even if the discussion cured during executive session – which it did not – the Commissioners were violating the narrow subject matter that can be discussed in Executive Session. end update]

A source recently provided me an audio tape of a 14 minute discussion by the Pinelands Commission, recorded during the September 13, 2013 meeting.

I was disturbed by what I heard and will share that entire tape just as soon as I can get a link made.

The Commissioners had just resumed from Executive Session and re-opened the meeting. The room was empty, the public having long gone home.

The Commissioners seemed unaware that they were being recorded and engaged in frank and deeply  disturbing discussions.

In a stunning and highly significant moment, legal Counsel to the Pinelands Commission, Ms. Roth, advised the Commission that they lack legal jurisdiction to review climate change related impacts and risks associated with the proposed 22 mile gas pipeline across the Pinelands to re-power the BL England power plant at Beesley’s point.

[Update: here is how the approved minutes whitewash that 14+ minute discussion:

Commissioners briefly discussed pre-application meetings and next steps for the South Jersey Gas application. – end update]

That legal guidance was conveyed – verbally – to Commissioners.

How is that even possible? How can a legal issue of this significance be conveyed casually, in an informal conversation?

Roth’s guidance was challenged immediately by a Commissioner, who is an experienced environmental lawyer.

Earlier, during the preceding Commission hearing that day, prior to Ms. Roth’s verbal guidance, I had testified to request that the Commission direct staff to build a legal and scientific nexus between pipeline emissions of greenhouse gases, the secondary impacts from the BL England plant’s GHG emissions, and the Commission’s enabling statute and relevant provisions of the CMP and implementing regulations.

[Update: per the approved minutes:

Bill Wolfe, New Jersey PEER, provided comments on the pre-application process. He also urged Commissioners to hire an independent consultant. He closed by urging staff and counsel to build the links both scientifically and legally to the Commission’s jurisdiction with regard to climate change. -end update]

I suggested direct climate change related impacts and linkages to forest ecosystems and fire risks.

I suggested that the Commission had clear enabling authority.

As I wrote, the US Forest Service has documented climate impacts and risks to Pinelands forests(see this) and is conducting research on these impacts (see this).

Ms. Roth’s legal guidance is hugely significant and it obviously can not stand unchallenged.

See the below letter to Chairman Lohbauer, which is the first step in challenging this absurd and irresponsible legal advise:

October 15, 2013

Dear Chairman Lohbauer:

At a prior public hearing, during my testimony, I asked the Commission how to navigate OPRA requests for Commission documents and was told that requested information is provided on an informal basis. It is with that commitment in mind that I make the following requests in lieu of filing a formal OPRA request.

It has come to my attention that Pinelands Commission Counsel, Ms. Roth, advised the Commissioners, on the public record and during an open portion of the the September 13, 2013 public meeting, the the Commission lacks jurisdiction and a legal basis to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases or the impacts of climate change on the Pinelands.

Commissioner X, an experienced environmental attorney, rejected that analysis and stated he could make a legal argument to the contrary.

I’d be glad to provide the specific quote from Ms. Roth and Commissioner X, verbatim, from a transcript of the recorded hearing.

The portion of the hearing I refer to is after the Commission reconvened from Executive Session and before a motion to adjourn was offered.

Because this legal advise Counselor Roth provided during public session and on the record has major implications, I must inquire upon what legal basis and by what legal reasoning Ms. Roth so advised the Commission.

Of course you realize that legal advise provided during public session is not a “deliberative” exemption under OPRA or otherwise protected by attorney client work product confidentiality.

Specifically:

1. has the Attorney General’s Office issued a legal memorandum of law regarding the Commission’s jurisdiction in this regard? If so, please provide a copy of that Memorandum of law.

2. Has the Commission requested such  legal advisory opinion from the Attorney General’s Office? If so, please provide the relevant correspondence.

3. Has Ms. Roth rendered a written legal opinion to support her advise to the Commissioners? If so, please provide a copy of that written opinion.

4. On what basis did Ms. Roth provide that legal opinion? Please provide the written basis.

5. Has the Commission accepted Ms. Roth’s opinion that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to regulate either the emissions of greenhouse gases of the impacts of climate change? Please provide the Commission’s legal analysis or policy statement in this regard.

Surely you understand that the above legal questions are highly significant, substantive, germane to the Commission’s ongoing review of the pending South Jersey Gas Co. pipeline application and the development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

Surely you also realize that the above documents requests are within the scope of OPRA and are public records.

And surely you will agree that the principles of transparency, rule of law, and sound decision making require response to the above questions and provision of the requested legal opinions, should they exist.

I look forward to your earliest and favorable response, certainly with sufficient time to prepare for the next public meeting of the Commission.

Sincerely,

Don’t expect anything to change – this is all “pretend” – the “old normal”.

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.  ~~~ Wolfenotes – 1/24/13

“The order amounts to a total abdication of DEP’s responsibility to supervise responsible planning and environmentally sound permitting of critical public infrastructure,’’ said Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a public watchdog group. ~~~ NJ Spotlight 11/7/12

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight reports today on Gov. Christie signing important legislation:

CHRISTIE SIGNS BILL PROVIDING FUNDS TO REPAIR, HARDEN NJ WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

With some of the state’s largest drinking water and wastewater treatment plants heavily damaged by Hurricane Sandy, Gov. Chris Christie yesterday signed a bill aimed at financing repairs at the facilities.

The legislation (S-2815) establishes a three-year program that could allocate up to $5 billion, not only to repair the plants, but also to harden them against future extreme weather, a probability that has elicited broad bipartisan agreement of what is the “new normal.’’

The Gov. and the Legislature are pretending to address NJ’s massive infrastructure vulnerability problems that will only worsen as climate change accelerates.

The problem begins and progress is being blocked at the top – because Gov. Christie continues to deny that climate change is an urgent issue that must be incorporated into all policies NOW – instead, the Gov. says that climate change is an “esoteric issue” he has no time to consider.

The Gov.’s views are why, first of all, NJ does not have a Climate Change Adaptation plan, the only state in the Northeast not to have one.

As a result, State officials are flying blind – no assessment of the problem, no idea of the feasible options or the cost of solutions, no policy in plan and no plan on how to implement the policy.

The Gov. is blocking development of any regional planning – even for the highly vulnerably NJ coast, where he is opposing a Coastal Commission.

The bill the Gov. signed is business as usual – made far worse by DEP Commissioner Bob Martin’s Order which deregulated repair and re-installation of infrastructure damaged or destroyed by Sandy.

Jeff Tittel got it exactly right when he said:

“Even though we have just been devastated by Hurricane Sandy and are trying to rebuild, this legislation does not even mention climate change adaptation or preparing for sea-level rise or storm surges. We are concerned that this money is just going out to sea in the next storm,’’ said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, a frequent critic of the Christie administration.

But there are additional major gaps, loopholes, and flaws in existing regulatory programs and lax or non-existent DEP oversight that also must be addressed.

As I’ve written, current DEP NJPDES regulations make emergency planning voluntary and do not require implementation. That regulatory loophole must be closed.

Similarly, the DEP water supply regulations put DEP in charge of emergency planning for water supply infrastructure. DEP has done NOTHING to fulfill this responsibility.

(other than to outsource the program and shift a State responsibility to local governments)

Which takes me to the final point about accountability.

For years, DEP ignored Reports and warnings about infrastructure vulnerability (including DEP’s own Pilot Program and professional staff recommendations).

For years, DEP failed to enforce or strengthen rules.

For years, DEP failed to approach the Legislature or to initiate a public planning process to address these huge challenges.

All that is really bad and directly led to the lack of preparation by water and sewer utilities which caused far more damage than necessary (e.g. no backup power, insufficient/no fuel, no vulnerability reduced, etc).

This DEP lax oversight and negligence and incompetence were as bad or worse than NJ Transit’s mistakes in storing rolling stock in flood hazard zone that caused over $100 million in damage.

All this is really bad –

But then consider that tropical storm Irene illustrated huge vulnerabilities, e.g. it led to pipeline break that knocked out Monmouth’s water supply for an extended period.

Irene should have been a huge wakeup call. But it was ignored, making Sandy damage FAR WORSE than it had to be.

Bottom line: DEP has dodged all accountability for this and the “solution” just passed by the Legislature did not address or fix any of these problems.

Don’t expect anything to change – this is all “pretend” – the “old normal”.

In case our politicians forgot what they look like

Scenes from Bordentown River Line Station & Park

Blacks Creek, just south of Station

bridge over Blacks Creek (Rt. 662 - Burlington Street)