WolfeNotes.com

While I don’t know if the Senate Judiciary Committee has set a date yet, Gov. Murphy’s nominee for DEP Commissioner, Catherine McCabe, soon will face a Senate confirmation hearing.

In an effort to educate Committee members and inform the public debate, today I post this open letter as a list of suggested questions.

In fairness, I just gave a heads up to Ms. McCabe via email:

Dear Commissioner McCabe – We have not met, but I thought you might appreciate a heads up on some questions I suggested for your confirmation hearing. See the list below.

FYI, when Brad Campbell took the DEP reins, he hired me and tasked me with preparing what he called an “honest baseline” Report. The objective of that effort was to get all the skeletons out. He directed each Assistant Commissioner to prepare a “vulnerability assessment” of their programs that I was to use as the basis for the Report. (e.g. look at this “vulnerability assessment” on the toxic site cleanup program provided by former Assistant Commissioner Susan Boyle.]

You might want to consider a similar initiative.

Respectfully,

Dear Members of the Judiciary Committee:

I write to you as a longtime environmental professional and former 13 year DEP veteran in order to suggest focused policy questions you may wish to pose to Acting DEP Commissioner McCabe during confirmation hearings.

Acting Commissioner McCabe faces huge challenges after 8 years of rollbacks and DEP institutional erosion under the Christie administration’s “regulatory relief” and “red tape” policies. I was faced with addressing very similar issues in my capacity as policy advisor to former DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell, after 8 years of Gov. Whitman’s “Open For Business” policies and DEP budget cuts.

I urge your consideration of the following questions:

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2018/01/nj-gov-murphy-faces-a-huge-challenge-reversing-christie-environmental-dismantling/

1. In May 2010, the NJ DEP issued a Report that found over 500 unregulated chemicals in NJ water supply & that granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment was cost effective. I wrote:

DEP scientists presented a Report to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute on May 7, 2010.

The Report, entitled “Investigations Related to a ‘Treatment-Based’ Regulatory Approach to Address Unregulated Contaminants in Drinking Water“  found over 500 unregulated chemicals are present in NJ drinking water.

It recommended that public water supply systems install treatment to reduce the health risks of these chemicals.

DEP has known about these risks since 1997 – but has failed to act to protect public health.

We are petitioning DEP to develop regulations that require public water supply systems to install treatment systems, monitor for these chemicals, and disclose these risks to consumers.

The DEP denied our petition.

So, will the Murphy DEP continue the ineffective chemical specific risk assessment approach to developing drinking water MCL’s or shift to a Treatment Based Approach, as recommended by DEP scientists almost a decade ago?

[Note: supporting data and technical basis can be found in NJ DEP science and NJ DEP’s “Source Water Assessment Program”,  which provides “susceptibility” and “vulnerability assessments” and pollution threats to drinking water sources for every municipality in NJ. Hit the link and look up your town’s threats. You would be shocked by what you find hidden in plain sight and ignored by DEP regulators.]

2. Will the Murphy DEP adopt regulations to quantify and enforce Natural Resource Damage (NRD) injuries in order to fix legal and technical defects found by NJ Court decisions and vulnerabilities that Gov. Christie’s AG found weakened the State’s litigation hand and used as a rationale to settle not further litigate (i.e. Exxon et al)?

3. Will the Murphy DEP repeal Christie DEP rollbacks of stream encroachment (C1 protections), CAFRA (and not just the public access provisions), WQMP, & Highlands regulatory protections?

[Update: apology for the oversight, but one of the last terrible regulations Bob Martin adopted on the way out was the “Forest Stewardship” rules. Will Murphy DEP repeal and repropose rules that protect forest ecosystems, water quality, and incorporate climate change?~~~ end update]

4. Will the Murphy DEP rescind, strengthen, and replace the Christie DEP Water Supply Plan(after holding public hearings throughout the state)?

5. Will the Murphy DEP reverse Christie DEP Clean Water Act TMDL policy for Barnegat Bay & trigger a mandatory watershed-wide TMDL for the entire Bay? (DEP’s water quality monitoring, assessment, and TMDL programs need major overhauls after 8 years of Martin’s neglect and politicization of science).

6. Will the Murphy DEP mandate the statistical 500 year event in all DEP water resource & infrastructure programs to reflect climate change impacts?

7. Will the Murphy DEP act on DEP scientists’ recommendations in a DEP Report to upgrade several streams to Category One status & otherwise expand the C1 program that was stalled by the Christie DEP?

8. Will the Murphy DEP rescind and replace the Christie DEP “Nutrient Criteria Enhancement Plan” & enforce nutrient criteria Surface Water Quality Standards in land use permitting and mandate nutrient removal treatment in NJPDES POTW permits? (POTW = sewage treatment plants)

9. Will the Murphy administration develop a regional land use regulatory planning scheme to protect water resources of the ecologically exceptional, highly vulnerable, and badly neglected Delaware Bayshore? (along the lines of Pinelands and Highlands)

10. Will Gov. Murphy repeal Gov. Christie’s Executive Orders #2 (regulatory relief, federal consistency, pre-proposal review) and Executive Order #3 (Red Tape)?

11. Will Gov. Murphy & DEP incorporate climate change reviews, backed by enforceable standards, retrofit requirements, and offsets, to meet the emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act in all land use, infrastructure, air quality, and water resource permits?

12. Will Gov. Murphy – like NY Gov. Cuomo – direct DEP to deny all fossil infrastructure permits based on Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality certification?

13. Will Gov. Murphy reverse Gov. Christie’s water resource infrastructure, State lands, & State Parks privatization policies and rescind Christie privatization Executive Orders (see EO17)?

14. Will the Murphy DEP reverse the Christie DEP State Public Lands logging policies and plans (i.e. Sparta Mountain WMA “Forest Management Plan”, stop privatizing planning for management of state lands and parks by so called conservation groups like NJ Audubon and NJ Future, and revise all similar “Stewardship” initiatives”, et al))

15. Will the Murphy DEP repeal current policy to rely on “BMP’s” and instead enforce NJ Surface Water Quality Standards on forestry, agricultural practices and in freshwater wetlands and land use permits?

16. Will Gov. Murphy issue Executive Orders to expand public involvement in DEP regulatory & permit decisions and develop  Urban environmental quality and environmental justice policies, including mandatory Environmental Justice reviews in designated EJ communities?

17. Will the Murphy DEP close many loopholes and gaps in DEP’s site remediation program to protect groundwater resources & water supplies?

18. Will the Murphy DEP abolish the Science Advisory Board, which has gross conflicts of interest and has become a vehicle for undue industry access, politicization of science, and attacks on regulatory public health and environmental protections?

19. Will the Murphy DEP stop issuing new and revoke hundreds of existing DEP approved “Classification Exception Areas” that waive compliance with groundwater quality standards and instead mandate permanent cleanup of groundwater at high risk contaminated sites?

20. Will the Murphy DEP adopt long overdue NJ DEP derived “eco-flow goals” in water allocation regulations, backed by enforceable numeric standards?

21. Will the Murphy DEP begin to enforce exceedences of current water allocation permit limits?

22. Will the Murphy DEP revoke and strengthen DEP’s “Vapor Intrusion Guidance” to eliminate the “phased approach” and instead take a precautionary approach to protect people in their homes from toxic pollution vapors? (e.g. sample indoor air early on).

23. Will the Murphy DEP revive and adopt drinking water MCL for perchlorate proposed by the Corzine DEP and killed by the Christie DEP, as well as 14 other hazardous drinking water contaminants previously recommended by the Drinking Water Quality Institute?

24. Will the Murphy DEP begin to collect market based lease and easement revenues for private use of state lands and natural resources?

25. Will Gov. Murphy support, work with Senator Smith, and sign legislation to eliminate the current$50 million cap on liability for spills?

26. Will Gov. Murphy support and work with Senator Smith to enact water user and development or impervious surface impact fees to fund the multi-billion dollar water infrastructure deficit?

27. Will the Murphy DEP end current DEP policy to rely on “shelter in place” responses to chemical spills and catastrophic releases and begin to develop protective policies for those who live in mapped “off site consequence” areas under NJ State TCPP and federal Clean Air Act ARP programs? (Paulsboro train derailment et al).

28. Will Gov. Murphy use his powers to block “bomb trains” and other unsafe toxic rail and truck shipments through NJ to protect vulnerable communities? How will the administration address these unacceptable risks?

29. What will the Gov. and the Murphy DEP do to promulgate enforceable requirements for reducing risks identified in NJ’s federally mandated Hazard Mitigation Plan?

30. Will the Murphy DEP revoke and reissue the Christie DEP stormwater and CSO permits to include enforceable timetables and technical requirements?

31. Will the Murphy DEP adopt new rules to mandate risk assessment – based on cumulative risk to the most vulnerable populations – and more stringent “advances in the art” (NJ’s legal standard) air pollution controls for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)

32. Will Gov. Murphy support and work with the legislature to ban importation and disposal of fracking wastewater? Will the DEP use all regulatory tools to restrict such practices?

33. Will the Murphy DEP restore the Commissioner’s Office that conducts department-wide policy, planning, and regulation, while applying DEP’s scientists recommendations? This Office was abolished by the Christie DEP.

34. Will the Murphy DEP eliminate Christie DEP initiatives, programs, and Offices designed to serve corporate interests over protection of public health and the environment, including “culture change”, “customer service”, economic development, dispute resolution, sustainable towns and business, et al?

35. Will the Murphy DEP re-open Bulls Island State Park?

36. Will the Murphy DEP sever all relationships, State funding, and pending projects with NJ Audubon Society?

37. Will the Murphy Administration terminate funding and support of “Sustainable NJ” and stop outsourcing of climate adaptation policies to private groups and deluging responsibility to local governments (without the resources or legal power under NJ Municipal Land Use Law to act)?

38. Will Murphy terminate Christie plans to develop and/or privatize Liberty State Park and terminate all State funding and support for NJ Future, who worked with the Christie DEP in secret?

39. What are the Murphy Administration’s specific plans to get the Pinelands Commission and Highlands Council back on track?

40. Given NJ’s experience with Superstorm Sandy and Gov. Christie’s “Rebuild Madness”, will Gov. Murphy support and sign legislation to:

a) establish a Coastal Commission to conduct regional climate adaptation and land use planning and environmental management?

b) repeal the “right to rebuild” storm damaged properties in CAFRA and the Flood Hazard Control Act?

c) rescind Administrative Order #2012-13, which exempted Sandy rebuild activities from DEP permitting.

[Also see: “A PATH FORWARD FOR THE SHORE”]

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Wolfe

Deb Mans is a politically safe follower, not an aggressive environmental leader

For Mans to provide cover for the Christie DEP is an outrage

[Update – 4/13/18 – We just came across this – we doubt that Mans will walk the walk with Gov. Murphy:

“Climate change needs to be more than about rejoining RGGI,’’ noted Debby Mans, NY/NJ Baykeeper. (NJ Spotlight, 8/11/17) ~~~ end update]

My mom told me to judge people by the people they surround themselves with.

By that standard, NJ Gov. Murphy’s Acting DEP Commissioner Catherine McCabe has not shown strength of character.

McCabe made her first management move on Monday, naming Debbie Mans Deputy Commissioner. Mans is formerly head of NY/NJ Baykeeper – read DEP press release.

There were more qualified, more accomplished, and more aggressive environmental advocate candidates that were bypassed in favor of Ms. Mans.

McCabe’s move has generated favorable – and highly misleading by error, spin and omission – press coverage and cheerleading from the usual suspects in the environmental community, see: Appointment of veteran environmentalist marks shift at New Jersey DEP.

This is just one crock of shit in the superficial media coverage:

A longtime clean water advocate, Mans often battled the DEP under Christie, with efforts including a crusade by her organization to establish an oyster reef to clean polluted water in places like the Hackensack River.

Hello! Funding your organization through largely ineffective window dressing feel good projects like oyster restoration is hardly the profile of a “clean water advocate”.

While the DEP Deputy Commissioner position is more of a prestige than a policymaking position – the real DEP management team policy appointments are the Assistant Commissioners, especially the Ac’s for Environmental Regulation and Enforcement – still, it is important to note what the Mans selection signals for McCabe’s judgment and the direction of the Murphy DEP.

So today, we flesh out the details that the media ignored and DEP press releases omitted or spun.

Debbie Mans can hardly be described as a “veteran environmentalist”. She has had little statewide Trenton based legislative and regulatory experience as an “environmentalist”, has virtually no Statewide accomplishments, leadership, or policy victories, and has taken few personal or professional risks, in terms of speaking truth to power or advocating for significant or controversial policy reforms (or opposing bad things like privatization of the DEP’s toxic sites cleanup program, a policy dictated  by her boss Gov. Corzine – or privatizing NJ’s drinking water and sewer systems).

Mans’ few statewide efforts have either been faux grassroots projects manufactured by Foundations like Dodge (e.g. toothless CSO permits, and “urban water infrastructure” (cover for privatization, developer subsidies, and gentrification). These diversions allowed Mans to do NOTHING to oppose privatization of NJ water and sewer systems) or strategic blunders and abject failures (e.g. public access lawsuit attacking DEP’s regulatory powers).

The Bergen Record cites Mans’ efforts in the Passaic River Superfund cleanup.

Mans also was a force in getting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to approve a $1.4 billion cleanup of the Passaic River despite a strong lobbying effort by dozens of polluters for a cheaper alternative.

But exactly the opposite is true. Mans supported the cheaper and less protective cleanup alternative!

Mans compromised and supported a low cost partial cleanup – a cap – instead of a permanent cleanup and dredging and complete removal of contaminated river sediments, the remedial alternative advocated by community and environmental groups, like Sierra Club. 

The Record misleadingly cites a $1.4 billion cleanup as huge, but ignores the facts that:

1) The EPA Superfund Record of Decision (ROD) considered and developed a cost estimate for a complete cleanup alternative. EPA rejected the far more costly complete cleanup in favor of a less costly and less protective cap. Mans supported that sell out by EPA. (caps are ridiculed by community and environmental advocates as “pave and wave”. The “environmental” position on cleanups is almost always in support of complete removal, known in regulatory jargon as a “permanent remedy”).

2) Mans caved, despite the fact that a Judge had previously ruled: Occidental Must Cover $4B River Cleanup, Judge Says

Mans also has proven adept at ingratiating political stunts like this (that’s EPA Region 2 Administrator Enck – at a time then EPA Region 2 was funding her organization):

Even as NY/NJ Baykeeper, Mans played political games, like failing to challenge a Billionaire’s – and major Democratic donor – scheme to fill and develop the Hudson River, known as Pier 55

“I find it astonishing,” says Peter Silverstein “that Riverkeeper [AND NY/NJ Baykeeper] has failed to take action against this project.”

Her Trenton experience is primarily political, a former Corzine political appointment who was ineffective as a policy advisor to Gov. Corzine.

Mans knows how to work not only the Foundations, but the Democratic political operatives and donors, in political projects like this:

The Passaic River Patrol is a joint venture between the two long-time partners, with financial support from the Neu Family Foundation. …

The Patrol also has the backing of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Authority and Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo, Jr.

Not one of the real clean water advocates I’ve worked with in Trenton for over 30 years was ever praised by sewage treatment plant operators. These advocates were the folks whose leadership brought real clean water protections from real laws and regulations with teeth, like the Clean Water Enforcement Act, the Highlands Act, and the Category One Waters stream buffer protection program.

When the sewage treatment plants and local political machine hacks like Essex County’s  Joe D. are praising your work, its because you are a bought and paid for chump, working on diversions and window dressing, not real clean water protections (which cost money!).

Yes, Mans sure knows how to shake the funding tree – she even took money from Chris Christie! Mans objected to me talking publicly about this $1 million sweetheart deal she benefitted from:

CRI administered $1 million in funding for an oyster restoration project in the Raritan Bay which was provided under a civil settlement with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. and the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety. The settlement arose from a February 2006 oil spill in the Arthur Kill, the strait separating Staten Island from New Jersey.

From 2007 – 2014, this funding was used on NY/NJ Baykeeper’s Oyster Restoration in the Raritan Estuary Initiative. It funded the first stages of restoring oysters to the Raritan Bay including research and experiments that have shown that oysters can be restored to this area. Through their work in New York City and New Jersey, Baykeeper is showing that oysters can play a fundamental role helping filter pollutants and restore ecosystem function to the Raritan Bay and Hudson River Estuary.

These types of civil settlements are quite common at the Federal level. Realizing this, CRI met with the US Attorney’s office in 2007 after they announced a big settlement in New Jersey that was to be awarded to NFWF, which, in-turn, was going to grant it to other non-profit conservation organizations in New Jersey. We met with the US Attorney in order to determine whether or not a local non-profit could play the role that NFWF typically plays in administering these funds. The US Attorney’s office could not provide an answer to us and it still remains unclear whether NFWF has a monopoly on this type of federal funding. 

Mans has also been funded by NJ DEP (she used her personal contacts to secure that money) and US EPA. (links forthcoming on that)

I would describe Mans as a follower – not a leader – a loyal Democratic supporter, and a politically safe appointment.

She began her NJ career at the Stonybrook Watershed. Former Watershed Director George Hawkins set the tone for that organization. Hawkins was widely criticized as a notorious opportunist, who put fundraising and political cover (for Gov. Whitman) above policy and principle, a fundamental flaw that Ms. Mans epitomizes.

Mans got tons of press about her “oyster restoration” project – now rehashed in praise by the Bergen Record but belied by the facts – look at photo below and news coverage. The Record is just flat out wrong in printing this half truth, which amounts to a lie:

Mans often battled the DEP under Christie, with efforts including a crusade by her organization to establish an oyster reef to clean polluted water

After the initial fight, Mans ended up SUPPORTING the Christie DEP. And even worse than providing Christie DEP cover, in defending her organizations pet project and funding source, Mans ignored the real water pollution threats and DEP regulatory failures, and instead used that press to create a faux image as an aggressive advocate and critic of the Christie administration – but LOOK AT THIS:

Michele Siekerka, assistant commissioner of water resource management at the DEP, was on hand to show the state’s support of the work.”Today is really about successful partnership,” she said, saying the effort between the Navy, Baykeeper and the DEP showed a joint mission in environmental stewardship, quality of life and public safety – “safe waters and sound science.”

Shortly after that political photo-op, Ms. Siekerka spun the revolving door and rejoined her corporate friends as President of NJ BIA. For Mans to provide cover for Siekerka and the Christie DEP is an outrage.

More recently, Mans has joined a corporate, politically moderate, and financially well endowed elite conservation faction that is led by Mike Catania of the Duke Foundation. That faction has formed other interlocking astroturf groups like the Keep It Green Coalition and the NJ League of Conservation Voters. These people are NOT activists or aggressive activists, nor are their organizations. They focus on funding their organizations and pet projects. Period.

Basically, the purpose of this foundation funding driven KIG – NJ LCV project is to get Jeff Tittel and the “Trenton radicals” out of leadership and control of the political strategy and media message  of the NJ environmental movement.

Mans is at the heart of that “counter-revolution”.

Mans is on NJ LCV Board. NJ LCV endorsed Murphy for Gov. [and spent $335,000 to help elect Murphy]. Her appointment creates the appearance of a quid pro quo – in NJ, that’s a violation of the State Ethics law’s “appearance” standard.

DEP Commissioner McCabe worked for RA Enck at EPA Region 2 in NY. She has to be familiar with all this.

Given all that, I see the Mans selection as another cynical move by this Administration to garner “green cover” and favorable media.

This does not bode well for the much needed real substantive policy reforms, see:  NJ Gov. Murphy Faces A Huge Challenge Reversing Christie Environmental Dismantling And Restoring DEP Integrity and Leadership.

Will The Gov. and DEP Commissioner Face Tough Questions Or Get A Pass?

Restoration Requires Executive Orders, Regulations, Policies, Budget, Staff

I want to thank NJ Spotlight and their recent “Have A Question” series for prompting me to write this post, something I’ve been thinking of doing for a long time but been too lazy to begin.

Given the comprehensive scope of the Christie Administration’s environmental rollbacks – now compounded by the Trump threats – there is a tremendous amount of work to do.

Remarkably, outgoing Christie DEP Commissioner Bob Martin – by far the most unqualified and worst DEP Commissioner ever – denied all that in an Orwellian 58 page Report celebrating his “accomplishments”, including this blatant lie in an introductory “Message from the Commissioner”:

“During the past eight years, DEP never relaxed a single environmental standard.”

This BS from the Commissioner who signed the waiver rule, which gives him power not only to relax but to waive many NJ State (non-federally delegated) environmental standards and regulatory requirements; and the Highlands septic density rule that relaxed the 88 acre septic density in the Preservation Area and 25 acres for non-forested lands (a rule recently vetoed by the Legislature); and the Stream Encroachment rules that relaxed Category One (C1) exceptional stream buffer protections, among others. (a rule that barely escaped legislative veto)

This BS from the DEP Commissioner who implemented Gov. Christie’s “regulatory relief” and “federal consistency” rollback policies in Executive Order #2 and shared Gov. Christie’s slogan and policy view that regulations constituted “job killing “Red Tape” (Executive Order #3).  A Commissioner who was loyal to a Gov. that said climate change was an “esoteric” issue that no one cared about and ignored the Global Warming Response Act.

A Commissioner who sought to change DEP “culture” and issued a “Transformation Plan” and “Vision Statement” that sought to make “fundamental change” in how DEP functioned, including: a radical new role to promote economic development; a goal and directive to DEP to rely on “cost benefit analysis” (weighted above or equivalent to the findings of science and legislative mandates to protect public health and the environment); and – in a move that harkens back to Chairman Mao – required every single DEP employee to attend “customer service” training (a “business model” where the “customer” is DEP regulated business, industry, and developers, not the public).

Martin harshly criticized DEP scientists and in public testimony to the Legislature, called their work “shoddy”. This attack from a man with no scientific or environmental training or experience.

This transparent BS from a Commissioner that was rebuked by the Asbury Park Press editorial board for “spin” and “restricting public discussion” – and called out by the Bergen Record editorial board for lying about why he killed the Corzine DEP proposed drinking water standard for perchlorate. The Bergen Record’s link is no longer working so here is an excerpt. In April 2010, I caught and called out Commissioner Martin for a lie on killing the perchlorate drinking water standard, a claim validated by a killer 4/25/10 Bergen Record story and an April 30, 2010 followup highly critical editorial titled “Cleaner Water”:

Cleaner water 

… Martin’s new opinion came about after he was embarrassed publicly. The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility released e-mails sent to Martin from the EPA that made clear that even if the agency imposed a limit, 6 1/2 years could elapse before the rule was in place, Staff Writer James O’Neill reported. Martin would have been playing Russian roulette with the public’s health.

Perchlorate is linked to thyroid dysfunction. In fetuses and infants (through formula or breast milk), high levels of perchlorate can cause developmental delays and learning disabilities. No parent would ever choose to give perchlorate-laced juice to a baby, and no pregnant woman would ever drink a caffeine-free beverage if she knew it included a rocket-fuel additive.

The previous commissioner had proposed a sensible perchlorate limit of 5 parts per billion, far below a possible federal limit. The state limit would leave it in a good position if later scientists find that even 15 parts per billion is too high.

Martin has not said what the perchlorate limit will be. We know what it should be: 5 parts per billion.

Any “environmental standard” is only as real as the DEP effort to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement. “Relax” compliance and enforcement and you effectively relax the standard. Martin’s DEP enforcement performance set at a record low, as reported by Todd Bates of the Asbury Park Press:

proposed fines covering seven major DEP programs, including air and water quality and land use, plunged from $31.6 million in fiscal year 2007 to $9.1 million in fiscal 2011. That’s the lowest figure since at least 2002 and about half the 10-year average.

The collection of fines is down as well, dropping to $7.5 million in fiscal 2011, the lowest figure since 2006. Also, the number of enforcement inspectors has dropped by about 20 percent over the past five years, making it more difficult to catch polluters in the first place.

At the same time, the DEP has dramatically increased the number of settlements it has agreed to, allowing polluters to get off with relatively small fines. These settlements, the environmental equivalent of a plea bargain, allow violators to pay far less in fines, sometimes pennies on the dollars.

This “relaxed” enforcement policy was part of a broader Christie/Martin “DEP Transformation” agenda to gut the traditional DEP regulatory enforcement paradigm and replace it with a voluntary, privatized, corporate model (based on private 3rd party “certifications” and “incentives (and “dispute resolution” and “self-disclosure immunity”.)

Enough of the Christie – Martin past. Let’s lay out a reform agenda for Gov. Murphy and his DEP Commissioner McCabe.

Below is a short list of the kind of tough substantive questions that begin to outline the legislative and regulatory policies that need to be addressed, posed as questions to Gov. Murphy and his DEP Commissioner Nominee McCabe. These questions should be asked by the media and legislators and frame the demands that must be made by environmental groups.

DEP Commissioner nominee McCabe should face these kind of questions during her upcoming Senate Confirmation hearings.

In this initial effort – which is off the top of my head – I limited the supporting information and links to the first question. I could do the same for each of the 39 questions, but that would make the post far too long – and be more work than I care to do right now.

I format and begin with an emphasis on water resources because that’s what NJ Spotlight asked for from readers. To get a more comprehensive agenda and flesh the below questions out and back it up with supporting material, the intrepid journalist and activist might want to review the last 8 years of NJ Spotlight coverage of the Christie Administration, NJ PEER press releases, and posts here at Wolfenotes (use the search function in the upper right corner of the page).

I’ll try to doing subsequent posts for questions on other DEP programs and climate and energy policy questions.

1. In May 2010, the NJ DEP issued a Report that found over 500 unregulated chemicals in NJ water supply & that granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment was cost effective.I wrote:

DEP scientists presented a Report to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute on May 7, 2010.

The Report, entitled “Investigations Related to a ‘Treatment-Based’ Regulatory Approach to Address Unregulated Contaminants in Drinking Water“  found over 500 unregulated chemicals are present in NJ drinking water.

It recommended that public water supply systems install treatment to reduce the health risks of these chemicals.

DEP has known about these risks since 1997 – but has failed to act to protect public health.

We are petitioning DEP to develop regulations that require public water supply systems to install treatment systems, monitor for these chemicals, and disclose these risks to consumers.

The DEP denied our petition.

So, will the Murphy DEP continue the ineffective chemical specific risk assessment approach to developing drinking water MCL’s or shift to a Treatment Based Approach, as recommended by DEP scientists almost a decade ago?

2. Will the Murphy DEP adopt regulations to quantify and enforce Natural Resource Damage (NRD) injuries in order to fix legal and technical defects found by NJ Court decisions and vulnerabilities that Gov. Christie’s AG found weakened the State’s litigation hand and used as a rationale to settle not further litigate (i.e. Exxon et al)?

3. Will the Murphy DEP repeal Christie DEP rollbacks of stream encroachment (C1 protections), CAFRA (and not just the public access provisions), WQMP, & Highlands regulatory protections?

4. Will the Murphy DEP rescind, strengthen, and replace the Christie DEP Water Supply Plan (after holding public hearings throughout the state)?

5. Will the Murphy DEP reverse Christie DEP Clean Water Act TMDL policy for Barnegat Bay & trigger a watershed-wide TMDL for the entire Bay? (DEP’s water quality monitoring, assessment, and TMDL programs need major overhauls after 8 years of Martin’s neglect and politicization of science).

6. Will the Murphy DEP mandate the statistical 500 year event in all DEP water resource & infrastructure programs to reflect climate change impacts?

7. Will the Murphy DEP act on DEP scientists’ recommendations in a DEP Report to upgrade several streams to Category One status & otherwise expand the C1 program that was stalled by the Christie DEP?

8. Will the Murphy DEP rescind and replace the Christie DEP “Nutrient Criteria Enhancement Plan” & enforce nutrient criteria Surface Water Quality Standards in land use permitting and mandate nutrient removal treatment in NJPDES POTW permits? (POTW = sewage treatment plants)

9. Will the Murphy administration develop a regional land use regulatory planning scheme to protect water resources of the ecologically exceptional, highly vulnerable, and badly neglected Delaware Bayshore? (along the lines of Pinelands and Highlands)

10. Will Gov. Murphy repeal Gov. Christie’s Executive Orders #2 (regulatory relief, federal consistency, pre-proposal review) and #3 (Red Tape)?

11. Will Gov. Murphy & DEP incorporate climate change reviews, backed by enforceable standards, retrofit requirements, and offsets, to meet the emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act in all land use, infrastructure, air quality, and water resource permits?

12. Will Gov. Murphy – like NY Gov. Cuomo – direct DEP to deny all fossil infrastructure permits based on Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality certification?

13. Will Gov. Murphy reverse Gov. Christie’s water resource infrastructure, State lands, & State Parks privatization policies and rescind Christie privatization Executive Orders (see EO17)?

14. Will the Murphy DEP reverse the Christie DEP State Public Lands logging policies and plans (i.e. Sparta Mountain WMA “Forest Management Plan”, stop privatizing planning stormwater state lands and parks by so called conservation groups like NJ Audubon and NJ Future, and revise all similar “Stewardship” initiatives”, et al))

15. Will the Murphy DEP repeal current policy to rely on “BMP’s” and instead enforce NJ Surface Water Quality Standards on forestry, agricultural practices and in freshwater wetlands and land use permits?

16. Will Gov. Murphy issue Executive Orders to expand public involvement in DEP regulatory & permit decisions and develop  Urban environmental quality and environmental justice policies, including mandatory Environmental Justice reviews in designated EJ communities?

17. Will the Murphy DEP close many loopholes and gaps in DEP’s site remediation program to protect groundwater resources & water supplies?

18. Will the Murphy DEP abolish the Science Advisory Board, which has gross conflicts of interest and has become a vehicle for undue industry access, politicization of science, and attacks on regulatory public health and environmental protections?

19. Will the Murphy DEP stop issuing and revoke hundreds of existing DEP approved “Classification Exception Areas” that waive compliance with groundwater quality standards and instead mandate permanent cleanup of groundwater at high risk contaminated sites?

20. Will the Murphy DEP adopt long overdue “eco-flow goals” in water allocation regulations, backed by enforceable numeric standards?

21. Will the Murphy DEP begin to enforce exceedences of current water allocation permit limits?

22. Will the Murphy DEP revoke and strengthen DEP’s “Vapor Intrusion Guidance” to eliminated the “phased approach” and protect people in their homes from toxic pollution vapors?

23. Will the Murphy DEP revive and adopt drinking water MCL for perchlorate proposed by the Corzine DEP and killed by the Christie DEP, as well as 14 other hazardous drinking water contaminants previously recommended by the Drinking Water Quality Institute?

24. Will the Murphy DEP begin to collect market based lease and easement revenues for private use of state lands and natural resources?

25. Will Gov. Murphy support, work with Senator Smith, and sign legislation to eliminate the current$50 million cap on liability for spills?

26. Will Gov. Murphy support and work with Senator Smith to enact water user and development or impervious surface impact fees to fund the multi-billion dollar water infrastructure deficit?

27. Will the Murphy DEP end current DEP policy to rely on “shelter in place” responses to chemical spills and catastrophic releases and begin to develop protective policies for those who live in mapped “off site consequence” areas under NJ State TCPP and federal Clean Air Act ARP programs? (Paulsboro train derailment et al).

28. Will Gov. Murphy use his powers to block “bomb trains” and other unsafe toxic rail and truck shipments through NJ to protect vulnerable communities? How will the administration address these unacceptable risks?

29. What will the Gov. and the Murphy DEP do to promulgate enforceable requirements for reducing risks identified in NJ’s federally mandated Hazard Mitigation Plan?

30. Will the Murphy DEP revoke and reissue the Christie DEP stormwater and CSO permits to include enforceable timetables and technical requirements?

31. Will the Murphy DEP adopt new rules to mandate risk assessment – based on cumulative risk to the most vulnerable populations – and more stringent “advances in the art” (NJ’s legal standard) air pollution controls for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)

32. Will Gov. Murphy support and work with the legislature to ban importation and disposal of fracking wastewater? Will the DEP use all regulatory tools to restrict such practices?

33. Will the Murphy DEP restore the Commissioner’s Office that conducts department-wide policy, planning, and regulation, while applying DEP’s scientists recommendations? This Office was abolished by the Christie DEP.

34. Will the Murphy DEP eliminate Christie DEP initiatives, programs, and Offices designed to serve corporate interests over protection of public health and the environment, including “culture change”, “customer service”, economic development, dispute resolution, sustainable towns and business, et al?

35. Will the Murphy DEP re-open Bulls Island State Park?

36. Will the Murphy DEP sever all relationships, State funding, and pending projects with NJ Audubon Society?

37. Will the Murphy Administration terminate funding and support of “Sustainable NJ” and stop outsourcing climate adaptation to private groups and local governments?

38. Will Murphy terminate Christie plans to develop and/or privatize Liberty State Park and terminate all State funding and support for NJ Future?

39. What are the Murphy Administration’s specific plans to get the Pinelands Commission and Highlands Council back on track?

I saved the best for last:

40. Given NJ’s experience with Superstorm Sandy and Gov. Christie’s “Rebuild Madness”, will Gov. Murphy support and sign legislation to:

a) establish a Coastal Commission to conduct regional climate adaptation and land use planning and environmental management?

b) repeal the “right to rebuild” storm damaged properties in CAFRA and the Flood Hazard Control Act?

Will these kind of questions be asked? Will NJ’s environmental community make these kind of specific demands publicly and criticize failure to engage?

The whole State is watching.

Bill would preclude more aggressive mandates required to avoid climate chaos

The NJ Senate Environment Committee, on Monday November 20, 2017, will hear proposed legislation (S3129 -Smith, Greenstein) that would provide incentives to “green buildings”, specifically the bill:

“Provides for priority consideration, by DCA, DEP, DOT, and municipalities, of permit applications for green building projects”

The building sector is a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions.

If we are to meet the aggressive science based goals of the NJ Global Warming Response Act, the Paris Accords, and avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to get deep and swift reductions in emissions from this sector.

The DEP’s 2009 Global Warming Response Act implementation recommendations Report includes this set of recommendations on the building sector: (Table ES-1, p.5)

Note especially the recommendations that compliance with standards be required and the existing buildings be retrofit.

In contrast  the Voluntary measures and regulatory review “incentives” in the bill are woefully inadequate policy tools to achieve these necessary emissions reductions. 

I just wrote the below letter to the sponsors of the bill – Chairman Smith and Senator Greenstein – to urge that they rethink the overall voluntary incentive based approach in favor of an enforceable science based model. I urge readers to do the same:

Dear Chairman Smith and Senator Greenstein:

I’ve read your bill, S3129, which “Provides for priority consideration, by DCA, DEP, DOT, and municipalities, of permit applications for green building projects”

While I appreciate your efforts to promote more environmentally friendly building practices, unfortunately I must strongly differ with the overall approach of the proposed legislation and encourage you to revise and amend the bill:

1) to establish enforceable regulatory requirements in terms of local and state building codes and DEP permit requirements, and;

2) to link the standards to a science based DEP plan or legislative policy goals (e.g. the greenhouse emissions reductions from the building sector necessary to attain the goals of the Global Warming Response Act or water conservation measures of the Water Supply Master Plan, etc)

It is my understanding that the proposed voluntary incentive based private standards in the bill (LEED, ASHRAE, et al) are not tied in any way to attainment of science based public policies or numeric planning goals or regulatory standards – nor has there been any assessment or demonstration of whether implementation of the standards in the bill would make progress towards various NJ legislative goals and regulatory standards.

Additionally, it appears that the bill would grandfather existing development and thereby miss huge opportunities to retrofit the existing built environment.

Furthermore, all new development should be zero net emissions and leverage investments in renewable energy infrastructure, much like off-site impact fees are designed to finance necessary upgrades in infrastructure.

In contrast, as drafted, the bill would actually provide a perverse preemptive shield against real enforceable standards and codes and impact fees necessary to meet urgent policy objectives, like GHG emissions, water quality and water conservation and renewable energy infrastructure.

I urge you to table this bill pending reconsideration of a more aggressive and enforceable approach.

Sincerely,

Bill Wolfe

Tomorrow (Sunday) is the 5th anniversary of Superstorm Sandy. So, because we depend on public libraries for WiFi access, today we repost this October 29, 2012 post, written in real time just as the storm was hitting the NJ coast:

• A Dirge To McHarg and Mumford – Who Are Rolling Over in Their Graves

Amazingly prescient post, if I must say so myself  (and note how it includes a prior July 6, 2012 post on infrastructure vulnerability – the same infrastructure that was devastated by Sandy).

Tragically, very little has changed and there has been very, very little accountability for the failures of the Christie Administration to prepare and respond and recover from Sandy in light of climate change risks.