WolfeNotes.com

Do oil & gas pipelines look like this to you? Source: The Conservation Fund – don’t mind those greenhouse gas emissions behind the pipeline! Mitigate that!

I felt the need to post this in disgust, after reading about the most recent news on the $66 million SR power line Delaware Watergap mitigation program, see:

• Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Gains More Than 350 Acres As Mitigation For Transmission Line

The depiction above is the IDEALIZED  vision of “mitigation”:

• Major infrastructure projects require mitigation.
• Mitigation means new conservation.

(translation: “mitigation means money” – 3M’s Baby!)

It was produced by The Conservation Fund, the corporate oriented “conservation” group that cut the dirty deal in the SR Delaware Watergap. (I don’t think even the oil & gas industry are this bold in depicting their lies about pipelines, because this is what they really look like):

Our mission is to protect land and water resources. Because new infrastructure provides significant conservation opportunity, we work with companies, government agencies, land managers and communities to improve mitigation efforts. We identify mitigation needs and create strategies to meet them. We serve as honest brokers, keeping mitigation focused on achieving the best available conservation outcomes.

It’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it, right? As the man sang: “If I don’t do it, you know somebody else will”.

I strongly urge you to read their “conservation strategy” to see if you agree.

Keep in mind that there are many groups in NJ who share their “entrepreneurial spirit”, vision, and values (i.e. “we’re entrepreneurs” and “we balance economics and environment” – Sounds like Eric Stiles or Mike Catania talking).

Don’t miss the “Real Estate” program page:

In addition to helping public partners save land, we work with interested private landowners to secure conservation easements on lands with high conservation value. We place particular importance on “working lands,” or forests, farms and ranches being sustainably, actively managed. A growing part of our work involves helping corporate partners and regulatory agencies achieve good conservation outcomes through mitigation. Our experienced team includes attorneys, lenders, foresters and other real estate experts. Most work in small offices across the country, living in the communities they help conserve.

Of course, you must read the “entrepreneurial”  “Conservation Ventures” page, and its emphasis on “sustainable forest stewardship” (where have we heard that before?)

Our Conservation Ventures invest in, or lend money to, small business and sustainable forestry efforts that generate economic, social and environmental returns. Our goal is to help people build enterprises that make a difference with every board foot, kilowatt hour, paddle stroke, bottle or bushel they produce.

My question to you is:

Do you want these visions and values and “entrepreneurial” conservation groups and corporate programs controlling your public lands here in NJ?

If not, contact your legislator and tell them to deny any funds for “Stewardship” or any public funds to private non-profit groups who conduct “mitigation” or “stewardship” projects.

DEP Claims Buildings are an “Attractive Nuisance” – Claims No Trees To Be Cut

D&R Canal Commission Approves After Visual & Stormwater Review

restroom crumbles at Bulls Island (November 8, 2014)

The DEP’s proposal to demolish the rest rooms and other campground infrastructure at Bulls Island was approved by the D&R Canal Commission at the regular November monthly meeting.

According to D&R Canal Commission Director Marlen Dooley, the DEP plan:

includes removal of the campground buildings, and will not affect existing trees or roads within Bulls Island 

Curiously, the DEP demolition and the permanent camping elimination plan is NOT included on DEP’s Bulls Island website and I could find no press release announcing that major decision. DEP issues almost a daily press release, so why would they want to keep this story quiet?

It is either an amazing coincidence, or my radar must have been working pretty good (again). Either that, or else DEP is monitoring me!

Just 11 days prior to this November 19, 2104 Canal Commission meeting, in a post about the hypocrisy of seeking new “stewardship” funding for private lands while supporting deep cuts to the State Parks capital budget, I posted a series of photos of decrepit State parks infrastructure, including Bulls Island, see:

• Stewardship – For Whom? Public Parks or Private Lands?

At least the debate about camping at Bulls Island is over.

So, let’s hope this is the first step towards officially designating the Island a Natural Area and that the next step is removal of the road pavement.

Let’s assume it includes removal of the playground and all other infrastructure, and that it really will be done without cutting any trees, despite the fact that my most recent visit on Nov. 8, 2014 found that many massive sycamore’s are still tagged, in some cases with what appears to be entirely new trees ID’d or others with more recent tape, like this one:

Sycamore appears to be ID’d with new tape (11/8/14)

And let’s hope this is not DEP’s nose under the camel’s tent strategy, or Phase I operation of dredging up the discredited Zombie “dangerous tree” removal plan the D&R Canal Commission rejected almost exactly a year ago, back on December 18, 2013, see:

• D&R Canal Commission Rejects DEP Bull’s Island Tree Cut Plan

The D&R Canal Commission next meets on Wednesday December 17, 2014 at 10 am at their Prallsville Mills office in Stockton, NJ.

For those interested in the details of the demolition project, see the November 19, 2014 meeting minutes:

campsite where camper was killed, overgrown. Let’s hope DEP removes this too.

Another Dodge Foundation funded project designed to derail Statewide legislative mandates and dampen any criticism of the Christie Administration’s failures on climate change and coastal land use policies

No Blame – No Game

[Update below]

It is well known that the Christie Administration has repeatedly refused to consider climate change in various state level land use, DEP regulatory, and Sandy recovery policies and programs.

Thus stymied by Gov. Christie’s intransigence at the State level, in an effort to get something moving at the local level, a little over a month ago, a bill was heard in Trenton that would require NJ’s towns to consider climate change, storm resilience, and smart growth policies in their local Master Plan.

NJ Spotlight wrote about that bill here:

• MEASURE WOULD MANDATE SMART-GROWTH POLICIES IN TOWN MASTER PLANS

Should New Jersey towns be required to incorporate smart-growth policies and storm resiliency projects into their municipal master plans?

According to a bill (S-2424) moving through the Legislature, the answer is “yes” — especially given the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Sandy and other extreme weather on the state’s energy and environmental infrastructure.

The bill was not released from Committee that day, but it opened the debate and, if backed sufficiently by the State’s professional planning and environmental advocacy groups, the bill provided an opportunity for statewide reforms.

Not surprisingly, the bill was opposed by the NJ Builders Association (NJBA) and the League of Municipalities.

The Builders and League  argued that the bill was unnecessary, because the Towns were already authorized to conduct that planning under the current Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) and that many towns were doing good planning along those lines.

“We are concerned with adding an additional requirement, which will drive up costs,’’ said Michael Cerra, director of government affairs for the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, which represents local governments in Trenton. “We are doing this already.’’ ..

Jeff Kolakowski, vice president of government affairs for the New Jersey Builders Association, agreed, saying the state should leave a it to municipalities to decide whether to incorporate these considerations into their master plans.

But Legislative leaders rejected these arguments, thereby suggesting that the bill was politically feasible and had some chance of leading to real statewide reforms:

Those views did not resonate with lawmakers. Codey argued he has yet to receive a single call from a mayor complaining about the bill. In the past, if a bill proved objectionable to local officials, he said his office would be flooded by calls.

Sen. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex), the chairman of the committee, added, “I don’t see this as any bad thing.’’

So, at just this critical moment, with the bill’s fate in limbo, did professional planning groups like NJ Future and environmental groups join forces and mount a public campaign in support of the bill?

Nope.

The reality is worse.

There was an indirect campaign formed.

The so called grass roots “Citizens Campaign” parachuted into the climate/land use fray, into an entirely new policy field that they have no organizational involvement in to date.

The Citizen’s Campaign is based on an organizing model that is focused at the local level and reliant upon a non confrontational “no blame approach”.

(does that mean that citizens can’t blame the Christie administration for massive policy failures or support state level legislation to mandate local action?

Just what we need, another weenie encroachment into politics and State policy under the guise of a non-political model.)

And the Citizens Campaign advocates basically exactly what the Builders Association and League argued to oppose the bill – voluntary home rule:

• Towns must plan to limit impact of future storms

[…]

Better preparation starts with better planning. Towns must explicitly incorporate flood protection and stormwater management into their master plan — the policy document that guides the use and development of land within a municipality. Doing this kind of planning, particularly around any additional infrastructure needs, provides the added advantage of moving a municipality to the head of the line for available government and private grant funds.

Toward that end, The Citizens Campaign Legal Task Force has prepared a model Storm & Flood Protection Master Plan Amendment in ready-to-adopt form for citizens to introduce and advance in their own hometowns. (Interested citizens and Planning Board members can find the resolution and an accompanying background memo on The Citizens Campaign website: www.thecitizenscampaign.org.)

The Citizens Campaign has a model local ordinance – so obviously towns must already be authorized under the MLUL, just like the Builders Assc. said, right?

Citizens Campaign’s organizing model is based on the assumption that towns will listen to rational arguments by non-political and non-confrontational “no blame” citizens and voluntarily adopt them. (all while fiercely opposed by the politically powerful builders, the banks, the land owners, and the rest of the development lobby that has produced the chaotic NJ landscape.)

NO NEED FOR STATE LEGISLATION!    NO MANDATES!     HOME RULE!     YAY!

This is beyond naive.

But it’s just what the NJ Builders Association ordered. They would not have designed a PR campaign any differently. Citizens Campaign is effectively doing their bidding

And the timing stinks to high heavens –

Dodge is funding similar ineffective local home rule based, voluntary, consensus driven, non-political efforts by NJ Future and Sustainable NJ.

[*Even if these efforts were effective – which they are not – they would only impact a tiny handful of town. So, Dodge funds an ineffective and limited approach that directly undermines statewide effective campaigns! – while starving them for resources]

So this one smells like another Dodge Foundation funded project designed to derail Statewide legislative or regulatory mandates and dampen any criticism of the Christie Administration’s failures on climate change and coastal loans use policies.

As Citizen Campaign says, that’s all part of “our signature no-blame strategy”.

No blame – No game.

[Update: 12/15/14 – Heather Taylor of Citizesn Campaign was kind enough to forward their model ordinance material.

It is worse that I suspected.

Not only is it an opportunistic (grant or fundraising driven) diversion of resources and focus that reinforces the NJBA opposition to statewide State mandates while duping well meaning citizens, it actively promotes a development agenda:

Storm resiliency should not be viewed as a bar to development, rather it seeks to advance responsible planning and design criteria to better attract development and economic opportunities, and safeguard our cities against future natural disasters.

That’s all we need – to have so called climate resilience advocates in thee “public interest” promoting efforts to “better attract development”.

The model Resolution does not even mention climate change and recommends a host of discredited engineering structures, like bulkheads, jetties and se walls, and fails to mention the use of State and local regulatory tools to restrict development in unsafe locations.

Read like it could have been written by the Builders Association.

Heckofajob Dodge!  ~~~ end update]

Christie Administration DEP and Infrastructure Trust AWOL

“Privatization, Deregulation, and Union Busting”

“Fundamentally Anti-Democratic”

Bill Being Fast Tracked – Vulture Capitalist Set to Acquire Local Public Water Systems

NJ American, private water company, Monmouth County water main break after Hurricane Irene. Source: Star Ledger

The Assembly State and Local Government Committee approved a controversial water privatization bill today, despite harsh opposition from an unusually broad array of interests (see this for background and links to the bills). The bill was amended to make it identical to the Senate version [S2412 2R].

The bill was opposed by the NJ Business and Industry Association, the BPU Ratepayer Advocate, the League of Municipalities, the Association of Environmental Authorities, the Communication Workers of America and industrial labor unions, environmentalists, NJ Working Families, women’s groups, public interest and consumer groups, and regular citizens.

The bill was approved by a 3-2 party line vote, with 2 Republicans opposing the bill because it didn’t go far enough in appeasing corporate interests because it includes a prevailing wage requirement (probably a negotiating ploy to set up a Conditional Veto by Gov. Christie to kill prevailing wage, knowing the Dems and R’s would then agree to concur with the CV and pass a really bad bill).

It was obvious that Assembly Democratic leadership did some disgraceful behind the scenes arm twisting, because 2 regular Committee members, Assemblymen Eustace (A NO vote) and Conaway were replaced by YES votes by Assemblyman Fuentes and freshwoman Assemblywoman Jimenez

Had Assemblyman Eustance been there, with the 2 R NO votes, the bill would not have had the votes to leave the Committee – no wonder he was replaced by leadership.

Chairwoman Stender’s support was so poorly justified – and her treatment of opponents so disrespectful –  it appeared that she too was following orders from leadership (ask  former Environmental Committee Chairman John McKeon what defying leadership that can result in).

Equally politically significant and revealing was who was NOT there and who did NOT testify.

Last June, the DEP and the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust testified at length before the Assembly Environment Committee about the DEP’s new Asset Management policy. Those organizations have the expertise and regulatory jurisdiction to finance and regulate the performance of water utilities.

The fact that they were nowhere to be seen on a bill of this significance strongly suggests the Gov. supports the bill and wants the Democrats to take the political heat for implementing his privatization agenda.

The bill would make radical changes to current law to promote privatization.

First, it would eliminate the current requirement that any privatization scheme be approved by voter referendum.

Critics called that fundamentally anti-democratic.

Second, the bill also would eliminate the current power of the BPU to review and determine if the sale of the public water system asset was “reasonable” and establish a rate of return on that “reasonable” investment.

(Under the bill, BPU can not review and must accept the sale price and then set a rate of return on investment based on that sale price. Ratepayer advocate fears this might lead to artificially high sales prices, so that the water companies could earn bigger profits. I disagree, and think the opposite will occur: public assets would be sold for pennies on the dollar and the private water companies would use thew cash cow higher water rates to generate huge profits, which would be far greater than the ROI of the asset sale price. The Vultures are buying the public system to generate cash profits, not as a real investment.)

When the bill’s supporters claim that current private water company rates are under BPU control and the bill would not change that and would protect consumers from rate increases, they are flat out lying about an essential feature of this bill. (See Senator Kyrillos’ quote for an example of that big lie):

State Sen. Joseph Kyrillos (R-Monmouth) told NJ Advance Media last month that sales will not happen “willy nilly” – and many other people in the Garden State already are already supplied by private companies.

“Many, many, many people in New Jersey have private water utilities,” the senator said. “And they pay a reasonable price that’s overseen by the BPU.”

BPU Ratepayer Advocate testified in direct contradiction to Senator Kyrillos’ claim today.

So the bill not only cuts the public out of the decision about whether to sell off a Town’s most critical asset, it effectively also deregulates those sales by eliminating a big part of BPU regulatory review.

As I testified, Towns will be desperate for the kind of one shot revenue that sale of the water system would provide.  An upfront cash payment of $10 million might stabilize property taxes for a few years, but water ratepayers would face sharply increasing water rates to pay for that.

It’s a typical shortsighted one shot revenue deal.

Towns also lack the finical sophistication and engineering expertise to properly assess the value of the water system – testimony today made that clear in talking about amortization, depreciation, and valuation methodologies that are far too complex for the typical local government to evaluate.

As a result, private water companies will act like Vultures, purchasing public assets paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers for decades, for pennies on the dollar.

But in the long run, water ratepayers will get hit with significant increases to pay for those short sighted decisions.

BTW, the bill does nothing to MANDATE that private water companies actually make necessary investments – read the provision about the “asset management” stuff very closely.

Additionally, as I noted, the amendments actually made the bill WORSE from the environmental perspsective by stripping out a provision regarding salt water intrusion and the DEP water supply master plan.

The title of the bill is “The Water Infrastructure Protection Act“. Orwell lives – should be the corporate profit protection act.

As I testified, if this bill were really about protecting and improving infrastructure, it would

1) mandate asset management, including a financial plan to generate revenues to finance preventive maintenance;

2) require capital investments to meet the asset management plan targets;

3) include a requirement to be consistent with the DEP Statewide Water Supply Master Plan Update;

4) include climate change and resilience policies adopted by the Obama Executive Order on adaptation to climate change; and

5) retain current voter approval requirements 

But there is nothing like that in the bill – it is purely about protecting the profits of private water companies and shutting the public out.

[End note: I had planned to open my testimony by alluding to the fact that yesterday was Human Rights Day and that water is a human right, not a commodity, and that it was immoral to allow private corporations to control a human right.

But Chairwoman warmed me to be brief before I even began and then 2 or 3 times interrupted me by asking me to finish, so I had just a few minutes, and no time to make these points.

Giveaway of Public Assets To Corporate Control & Profiteering

A Formula for higher rates, lower quality service, layoffs, & loss of local control

Dems Provide The Next Christie “Bi-Partisan” Achievement on the Campaign Trail

[Updates below]

I thought corporate giveaways by privatization of public assets – like tax cuts and deregulation  – was the ideological policy mantra of the right wing republican party.

I also thought that measures to restrict public involvement in public policy decisions was a republican tendency as well.

So, why are NJ Democrats fast tracking legislation that would promote the privatization of NJ’s local public drinking water and sewer systems, while reducing the public’s ability to participate in those critical decisions?

The legislation has the support of Democratic leadership – the Assembly bill is sponsored by South Jersey Norcross Machine puppet Lou Greenwald (A3628), while the Senate version is sponsored by Paul Sarlo (S2412 2R]).

The Republican leadership is on board as well as co-sponsors, so the skids are greased for another “bi-partisan” ripoff.

It is likely that cash strapped local governments, in fiscal crisis and seeking to control rising property taxes, will be desperately pressured to give away critical public assets like water and sewer systems – worth billions of dollars – for pennies on the dollar to corporate vultures.

But homeowners will face far higher water rates to pay for this one shot fiscal gimmick, as corporations extract profits from the system, i.e. “return on investment”.

Keep in mind that the Christie BPU already revised – and gutted – BPU review of water rate increase to pay for infrastructure investments, allowing private corporations to increase rates and earn profits on investments prior to BPU approval. This is another formula for ripoffs.

No doubt that the private corporations will continue the current pattern of underinvestment and deferred maintenance, while increasing rates to homeowners and business alike.

And there is no doubt the bill has the behind the scenes support of and will be signed by Gov. Christie as a key feature in the Governor’s Privatization policy initiative (see:

• Executive Order #17
• The New Jersey Privatization Task Force 
• CHRISTIE VETOES BILL THAT WOULD CHECK HIS POWER TO PRIVATIZE
• Christie Pushing Park Privatization

And there is equally no doubt that water privatization is a key gift to powerful corporate interests that will fund the Gov.’s 2016 Presidential campaign.

Just like his recent support for the Keystone XL pipeline, water privatization will become not only a campaign fundraising tool, but will be marketed as another key illustration of the Gov.’s “bipartisan” ability to impose right wing policies on a lame Democratic party and be used as another notch in the belt of Gov. Christie.

The bill has been fast tracked – it already was amended on the Senate floor and Senate leaders (led by fellow Norcross Machine puppet Senate President Sweeney) have indicated that they will wait for the Assembly to approve the bill.

The bill is up tomorrow before the Assembly State and Local Government Committee:

Folks should call Assemblyman Greenwald and ask him why he’s promoting Governor Christie’s corporate agenda at the expense of NJ water resources and ratepayers.

We thought that was the Christie campaign’s job.

[Update #1: My good friend Bill Neil, former head of Conservation at NJ Audubon before they went corporate and entreprenurial, just sent me a note asking “where are Senator Smith, Assemblyman Gusciora, Senator Buono and the progressive Dems on this?”

Here is my reply:

Bill – The Senate version of the bill was originally referred to Smith’s environmental Committee.

After he failed to post it, it was transferred to Sarlo’s Budget and appropriations Committee (Sarlo is sponsor) and quickly released.

Buono is no longer there – she gave up her Senate seat to run for Gov.

Reid is seeking a Christie judicial nomination and probably won’t say squat.

It will be interesting to see how the State and local gov’t Committee Chair, Linda Stender, a liberal pro-enviromment legislator, will handle all this tomorrow.

My guess is that she will follow orders of leadership.

She has her own meaningless symbolic resolution up to oppose the Pilgrim Pipeline – that will get her press and enviro group cover. 

We are living in remarkably corrupt times.

[Update#2 – a Trenton source just called to advise that, in an extraordinary strong armed tactic, Committee members Assemblyman Eustace and Conaway will be replaced (subbed out) for tomorrow’s hearing by YES votes either because they were opposed to the bill or not relaible YES votes. That move would have to come from Speaker Prieto, but likely at the request of Greenwald.

I called Conaway’s Office and emailed his Chief of Staff to confirm or deny this – will keep you posted. – end update]

[Update #3 – here is Assemblyman Conaway’s reply – looks like my source’s rumor was not correct – live and learn:

Assemblyman Conaway is in Washington, DC attending the NCSL Fall Forum, a conference that was scheduled long before the fall committee agenda was set. Because of his involvement with NCSL as a member of the Executive Committee, he will not be able to attend tomorrow’s Assembly State and Local Gov meeting.

[Update #4 – Assemblyman Eustace’s District office said he will not be in Trenton tomorrow, but would offer no explanation as to why. They oppose the bill.]