WolfeNotes.com

If environmentalists won’t fight for new funds on easy lifts like open space, how are we ever going to get a price on carbon? Or pay for heavy lifts like funding to pay for multi-billion infrastructure deficits? Or clean water? ~~~ Bill Wolfe 8/3/14

[Updates below]

Are You Willing to Pay $2.66 a month to preserve Open Space? The price of a Latte? (or for real people, less than a pint).

What, you say no one ever asked you that question?

Huh?

(Senator Smith & Jeff Tittel claim that they’ve been “fighting” for a water tax to 20 years. They never posed this question? In an opinion poll? In an Op-Ed? In a press release? In scores of almost daily sound bites Tittel is famous for?)

Well, now that NJ voters again, for the 14th time over 50 years, demonstrated overwhelming support for open space preservation by an almost 2-1 margin (65% -35%), we thought we’d just let you know how the politicians in Trenton – with the support of environmental groups and NJ Foundations – assessed the political risks of voters’ support for new revenues to actually pay for what they so strongly support:

Prime Sponsor and Committee Chair Senator Bob Smith (verbatim, at the December 12, 2013 Senate Environment Committee hearing)

Not only does the polling indicate that a water tax will not pass – that it will fail miserably – the leaders in both houses of this legislature will not post a water tax.

They will not allow their members to have a vote that says tax the water of the state of NJ, even though it would amount to $32 per year per home. 

They will not allow themselves to be in a position, where in the very next election, the party that didn’t vote for it will say, “They tried to tax your water, what’s next the air?”

I would like to do the right thing but it will not happen. Leaders won’t post it and voters won’t pass it.

We need a stable source funding for open space – that is the holy grail of the environment.

Now, aren’t you just bursting with confidence and pride in the judgement and courage of your environmental leaders and legislators?

Oh, while we’re at it, I guess we also ought to tell you about the honesty and integrity of the process.

As just one example of many I could offer, here is Keep It Green Coalition head Tom Gilbert, testifying at that same Senate Environment Committee hearing.

Claiming that there would be projected growth in sales tax revenues to offset the diversions he sought, Tom was trying to mollify critics who were concerned about the deep cuts to education, healthcare and social programs that might result if $200 million in sales tax revenues were diverted to open space. Tom confidently pledged: (again, a verbatim quote)

Every dollar for preservation would not be a dollar taken away from something else.

Yet just months later, KIG and Tom supported diversions of $71 – $117 million per year from DEP environmental programs. That directly contradicted his prior assurance.

Every dollar for preservation IS taking a dollar away from something else.

This is just one of many many lies that duped well meaning voters. For shame.

But they have no shame.

[Update: The Bergen Record reports that KIG spent over $730,000, likely more when final ELEC reports are filed.

As I wrote on 8/4/14 in the wake of the Assembly vote:

We will be opposing the measure from now till November, but we’re up against tons of conservation community and Foundation money, and there is little indication right now that the KIG coalition members will break ranks or that the less self interested groups like Sierra Club or NJEF will speak out honestly in opposition to what they did not create and know is a very bad plan.

But I never imagined that kind of money.

And I was wrong about Sierra – Jeff Tittel was deeply involved in drafting it and defending it. Inexcusable, because he knows better. – end update]

[Update #2: honesty requires that I note that the only ENGO leader who handled themselves with integrity in this whole debacle ironically was Dave Pringle of NJEF.

I have blasted Pringle and NJEF for their CHristie support, but, quite frankly, what KIG and Tittel and the Democrats did here is on a par with – or actually worse than – the NJEF Christie endorsement.  – end update]

Watershed Planning & Water Quality Management Tools Saved The Town From Massive Sprawl

Open Space Diversion Would Slash Funds For Those Same DEP Programs

No town in NJ provides a more compelling example than Hopewell of the value of watershed planning, water quality management, and DEP science and technical support programs.

I just read another highly misleading half truth Op-Ed in support of Open Space Ballot Question #2, this one by my friend Jim Waltman at Stony Brook Watershed Association., see:

• Vote yes, yes, yes on Nov. 4

Waltman touts prior efforts to preserve the rural character of Hopewell:

Unlike some surrounding communities, Hopewell Valley’s rural character has been largely preserved thanks to sustained efforts to protect open space and farmland. Hopewell Township’s residents have made a strong commitment to conservation and preservation and with tremendous results, but nearly 20,000 acres of undeveloped land remain open to development — that’s 50 percent of our total area. Voting yes will help protect our clean water and quality of life for generations to come.

But Mr. Waltman leaves something critically important out of his argument.

Hopewell lands were protected from sprawl development by the very watershed planning and water quality management programs that the open space ballot initiative would severely cut.

Hopewell, in the mid 1990’s, became the battleground and statewide focal point for what was then called the war on “suburban sprawl”. I was a resident of Hopewell at the time and was proud to be engaged in this fight.

These battles publicly revolved around massive development plans that involved extensions of sewer lines into Hopewell to support intensive development.

Millions of square feet of new commercial development and thousands of new residential units would have been served by the proposed massive increase in sewer infrastructure and capacity, including along Scotch Road/Merrill Lynch, the BMS campus in Pennington, and north along Rt. 31. These debates included expansion and upgrade of the Pennington treatment plant.

[and if those sewer lines were built, land values would have increase 10 times or more, making an acquisition strategy cost prohibitive.]

A few years later, there was another major development battle at the Berwind site – this one involved expanding an old package wastewater treatment plant and various regulatory restrictions imposed by a DEP Category 1 stream designation.

The common denominator and decisive factor in all these debates was the science and regulatory requirements of DEP’s watershed planning and the water quality management programs.

In fact, a group of residents I was involved with, represented by Bill Potter of Princeton, actually filed a lawsuit that successfully blocked the planned ELSA sewer capacity on the basis of violation of these DEP regulatory and planning requirements.

Those are exactly the same DEP programs that would be slashed by the Open Space ballot diversion.

As I’ve written, based on DEP’s budget documents, there would be 123 DEP staff positions in water quality monitoring and planning cut under Ballot Question #2 – with $16 million more from DEP’s science and technical programs that provide support and $18.1 million from DEP land use regulation that implements the science and planning.

Here is what those DEP staffers do that Hopewell directly relied upon – across the entire state:

Since 1996, 4% of the revenue annually derived from the tax imposed by the Corporation Business Tax Act (P.L.1945, c.162) has been dedicated to the Department. A portion of this dedication has been used for the following purposes: watershed-based water resource planning and management, financing the cost of water quality point and nonpoint source pollution monitoring, nonpoint source pollution prevention projects, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development and implementation, as well as lake restoration and grants. Conducts planning on watershed management, water quality, water supply, coastal zone management, nonpoint source control, stormwater management, and other planning requirements associated with the federal Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Water Quality Planning Act. Also administers the National Estuary Program and federal Section 604(b) water quality management planning.

It is incredibly disingenuous – and just flat out wrong –  for Waltman to ignore this history and regulatory realty in his arguments in favor of Question #2.

On top of all that, following these major battles that local environmentalists won, Hopewell built on that success by adopting perhaps NJ’s most innovative and science based Master Plan and zoning scheme, which is based on water resource capacity – both water quality and water quantity.

Again, it is exactly that science, watershed and water resource capacity based planning, and regulatory programs that preserved so much land in Hopewell that would be slashed under the Open Space diversion.

No town in NJ provides a more compelling example than Hopewell  of the value of watershed planning, water quality management, and DEP science and technical support programs.

It is extremely shortsighted and totally counterproductive to sacrifice those very effective programs on the mantle of a half baked, rob Peter to pay Paul, open space funding scheme.

What will be the result of diverting $100 million/year from DEP environmental programs?

Don’t Ask Because No One Knows

You go to war with the army you have – not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.   ~~~ Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld

This is the ballot question we have. It is up to all of us to work together and pass it whether you like it or not, because losing will cause bigger harm to the environment. ~~~ Director of NJ Sierra Club, Jeff Tittel

I spent several hours last night doing research on the legislative history of the Open Space ballot question.

I began my research at the prompting of a news editor, who yesterday sent me an October 6 Sierra Club press release that the editor felt was a response to my October *6 PEER press release on the the negative impacts the would result from the open space ballot question.

Sierra Club’s October 6 press release provided very lame (and false) excuses for the DEP environmental program cuts they supported and then went on offense with this indirect attack:

To be clear this dedication is not going to zero out funding for parks and park maintenance because park capital repairs is still included in the question and the money will be set aside during the implementation legislation. None of this money is going to go too (sic) maintenance, it goes for capital repairs. The Site Remediation funding was supposed to go towards cleanup sites especially orphaned sites and not for staff. The money that used to go to staff from the Spill Act now goes to balance the budget. Also $100 million from the Passaic River cleanup settlement is being diverted to the general fund. Money for Watershed programs were supposed to go to water projects, restoration programs, and to towns for water shed (sic) planning not for staff. 

People are criticizing this dedication, but where were these people for the last 2 years when Sierra Club was fighting money being taken from other programs to fund open space or supporting us on a water fee for open space? We are committed to getting additional funds for these programs from other sources.

I took NJ LCV to the woodshed for similar falsehoods and spin, so before I get to the legislative history (which has Tittel’s fingerprints all over it) let’s take my friend Jeff Tittel’s press release claims quickly in order: (please read the OLS fiscal estimate to get the law and the facts straight).

• Parks funding

First, you can read a DEP parks employee go into great detail on the issues.

Firstly, Tittel seems confused about what a capital project is and is dead wrong about the deferred maintenance backlog and capital projects. The DEP staffer explained:

Back in 2006, voters were asked to approve, and overwhelming did, a constitutional amendment that authorized 15% of corporate business tax (CBT) funds to assist NJ State Parks & Historic sites with major deferred maintenance known as capital projects. 

Next, read the OLS fiscal estimate and see that the Ballot question does in fact legally terminate and “zero out” the current Constitutional dedication of 32% (about $32 million/year) of CBT funds to parks:

for financing improvements and facilities for recreation and conservation purposes on parks and other preserved open space lands

Tittel does not seem to understand the legal meaning of a dedication to a specific use versus authorization of a range of allowable uses, and is totally clueless about how that influences political decisions on allocation of funds and impacts the administration of funds at DEP.

The current *$32 million Constitutional dedication in under the total control of DEP’s Parks program for specific parks related purposes. Parks has a $400 million maintenance backlog, so that funding is already spoken for.

[* it increases from 15% to 32% in 2016, when diesel retrofit funds are shifted to parks]

Take a look at what that funded this year, per DEP reply to OLS questions:

The proposed ballot question would significantly change that.

It would legally abolish the currently dedicated 32% to parks and pool it with other allowable uses., specifically, 71% – 78% for the preservation and stewardship of open space (Green Acres), farmland, historic sites, and flood-prone areas (Blue Acres).

Does Tittel not understand that this means that parks would have to compete with HUGE unmet needs for open space, farmland, historic sites, and blue acres?

There is no way – none whatsoever, that parks will get anywhere near the $32 million – that would be 45% of the new total pool of funds.

Far more likely, parks would be on the short end of the funding stick when competing against all those other very popular and hugely unmet needs. Parks simply will not be able to win the bureaucratic and political war for scarce funds.

That lack of political clout and support at DEP is what created the $400 million deferred maintenance backlog in State Parks. Had Parks been able to compete effectively for DEP funds, that backlog would never have been created.

• DEP salaries

For the record, contrary to Mr. Tittel’s false claim, the original 1996 CBT ballot authorized DEP to use funds for salaries. In fact, it was drafted, in part, in response to Gov. Whitman’s budget cuts and layoffs at DEP. Since then, for 18 years, the Legislature has annually appropriated CBT funds to specific DEP program staff in every DEP budget, and DEP has been spending CBT funds on DEP staff. Here is OLS on that:

under the current constitutional dedication, up to 9% of the total amount dedicated may be used to pay for administrative costs of the State’s hazardous substance discharge program.

Even more broadly, here is how DEP advised the legislature regarding the use of CBT funds during the FY’15 budget review:

How could Tittel and others now object to this when they knew or should have known that CBT funds were used for hundreds of DEP salaries for 18 years?

• History – where were these people for the last 2 years

Mr. Tittel also knows that I have been fighting DEP budget cuts and diversions since 1985 both from within DEP and in the non-profit sector.  Over that 30 year period, I have written about and testified multiple times  to the legislature and in other DEP fora in support of all sorts of fees, taxes, fines, and funds to support various infrastructure and environmental programs.

Tittel himself testified on March 17, 2014 to the Senate Environment Committee (link below) and explicitly recognized my work on the original 1996 CBT dedication, which was done BEFORE Tittel was even with Sierra Club’s staff.

• Current Uses of CBT Funds that would be diverted to open space

Contrary to the documentary practice of PEER, which always provides links to source documents, we note that Tittel provides no data or documents to support his false and misleading claims, so here are the facts, with links to the underlying official documents:

The current CBT dedication provided $103 million to DEP in the FY 2015 budget (DEP section starts on page D-105).

Since 1996, 4% of the revenue annually derived from the tax imposed by the Corporation Business Tax Act (P.L.1945, c.162) has been dedicated to the Department. A portion of this dedication has been used for the following purposes: watershed-based water resource planning and management, financing the cost of water quality point and nonpoint source pollution monitoring, nonpoint source pollution prevention projects, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development and implementation, as well as lake restoration and grants. Conducts planning on watershed management, water quality, water supply, coastal zone management, nonpoint source control, stormwater management, and other planning requirements associated with the federal Clean Water Act and the New Jersey Water Quality Planning Act. Also administers the National Estuary Program and federal Section 604(b) water quality management planning.

As outlined in the FY’15 budget, here is how the current CBT funds are allocated among DEP programs (all of these will be cut under the Open Space Ballot diversion):

• $16 million goes to science and technical programs (water supply, science support, & land use regulation)
• $53 million goes to site remediation and waste management
• $18.1 million to environmental regulation
• $16 million to natural resource management (development and conservation of recreational lands)

Additionally, the CBT funds municipal brownfields cleanup and redevelopment projects and provides millions of dollars in grants to homeowners to remove underground storage tanks.

Tittel also knows that I was the author of the 1997 Watershed Management Act that created the current watershed planning process. His claims about watershed planning funds are flat out false.

• Legislative History of Open Space Ballot Question

Now that Tittel’s spin has been exposed as false and misleading, lets now ask: How did this happen?

I was trying to get my head around how we could possibly have come to a point where $100 million per year of funds dedicated to specific DEP programs (i.e. parks maintenance, water resources, & toxic site cleanup) will be eliminated – and without a word of opposition from DEP; labor union CWA who represents DEP employees who will be laid off as a result of the diversions; the press; and environmental groups.

You would be shocked to know. Basically, they don’t know. And made very little effort to find out.

Senate Environmental Committee Chairman – and sponsor of the Open Space initiative SCR84 [SCS] – explained it all at the first hearing on the introduced version of his Resolution SCR84 on March 17, 2014 where he described the “crisis on open space”  (listen here – open space is the last up).

Smith said he just did not know how current CBT funds that would be diverted are currently used at DEP because DEP refused to provide information or respond to his requests for information!

The problems with that is … that the $100 million in CBT money has been used for other purposes. …

One thing you’re going to find out is that we’ve not been able to get any information from anybody – not the Treasurer, not the DEP.

Nobody is willing – we’ve asked for the information, nobody is willing to provide it.

So there it is –

But the ignorance, laziness, and lies of legislators and environmental lobbyists does not explain why DEP failed to provide that information or why the DEP’s employee union, CWA, failed to raise objections.

Next, we challenge the claims made by Keep It Green Advertisements.

[Endnote: I must observe two absurd ironies:

1. For “environmentalists” to suddenly be shocked – a la Claude Reins – that, after 18 years, CBT money is being used for DEP salaries is absurd. They are either ignorant or lying, perhaps both.

Ironically, that concern echoes Hal Bozarth of the Chemical Industry’s criticisms that his members were paying Spill Act fees to support DEP staffers who were overseeing toxic site cleanups by his members.

Before that, Jim Sinclair from the NJBIA made those arguments, for very similar reasons: corporate NJ resented having to pay for DEP oversight of their operations.

It’s called “Polluter Pays” and its been DEP policy since the Florio Administration – shockingly, NJ ENGO’s seem clueless about all that and are parroting industry arguments.

2.  If you listen to the testimony of the March 17, 2014 Senate Environment Committee hearing (link above), ironically the groups I have been criticizing most harshly (e.g. KIG, LCV, watershed) actually expressed more concern about the impact of the DEP diversions than Tittel did. – end]

The Koch Brothers and Big Oil & Gas are watching

David Reilly wrote a followup story in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer on the Christie Pinelands retaliation scheme, see:

• Surprising turn in Pinelands pipeline battle

I am glad to see the press stay engaged with this issue, so will make a few observations on Reilly’s story.

First of all, Reilly relies on political pollster Patrick Murray to explain the politics. But Murray muddies the water for two reasons.

First, Murray must not be closely following this issue because he filters this dispute through 2 conventional wisdom lenses. Murray essentially says:

1) National: Gov. Christie is running for President and cares only about right wing primary voters who do not support the environment; 2) In state/NJ:  how the environment stacks up as an issue compared to other priority issues (code for jobs and economic growth, which in turn are code for corporate profits and capitalism).

From the national perspective, Murray ignores the fact that the pipeline is a test of Christie’s ability to deliver on major fossil energy infrastructure projects –  the Koch Brothers and Big Oil & Gas are watching.

Crushing environmental and democratic (small “d”) opposition to energy infrastructure is a key test to attract the Big energy money required to fuel a 2016 campaign, especially if it can be done on a “bi-partisan” basis (note: with the support of Democrats Van Drew & Sweeney and a Democratically controlled Senate and mobilized trade unions).

[Note to Mr. Murray: it’s not primary voters Christie is concerned about, it’s primary money.  Iowa voters are not following the Pinelands, but Koch & Energy people definitely are.]

Does Murray not recognize the national implications of pipeline and energy infrastructure debates, given the exploding Climate Movement?

[Keystone XL is only the tip of a huge iceberg on the expanding debate over extreme energy and climate change. “Leave Fossil in the ground” is the new battle cry.]

[Update -10/21/14 – I swear, when I wrote this, I was not dating Coral Davenport and did not have a mole in the NY Times, see:

• Environmental Issues Become a Force in Political Advertising -end update]

Murray is simply dead wrong when he says:

“there’s no political pressure for him [Christie] to pay,” said Murray,

From the NJ instate perspective, first, this is not a traditional “jobs versus environment” issue.

Murray ignores the bi-partisan letter from 4 former Governors that elevate this issue way beyond that stale debate.

This is about the integrity of the Pinelands Commission and whether Gov.’s will be  allowed to get away with abuses of power that compromise their independence as a regulatory body.

Evidence of the importance of the issue can be seen by the fact that Chairman Scutari used Republican Senator Bateman as the initial attack dog in questioning the nominee on the pipeline. In his questions, Bateman cited Gov. Brendan Byrne’s [D] legacy and asked the nominees whether we should go backward and weaken regulations that protect the Pines.

Similarly, Democrats on the Committee cited the Gov.’s letter.

It also explains why Gov. Christie’ strongest backers on the Judiciary Committee, Kyrillos and O’Toole, did not lift a finger to defend the Gov.’s nominees and let them twist in the wind.

Second on the in-state political issues is the fact that the fate of the nominees is in the hands of Senate Democrats.

So, from Gov. Christie’s perspective, this is a test of his machine alliances –

George Norcross is all over South Jersey infrastructure and economic development decisions. The pipeline has been justified as a major south jersey economic development project. That means Norcross/Sweeney are involved.

Accordingly, there very likely were prior political commitments and agreements made that now test Christie’s ability to honor deals he may have made with Senate President Sweeney and the South Jersey wing, represented by Van Drew.

Keep in mind that Van Drew has publicly stated on the record that he has the support of Sweeeney and the Gov.’s Office in backing the pipeline.

From the Senate Democrats’ perspective, the NJ political issue is the South v. North intra-Democratic party split and the degree to which South Jersey machine deals with Christie will be allowed to continue.

Which takes us to our next point – how and why were these nominees selected?

The Gov.’s motives are obvious – just like the Mob enforcing discipline, he is retaliating for 2 Commissioners voting their conscience, particularly Ms. Rohan Green who is a republican and a Christie nominee.

The nominees were handled the way they were to give the Governor and the Gov.’s office a plausible deniability of direct involvement.

The deals likely were made by political surrogates.

The Gov.’s office low level staffers were just the waterboys.

Evidence suggesting this was brought out by Sen. Gill, who asked a key question that nominee Roohr failed to respond to.

Gill asked if anyone mentioned the Gov.’s position on the pipeline – that conversation would go something like this:

Q: “Are you a loyal team player”  A: Yes, of course.

Q: “Gov. Christie supports the pipeline and BL England plant as critical to south jersey’s economic development and believes it can be built with no harm to the Pinelands.

“Are you willing to accept the nomination? – A: Yes

See how political understandings are reached? The quid pro quo remains unsaid.

But the nominees know EXACTLY what is expected of them in return for the nomination.

A quick note to expand upon yesterday’s post about LNG exports and the FERC approval of Cove Point.

President “All of the Above” Obama’s energy policy has driven huge increases in US fossil energy exploration, production (coal, oil, & gas) and infrastructure systems – from coal mines, to oil & gas wells, to rail, pipelines and ports.

That production and infrastructure expansion has led to increases in exports across the board – not just for LNG.

In case you missed all this, read:

• Obama and Climate Change: The Real Story

This massive increase comes at a time when climate scientist are saying we must make quick and deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts – and leave 80% of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground – in order to avoid tipping points and irreversible catastrophic runaway climate change that will destroy our agricultural and industrial society.

Contrary to the alleged Obama Administration’s “War on Coal”, coal exports are at historic highs (see above 2013 data – 2014 data thus far are down slightly, but that may be seasonal).

Same story for oil:

• In The Midst Of Record Oil Boom, Obama Administration Seeks More Oil Production

And for natural gas, which may be worse than coal:

See: US Natural Gas – Gross Withdrawals (EIA)

Projections are for even more growth in domestic fossil production and exports.

I haven’t crunched the numbers or researched the question, but my guess is that the increases in fossil production and exports offsets any greenhouse gas emissions reductions Obama is touting his administration is responsible for (see his UN Climate Summit speech – where Obama doesn’t mention any of this:

Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution by more than any other nation on Earth.  But we have to do more.  Last year, I issued America’s first Climate Action Plan to double down on our efforts.  Under that plan, my administration is working with states and utilities to set first-ever standards to cut the amount of carbon pollution our power plants can dump into the air.  And when completed, this will mark the single most important and significant step the United States has ever taken to reduce our carbon emissions.

And keep in mind that Obama is referring here to the EPA proposed rule on existing coal power plants. That rule is not yet adopted. At best, if every state does 100% of what EPA has projected, then power sector emissions would decline just 30% by 2030.

I guarantee that that will not happen, due to the EPA’s rule, which is based on cost effective, flexible strategies and state partnerships – code for lack of a big federal stick.

The US power sector accounts for something like 40% of US emissions, so that EPA rule’s best case is just a 12% reduction in total US emissions (2006 baseline)- and it does not account for US exports or the projected emissions growth resulting from economic growth.

Keep these kind of numbers in mind the next time you read some White House or EPA spin transcribed by the news media.

And consider these realities as why protest and direct action to stop the fossil madness are moral imperatives.