WolfeNotes.com

Maryland Governor O’Malley & NJ Gov. Christie Both Silent on Controversial Energy Exports

Obama takes us more quickly to runaway climate change and climate catastrophe

A climate death spiral

I’ve given up waiting for the NY or NJ press corps to write the story about the recent *Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of the Dominion Energy’s Cove Point Maryland LNG export facility – while instead we get energy industry propaganda – so I figured I’d outline the contours and meaning of the story myself.

That controversial FERC approval story is big news in the fracking gas fields of Pennsylvania – as well as the facility’s host state of Maryland – not to mention among the business press and energy industry shills and right wing free market zealots.

But the Cove Point LNG plant will have regional impacts far outside the fracking fields of Pennsylvania, including the NY/NJ metropolitan region, where consumers will compete for the same finite supply of Marcellus shale frack gas that will be exported and people will suffer the impacts of accelerating sea level rise and virtually certain catastrophic climate change.

Maryland Governor O’Malley is as silent on the LNG export issue as  his fellow 2016 Presidential aspirant NJ Gov. Chris Christie is. 

They both are trolling for the same energy industry campaign bribes.

And because it’s bi-partisan, and Obama backed, the energy export  issue won’t get press coverage in any meaningful way, particularly now that industry propagandists have convinced right wing hawks in Congress and Hilary Clinton’ State Department that energy exports are vital to US national security interests (i.e. the “domestic energy independence” and revived Russian cold war lies).

The FERC decision is a disaster for at least these reasons: (read the FERC environmental assessment)

1) Climate

Cove Point will export approximately 1 billion cubic feet per day, or 7.82 million metric tons of liquified natural gas (LNG) per year. Those exports will increase the rate of emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and CO2.

The environmental review of the project was fatally flawed because it did not consider lifecycle cumulative climate impacts from the Marcellus well field source through pipeline transport, processing, shipment, and combustion of the gas in feign countries of export (see section 2.9.9)

Currently, there is no standard methodology to determine how the Project’s incremental contribution to GHGs would result in physical effects on the environment, either locally or globally. However, estimated emissions associated with the Project would incrementally increase the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, in combination with GHG emissions from other sources identified in the cumulative impacts analysis. Because we cannot determine the Project’s incremental physical impacts due to climate change on the environment, we cannot determine whether or not the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on climate change would be significant

Common sense – as well as law – says that if Dominion Energy and FERC can not determine whether climate impacts would be significant, then they may not receive federal approvals.

2) Diversion of $3.8 billion – scarce Infrastructure Investment capital away from renewables

The project cost is estimated at $3.8 billion – capital in a scarce resource.

That same money could be invested in far more jobs producing, lower cost, and carbon free energy efficiency and renewables.

3) more carbon fuel infrastructure

That $3.8 billion private investment will need a supply of gas to export. The project is part of continuing reckless investments in infrastructure that will lock the US into producing carbon fuels for another generation.

4) domestic gas prices will rise to world levels

Local and regional gluts of Marcellus shale gas have kept prices low.

Exports will increase US domestic prices in the direction of much higher world prices.

It is now estimated that if the Obama administration approves all the existing applications for LNG export terminals as expected, nearly half of all the natural gas produced in the U.S. could be exported. This could cause natural gas prices in the U.S. to more than double.

Why no press reports about that – instead of the industry spin we read about lower gas prices?

This significant increase in US domestic prices will hurt consumers and generate windfall profits that will be reinvested in more fossil production – a climate death spiral.

5) accelerate Marcellus fracking

Increasing demand and higher global export prices will put pressures on drilling, fracking and pipelines for Marcellus shale gas.

6) Increase public health and safety risks

From air and water pollution to explosions and fires, gas is a hazard.

The terrifying math of climate science says we must leave 80% of fossil reserves in the ground.

That means a moratorium on all new and expanded oil, gas, and coal infrastructure.[including the five proposed LNG export projects, as well as proposed coal exports.]

Obama and FERC are taking us more quickly to runway climate change and climate catastrophe.

 [Update: Here is the text from FERC decision document on climate change impacts – I assume that this will be litigated: (@ p. 75)

DEP Expands Emergency Plan Requirements for Sewer Plants

Could the silence mean that everyone is afraid to challenge Gov. Christie’s Climate Denial?

[Update: 9/17/14 – NJ Spotlight covers the story:

• STATE WANTS SEWER PLANTS TO PLAN FOR 500-YEAR STORMS, EXTENDED OUTAGES

“It’s extremely significant,’’ said Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, who first reported the changes on his blog, wolfenotes.com. “It will make a difference.’’

[Updates below – where did these new requirements come from? Why done under the radar?]

I have been highly critical of the Christie DEP’s failure to consider extreme weather events that will increase in severity and frequency as a result of climate change and for DEP’s refusal to develop a climate change adaptation plan.

I also have criticized DEP’s failure to monitor and enforce existing NJPDES permit requirements for sewage treatment plants regarding emergency planning and response, including the need to have back up power systems to keep plants operational under emergency conditions.

Those failures are interrelated and they exacerbated the extended outages and discharge of billions of gallons of raw sewage by scores of sewage treatment plants knocked off line by Sandy due to loss of power or storm surge.

However, I am stunned to report progress on all three issues, based on a recent review of several draft DEP NJPDES permits issued to several sewer authorities to control “Combined Sewer Overflows” (CSO) (more on the CSO aspects in a  future post).

New conditions of those draft CSO permits suggest that DEP has learned something from Sandy failures and imposed new requirements to correct those failures.

Specifically, DEP has quietly imposed two significant new emergency planning requirements in NJPDES permits.

First, DEP now requires that sewer plants plan for the 500 year storm event.

Historically, the DEP regulations and permits were based on the 100 year storm event.

A 500 year storm is considerably larger in terms of volume and rate of water (inches per hour and total rainfall, and storm water runoff rate and volume); in the elevation of floodwaters and storm surge; and in the land area inundated by flood waters and storm surge.

The term “500-year flood” is the flood that has a 0.2% chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. The 500-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. Statistically, the 0.2% (500- year) flood has a 6% chance of occurring during a 30-year period of time, the length of many mortgages.

Second, DEP now requires that sewer plants plan for extended power outages, up to 14 days in duration.

Both significant new technical requirements were built into this new condition in the NJPDES permit (see page 9 of 18, item J.)

The permittee shall also include in the O&M Program and corresponding Manual, an Emergency Plan, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.12(d). The Emergency Plan shall provide for, to the maximum extent possible, uninterrupted treatment works operation during emergency conditions using in-house and/or contract based services. The Emergency Plan shall include Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), which ensure the effective operation of the treatment works under emergency conditions, such as extreme weather events (including 100 and 500 year storm events) and extended periods of no power, (e.g., 7 days and 14 days). 

I assume that this is a boilerplate condition that will be imposed in all sewage treatment plant NJPDES permits, and should also be included in DEP’s water infrastructure asset management program and across the board in virtually all DEP land use and related regulatory programs as a climate change extreme weather adaptation policy.

The new permit requirements generate a host of questions.

We note that these new requirements are in draft permits that are not yet final.

We don’t know if similar conditions have been inserted in other permits that are draft or final.

We don’t know what the position is of the sewer authorities and whether they will contest these new requirements.

We also don’t know what DEP’s actual technical guidelines are for how to manage and prepare for the 500 year storm and supply back up power for 14 days.

Or how to fund the necessary upgrades required to meet these new requirements.

Or how they will be monitored and enforced by DEP.

Perhaps  answers and those technical aspects of the program will emerge during DEP’s development of the much touted new “Resiliency Bank”.

We are a skeptic of that effort, which is why we were stunned to see the above NJPDES permit requirements.

Those new permit requirements were not mentioned by DEP Commissioner Martin when he was asked specific questions about DEP’s response to Sandy sewer outages during DEP budget hearings this spring, or more recently by Assistant Commissioner Kennedy, during legislative oversight hearings on DEP’s new “asset management” and CSO programs.

We’ll try to get some answers and keep you posted.

In our next post, we look at new DEP permit requirements for asset management and green infrastructure.

[Update #1 – A Trenton source explains the origin of the new DEP permit requirements as follows – in which case, EPA should be glad to take credit for them. But, given how weak EPA Region 2 has been in oversight of NJ DEP during the Christie Administration, I am finding this almost as difficult to believe as the fact that DEP actually issued the permit requirements:

The 500 year storm and frequency in the CSO permits are part of settlement with Region 2 on CSO’s .Epa is also requiring sea level rise and storm surge requirements for sewer funding and NJ is using the 500 year storm as away of meeting that standard without mentioning climate or sea level rise.

Update #2 – Trenton source now says that EPA Regional Administrator Enck has already publicly taken credit for these new permit requirements – guess I just missed it.

Update # 3 – Trying to run down exactly how EPA allegedly imposed these requirements.

Here is EPA Region 2 draft Climate Change Adaptation Plan required by President Obama’s Executive Order – it notes extreme weather impacts, and NPDES and CSO programs, but is vague and makes no specific commitments and action items about directing NJ DEP to impose new permit requirements listed above. One hell of a way to run a government!

Region 2 sees future opportunities to work with state regulators during the planning and permitting process, for the air programs and the NPDES program with particular focus on sewage treatment plants, in accounting for climate change related issues. Region 2 sees future opportunity to work with state regulators during the planning and permitting process, for the air and oil sector and sewage treatment plants, in accounting for climate change related issues. This could require considering the elevation of a facility, location of facility intakes, and location of emissions control equipment to account for project climate change impacts. In the Caribbean, we could explore the possibility of implementing green infrastructure and green energy in consent- decrees and orders (for both Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act).

I could find nothing specific about this on EPA Region 2 Climate Adaptation web page either – and that page includes a link to “regulatory initiatives”, which this surely is.

Maybe the recent NJ Future CSO Report or Rutgers Climate Adaptation Alliance work addresses it? I’ll go there next.

This shouldn’t be so hard – no wonder the public is clueless.

[Update #4 – The NJ Future CSO Report provides extensive analysis of NJPDES CSO permits, but I could not find specific discussion of 500 year and 14 day permit conditions – I did find this, which is somewhat on point, but the context is cost, not NJPDES permit condition and I could find nothing specific about 14 day  backup power:

Discussions with utility managers emphasize the coming competition between CSO costs and other water infrastructure expenditures, not to mention non-water infrastructure expenditures that have been identified as priorities, such as transportation systems and electric energy utilities. As one example, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC) own and operate the nation’s fifth-largest sewage treatment plant. PVSC faces $110 million in damages to the treatment plant from Hurricane Sandy, and a need for perhaps $250 million for improved resilience measures such as flood walls, protection of sensitive equipment, and backup power to achieve protection against both current flooding potential and future risks (using the 500-year or 0.2% probability flood as the risk benchmark). These costs are in addition to the anticipated costs of improving a 30- year old treatment facility that had a 25-year economic lifespan, and an aging interceptor line that was built in 1924.1

Update # 5 – this is exhausting – the Rutgers Climate Adaptation Alliance Report mentions NJPDES and water allocation permits, but not in terms of 500 year flood event or 14 day duration back up power.

Again, this is amazing because at the time both reports were issued, DEP had already included this as a permit condition. I can’t recall another example of where DEP regulators were out in front of virtually everyone. And there were no fingerprints on a significant new policy and permit condition.

[Update # 6 – in addition to the difficulty of trying to document the origin and basis for this permit condition, another very unusual fact is that DEP had multiple opportunities and obligations to mention this but did not. Specifically:

1) DEP didn’t issue a press release bragging about their new “resiliency” requirements or

2) DEP Commissioner Martin didn’t note it in his budget testimony (which emphasized all the sewage plants knocked off line) or

3) DEP Asst. Commissioner Kenedy did n’t mention it during his “asset management” and CSO program testimony to Assembly oversight

4) BPU and EDA didn’t say anything about that in the Resiliency Bank press releases and

5) Sandy HUD second round submission that had extensive section of resiliency bank concept to get the $25 million in federal funds. That funding was justified based on sewage plants failure.

Could the silence mean that virtually everyone is afraid to challenge Gov. Christie’s Climate Denial?

HUD IG AUDIT Found “Significant Deficiencies”

 State spent $23 million audit found “unsupported”

State Falsely Certified Compliance & Failed to Conduct Independent Cost Analysis

After The Fact Independent Analysis Seriously Flawed

IG Recommends That HUD Consider Whether Costs Are Reasonable

NJ Could Be Required To Reimburse HUD With State Funds

Despite being spun by the Gov.’s Office as vindication and by NJ’s lapdog press as no big deal, the HUD Inspector General’s audit Report found “significant deficiencies” and $23 million in “unsupported costs” in the Christie Administration’s federally funded $25 million “Stronger than the Storm” ad campaign.

The audit also raises additional serious going forward questions: Given the seriousness and consistent pattern of very basic financial control violations, whether NJ will be required to reimburse HUD with state taxpayer dollars for unreasonable costs.

The role of the consulting form ICF, who conducted a seriously flawed “after the fact” “independent cost analysis” also should be probed further.

Before we get to the details of the HUD IG audit, let me begin with an analogy to illustrate how badly spun the media coverage is.

Let’s say I was going 75 mph in a 55 zone and got a speeding ticket.

I go to court and ask for the ticket to be dismissed because I claim I was sober and not doing anything “improper” at the time; my registration, insurance, and inspection credentials were all OK; and that I was merely “not fully compliant” with the traffic code.

Would that kind of argument fly with the judge? Of course not.

So why should that kind of argument fly in the court of public opinion, driven by the news media?

Would the news story be: “Man not fully compliant with traffic code”? Or: “Man gets ticket for speeding”?

So why has Christie’s spin, which latches on to just two phrases in the HUD IG report – i.e. that “nothing improper” was found and that the State “did not fully comply” – become the dominant narrative and framing of the news coverage? The Bergen Record story headline swallowed the Christie spin hook, line, and sinker and stood the audit on its head!

So, now on to the actual text of the IG audit. You can read the summary here and the entire document here.

I)  Background/Context

Obviously, given the direct personal involvement of a powerful, high media profile, and aggressive Governor Christie, there is a lot of politics involved in this audit.

The IG audit was released by HUD last Friday afternoon – evidence of a weekend news dump on a controversial topic that HUD was trying to duck and downplay.

Back in January, the news media got pushback from Christie supporters for calling the IG review a “federal investigation”. The IG audit was not “a federal investigation”, but it also was not “routine” – it was requested by letter of Congressman Frank Pallone (D) on August 8, 2013.

In the midst of that media and political controversy, on January 15, 2014, PEER petitioned the HUD IG to expand the scope of that audit to include several other issues, including:

1) the role of the law firm Wolff & Samson and former Christie DCA Commissioner Lori Grifa, who had been selected as Sandy funds auditors and had egregious conflicts of interest;

2) the failure of NJ to conduct a “science based risk analysis” and to consider climate change as required by new HUD rules and Obama Executive Order;

3) failure to provide a “transparent and inclusive process” required by HUD rules;

4) the State’s exemption of infrastructure from permit requirements; and

5) whether the Seaside Park boardwalk fire was eligible for Sandy funding (read the PEER letter to HUD IG).

So, there are other shoes yet to drop in the HUD IG’s shop.

Finally, a big part of the problem is that HUD has dirty hands.

HUD issued a waiver for the NJ ad campaign. That waiver sent a huge message to state officials of lax oversight.

Thus HUD itself is part of the problem, so it becomes difficult for HUD to aggressively enforce federal regulations and criticize the Christie Administration.

II)  Audit Scope and Findings

The audit looked at two different things that are being conflated in media reports:

Our objectives were to determine whether the content of the marketing campaign was proper and whether the State procured services and products for its tourism marketing program in accordance with applicable Federal procurement and cost principle requirements. 

The audit found that the content, i.e. the use of Gov. Christie in the ads, was not improper. That does not mean it was OK, just that it did not violate federal law.

But the audit also found that NJ violated federal procurement and cost principle requirements.

NJ officials made several significant mistakes. The pattern suggests, at best, incompetence, or possible fraud.

Let’s start with the most serious and most basic:

• the state falsely certified compliance with federal requirements

… although the State complied with HUD instructions by certifying that its policies and procedures were equivalent to Federal procurement requirements, it did not procure services and products for its tourism marketing program in a manner that fully met the intent of the Federal requirements. 

As stated in the audit report, the State was required to conduct a pre- bid cost estimate and post-bid cost analysis. The State certified to HUD that its procurement policies and procedures were equivalent to the Federal procurement requirements. However, its actions did not demonstrate compliance with the intent of the Federal standards.

This is really bad – attorney’s and other professionals can lose their licenses for false certifications. 

Do you think the IRS would give you a break for falsely certifying tax returns?

• the State failed to prepare an independent cost estimate before receiving bids

Contrary to regulations at 24 CFR 85.36(f), the State did not prepare an independent cost estimate and cost analysis before receiving bids or proposals and awarding a contract. The regulations required the State to make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. They also required the State to perform a cost analysis. An independent cost estimate serves as a yardstick for evaluating the reasonableness of the contractor’s proposed costs or prices.

Without this independent cost estimate, what HUD called “a yardstick for evaluating the reasonableness of contractor’s proposed costs or prices”, there was no way for the Christie administration to know whether the bids that were submitted were reasonable.

This is like walking into the auto dealer to buy a car without having any idea if the car might cost $20,000 or $75,000.

It is really bad practice. An embarrassment. Evidence of incompetence or corruption, or both.

• the state failed to develop a yardstick or methodology for evaluating reasonableness of costs

Although the State did not adopt the Federal procurement standards, it needed to ensure that its alternate policies and procedures met the intent of the Federal requirements. Therefore, it needed to demonstrate that it developed a yardstick for evaluating the reasonableness of contractors’ proposed costs or prices, and evaluated the separate elements that made up the contractors’ total costs.

Again, the Christie team was flying blind – in an industry (advertising) and tasks with a highly subjective and variable cost structure that no one in the administration had expertise in or knew about.

• the state relied on a superficial analysis of reasonable costs

The State asserted that its $25 million budget for its tourism marketing activity was reasonable and justified based on a comparison it performed with the State of Louisiana’s $30 million Economic Revitalization Small Tourism Business Support Program, established in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. HUD had granted Louisiana a waiver in the amount of $30 million to conduct marketing and outreach services activities. In our opinion, this comparison of summary budget information did not satisfy the requirement to perform an independent cost estimate and analysis because it did not consider the contractors’ proposed costs before it received bids or proposals and did not determine whether the pricing of the separate elements that made up the total costs in the contractors’ proposals were fair and reasonable.

This finding suggests that the Christie team try to take advantage of HUD’s prior waiver to Louisiana, using it as a green light for “anything goes” “you  can’t enforce those requirements on us”.

• the state provide a seriously flawed after the fact “independent cost analysis”

At the end of the audit, the State provided us an independent cost estimate report related to its contract award. The report, dated May 13, 2014, was prepared by ICF International, a technology, policy, and management consulting firm. The report incorrectly stated that the State had a waiver for the requirement to develop an independent cost estimate.  

The ICF Report seems designed to frustrate the ability of HUD auditors to compare actual costs to reasonable costs, defeating the entire purpose of an independent cost analysis. Again, we see the abuse of the HUD waiver – ICF falsely stated that HUD had issued a waiver from the independent cost analysis. IF ICF thought HUD had waived those requirements, why did they think they were conducting an “after the fact” independent cost analysis?

How much was ICF paid for this incompetent coverup?

• the state violated federal rules by waiving completive bid requirements for selected contractor MWW

The State’s contract with MWW Group required the contractor to provide copies of at least three quotes or proposals when submitting invoices for payment. However, shortly after the State awarded the contract, it waived the requirement because the contractor claimed that it would hinder its ability to move quickly on certain activities. Although the State had the authority to waive the specific contract requirement, since this action changed the terms of the contract, it should have formalized the change and issued a contract modification because the regulations at 24 CFR 85.36 (b)(9) required the State to maintain records sufficient to detail the significant history of the procurement. The regulations at 24 CFR 85.36(c) required the State to conduct all procurement transactions in a manner providing full and open competition. Also, the regulations at 24 CFR 85.36(d) required the State to obtain bids from an adequate number of sources regardless of the procurement method unless the noncompetitive proposal method was selected. The State could not provide adequate documentation to show that it met the intent of these requirements. …  As a result, HUD had no assurance that marketing services and products were acquired competitively, and that associated disbursements totaling $19.5 million were supported. 

This one is really unbelievably bad. No documents exist that can demonstrate the costs are reasonable.

I think we are getting beyond incompetence here and into fraud territory.

• the state failed to support contract labor costs

When submitting invoices for payment, the contract required the contractor to provide copies of weekly timesheets for employees assigned to do the work referenced in the invoice. The State did not have timesheets to support $3.5 million in labor costs charged by the contractor’s employees.

State employees don’t get paid without submitting time sheets. Do you?

Try to get paid under almost any contract without providing backup documentation like time sheets.

• HUD found $23 million in “unsupported” costs

AS with most government documents, as IF Stone said, most to the good stuff is buried at the end.

See Appendix A for the “Schedule of questioned costs” $22,986,481  

Unsupported costs are those charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity when we cannot determine eligibility at the time of the audit. Unsupported costs require a decision by HUD program officials. This decision, in addition to obtaining supporting documentation, might involve a legal interpretation or clarification of departmental policies and procedures.

Appendix B has some juicy comments from the audit team. Again, buried at the end of the document, no reporter is ever likely to read that far!

III) Audit recommendations and their implications

Here is what IG recommended: Bottom line: NJ taxpayers could be on the hook for $23 million in HUD reimbursements:

Just read today’s NJ Spotlight story praising the Christie Administration’s “Resiliency Bank” and need to respond to clarify major misconceptions, see:

• STATE TARGETS $65M FOR COUNTRY’S FIRST ENERGY RESILIENCY BANK

As I’ve written several times here, the term “resilience” is a slogan and serves the same purposes as the “sustainable” slogan (and the Christie DEP’s “asset management” slogan too).

Those purposes include:

• to allow cynical politicians to dupe the press and public to appear “green”; (Gov. Christie actually promotes development on barrier islands, disposal of dredged spoils in salt marshes and wetlands, and discredited, costly shore hardening projects by calling them “resilient”);
• to avoid and divert from the issues related to costly compliance with regulatory requirements;
• to ignore infrastructure deficits;
• to allow government officials  to dodge accountability and ignore climate change;
• to provide funding opportunities for weenie “Green mafia” and Foundations, who often serve as corporate front groups; and
• to allow the status quo to go unchallenged

With respect to the Christie “Resiliency Bank”, I need to note a few basic points that are being totally ignored and masked by all the sloganeering.

As I’ve written here, existing DEP regulations and NJPDES permits issued to sewage treatment plants require that emergency plans be in place and that they be implemented in event of an emergency – DEP rules specifically mention the need for back up power and adequate fuel.

DEP and water supply authorities are under very similar planning and regulatory obligations.

DEP should be issuing enforcement actions for failure to comply with regulatory and permit requirements.

Instead, DEP lets operators off the hook and perversely rewards them for non-compliance and negligence.

That is what economists call a “perverse incentive”.

Absurd – more of Christie’s “regulatory relief” and DEP “customer service”.

To repeat that: DEP regulations and permits REQUIRED emergency plans and back up power.

Those requirements never were called “resiliency” by all the green weenies now seeking grants and the politicians seeking federal grants, but floods and hurricanes and emergency preparedness and planning are nothing new.

DEP was aware of these risks FOR MANY YEARS and required the water and sewer authorities to be prepared.

But, everyone looked the other way –

Those requirements were never monitored or enforced by DEP or funded by ratepayers and implemented by the water authorities.

Shame on them.

A failure and shame that is masked by the “resiliency” slogan

 DEP Cares More About Press PR Than Park Conditions

[Updates below]

You’d think DEP would at least clean up the mess BEFORE they issue the self serving press release about the mess.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Earlier today, the screaming headline of DEP’s press release immediately caught my eye: SIX MORE CHARGED IN DEP CRACKDOWN TO COMBAT ILLEGAL DUMPING ON STATE LANDS.

For the first time I can recall, DEP actually bragged that one of the alleged violators (or are they evil doers?) had already been deported to Guatemala and another was facing jail time for failure to appear in court to answer the DEP summons (this was for a minor littering violation, not illegal disposal).

Wow. Imagine that. Jail time and deportation for littering in NJ state parks. That Christie DEP must have an enforcement hard-on, right?

Wrong.

You mean the Christie Administration, who has surrendered the enforcement stick and has the worst enforcement record in the history of DEP – with enforcement fines, inspections, and violations down by as much as 90% – is actually enforcing environmental laws?

The DEP that just indefinitely extended the enforcement shut down order for the BL England coal power plant?

[No DEP fines or jail time for Exelon Oyster Creek nuke plant radioactive tritium groundwater plume or Dupont poisoning 450 homes with toxic vapors.]

The administration that took no enforcement action for a toxic spill that hospitalized scores of people and forced evacuation of a town?

The Administration that wants to rehabilitate the State’s unrepentant worst wetlands violator and ideological foe of environmental regulation and enforcement to sit on the Pinelands Commission?

The DEP that paid convicted felons to haul Sandy debris and issued DEP permits to a convicted felon to create the Fenimore landfill fiasco?

The DEP that itself illegally dumped waste on Bulls Island State Park – and then lied to the press and then even lied to the US Army Corps of Engineers about it – sees no hypocrisy in cracking down on illegal dumping on State Lands?

You mean the DEP with this kind of enforcement record is OK with people being deported and serving jail time for merely littering?

Wow – I gotta see that.

Since I live just 5-6 miles south of the Duck Island portion of the D&R Canal State Park where some of these these major crimes occurred, I immediately hopped on my bike, camera in tow, to visit the scene of the crime and check it out.

I quite reasonably figured if DEP were cracking down on illegal disposal in State Parks, perhaps they also might be interested in using that enforcement power to improve the conditions of the park for the people and wildlife that use it.

What I saw might surprise you. Put simply, I was wrong.

The segment of the D&R Canal Park from Trenton to Bordentown is neglected by DEP.

It runs parallel to I-295, adjacent to the Trenton-Hamilton marsh, past the PSEG Duck Island power plant, the City of Trenton’s sewage treatment plant, oil depots, landfills, and toxic waste sites. The canal path also provides an easement for a major pipeline to fuel the PSEG plant.

Portions of the canal are so sedimented and overgrown that the canal no longer flows. The water is stagnant and covered by bright green algae scum.

I saw dozens of tires and a boat dumped in the Canal. A tree was down, totally blocking the path.

It is a mess.

These horrible conditions would never be tolerated in the Hunterdon and Somerset County portions of the D&R canal path.

So, since DEP apparently lacks the resources and or will to remedy these conditions, PSEG should adopt the D&R Canal segment that runs past their Duck Island power plant, from Trenton to the Bordentown marina.

That is a roughly 5 mile neglected portion of the D&R Canal Park. (additional photos in next post).

PSEG should do that as a good corporate neighbor, but especially in light of the huge subsidies and multi-million dollar sweetheart deals they have enjoyed from DEP park land easements (take a look at PSEG easements in just D&R Canal State Park).

PEER blew the whistle multiple times on financial audits of DEP that showed below market leases and easements across state lands for highly profitable industrial uses like oil and gas pipelines. (see this and this and this).

I wrote about this set of issues numerous times:

• DEP Report: Highway Right-of-Way Land 8 Times More Valuable Than State Parks and Forests
• Fair Market Value Leases for Energy Infrastructure Could Fund Parks System
• Christie Cuts Sweetheart Deal with Gas Industry
• NJ Subsidizing Oil and Gas Pipelines That Cross State Lands
• NEW JERSEY PARKS LOSE MILLIONS IN UNCOLLECTED LEASE PAYMENTS – Park Closures Could Be Averted by Reaping Concessionaire and Easement Revenue

The legislature responded by passing a law mandating that DEP leases reflect full market value:

4. a. The Department of Environmental Protection shall conduct, within six months after the effective date of this act, a study of the facilities, services, resources, activities, and amenities provided, or which reasonably could be provided, at each State park or forest as defined in subsection e. of section 3 of P.L.1983, c.324 (C.13:1L-3).  As part of the study, the department shall:

(2)   conduct a re-appraisal of the rents and fees charged for all residences and other buildings and structures, and for utility easements and right-of-ways, located on State park or forest lands to ensure they reflect current fair market values and will continue to do so;

But DEP has ignored that law, still has not renegotiated existing leases, and their policy on new leases also fails to recoup full market value.

So, here’s what PSEG should agree to do for the segment of the Canal path that runs by their facility and provides an easement for a pipeline to their facility:

• provide a new trail surface
• dredge and cleanup the Canal, enabling it (and canoes and kayaks) to flow freely to the Delaware River and Hamilton marsh
• restore damage to stream banks that are tributaries to Crosswicks Creek & Trenton Marsh
• fund a routine maintenance program
• fund or install interpretive signs and benches every 1/2 mile

We will be petitioning PSEG and DEP to implement this kind of restoration program – more to follow on that.

[Update – 8/30/14: Took a ride out D&R Canal path to check status –

A few months ago, I sent the D&R Canal Park Superintendent a note about the need for maintenance, and within a few days, a DEP parks crew responded. So, after this post, I honestly expected that at least the garbage would be gone and maybe the downed tree blocking the path removed.

Nope – all the mess still there. Trail users had managed to cut a path under the tree.

I’ll reach out again to the Park Superintendent.

I have many DEP readers, so guess Wolfenotes lacks the firepower these days – or maybe the DEP management, after I rubbed their noses in the Bulls Island mess, is spiteful and doesn’t want to give me another win – or else DEP is just shameless.

[Update #2 – 8/30/14 – Here’s an email I just fired off to D&R Canal Commission and Park Superintendent. I am sure it will get a response, because Marlen and Pat are fine professionals and public servants:

Dear Superintendent & Executive Director:

Hi Marlen & Pat:

I am writing to request a response to the following problems:

1) there is a fresh illegal garbage disposal site just south of the Lamberton Road trailhead. Can you send a crew out to clean that up?

2) a couple of hundred feet south of the garbage, a tree is down blocking the trail. Can you send a crew out to remove?

3) as you know, the stretch of the canal along Duck Island badly needs dredging. Is that possible that DEP could do that?

4) as you know, there are scores of illegally disposed tires and other garbage, including a boat in the Canal.

When can DEP send a crew out to remove all that?

5) Have leases and easements across the Park been renegotiated and updated to reflect current full market value as directed by 2008 legislation?

6) Would it be possible to get PSEG to partner voluntarily in maintaining and improving this stretch of the Canal?

I am particularly interested in getting this work done, given DEP enforcement crackdown on illegal disposal on state lands and state parks.

Hopefully, that initiative has freed up management attention and resources.

You can see some photos and analysis here (glad to provide other photos):

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2014/08/dep-illegal-disposal-enforcement-crackdown-self-serving-hypocrisy/

Appreciate your timely and favorable consideration and response.

Bill Wolfe, NJ PEER

609-397-4861