WolfeNotes.com

Development Diminishes and “Takes” Public Water Supplies

DEP Stormwater Regulations Significantly Reduce Loss of Groundwater Recharge

The NJ Geological and Water Survey just released an interesting Report:

• Changes in Groundwater Recharge Resulting From Development in Atlantic, Mercer, and Sussex Counties, NJ, 1995 – 2007

• What Does The Report Mean?

 

Here we go again.

Just as South Jersey Gas and Gov. Christie double down on the Pinelands pipeline, another battle over a literally insane fossil fuel pipeline, see NJ Spotlight:

• New Pipeline Proposal Draws Ire of Environmentalists in NY and NJ

The only good news I can see here is the cooperation and coalition between NY and NJ activists.

But in framing the issue, it seems like – again – the activists and the media are missing the proverbial 800 pound iceberg in the room.

All the science tells us that we are approaching – or may have already crossed – tipping points in the climate crisis, triggering runaway warming that would end industrial civilization and agriculture as we know it.

That crisis has to be front and center focus of the debate and the strategic objective.

The policy implication of that science is that we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground, stop investing in fossil infrastructure, and radically ramp up government mandates and make massive financial investments in energy conservation, efficiency, and renewables.

A rational response to the climate crisis would require a complete reorientation of our values, lifestyle, and economy.

We must honestly confront that reality, not pipe dreams.

In the recent context of the release of the US National Climate Assessment and the terrifying news on irreversible melting of the west antarctic ice sheet, folks need to go back and re-read Bill McKibben’s “Terrifying New Math” 

The environmentalists and media have to start educating the public along these lines of crisis and catastrophe.

Environmentalists must reorient the losing project by project infrastructure battles to attack the sources of the problem: extraction of the fossil fuels for corporate profit.

Once it leaves the ground, it will be burned.

If “free market” capitalism and corporations are allowed to continue to control government and policy, we are doomed.

DEP Says More Delay Expected In Update of Long Awaited Water Supply Plan

DEP Says Gov. Christie’s Office Directly Involved

[Update below]

The NJ Water Supply Advisory Council met Friday (5/16/14) for their regular monthly meeting, this time at the NJ American Water Co.’s Canal Road treatment plant.

Hot issues on the agenda included:

• a scientific briefing on the effects of climate change on NJ water supply, demand, and infrastructure
• the status of releasing the Update to the State Water Supply Master Plan
• discussion of DEP’s new “resiliency ” approach and Asset Management Guidance
• discussion of revisions to technical formulas for estimating demand from development and “Firm capacity”

Here’s a quick summary of the mostly bad news that emerged from the meeting – wonks may want to continue reading for a brief discussion of each bullet provided below:

• climate change is happening now, but continues to be ignored by Gov. Christie and all things DEP;
• the update of the Water Supply Plan is bogged down in the Gov.’s Office politics & incompetence;
• DEP continues to rely on ineffective voluntary guidance to implement what are largely rhetorical (PR) infrastructure resiliency and asset management policies;
• water companies are pressuring DEP to relax technical assumptions regarding water demand in order to promote more new development despite water supply and infrastructure deficits; and
• the findings & policy implications of a recent Rutgers/NJ Future Report regarding NJ’s water infrastructure crisis were not on the radar screen of the WSAC.

• Climate Change impacts

Dr. Anthony Broccoli from Rutgers made a presentation that focused on: 1) increasing temperatures; 2) changing patterns of precipitation; and 3) sea level rise.

As we previously wrote, the Christie Administration is not addressing these serious issues in any meaningful way.

Dr. Broccoli then outlined various mitigation, adaptation, and geo-engineering response options.

I’ve seen it several times now and it has gotten press coverage – it is Broccoli’s canned presentation – so I will not go into details again here. All I’ll say is that perhaps Broccoli should consider presenting his science in the context of the policy needs of his audience. The farmers have different needs than the water supply managers, yet his presentation to both groups is virtually identical.

All the effects of climate change Broccoli outlined impact the available supply and demand for water, and will require that infrastructure be upgraded to adapt to various aspects of climate change, particularly sea level rise and increased frequency and severity of heavy rainfall and river/stream flooding.

[Brocolli noted that land use changes and increased impervious surfaces alter hydrology and exacerbate impacts.]

The presentation was unusually well attended (literally standing room only crowd, including a member of the press!) and there was a good discussion by members of the WSAC and attendees raised good questions, including:

1) Warmer temperatures will increase water demand, lengthen the growing season, and thereby increase evapo-transpiration. Projected extended dry spells, punctuated by more frequent and severe heavy rainfalls, will result in less recharge and more runoff. These dynamics will reduce stream flows and groundwater levels, putting more pressure on an already stressed natural ecosystems and infrastructure;

2) The same dynamics will “put a premium on water storage”.

3)  The current regulatory regime relies on statistical constructs (e.g. 100 year rainfall event, delineation of the flood hazard area; drought and water availability; flood elevations (FMA BFE’s and insurance FIRM’s); stream flows (passing flows), Safe Yield, assimilative capacity, etc) ) that are no longer scientifically valid or adequately protective.

The statistical concept of “stationarity” is no longer valid because climate change has changed the underlying causal dynamics. The future will not be like the past. Projections of future conditions can not be based on time series data from the past. This requires a radically different approach to policy – along lines of what Broccoli called the engineering “margin of safety”, but some call precaution.

4) Dr. Broccoli presented 1 slide that compared the carbon emissions from various carbon fuels per unit of energy produced. The Broccoli data slide showed that natural gas emitted less than half of the carbon emission that coal produces.

I called him on that slide as partially true but misleading in light of lifecycle analysis.

I asked him whether he was familiar with the research on lifecycle carbon emissions from natural gas and EPA’s recent findings of higher than expected ambient methane concentrations they trace back to gas production.

I asked him to put an asterisk on that data to note the current scientific controversy. He did not agree.

Surprisingly, Broccoli claimed that lifecycle analysis was a new scientific development he was not familiar with. (Note: while at DEP, I worked with researchers on product lifecycle analysis in the early 1990’s)

5) The issue of the need for additional treatment was ignored (but did get some attention later during the discussion on the recent Drinking Water Quality Institute meeting).

6) I asked DEP and  the individual members of the WSAC, particularly the municipal and private water companies, specifically when they would start to implement the climate science in water supply management decisions. I criticized the State’s lack of leadership. I noted that there was an undue concern about costs to the public, but that when I was at DEP in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, we quadrupled the cost of environmentally sound solid waste management, as a result of leadership from the Governor on down.

Response: crickets.

• What ever happened to the Update of the Water Supply Master Plan?

Let me put this issue in context by quoting the recent legislative testimony of former DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello:

“…we have a State Water Supply Plan that is 17 years old. It’s an embarrassment… [The] Water Supply Management Act requires that this plan be updated every five years. It hasn’t been updated since 1996. When I took over as Commissioner and had the authority to really boss people around, I had our Water Supply Division, in one year, complete a final draft update of that plan, which was being reviewed in December of ’09. Unfortunately I ran out of time due to the circumstances of the election… that plan has languished. And the word from DEP now is that they have ‘parked the plan.’ That’s a quote from the highest levels of the agency. We have to get the plan out of park.”  ~~~ (8/15/13, hit link for complete hearing transcript)

I felt bad for Jeff Hoffman, DEP’s representative to the WSAC.

Jeff was asked point blank about the status of the Update to the Water Supply Master Plan.

Jeff honestly replied that the draft Plan was done and is in the Gov.’s Office. Jeff said that the draft Plan Update has not moved and is not going anywhere.

Jeff went on to note that DEP has had to brief a new cast of policy people in the Gov. Office, who continue to raise questions and have ideas about “new directions and recommendations on how to change it”.

This fits the paradigm, at best, outlined in the NJ Spotlight story “What’s wrong with Christie’s government” and at worst the model of incompetence and political decision-making exposed by the GW Bridge scandal.

• Relaxing water demand criteria for new development 

The WSAC has formed a Committee to look into the current DEP and residential site improvement standards (RSIS) regulatory requirements for estimating water demand from new development. This was euphemistically and misleadingly described on the meeting agenda as “Firm Capacity/RSIS Subcommittee Report”.

The intent seems to be to relax these demand projections to make it cheaper and easier to issue water allocation permits to new development and to back DEP off enforcement of exceedences of water allocation permits (look at DEP database here).

Water purveyors – and developers – argue that actual water use is far less than the amount assumed under various regulatory demand estimation methods (approximately 100 gpd per capita).

If these assumptions are relaxed, that would “free up” or create enormous new water capacity to serve new development and otherwise offset current and projected deficits that limit development.

Other water officials opposed the current DEP method to base compliance on the highest monthly water use over a  5 year period. They complained that sometimes they have an anomalous “bad month” with unusually high water demand.

Jennifer Coffee of Stonybrook Watershed – a new WSAC appointee – questioned what this means, especially in light of the impact of low flows on aquatic life in streams.

This is a really bad idea that needs to be strangled in the crib.

If water companies and developers want more capacity freed up, they should start with aggressive water conservation measures and fixing the leaks that cause losses in the range of 20 – 30% in some water systems.

• Rutgers – NJ Future Reports 0n NJ’s Infrastructure Crisis

I was really surprised that these important Reports were not on the meeting agenda and that members were not aware of it. See:

• Rutgers: Water Infrastructure in New Jersey’s CSO Cities: Elevating the Importance of Upgrading New Jersey’s Urban Water Systems
• NJ Future: Ripple Effects

I had to coax WSAC member and Rutger professor and Report author Dan Van Abs to even mention them.

The Report should be required reading for all water resource professionals;, public officials, journalists and environmentalists.

The WSAC will next meet on June 20 – location not set.

[Update 5/19/14 – With respect to point #3 above, I’ve written about but forgot to mention at WSAC meeting that President Obama’s Executive Order on Climate Change Adaptation includes a new policy about projection of future conditions, including:

Section 1. Policy. The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation. These impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures. Managing these risks requires deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the Federal Government, as well as by stakeholders, to facilitate Federal, State, local, tribal, private-sector, and nonprofit-sector efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience; help safeguard our economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources; and provide for the continuity of executive department and agency (agency) operations, services, and programs.

[…]

(ii) reform policies and Federal funding programs that may, perhaps unintentionally, increase the vulnerability of natural or built systems, economic sectors, natural resources, or communities to climate change related risks;

NJ needs an adaptation policy.

NJ DEP should be systematically reviewing exactly the type statistically based regulatory constructs I briefly mentioned above in light of projected climate change conditions.

Why Is Advanced Treatment Not Required for NJ Drinking Water?

Why is DEP allowing millions of NJ residents to be needlessly – and unknowingly – exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals when there is treatment technology available to remove them?

[Update below]

I wanted to post the above chart and excerpt below from a new DEP report presented to the Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) earlier this week in order to make one critically important point that is being lost in the media coverage and over all debate about the DWQI.

An it is shocking that DEP’s “asset management” Guidance and the infrastructure deficit debates ignore needs for upgrading treatment.

Several years ago, DEP, US EPA, and the US Geological Service found that there are over 500 unregulated chemicals present in NJ drinking water. For details, see this PEER Report:

• Filter the chemical soup in NJ’s drinking water

Trenton — New Jersey should filter its drinking water to remove hundreds of chemicals, most of which are unregulated, from its drinking water supply, according to a rulemaking petition filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The plan to screen many chemicals out of tap water was actually developed by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) but has been in limbo for the last six years.

State testing has detected “approximately 600” chemical compounds “in 199 samples collected” including five brands of bottled water, according to a recent DEP white paper. The vast majority of these chemicals, including pharmaceuticals, hormones, and cleaning products, are not regulated by either the federal or state government. As a result, there is no regulatory effort to reduce or eliminate them from drinking water.

The April 2010 DEP white paper, entitled “Investigations Related to a ‘Treatment-Based’ Regulatory Approach to Address Unregulated Contaminants in Drinking Water,” advocates used granular activated carbon filtration and other techniques to remove most chemicals in drinking water, noting that carbon filtration alone removed more than half of identified chemicals.

These chemicals are unregulated. Health effects of exposure to these chemicals are unknown, especially for children and the developing fetus. They are not removed by what is called “conventional treatment” that is installed at NJ drinking water systems.

But there are advanced treatment methods that can remove almost all of these chemicals to “non-detectable” levels.

PEER recently petitioned DEP to impose regulations to mandate advanced treatment of NJ drinking water systems that are highly vulnerable or have known contamination by unregulated chemicals.

The Christie DEP denied that petition. See:

• Jersey Nixes Filtration Plan for Drinking Water

PEER’s concerns and the case for installing advanced treatment was made stronger by a DEP report posted on DEP’s website today. Some of the key findings of the Report was presented to the DWQI earlier this week and the full Report was posted on the DEP website today.

According to the Report,  available data strongly suggests DEP should begin to require advanced treatment at certain vulnerable water supply systems.

The DEP Report found:

PFCs are removed from drinking water by granular activated carbon and reverse osmosis (Rahman et al., 2014), while the standard treatment processes used at the sites included in the 2006 and 2009 studies do not effectively remove PFCs. Data on PFCs in raw and finished water from several sites included in the 2006 and 2009 studies confirms that PFC concentrations are generally not decreased in the finished water (Post et al., 2009, Post et al., 2013b). …

In addition, to better understand treatment options available for the removal of unregulated organic contaminants, the Department is studying the effectiveness of granular activated carbon (GAC) removal technology in removing unregulated contaminants, including PFOA and PFOS, in pilot studies at two water systems that use groundwater: Fair Lawn Water Department (Bergen County) and Merchantville-Pennsauken Water Commission (Camden County). These pilot studies are currently ongoing.

Why is DEP allowing millions of NJ residents to be needlessly – and unknowingly – exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals when there is treatment technology available to remove them?

It appears that DEP is refusing to do so based on alleged high cost of these treatment systems.

How much are you willing to pay to drink healthy water?

[Update: 5/5/14 – I focused on treatment issue as a solution, but Jon Hurdle at NJ Spotlight writes a superb story about how DEP suppressed this study for 4 years, see:

• Long awaited DEP study says PFC contamination widespread in state’s water ~~~ end update].

Notwithstanding the provisions of any law or regulation to the contrary, an amount not to exceed $147,500,000 of cost recoveries from litigation related to the Passaic River cleanup shall be deposited in the General Fund as State revenue, subject to the approval of the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting.  ~~~ Gov. Christie’s Proposed FY’ 15 DEP budget, p. D-125

“This is terrible policy,” said Brad Campbell, a former state Department of Environmental Protection commissioner who is now an environmental lawyer.

He said it conflicts with “the clear language” of New Jersey’s Spill Act, which enables the state to seek compensation directly from polluters and it means significant natural resources will never be restored.

“And it’s bad fiscal policy, using another nonrecurring and completely unpredictable revenue stream to mask a structural deficit,” Campbell said.  ~~~ Associated Press 4/27/14

[Update: 5/5/14 – Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight wrote the story today, with a top ten Tittel quote:

“There’s no blood left in the stone”  ~~~  end update]

The Assembly Budget Committee reviewed Gov. Christie’s DEP’s proposed FY 15 budget today.

The Senate will review it tomorrow at 1 pm.

A budget is more than a financial document: it establishes priorities and essentially determines which policies will be implemented and what laws will be enforced.

So, the legislature’s power of the purse can be a powerful oversight and accountability tool.

But, when it comes to the critical details of the budget and the performance of the DEP programs funded, the Legislative branch is outgunned and unable or reluctant to use to the budget process as a forum to oversee the Gov.’s implementation of policy.

Nonetheless, year after year I go to DEP budget hearings expecting legislators to hold the DEP accountable and criticize policy  – and year after year I am disappointed.

To the contrary, the only policy concerns that legislators seem to express are from the business community about over-regulation, bureaucratic red tape, of excessive permit fees.

Today, was mostly in keeping with that pattern.

But Democrats on the Assembly Committee did blast DEP Commissioner Martin for failure to propose a stable source of funding for open space acquisition and for the proposed diversion of $147.5 million from the Passaic River toxic settlement agreement to the General Funds. (see above budget language and former DEP Commissioner Campbell’s harsh criticism, with which I completely agree).

A new issue emerged when DEP Commissioner Martin said that funds from a $161 million Passaic settlement escrow account were just released and made available. It was unclear if this was in addition to the $147 pot of money.  So the total diversion of Passaic River cleanup money could exceed $300 million!!!

I’ll let the main stream press cover those two issues.

Instead, I will briefly mention a few other less prominent issues that were addressed and those that weren’t.

For those that like to get into the weeds, here are the original documents – the OLS analysis is helpful and the DEP response to OLS questions is quite revealing, so I suggest you go there first:

• Here is the FY 15 State budget;
• here is the OLS analysis of DEP’s budget;
• here is DEP responses to OLS questions;
• here is DEP Commissioner Martin’s testimony; and
• listen to the hearing here.

1. Climate change was ignored completely – aside from a few casual rhetorical references to prior Clean Energy Fund diversions and exit from RGGI. That is just unforgivable.

2. Legislators allowed Commissioner Martin to dodge the issues regarding failure in renewable energy by claiming that was BPU’s job.

3. DEP spun a tall tale in response to OLS questions about coastal vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning – many of the criticism I have made here several times were addressed – you need to read it to believe it. Those interested can start on page 8 – I think many people will be surprised to learn about this stuff.

4. A lot of important issues were completely ignored.

Martin got no questions – NONE – about public health, environmental justice, land use, Highlands, Pinelands, Barnegat Bay, Fenimore Landfill, infrastructure (other than Sandy damage), chemical plant safety, rail safety, Hudson River oil shipments, a proposed new oil pipeline thru the Highlands, Off shore oil and gas exploration, off shore LNG export facilities, science, monitoring, environmental data, or regulatory policy.

[Correction – Martin got a softball question on Fenimore from Assemblyman Bucco. It was such a softball, I didn’t even consider it a question. Sorry about that error.]

There was not one question about how the Gov.’s pro-business Executive Orders and regulatory policies effected transparency, permit reviews, enforcement, or the overall level of protection of human health and the environment.

There was no interest in DEP’s role in the Hoboken – Rockefeller development scandal.

5. Assemblyman Cryan raised a couple of good issues about DEP’s role in Sandy. In response to Commissioner Martin’s testimony on the $100 million Hazard Mitigation Grant Elevation Program, Cryan said that 18 months after Sandy:

It is stunning that just 1 tenth of 1% of applications have been approved

[Clarification – Cryan mispoke on the math – 26 of 2,600 applications have been approved. That is 1%, not a tenth of 1%.]

Cryan also raised serious concerns about DEP’s lack of integrity monitors for Sandy related projects overseen by DEP.

6. There were no questions on drinking water and the Drinking Water Quality Institute.

7. Assemblyman Singleton carried the water of the chemical industry and criticized DEP air and water permit fees and questioned whether the NJ TCPA program was necessary given “duplication” of federal RMP program.

Assemblyman Burzichelli jumped in to agree.

Surprisingly, Commissioner Martin did a reasonably good job in defending these programs as national models in addressing chemical risk management.

Martin did make some troubling comments about reconsideration of the fee structure.

Worse, Martin advocated that

“I’d like to see an overhaul of the EPA federal regulations under the clean air act”

That radical comment went without notice.

8. OLS flagged another diversion of $6.2 million from the Recycling Fund to the General Fund.

9. OLS flagged the fact that DEP plans to try to use federal HUD CDBG funds as the 20% State match requirement for federal Sandy infrastructure funding – lots of money involved in HUD rejects this move.

10. OLS flagged another Port Authority sweetheart deal.

The PA provided $13.8 million to DEP for reconstruction of piers at Liberty State Park – were David Samson, Bill Baroni, and Wildstein involved in this too?

Let’s see how the Senate engages tomorrow.