WolfeNotes.com

Christie Administration Rejects Climate Change and Coastal Planning

While NJ Has Head in Sand, Surrounding States Implementing Programs

[Update below]

Covering some of the ground I’ve plowed for over a year now, NJ Spotlight has a killer story today, exposing many of the major policy failures of the Christie administration with respect to coastal planning and recovery and a failure to address the risks of sea level rise and climate change, see:

NJ SANDY RECOVERY FAILS TO CONSIDER LONG-TERM CLIMATE PREDICTIONS

For the first time, we get a look at how dangerously out of touch Gov. Christie is, as Scott Gurian reports on the climate change and coastal planning programs being implemented in neighboring states: New York, Connecticut, Delaware & Maryland.

Gov. Christie compounds this backwardness and reckless denial with his exit from RGGI and complete dismantling of NJ’s efforts to implement the 2007 Global Warming Response Act.

Similarly, I’ve contrasted New York and Gov. Cuomo’s leadership with Gov. Christie’s denial and mentioned coastal management and adaptation planning efforts in Massachusetts and North Carolina – as well as pounded on the fact that NJ is the only northeastern state without a climate change adaptation plan.

In addition to this state level failure by Gov. Christie, there are national ramifications.

As Tom Johnson reported, President Obama just signed an Executive Order  “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change”

Surely, Congress and federal agencies will be guided by that and not be opening the federal treasury with future Sandy like bailouts, especially for laggard states like NJ.

But while it is superb, the NJ Spotlight story is exactly one year too late.

Where was this reporting and NJ Future when it mattered? (I hate to be harsh, but this includes Professor Broccoli who is featured in Gurian’s piece).

Like a year ago, when policy was being established, the Sandy Czar created, Congressional money appropriated, DEP regulations adopted, etc.?

Had the Gov. faced strong pushback from planning and environmental advocates, media, and Democrats at the time he was making decisions, things might have worked out very differently.

At this point, the most effective approach is to take the entire set of issues out of the Christie administration’s hands – they are in denial and will not change, that would amount to a huge admission of huge error.

To do that, I suggest the following:

• 1) Pass Senator Barnes’ legislation to create a Coastal Commission – this bill includes land use planning powers and needs to include a mandate to “strategic retreat” and climate change and sea level rise.

Make this a priority and conduct a full court press to put the bill on the Gov.’s desk by June.

• 2) Enact enabling legislation to authorize Towns and regional planning bodies like the Pinelands and Highlands and HMC to plan and regulate based on Global Warming Response Act emission reduction goals and authorize them to conduct adaptation planning and regulation.

This would include all the local and regional authorities than manage infrastructure and water resources, solid waste, energy, transportation, housing, etc.

State level DEP and BPU action will have to wait for a new administration.

In the meantime, we ca get going along the coast and at the local and regional level – but we will never get there via the voluntary program of Sustainable NJ.

[Update:

One more important point i need to make: while I appreciate the fact that NJ Future is working on these issues and doing some good state level program benchmarking, I get absolutely disgusted by remarks like this:

Sturm thinks it was understandable that long-term planning wasn’t on most people’s radars in the immediate aftermath of the storm. “They didn’t have the capacity. They were responding to a true emergency,” she said. “But I think we’re past that point now. And we see other states stepping forward, engaging in planning and figuring out how to prioritize limited funding to make sure we’re getting the biggest bang for our buck.” Compared to its neighbors in the region, she fears New Jersey has fallen behind the pack

That is revisionist nonsense and it provides an excuse for failures by DEP and Gov. Christie to heed and act on warnings.

It also provides a pass for dismantling and ignoring climate and coastal management programs and initiatives that were in place PRIOR to Sandy that would have helped reduce the impacts of Sandy and provided a framework for Sandy response.

So, I was being kind to NJ Future in my mild criticism above. – end update.

Or Will Political Pressure and Memorandum of Agreement Buy Commission’s Approval?

A clear conscience, defense of the Pinelands and the public interest are more valuable than a seat on the Pinelands Commission

What I’d like to see … is that we get an independent expert to give us their take on this project.  ~~~ Pinelands Commissioner

I think it is a very dangerous precedent to set to start allowing people who are clearly not impartial to come in here and represent something to you as science that is in fact opinion. Then you end up with dueling experts. And this is not the forum for that…. Then we’d have to go out an get an academic or consultant. ~~~ Pinelands Counselor Roth

But I would never say that when the real public was here.  ~~~ Executive Director Wittenberg

[Update below]

The Pinelands Commission held their regular monthly meeting today and the room again was packed by opponents of the proposed South Jersey Gas Pipeline, despite the fact that again the project was not on the agenda.

Following Chairman Lohbauer’s direction to staff on October 11 to draft a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) for the Commission’s consideration, the project seems to have fallen into a black hole.

Despite the fact that negotiations with SJG are ongoing behind closed doors, there is no overall project schedule, clear review procedures, or technical standards that apply to what must be in a MOA to demonstrate “an equivalent level of protection” of Pinelands resources.

About 25 opponents testified in opposition to the project and implored Commissioners to do the right thing and show some respect for public opinion and those opposing the project.

At times the hearing got heated and personal, with the Executive Director and Counselor coming under strong criticism from several members of the public. Here are some of the highlights, with analysis:

I)  Sprint Cell Tower Plan Approval Draws Predictable Criticism

Chairman Lohbauer began the meeting on a positive note, breaking the prior silence on the SJG project by urging Commissioners to submit any questions they had to ED Wittenberg. My sense was that  the Commission was following what sources told me was a state government wide directive from the Governor’s Office to basically gag any public discussion of any controversies until after the election.

Lohbauer specifically mentioned that those questions address alternative analysis and whether independent expertise was needed to supplement staff review. While he could have gone further and addressed “equivalent level of protection” standards and a robust demonstration of need,  those were  both good signs.

But after that small positive step, it was pretty much all downhill as the Commission got off on the wrong foot.

After hearing a staff presentation, with no public input, they approved a plan by Sprint to site new cell towers in the Preservation Area.

Amazingly, it was as if the Commission were waving a red flag in front of a bull, taunting the public.

Just like the SJG pipeline, the Sprint plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) and does not meet siting criteria.

But the project is being given flexibility under provisions of the rules that allow inconsistency to be resolved via an alternatives analysis that can show that adverse impacts can be mitigated or reduced (by what is called “stealth” in the industry – like cell towers on fake trees).

Just like the SJG  pipeline project, staff met with the applicant for over a year before the project was generally known about by the public or presented to the public. And just like SJG, no independent expert review was conducted, and the project was granted relief from strict compliance with the CMP.

Just like the SJG pipeline, the staff presentation minimized impacts and questions from Commissioners revealed that staff  withheld important relevant facts from their briefing.

Last time, staff was caught withholding facts about the chronology of the review process (i.e the application was under review for over a year) and the visual impact analysis  in terms of ownership on public lands in the view shed (i.e Brendan Byrne State forest lands). This time, staff presented a 150 foot height visual impact analysis, but did not mention that rules allow 200 foot towers and withheld  the 200 foot impact analysis.

[Key facts, i.e. 1) public lands within the view shed; 2) the length of the pre-application and application review process prior to public awareness and participation; and 3) the 200 foot possibility and impact analysis were revealed not by the initial staff presentation, but were instead disclosed in response to questions from Commissioner Ed Lloyd.]

That is just completely unacceptable – the patterns suggests “agency capture” – at times, there was the appearance of staff making arguments in support of the application, instead of independent technical review of the application and strict application of the rules.

Just as the Chairman requested a Resolution to approve the project, I rose to raise a point of Order to ask that the Commission clarify the public participation procedures and to object to thew fact that the public was not allowed to testify before the Commission today, or two weeks ago before the Planing and Implementation Committee.

After  repeating the request and objecting to Chairman Lohbauer’s ruling, I was ruled out of Order and told to sit down.

At which point another man rose to object more strenuously than I had.

I can’t think of a worse way to start a meeting that should have been about improving public communications and restoring the credibility of the Commission, especially in the wake of the release of an embarrassing audio tape (listen to that tape here).

II)  South Jersey Gas Pipeline

I won’t repeat all the good arguments that about 25 commenters made.

I made 4 points,  and updated the Commission and the public on important developments since the prior meeting:

1) Overall framework

I reminded the Commissioners of their legal duty: that under the Pinelands Act they are an independent planning and regulatory agency, not an arm of the Governor’s Office. The Gov. has a negative power, i.e. he can only veto the minutes to block the Commission from taking action, he can not order the Commission to approve a project.

Similarly, Executive Director Wittenberg works for the Commission, not the Governor. Her job is to follow the policy lead of the Commissioners, not to debate or manipulate them or serve as the Governor’s Office liaison to do the bidding of the Governor.

I urged the Commission to assert its independence, get control over Wittenberg, and distance itself publicly from the Governor’s Office.

2) Denial of OPRA request on climate change impact review

The Commission denied my OPRA request regarding Counselor Roth’s guidance that the Commission has bo jurisdiction to review climate change issues. (documents provided upon request – I’ll post them tomorrow).

I again advised them of the scientific nexus  between climate change and Pinelands ecosystems, again mentioning southern pine beetle and hydrology. I warned the Commission that climate changes in temperature and precipitation patterns would have major impacts across the entire region and demanded that they take their head out of the sand and step up to the plate and address the climate issue, especially for a fossil fuel infrastructure project.

3) Disclosure of AudioTape

I advised the Commission and the public that I had publicly released a 14 minute tape of their deliberations. I said that what I heard was disturbing and inappropriate and that they should issue a public apology and clarification of the issues discussed on the tape. I asked the public to listen to the tape and reach their own conclusions about whether they had confidence in the Commission.

Later during the testimony, one gentleman demanded that the Commisisoner who said “I don’t care what the public thinks” should apologize or resign. I agree.

4) MOA

I repeated prior testimony that: a) a MOA is premature, b) BPU is not a “public development agency” under Commission MOA rules and the Commission can not allow BPU to cover for private applicant SJG; c) I reviewed several key provisions from the Atlantic Electric MOA, told them why that was not a valid precedent for SJG, and urged the Commision to require some demonstration of need for the project; and d) the Commission lacks standards and review Guidance to determine an “equivalent level of protection”.

IV)  Bottom Line – Going Forward

At the close of the meeting, two Commissioners objected to what they viewed as personal attacks by the public on staff and urged the public to refrain from that.

While Chairman Lohbuer did NOT apologize as I and others requested, he seemed to try to respond in good faith to public criticism of the review process thus far and the Commission’s failure to respect and respond to public comments. A fellow Commissioner agreed and shared his frustration with the vague and indeterminate review process, pledging to reach some sort of decision soon.

Bottom line: my sense is that this pipeline project – and the BL England plant repowering – have been green lighted by the Governor and that the Commission is getting political pressure to approve it.

Sources tell me that people are getting phone calls.

My sense is that the word is that any Commissioner that votes to block the project will be replaced by the Governor.

So, what this all boils down to – particularly given the huge stakes of this project and the questions the review process has raised for the independence and integrity of the Commission –is whether a majority of Commissioners decide to do the right thing, resist political pressure, and walk the plank on this vote.

A clear conscience and defense of the Pinelands and the public interest are far more valuable than a seat on the Pinelands Commission.

[End note – I just got a call from a friend who said he heard that the State Police were called to eject someone that was being disruptive from today’s meeting. For the record, let’s kill that rumor now – it was NOT ME!!]

[Update – 11/9/13 – Kirk Moore at Asbury Park Press nails the story – read the whole thing. He got the closing quote perfect, which was one of the highlights of the meeting:

Critics: No public need for proposed gas pipeline through the Pinelands Line to re-power shuttered B.L. England plant

PEMBERTON — Critics of a proposed natural gas pipeline to a Cape May County power plant again pressured the state Pinelands Commission on Friday to reject the project, arguing South Jersey Gas has not “demonstrated a compelling public need” for its preferred pipeline route through a Pinelands forest area zone.

The proposed 24-inch diameter, high-capacity pipeline would bring a new and cleaner fuel source to the shuttered B.L. England power plant in Upper Township, one of the last coal-fired plants in the region, which has been ordered to convert or close permanently by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The line would run mostly along highway right-of-ways, but the commission’s 30-year-old Pinelands comprehensive management plan blocks new transmission pipelines from forest areas. Some people are comparing the issue to the commission’s decision a few years ago to allow a southern Ocean County electric-transmission line to be built through woods west of the Garden State Parkway.

But in that case, the commission’s agreement with electric company Conectiv (now Atlantic City Electric) “turned on a rigorous demonstration of need,” said Bill Wolfe of Public Employees of Environmental Responsibility, one of several groups protesting the plan. “There’s been no demonstration of need on this project.”

read the whole story here. – end update

Buono holds up her hand to emphasize a big ZERO for the amount of dollars distributed by the Christie Administration almost a year later to rebuild homes from the $600 million RREM program.

The day after the Christie – Buono second debate, I wrote an email to NJ state house reporters and environmental journalists and a couple of editors I know personally suggesting that they should fact check what I thought was by far the most important exchange in the debate.

The exchange resulted from a question from veteran reporter, Michael Aron to Senator Buono:

Question: (paraphrase)

If we are hit with another Sandy like storm, why would we be better off under your administration instead off Governor Christie’s?

Buono delivered a devastating answer: (verbatim – sorry, I missed the start of Buono’s response where she said something to the affect that “I wouldn’t park NJ Transit cars down in the Meadowlands”

We need to have a governor that believes that climate change isn’t an esoteric issue. The fact is that climate change helped to contribute to hurricane Sandy. We know that the ocean levels are rising. This is a governor who pulled out of RGGI – the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. These are policies we need to have a governor promoting to prevent another hurricane like Sandy.”   ~~~ Sen. Buono   – time 38:40

Christie offered a lame and deeply misleading reply (verbatim – numbers are mine, to make it easier to fact check):

That was an unbelievable moment!

But it was completely ignored in the next day’s news coverage of the debate. Since then, there has been no followup coverage, not even in the feeding frenzy of the one year Sandy anniversary saturation coverage.

Only one reporter even responded to my email request for a fact check – to suggest that it was too far in the weeds!! Imagine that – by far the most important policy issue misrepresented by the likely 2016 Republican Presidential nominee!

So, today, weeks later, of course I was pissed off to read the Politker “fact check” of the debate, and see that it too completely ignored this critical exchange.

Just 3 days before the election, I can’t let that go unchallenged.

So, here is my quick fact check:

Buono’s claims – 100% accurate.

In fact, Buono understated the Gov.’s actual record with respect to his systematic dismantling of NJ’s climate change, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, adaptation, and coastal land use planning and hazard mitigation programs.

Christie’s claims – 100% false – pants on fire.

(1) –  The Gov. is factually false. NJ has fallen to 4th in the nation. More importantly, NJ’s solar progress was made by the laws, policies, plans, programs, and investments of prior administrations that Christie now hypocritically takes credit for.

Just the opposite is the case with respect to the Gov. record on solar and renewables: In fact, Christie’s Energy Master Plan promotes fossil fuels, opposes renewable subsidies, reduced renewable energy goals, and erected new cost test barriers. Christie almost killed the solar industry and has done nothing but drag his feet on developing off shore wind.

(2) The Christie administration has abandoned the various plans, programs, and policies that previously were in place to lower NJ’s carbon footprint.

• Christie gutted the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, which built linkages between land use, transportation, housing,  and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Christie rolled back the Energy Master Plan which focused on reducing GHG emissions from NJ’s energy sector.
• Christie ignored the 2007 Global Warming Response Act, which set aggressive GHG emission reduction goals.
• Christie dismantled DEP’s Office of Climate change and abandoned DEP’s 2009 Report on recommendations to implement the GWRA.
• Christie unilaterally withdrew NJ from the 11 northeastern state’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiaitve” cap and trade program for the electric sector. That decision resulting in NJ losing about $200 million in funds for energy efficiency, renewable energy, consumer, and mitigation money.
• Christie diverted over $800 million from the Clean Energy Fund to pay for corporate tax breaks. That fund created thousands of jobs and reduced GHG emissions and lowered energy bills for low income residents.
• Christie promoted multi-billion dollar new gas pipelines and electric power lines. The gas pipelines will import fracked gas from Pennsylvania to supply NY metro region markets. The electric power line will import dirty coal power from downwind states. Result will be more GHG emissions and higher gas and electric bills for consumers.
• Christie dismantled NJ’s various climate vulnerability assessment and adaptation initiatives, infrastructure, as well as coastal planning programs.
• Christie undermine the development of electric car infrastructure by refusing to join a multi-state pact promoting it.
• Christie is promoting a $400 million gas re-powering of the BL England coal/oil plant to be served by a new $100 gas pipeline though the Pinelands.
• Christie appears to have backed off his original opposition and veto of siting an off shore LNG terminal, a move likely driven by his national political ambitions, in light of Republicans’ in Washington aggressive support of gas exports.

(3) The 3 new gas fired power plants Christie alludes to would cost ratepayers over $3 billion dollars in subsides and create new GHG emissions. In fact, the Christie gas plant plan was just struck down be a federal District Court judge – a major national embarrassment to Gov. Christie.

(4) The Gov. is technically correct – NJ has met its 2020 emission reduction goal. However, that success is transient and illusory and has nothing to do with Gov. Christie.

The GHG emission reductions are due to 3 factors:

a) the 2008 economic collapse lowered economic growth and energy demand, so reductions are temporary and will disappear as the economy grows;

b) NJ’s energy conservation and efficiency programs were successful and programs lowered energy demand. These reductions are real and permanent.

c) the market was flooded with a glut of natural gas which led to sharp price declines. The low cost of gas provided incentives for the electric energy industry yo switch fuels from coal to gas. Studies suggest that gas has about half the GHG emissions compared to coal. But, these studies do not include recent findings that lifecycle emissions from gas drilling, processing, storage and distribution may actually be greater than coal. So short term reductions may not be real.

Governor Christie had nothing to do with any of these reductions and is a liar to take credit for them.

Most hypocritically, he opposes programs that would provide GHG reductions, while he falsely claims credit for those same reductions.

(5) Anyone that would be “proud” of this atrocious record is a fossil fool.

I’m in too much of a hurry to get outside right now, but I’d be glad to substantiate these claims with evidence and documents and links – or google around this site or NJ Spotlight, where they all have been written about and documented – or give me a call or drop me an email.

We Repost What We Wrote 1 Year Ago Today 

This is what we wrote as Sandy approached – reposted today on 1 year anniversary:

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

“Ignorance is compounded with anarchy and greed to make the raddled face of the Jersey shore.”

“… there came retribution.” 

Sandy Destruction: “Man Made, Foreseen, Preventable”

My heart breaks.

I moved recently, so had the opportunity to revisit many important books in my library – one of which I am having the joy of re-reading and think of today: Ian McHarg’s 1967 classic: “Design with Nature” (take a look at some visuals of that work).

The introduction to McHarg’s book was written by another towering favorite of mine, Lewis Mumford, whose introduction brilliantly framed the context for the book:

There is still only a small shelf of books that deals with man’s relation to his environment as a whole: not only with the so called physical universe of the planets and the stars, the rocks and soil and the seas, but with the creatures that inhabit the earth – all the forces and animate beings that have helped to make man himself what he is. This part of man’s knowledge of himself was slow to develop; for the early Greek thinkers tended either to examine man in isolation, or to examine nature without noting the presence of man: as if any part of it could be understood except through the instruments and symbols that the human mind provided, for purposes in one way or another furthered man’s own existence.

Design With Nature is a notable addition to the handful of important texts that begin, at least in the Western tradition, with Hippocrates’ famous medical work on Airs, Waters, and Places: the first public recognition that man’s life, in sickness and in health, is bound up with the forces of nature, and that nature, so far from being opposed and conquered, must rather be treated as an ally and friend, whose ways must be understood, and whose counsel must be respected. […]

One cannot predict the fate of a book such as this. But on its intrinsic merits I would put it on the same shelf that contains as yet only a handful of works in a similar vein, beginning with Hippocrates, and including such essential classics as those of Henry Thoreau, George Perkins Marsh, Patrick Geddes, Carl Sauer, Benton MacKaye, and Rachel Carson. This is not a book to be hastily read and dropped; it is rather a book to live with, to absorb slowly, and to return to, as one’s own experience and knowledge increases. Though it is a call to action, it is not for those who believe in “crash programs” or instant solutions: rather, it lays a fresh course of stones on a ground plan already in being. Here are the foundations for a civilization that will replace the polluted, bulldozed, machine-dominated dehumanized, explosion-threatening world that is even now disintegrating and disappearing before our eyes. In presenting us with a vision of organic exuberance and human delight, which ecology and ecological design promise to open up for us, McHarg revives the hope for a better world. Without the passion and courage and confident skill of people like McHarg that hope might fade and disappear forever. [emphases mine]

McHarg begins his book with a chapter of personal biography and philosophy:

This book is a personal testament to the power and importance of sun, moon, stars, the changing seasons, seedtime and harvest, clouds, rain, rivers, the oceans and the forests, the creatures and the herbs. They are with us now, co-tenants of the phenomenal universe, participating in that timeless yearning that is evolution, vivid expression of time past, essential partners in survival and with us now evolved in the creation of the future.

Our eyes do not divide us from the world, but unite us with it. Let this be known to be true. Let us then abandon the simplicity of separation and give unity its due. Let us abandon the self-mutilation which has been our way and give expression to the potential harmony of man-nature. The world is abundant, we require only a deference born of understanding to fulfill man’s promise. Man is that uniquely conscious creature who can perceive and express. He must become the steward of the biosphere. To do this he must design with nature.

Ironically, his first substantive chapter to apply that lofty design philosophy is focused on a study of the NJ shore!

Titled “Sea and Survival“, McHarg presents fundamental dynamics and ecology of the barrier island, explaining clearly the relationships between ocean; beach; primary, secondary and back dunes; the bayshore and the bay.

McHarg concludes this presentation with planning principles and “positive recommendations” about the development and protection of the shore, a call for ecological based planning:

Sadly, in New Jersey, no such planning principles have been developed. While all the principles are familiar to botanists and ecologists,this has no effect whatsoever upon the form of development. Houses are built upon dunes, grasses destroyed, dunes breached for beach access and housing; groundwater is withdrawn with little control, areas are paved, bayshore is filled and urbanized. Ignorance is compounded with anarchy and greed to make the raddled face of the Jersey shore.

McHarg then presents the predictable outcome of this ignorance and greed:

From the fifth to the eighth of March 1962 , there came retribution. A violent storm lashed the entire northeast coast from Georgia to Long Island. For three days sixty-mile-an-hour winds whipped the high spring tides across a thousand miles of ocean. Forty-foot waves  pounded the shore, breached the dunes and filled the bay, which spilled across the islands back to the ocean. When the storm subsided, the extent of the disaster was clear. Three days of storm had produced eighty million dollrs worth of damage, twenty-four hundred houses destroyed or damaged beyond repair, eighty-three hundred houses partially damaged, several people killed and many injured in NJ alone. Fires subsequently added to this destruction; roads were destroyed, as were utilities.

Fast forward 50 years – welcome Hurricane Sandy and the know-nothings running corporate America. (XPN is playing Allman’s “Stormy Monday” as I write this – chills all up and down my spine!)

So, in a dirge to McHarg and Mumford (and as the media again swings and misses at the real story), today we repost this July 2012 post, which was done in the wake of the Monmouth water line collapse. The circumstances clearly differ, but the underlying message is the same.

For NJ American Water, DEP, BPU, and Sustainable Jersey

July 6th, 2012 Bill Wolfe

Man Made, Foreseen, Preventable

“Rosebud”

Only driver left out was Heat, which increases water demand, evaporation, and PET

 

Inundation of Treatment Plants and Pump Stations/Damage to Drinking Water Treatment Infrastructure

Regional Level Action ~ Update 100‐year and 500‐year Floodplain Maps

Regardless of the quality of science available to determine the impacts of climate change on physical conditions in the Basin, specific inundation risks can only be effectively evaluated with updated shoreline topographical information.

Utility Level Action ~ Evaluate Placement of New Construction and Materials Resiliency

Drinking water utilities should evaluate the placement of new construction, monitoring equipment, and other infrastructure to avoid low‐lying areas or locations vulnerable to storms and other harsh weather  conditions. Ranges of potential flooding should be evaluated using the best available science. Adaptations can be refined as more information becomes available about specific impacts of sea level rise, potential increases in streamflow and other changes in the basin that pose a risk to drinking water utilities. Utilities should also evaluate and incorporate use of more resilient construction materials during day‐to‐day upgrades.

Increased Spills and Accidents/Power Outages and Customer Supply Issues

Regional Level Action ~ Support the XXXXXXXX Regional Early Warning System

The XXXXXXX Regional Early Warning System notifies drinking water utilities in the event of accidental contamination in certain areas of the XXXXXXX Basin. The system provides critical information to utilities so they can respond swiftly and appropriately to unexpected threats. Efforts to expand and improve this system must be supported to ensure the continued protection of drinking water supplies in the Basin.

Addresses: Increased Spills and Accidents
Involves: EPA,XXXX, state government, USCG, municipal government, Offices of Emergency Management

Utility Level Action ~ Evaluate Emergency Response Protocols

At the same time that regional emergency response protocols are being evaluated, water suppliers should conduct assessments of their individual utility emergency response protocols to identify vulnerabilities, fill gaps and develop needed contingency and customer communication plans. Revisiting emergency response plans can help protect utilities in the event of unexpected accidents or spills which may become even more prevalent with changing physical conditions in the Basin.

Addresses: Increased Spills and Accidents, Power Outages & Customer Supply Issues

Utility Level Action ~ Evaluate Customer Notification Needs and Protocols

Analyses show that XXXXXX and XXXXXX  are steadily increasing in the main stem XXXXXXX most likely because of increased development, road salts application, and inputs from wastewater and drinking water treatment. These parameters are not removed during conventional drinking water treatment and could pose problems for special needs customers such as dialysis patients and certain industries. Impacts of climate change on conditions in the Basin may exacerbate rising salinity. Water utilities should evaluate current salinity levels to determine if more frequent notification to special needs customers is required.

Rosebud: name that Report

“Sustainable NJ” Called Out for Taking Corporate Money In Return For Providing  “Leadership” Platform for South Jersey Gas  Company

Time To Get Corporate Money Out of NJ Environmental Groups

Environmental activists protest gas pipeline at Stockton forum

By JOEL LANDAU, Staff Writer | Posted 1 hour ago

GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP — The protests over a controversial gas pipeline proposal spread to an environmental forum Monday at Richard Stockton College.

State environmental activists complained that an environmental group accepted money from South Jersey Gas — which is proposing building a pipeline through a section of the Pinelands — and was allowed to be a sponsor of a forum to promote energy sustainability among local municipalities. The activists said the group allowed the utility “green cover.” […]

Bill Wolfe, director of NJ PEER, likened the relationship with the American Cancer Society presenting a conference sponsored by tobacco companies.

“People would say, ‘Come on. We can see right through this,’” he said.   ~~~ Press of Atlantic City 10/28/13

Let’s keep this short and simple.

Most progressive voices agree that we need to get corporate money out of politics. Well, we need to get it out of self proclaimed environmental groups too.

It is simply wrong for a group called “Sustainable NJ” to take money from South Jersey Gas Company (SJG) in return for providing them a “Leadership” platform, at precisely the time when the hugely controversial $100 million SJG pipeline is pending review by the Pinelands Commission.

The pipeline, whose route violates the forest protection standards of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan,  is designed to carry 20 billion cubic feet per year of fracked gas to repower the $400 million BL England plant at Beesley’s Point on Great Egg Bay (the mouth of the Great Egg Wild And Scenic River). That plant lacks cooling towers and slaughters billions of aquatic organisms.

The BL England plant would emit over 1.2 million tons of CO2 – not counting all the methane gas emissions from the pipeline and fracking wells. Methane is at least 23 time more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

So, a group of activists from NJ’s largest environmental organizations distributed leaflets today at an event sponsored by Sustainable NJ.

That event, at Stockton State College, featured Jeff DuBois, President, South Jersey Gas, as a “Sustainable Leader”.

The objective of the leafletting was to raise awareness of the SJG pipeline and to call out Sustainable NJ – in front of their own members – for taking SJG money in return for providing them green cover at a critical juncture in the review of the SJG pipeline.

After speaking with several SNJ members entering the event today, I’m fairly certain that few SNJ “Green Team” members are aware of the proposed SJG Pinelands pipeline or the fact that SJG is funding SNJ in exchange for the “leadership” platform – an outrageous quid pro quo.

Just think for a moment how outrageous the SJG – SNJ relationship is.

It is actually worse than the American Cancer Society taking tobacco industry money to provide a platform to praise the tobacco industry as “leaders” in public health.

A project with just ONE of these environmental harms would be deemed “unsustainable” – the SJG has them ALL, so let’s list them:

• creation of huge new greenhouse gas emission
• diversion of $500 million in capital investment to fossil infrastructure than undermines the economics of renewable energy
• violation of the forest protection standards of the Pinelands National Reserve, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve
• distribution and expansion of markets for 20 billion cubic feet per year of fracked gas
• repowering a $400 million power plant that fails to include  cooling towers, located on the Bay of a Wild and Scenic River.

Sustainable NJ took the SJG money in a quid pro quo deal to promote the corporate sponsor of this disastrous pipeline project as a  “Sustainable leader”.

It is actually difficult to imagine a more Orwellian situation – maybe a nuke plant in the Grand Canyon to promote Ecotourism by the National Parks Service ?

Shame on them.

I hope  their members force the leadership of that organization to either resign or change policy.