Christie Veto of Bill To Allow Development on Hazardous Piers Refused to Enforce NJ Environmental Law

Christie Sees Insurance Risks and Costs, Not Environmental Hazards

Governor Christie vetoed a bill (S2680) that would have allowed new development on piers in the Hudson River located in a “coastal high hazard area”.

The Governor deserves praise for his veto of a terribly irresponsible bill.

But even when Christie does the right thing, he just can’t seem to do so for the right reasons.

The rationale and text of the Governor’s veto message is troubling and raises a host of questions.

The Governor refused to enforce the current NJ State law (NJ DEP CAFRA rules – correction: Waterfront Development Act) that bans development in those coastal him hazard areas.

This reflects his animus towards NJ State level environmental regulations.

It also is consistent with the “regulatory relief” policy under Executive Order #2, which includes a “federal consistency” policy that seeks to rollback stricter state regulations in lieu of their minimum federal counterparts.

Legally, the Gov’s refusal to enforce this State regulatory development ban also leaves its status in limbo.

Politically, it provides an escape hatch and cover from criticism by pro-development interests – the Gov. can say that his hands were tied, that federal law made him do it.

The bill was designed to and would have overcome a development ban under State DEP environmental regulations.

It is highly revealing that the Governor did not enforce and defend that State DEP regulatory ban.

Instead, the Governor’s veto relied on the federal regulations implementing the federal flood insurance program:

Federal law provides that no flood insurance may be sold or renewed under the NFIP in areas that lack adequate land use and control measures. The federal regulations implementing the NFIP expressly provide that “all new construction” within a coastal high hazard area shall be “located landward of the reach of mean high tide.” Allowing new construction on a pier in a coastal high hazard area as this bill provides contravenes that federal regulation and may therefore jeopardize NFIP eligibility for those municipalities with existing piers along the Hudson River. I cannot condone such a risk.

Note that the Governor’s rationale is not grounded in State regulations or on any land use planning, environmental objective, or coastal risk.

Instead, the Governor is concerned about risks of an inability to secure flood insurance or an increase in the cost of flood insurance.

So, it is obvious that Gov. Christie is blind to the risks of coastal hazards, consistent with and so evident is his Sandy “rebuild madness”.

The Governor cares more about insurance markets and costs than in land use planning and environmental regulation.

That’s the real message of this veto.