Environmental Infrastructure Funding Bills Continue to Ignore Climate Risks and Adaptation

NJ Has Huge Climate Vulnerability, Crumbling Infrastructure, and Poorly Managed Assets

“The vague and unenforceable allusions in the legislation to an undefined goal of improving “resilience” is a total abdication of legislative policymaking powers.”

[Updates below]

A package of bills to finance water infrastructure, including drinking water and sewage treatment systems damaged by Sandy, is up today in the Senate Environment Committee, see this for links to the bills. (S2122 –S2123 – SCR 117)

As we recently noted, according to the US National Climate Assessment Report, NJ is the only northeastern state without a Climate Adaptation Plan.

The Christie Administration has no intention of developing one, so the Legislature must step up to the plate and mandate that this work get done. Infrastructure financing legislation is an appropriate place to do so.

The current bills fail to include such mandates – either by individual loan recipients or statewide by the DEP. The vague and unenforceable allusions in the legislation to an undefined goal  of improving “resilience” is a total abdication of legislative policymaking powers.

In addition, according to a recent Rutgers/NJ Future Report, NJ’s water infrastructure is in crisis. Assets are poorly managed and crumbling.

We’ve written about this issue numerous times and urged DEP to enforce their recent “Asset Management Guidance” document, most recently, see:

• CHRISTIE’S OTHER HIDDEN MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT – No Plan to Pay for Huge Water Infrastructure Shortfall Aggravated by Sandy.

I am unable to attend and testify at today’s hearing, so I fired off this note to Chairman Smith:

Mr. Chairman: I can’t make it to Sen. Env. Cmte hearing today to testify on the  infrastructure financing bills that are up.

I wanted to make these key points – please accept this note as testimony:

1. DEP recently released “Asset Management Guidance” – the DEP Guidance says that compliance with it will be required for projects that get Financed by NJEIT or SRF or Sandy money

Compliance with this Guidance is a very important issue to clarify in the bill and the water authorities are concerned about it

Links to DEP Guidance and details here:

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2014/04/15/christie’s-other-hidden-multi-billion-dollar-deficit/

2. The bills do not require that recipients conduct vulnerability assessments for climate change impacts.

According to the recent US National Climate Assessment Report, NJ is the only northeastern state without an Adaptation plan.

“Of the 12 states in the Northeast, 11 have developed adaptation plans for several sectors and 10 have released, or plan to release, statewide adaptation plans. 139”

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/northeast

Conditions must be placed on the money by the Legislature, because the Christie Administration is not doing so.

3. The water and sewer facilities impacted by Sandy were not in compliance with their DEP permits – emergency plans, back up power, etc.

This new round of money should require compliance as a condition.

We have raised this issue with EPA as a potential violation of federal requirements.

4. Why is $70 million of the money going to “redevelopment projects”

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/S2500/2122_I1.PDF

We have HUGE existing deficits – all money should go to those deficits.

Redevelopment should pay its own way.

5. The bills provide loan forgiveness. Give multi-billion deficits, loan principal forgiveness is not a good idea –

Bill Wolfe, Director

NJ PEER

[Update #1 – NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust Executive Director Zimmer – who, according to the Mastro Report is a personal friend of and was hired by DEP Commissioner Bob Martin –  testified in support of the package. He said nothing new or controversial, but came off as condescending and self congratulatory.

In 1983, Zimmer graduated from the University of Dayton with a degree in Civil Engineering. In 1984, Zimmer received his MBA from Notre Dame University. Thereafter, Zimmer spent twenty-two years in the private sector in positions at investment banks and commercial banks, working mainly in structured finance.

In 2010, Zimmer was approached by Robert Martin, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and a friend of Zimmer’s, about overseeing the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust (“EIT”). In late 2010, Zimmer joined the EIT as Executive Director.

Does that make Zimmer a “corporate crony”? “Structured finance” is the reckless and often fraudulent type of finance that took down the economy in the 2008 crash – how fitting, given Bob Martin’s career in privatization of public assets in Thatcher’s England. Neoliberal con men, both!

Jeff Tittel of Sierra then testified and raised many of the same points above. He was harsh in his criticism of multiple policy failures by the Christie Administration and DEP regarding climate and adaptation.

Chairman Smith asked in NJEIT had a response to Tittel’s criticism.

Executive Director Zimmer’s reply was totally lame and evasive – (he did not rebut and actually confirmed Tittel’s criticism. Zimmer said)::

1. NJEIT is DEP’s bank – Tittel raised policy issues. We don’t do policy.

2. Whether DEP has a resilience policy or not, the primary objective of spending the money is to improve water quality. Projects comply with federal laws. Resilience is objective.

But despite Zimmer’s total failure to defend the Christie Administration and DEP or in any way rebut Tittel’s criticism, there was NO DISCUSSION OR RESERVATIONS OR CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY ANY LEGISLATOR.

The package of bills and SCR were released by unanimous vote.

So much for legislative deliberation.  –

[Update #2 NJEIT’s Zimmer and his assistant Frank Scangerelle (sp?)  were asked 2 easy questions, to which they gave embarrassingly stupid answers:

1. Chairman Smith asked about specific Barnegat Bay projects. Zimmer and Scangerlle both emphasized BBay projects in their testimony. Remarkably, neither could mention specific projects. Smith asked for a followup letter with details.

2. Senator Thompson asked “what is the difference between 100% principal forgiveness and a grant?”

NJEIT replied: “That’s our legalese with EPA”.

Federal law prohibits grants. NJEIT just admitted to evading federal law via “legalese” DUMB. I think I make inquiry to EPA Region 2 about that right now.

[Update # 3 – 6/9/14 – NJ Spotlight did an uncharacteristic superficial and misleading story on this package of bills today, see:

• State will ante up $1.25 billion for cleaner drinking water, better wastewater control

First of all, the state isn’t “anteing up” anything – these are authorizations to issue loans to local governments. I felt obligated to set the record straight with this harsh comment:

Readers:

1) The plants lacked backup power and were knocked out of service because they were in violation of their DEP issued permit, which mandate emergency plans and things like back up power and fuel.

DEP never monitored compliance with those permits or enforced violations.

The Lessons” of Sandy were not new – there had been multiple warnings, reports, and storm events like Irene.

2) This is not State budget money – this is authorization to issue debt by the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust and loans to authorities, private water purveyors, and local governments.

3) This year, the bills provide for “principal forgiveness” a legal game for grants. NJEIT representatives were dumb enough to openly testify that it was “legalese with EPA”. Grants are not allowed under federal law, so we’ve gone to EPA about that.

4) The DEP just released “asset management Guidance”. According to DEP Guidance, compliance will be required as a condition of a NJEIT loan or federal money. I tried to get that language in the bill but was rebuffed. It is a very big deal

5) Neither DEP nor the NJEIT have specific policies or standards or a PLAN for what defines “resilience”.

The word is a slogan not a policy.

6) NJ is the only state in the northeast without a climate adaptation plan – infrastructure “resilience” is a key component of these plans. CHrisite DEP is not serious nor is the legislature.

7) Rutgers and NJ Future just issued a MAJOR report on NJ’s crumbling water infrastructure.

Where were they at the hearing? Hiding under their desks?

The annual NJEIT financial cycle is an appropriate place to inject the findings from that Study. But the authors were AWL.

8) The coastal groups, who are funded to advocate for “resilience” and adaptation planning were present at the hearing but neither ALS of COA testified – why not?

9) The planning groups and those that work on climate change were present at the hearing but said nothing. Why was RPA not prepared onto talk about the investment of almost $359 million dollars in infrastructure?

No other news outlets covered the hearing so I had to supplement this story with some hard facts and a different perspective

Wolfe

end updates.]

NJEIT Office – new office looks rather upscale and corporate, in keeping with the Christie Adminisitration’s values