WolfeNotes.com

Upcoming Battle Will Test Integrity & Credibility

Long Neglected Urban Needs Must Be Addressed & Cuts Restored

Stream survey, conducted by the Great Swamp Watershed Assc. – Harding Township, NJ (11/22/14)

The long festering debate on what I’ve called  the open space diversion disaster will be renewed tomorrow, when the Senate Environment Committee begins hearings on implementation legislation on the new Open Space funding formula approved by the voters in November.

As I’ve written here numerous time, that debate was deeply dishonest, as supporters from the Keep It Green Coalition – as well as Legislators – repeatedly misled voters about the effects of the diversions on State parks and DEP environmental programs, fueled by a $1 million PR campaign.

Even the ballot question was deceptive by omission of the specific programs cut to pay for open space, by the failure to note the practical implications of ending the current dedication and making State Parks compete and by commission in creating a misleading impression about the underground storage tank and toxic site cleanup programs who appear to benefit from a new dedication of NRD funds:

Do you approve amending the Constitution to dedicate 6% of the Corporation Business Tax revenue each year for the next 30 years? The dedication would be for the preservation of open space, farmland, and historic sites. The amendment would end the current dedication of 4% of that revenue for environmental programs. In addition, the amendment dedicates natural resource damages and fines to fund underground storage tank removals and cleanups and polluted site cleanups?

The photo above illustrates just one example of this dishonesty.

The women in this photo are conducting a stream survey for the Great Swamp Watershed Association in Harding Township, a community that openly touts a history of restrictive covenants. The results of this work can not be applied in any public regulatory decisions (e.g. does not meet QA/QC requirements), and is thus a form of private governance that literally duplicates DEP efforts.

Specifically, the work that the GSWA folks were doing is done on a statewide basis by the DEP. DEP work can be enforced in DEP regulatory programs, like the Highlands Act,  freshwater wetlands, and Clean Water Act and DEP land use permits.

In a cruel irony, the specific DEP water quality monitoring, assessment, and watershed planning programs that actually conduct this work were slashed by the open space diversion and the funding of 123 DEP professional water resource positions was eliminated.

When I asked these women if they were aware of the impacts of the open space diversion, they both said no.

Both stated that this question was raised at a GSWA meeting and they were told that there were no cuts to environmental program, that the ballot question merely administratively “reshuffled” various funding.

So the leaders of GSWA actually lied to their members too, as well as misleading the press and the public.

Below is the breakdown of DEP staff positions that were defunded by the open space ballot, by program area:

• Site Remediation- 107 positions
• Compliance & Enforcement/UST Inspections- 10 positions
• Water Monitoring & Planning- 123 positions
• Air Quality- 8 positions
• Parks Management- 18 positions 

The current CBT dedication provided $103 million to DEP in the FY 2015 budget (DEP section starts on page D-105). Here is the FY’15 budget categories that were funded by CBT and are no longer funded:

• $16 million goes to science and technical programs (water supply, science support, & land use regulation)
• $53 million goes to site remediation and waste management
• $18.1 million to environmental regulation
• $16 million to natural resource management (development and conservation of recreational lands)

So, here are our recommendations for an implementation Legislation strategy:

• I)  Restore The Diversions

Before we can talk about how to spend the $71 million the voters just dedicated to open space, we must first secure enforceable political commitments to restore the diversions from DEP programs (with the exception of the $17 million in  diesel retrofit funds that would have been shifted to Parks on December 31, 2015. Those funds must be accounted for in the implementation legislation and allocated to Parks, for a subtotal of $32 million to State Parks, of the $71 million total).

• II)  Address Long Ignored Urban Needs

Of the $71 million, $32 million must be allocated to State Parks. Of the State parks money, at least 1/2 should be allocated to unmet and neglected urban needs.

The Legislation should allocate those urban parks funds on the basis of a formula that looks at needs: i.e. there are indicators, such as open space and parks per capita or per land area, in each NJ town.

This GIS based formula could also include a location and distance component, e.g. children and elderly should not have to travel more than 1/2 mile to access a park or open space.

Similarly, a significant portion of the farmland preservation funds should be linked to programs that benefit urban residents, including farmers markets and community gardens. The USDA and Rutgers have done good work to map “food deserts”, communities that lack access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

Just like the unmet parks and open space needs, these “food desert” communities could be targeted by a GIS based formula built into the implementation legislation.

• III)  Fund New Priority Programs

Climate change will result in a significant increase in 90+ – 100+ degree days during summer heat waves, see:

• Northeast Climate Assessment

Hotter days increase unhealthy ground level ozone that triggers asthma attacks and respiratory distress. Heat waves also cause increases in mortality, particularly in elderly populations. Urban areas suffer extreme “heat island” effects due to all the pavement and buildings that store heat and the lack of natural cooling of shade trees and vegetation.

All of this will greatly increase the current disproportionate burden born by NJ’s poor and minority urban residents.

DEP developed data on these disproportionate burdens, mapping 9 indicators of environmental or public health risk or impact, which correlate strongly with race and income: poor and minority urban communities bear far higher risks, a classic case of environmental injustice, see:

• DEP Discovers Discrimination – Dumps Environmental Justice Issue in Christie’s Lap

In addition to urban parks and community gardens, the legislation should include a major new commitment to urban forestry, as one means to offset the impacts of climate change by providing shade trees, parks, and open space.

• IV)  Enact Cost Control and Planning Reforms

Historically, the NJ Open space program spending averaged something like $250+ million per year.

That has been reduced to just $71 million, increasing to $117 million in 2016. Actually, available funds are far less when the $32 million in dedicated State Parks money is subtracted from the $71 million.

The existence of huge unmet needs, greatly increased competition between traditional programs, and major new priorities that are not funded dictate the need for cost controls and a more efficient and cost effective program.

Such controls include restrictions on purchase of regulated lands, revisions to land appraisal methods, and elimination of funding for private groups and undefined  and controversial “stewardship” activities.

Well keep you posted and hope to see you there.

Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
But the humans will give no love   ~~~  Horse with No name (America, 1972)

Saw this today, and thought it might be of interest: amazing infrastructure architecture underground.

It shows old storm water infrastructure, which discharges to Blacks Creek (photo at low tide) in Bordentown NJ:

Corner of Willow and Walnut Streets, Bordentown, NJ (12/5/14)

Blacks Creek

Sorry that this depiction does not include the sin of Pride – the photo was taken in a a shop at Monterey California.

Maybe these pictures might explain:

Still A Dupont Company Town 20 Years After Dupont Plant Closure

Local Officials Refuse Residents’ Request To Post Toxic Fish Warning Signs

I’ve been following the various debates in Pompton Lakes growing out of the Dupont toxic site since former Councilman Ed Meakem invited me to make a presentation to the Township Committee on NJ’s site remediation laws back in July 2008, see this report I wrote at the time for the Star Ledger:

• On a Night Like This

During these 6+ years, I have witnessed an unbelievable pattern of contempt by local officials for public health and the environment, as well as the interests of a large number of residents who live above the toxic groundwater plume, suffer vapor intrusion of carcinogenic industrial chemicals into their homes,  and/or send their kids to schools that may be contaminated by Dupont poisons, including lead, mercury and various organic chemicals in soil, groundwater, Acid Brook, Pompton Lake and the Ramapo river.

Off the top of my head, just some of the egregious actions include:

• a former Mayor publicly spoke about threats to his life for seeking to hold Dupont accountable for their toxic pollution;
• former Council members Meaken and Lisa Riggiola, who spoke out about the Dupont site and tried to hold Dupont, EPA ,and DEP accountable, were swiftly unelected after just one term in office. I’ve never seen local officials ousted for doing the right thing like that;
• the local environmental “professional” lacks qualifications and his salary was paid for by Dupont for many years;
• the town let children play soccer on a field that was a federally regulated Dupont hazardous waste management unit;
• after I spoke to Council in July 2008 about flaws in NJ toxic site cleanup laws, the DEP supervised cleanup process, and urged them to hire an independent professional to represent the towns’ interests, instead of thanked, I was attacked by 2 Council members.  One of those Councilmen’s wife was a DEP employee. A later file review showed that this Councilman’s wife had conducted DEP enforcement inspections at the Dupont site. I would later file an ethics complaint against this DEP employee for violations of DEP’s ethics requirements for publicly speaking out in support of Dupont’s cleanup efforts and creating the appearance she was speaking for DEP;
• I have been personally smeared by local officials, including by one man with gross economic conflicts of interests in downtown economic development and who has undisclosed economic relationships with Dupont;
• the Council consistently OPPOSES efforts by local residents to force Dupont, EPA, and DEP to accelerate and improve the cleanup. They claim that residents are giving the town a “black eye” and “stigma” and reducing property values for even publicly talking about the toxic contamination that pervades the town;
• while criticizing local residents who are desperately trying to get Dupont to cleanup the toxic mess they made, local officials have never once, that I am aware of, publicly criticized Dupont for poisoning their town or tried to hold Dupont accountable for cleanup during 30 years of delays;
• local officials have flouted DEP regulations on various projects, most recently regarding an illegal dredging operation that was shut down following complaints to US EPA; and
• local contractors have threatened residents and environmental groups who exposed the illegal dredging operation – with no response from Council for that highly improper and unacceptable behavior.

These are just off the top of my head – residents can tell many more horror stories of how local officials have repeatedly opposed their efforts and instead backed the interests of Dupont, EPA or DEP.

fish consumption warning posted on Pompton Lake

I encourage residents to do so in comments on this post – it would be interesting to assemble an inventory of Pompton lakes corruption.

The most recent episode that repeated this pattern of utter disregard for public health is the refusal by local officials to post fish consumption advisory signs around Pompton lake, warning fishermen and residents that it is unsafe to eat fish caught in the lake.

Here is today’s rejection of that repeated request by Lisa Riggiola of CCPL, via email from Borough Administrator Kevin Boyle (the official who was responsible for and made misleading statements about the illegal dreading operation that was shut down recently):

From: Kevin Boyle <administrator@pomptonlakesgov.com>
To: ‘Lisa Riggiola’ <theccpl@yahoo.com>
Cc: ‘T. Duffy’ <tduffy@pomptonlakesgov.com>; bsteltzer@pomptonlakesgov.com; ‘Info’ <info@pomptonlakescag.org>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 7:10 AM
Subject: RE: Can you please help – a critical question and also a concern in Pompton Lakes, NJ

I only order the signs when replacement is needed. As I said, DPW will install replacement signs where needed at the current locations. Where they are placed I do not really know. They have been installed & replaced in the same locations for years & way before I started here in 2012.  Have a great weekend……

The locals won’t put up fish consumption warning signs up because:

1) warning signs make Dupont’s toxic pollution more well known and that embarrasses and is opposed by Dupont;

2) warning signs are more “stigma”, because they tell the public about toxic pollution problems in PL.

3) local officials don’t care about public health and have other higher priorities.

The priorities they care about are: a) the perception of the town (stigma); b) downtown economic development; c) property values (tax revenues); and d) Dupont.

Signs would create more “stigma”; potentially reduce economic development opportunities and property values; and are opposed by Dupont.

We will raise the issue of the need for fish consumption warning signs at the upcoming Monday night public hearing on the EPA draft permit that would require that Dupont cleanup a portion of mercury contaminated sediments in a portion of Pompton Lake. Hope to see you there.

EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck warns the public about fish consumption at NJ Superfund site (Cornel Dublier)

Cuts Must Be Restored

Reforms and Ignored Needs Must Be Addressed

Dishonesty and Self Serving Hypocrisy Must Not Be Rewarded

Yesterday, in a wonderful profile of longtime environmental lawyer Ed Lloyd, NJ Spotlight asked Ed a key question:

Why is the environmental community so fractured? 

I was planning on writing about that, but another NJ Spotlight story today provides a superb answer to that very question, so we’ll hold off on the larger reasons why the community is so fractured and just focus on the open space disaster.

While I have been reaching out to give folks a heads up about next Monday’s Senate Environment Committee hearing on open space funding, I was going to wait until the weekend before writing about it.

But today’s NJ Spotlight set up story accelerates that schedule, see:

• NOW COMES THE HARD PART: DIVVYING UP FUNDS FOR SAVING NEW JERSEY’S OPEN SPACE

It is absolutely outrageous that Keep It Green and NJ Highlands and NJ Sierra Club all have done a 180 and are now talking about “hard choices” that need to be made – with Sierra Club even championing urban parks when they supported a ballot question that stole the entire $32 million State Parks capital budget!

Hard choices?

What?

Why were  voters never told about those “hard choices” BEFORE they voted to steal the parks and DEP money?

The Keep it Green proponents spent over $700,000 on a highly misleading campaign that in some cases flat out lied to voters.

[Correction: KIG spent $964,559 – a million dollars! In a deceptive campaign!]

No member non-profit group should get a thin dime of that money until at least 4 conditions are met: 1) ALL the diversions are restored; 2) until urban NJ gets their fair share of the money;  3) cost controls and planning reforms are mandated; and 4) long ignored needs – like climate change and environmental justice – are addressed.

The scarcity of the resources available for huge unmet and competing needs strongly argues for “wholesale changes” to the existing green acres and farmland preservation and blue acres programs.

I laid out a series of the kind of reforms that are necessary in this post:

• Fix it before you fund it

Additionally, there are long ignored basic issues of fairness and environmental justice for urban NJ that must be addressed, see:

• NJ’s Landed Gentry – Open Space Has Become A Tool For The New Restrictive Covenants

And, there are new and long ignored needs that require that existing funds be re-programmed to fund new activities.

Specific new program needs include urban parks, urban forestry, community gardens, urban farmers markets, and responding to NJ’s urban food deserts (communities that lack access to fresh produce).

Some of these needs could be addressed by requiring preserved farms to grow local food and allocation of a significant (50%) portion of farmland preservation portion of the funds to develop expanded local food programs, urban farmers markets , etc that reduce existing food deserts.

I outlined the equity, social justice, and new program needs in this post:

• A Strategy to Begin To Heal The Wounds Created By The Open Space Diversion Disaster

Not one penny of the new Fund should be appropriated until the State Parks and DEP program diversions are restored; fairness and justice addressed; and cost controls and a planning process put in place.

Of course, the new “stewardship” program is last in line. And that “stewardship” program is not even defined yet so it is premature to fund it.

The hearing is on Monday at 10 am in Trenton – if you can’t be there, call members of the Committee and let them know how you feel.