Testimony Limited To “Invited Speakers” – Critics Need Not Apply
A Dog And Pony Show To Divert From Decades Of Failure To Act On Climate Emergency
“It’s well past time to act boldly.”
So let us not talk falsely now
The hour’s getting late. ~~~ “All Along The Watchtower (Bob Dylan – Hendrix version)
[Update – they cancelled it!:
It looks like the combination of the world on fire, accelerating extreme weather events, and cancellation of insurance policies by the insurance industry finally have forced the hand of NJ legislators.
The agenda for the annual summer shore joint hearing of the Senate and Assembly environment committees includes serious and controversial issues on which legislators and DEP regulators have a very long history of failure to act.
So, it will be interesting to see how this hearing, scheduled for August 3, 2023 in Toms River, can continue the annual dog and pony summer show and likely repeat the long pattern of failure to act (even in the wake of the devastation wrought by Sandy).
The Legislators already gave the game up: The hearing is limited to politically safe “invited speakers”, so we don’t expect much. I’m guessing we’ll hear from current DEP Commissioner LaTourette, former DEP Commissioner Mark Maurielleo, and “academics” from Rutgers, Stockton and Monmouth Universities – the typical suspects I don’t even have to name for anyone paying attention.
None will self critically reflect or criticize policy, that’s almost certain. They’ll irresponsibly dodge controversies by the excuse of “sticking to the science” and not delving into policy.
Below I provide some of this failed history to the Committees for consideration – this is not the way to become an “invited speaker” (hell, I had to fight just to get back on the agenda distribution list!).
[oops! I left out the most important issue:
———- Original Message ———-
From: Bill WOLFE <b>
To: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, asmmckeon <asmmckeon@njleg.org>, “asmScharfenberger@njleg.org” <asmScharfenberger@njleg.org>, “kduhon@njleg.org” <kduhon@njleg.org>, “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>, “Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov” <Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>
Date: 07/27/2023 3:10 PM PDT
Subject: 8/3/23 Joint Hearing Background Info
Dear Environmental Legislator:
I note that the annual summer joint meeting of the Senate and Assembly environment Committees will consider the following agenda items:
“The committee will meet to take testimony from invited speakers on the ways in which the insurance industry and State agencies are adapting to account for increased risks associated with current and anticipated climate change impacts, particularly with respect to the coastal and back bay regions of the State.”
In light of the restriction to “invited speakers” – a restriction I strongly object to – I thought perhaps I might provide some historical background information for your consideration regarding prior legislative and regulatory consideration of those issues.
1. Reliance on risk disclosure, voluntary market exchange, and consumer “buyer beware”
Current DEP Commissioner LaTourette has testified to the legislature, most recently during budget hearings, and made press remarks, in support of disclosure of risk information to consumers as an effective policy tool, as opposed to DEP land use regulatory restrictions. see:
“Although developers and builders fear the new rules will tighten limits on where they can build in coastal and inland areas, the regulations are unlikely to do that, LaTourette said in an interview with NJ Spotlight News. …
“We’re not at a point, nor do we think it’s our role, to tell people: ‘Don’t build here, you shouldn’t build there, you can’t do that,’” LaTourette said. “It is about making folks assess their risk and recognize the risk they are taking on. We are not saying: ‘You cannot build in a future flood-risk area.’ We’re saying that in a future flood-risk area, you need to at least do what you do now in an existing flood-risk area, which is: assess the risk, and notice that risk. It will forever live in the deed record of that property.”
I suggest that the FEMA damage claims data, particularly repeat claim data, suggests that such a policy is misguided and ineffective.
In addition to market forces and risk disclosure, we need legislative and regulatory mandates, including new policies of “managed strategic retreat”, repeal of right to rebuild, and land use restrictions based on the 1,000 year storm event (at a minimum).
“Bill Wolfe, a retired DEP policy analyst and the current author of an environmental blog, said the [LaTourette] comments “reflect an astonishing abdication of DEP’s regulatory responsibilities,” particularly coming from an administration that claims to be a leader in battling climate change.
“DEP must regulate to achieve deep emissions reductions and reduce risks as clearly reflected by an overwhelming scientific consensus,” Wolfe said. “Delay only makes matters worse.”
Wolfe argued that the DEP is required to regulate development under several laws, including the Flood Hazard Area Control Act and the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act.”
As you know, DEP’s recently adopt flood rules are based on the outdated 100 year storm (adjusted upward) that fails to reflect current science and actual storm data and flood elevations.
2. Back bay flooding
A Rutgers professor once aptly called back bay flooding the “Achilles heel” of coastal risk management. We offered constructive solutions, see:
Those solutions were ignored.
3. Repeal of “Right To Rebuild”
A 2014 bill (S62 – Barnes) that would rescind the so called “right to rebuild” storm damaged property in NJ’s Coastal Zone was approved by the Senate Environment Committee, with surprisingly little debate or opposition.
The bill died.
I suggest that it be reintroduced and amended to expand its cope, see:
4. Strategic Retreat
In the wake of Superstorm Sandy, there was an opportunity to adopt a new “strategic retreat” policy. The Huffington Post first wrote about the NJ history and the DEP Coastal Management Plan in their superb November 2012 investigative piece, see:
The opportunity was missed.
I suggest you reconsider in light of current science and the climate change driven increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events. No sources and links to all that required.
5. Bring Back The Buffers
In January 2016, the Assembly approved ACR 249, to veto the Christie DEP’s proposed revisions to the Flood Hazard, Coastal Zone Management and Stormwater rules as inconsistent with legislative intent. The Senate exercised veto power as well. see:
The DEP never fully restored the buffers the Christie DEP rolled back, see:
DEP never expanded them as recommended by DEP’s own scientists, see this DEP Report (2012):
6. Insurance Issues: Some Legislative History On Catastrophic Risks
Way back in 2006, the Legislature criticized the current reactive policy and introduced a bill to address catastrophic risks. A3236 found:
“The current approach to dealing with catastrophes is an after-the-fact response model that is inadequate to protect New Jersey residents from catastrophic loss. New Jersey consumers need a public-private partnership which improves the means to provide financial assistance to families that are victims of catastrophes, enhances prevention and mitigation measures, improves recovery and rebuilding processes and educates homeowners on issues surrounding catastrophe management. […]
The State of New Jersey is commonly viewed as one of the states in the region that is exposed to catastrophic events. Given the scope and magnitude of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and given that New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation and because of the size of New Jersey, it is likely that a Category 3 or better storm could devastate the State. Legislative findings, A3236 (2006)”
The bill died.
The legislation was a response to the Corzine administration’s regulatory policy development for the banking and insurance industry and DEP land use.
For example, in an April 12, 2006 memo, Corzine DEP Commissioner Jackson and Banking and Insurance Commissioner Goldman warned Governor Corzine that:
“Global climate change is predicted to have a pronounced impact on New Jersey. Changes are already occurring. Rising ambient temperatures are expected to effect the health of our citizens. …Sea level rise is expected to accelerate and threaten New Jersey’s coastline. Higher sea levels will increase the severity of storm-related flooding is coastal and bay areas. In addition to significant property losses, sea level rise will adversely affect coastal ecosystems and may threaten fresh water supplies through salt water intrusion. With climate change, storm frequency and intensity is predicted to increase.”…
These are but a few of the results we can anticipate from climate change and we can also expect the changes to have serious consequences for New Jersey’s economy. In March, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners voted unanimously to establish as task force on climate change to examine the issues bearing on the insurance industry’s long term solvency. Late last year, New York State’s largest provider of homeowners insurance, Allstate, announced that it would no longer sell new homeowners insurance in NY City, Long Island and Westchester County. According to a company spokesperson, Allstate is studying whether to stop writing new policies in other parts of the country, particularly for properties in vulnerable shorefront areas.”
In response, to address those serious threats, Corzine held a “Climate Change Summit”.
The Summit was called: “Confronting Climate Change in New Jersey”. It was held on September 25, 2006. The Governor directed Summit participants to focus on, among other things:
- What policy changes should the State make in response to the focus issues of floods and storms (including sea level rise)?
- Are there current State policies and practices regarding the regulation of …land use and construction that serve as disincentives to sound practices in light of climate change?
- What …[policies] could we modify to encourage consideration of floods and storms in development and land use practices?
As part of that effort, Assemblyman Panter (since un-elected), proposed legislation, A3236, called:
We testified and suggested amendments to strengthen that bill.
Our testimony was ignored and the bill died.
I request that you consider this troubling history in evaluating the analyses and recommendations of your “invited speakers”.
It’s well past time to act boldly.
Bill Wolfe
