Dirty Water in Jersey

[Update: 1/16/12 – Here is a link to the Asbury Park Press Series “Tainted Waters” – haven’t read it all yet – more to follow.]

Kirk More and Todd Bates have a major 3 part clean water series running today over at the Courier Post, so I urge you to go on over and read the whole thing, see:

Troubled water – After 40 years, NJ’s waters are far from clean – Almost all waterways in the state are still polluted after 40 years and billions of dollars in cleanup efforts

Since I often write about clean water issues, spoke with Todd on the story, and have done a lot of work over the years on clean water, I thought I’d offer a few of my own thoughts, while providing a respectful critique of Kirk and Todd’s opening salvo.

Plus, I can say some things here as a blogger that Kirk and Todd obviously can not.

The initial thrust of the story is to suggest a shocking across the board major failure in NJ’s clean water program.

While I am deeply disturbed by NJ’s diminishing efforts and the quality of NJ’s water resources – and I think is is very important to warn the public of the serious magnitude and scope of the problem – I don’t think that overall characterization is accurate or fair.

Anyone paying attention is aware of the problems.

As we’ve written here several times, DEP submits a comprehensive statewide Report to EPA and Congress every 2 years under the Clean Water Act that lays them all out (see: DEP’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report

That blunt overall perspective of across the board failure lacks the nuance necessary to distinguish between the clean water tools that we know work, those that truly have failed, and what we need to do in the future.

A conclusion that there has been 40 years of across the board failure also absolves policy makers of any accountability – if everything is broken then basically all DEP Commissioner’s and their policy agenda’s are the same: they all are bad.

But that is not true.

In my interview with Todd, I emphatically distinguished the tools we know work from those that have failed, and I traced the policy history of Administrations and DEP Commissioner’s who had aggressive records from those that failed.

For example, there could be no greater contrast between DEP Commissioner Campbell’s clean water agenda, which included Category One designations, 300 foot buffers, removal of environmentally sensitive land from sewer service areas, and development and enforcement of phosphorus nutrient standards – and the Commissioner Martin across the board rollback agenda.

In general, I noted that progress has resulted from an approach that is based on: 1) huge investments in infrastructure; 2) science based strict regulatory standards; 3) integrated planning and regulation; and 4) strict and sometimes mandatory enforcement.

In contrast, failures have resulted from a hands off approach that relies on voluntary, local, private sector partnership, and market based “incentives”.

This is particularly important because the Christie Administration is dismantling the package of policy tools that we know work and replacing it with what we know doesn’t work.

As the story documented:

The DEP has dissolved its Division of Watershed Management, which was tasked with reducing pollution in watersheds. Several local watershed groups, including one that covered the Manasquan River watershed, also have faded away. A watershed is the land that drains into a stream, lake, bay or the ocean. The federal government says reducing pollution in watersheds is the best way to clean up waterways and has developed a 2011 Healthy Watersheds Initiative. The DEP watershed division’s functions have been transferred to other parts of the agency, which continues to work on watershed issues, according to DEP officials. The DEP plans to use its Barnegat Bay restoration project as a model for protecting other watersheds and improving water quality. […]

DEP Spokesman Ragonese said DEP Commissioner Bob Martin’s goal is to “focus on our core mission (protecting the air, land, water and natural resources), to be more efficient and to jettison things that are less important so we can focus on the core.”

So, the Christie rollback is being portrayed – without criticism – as the model for the future.

The complete failure view also supports and opens the door to a totally wrongheaded and misleading set of conclusions and solutions that are captured in this quote:

Sean T. Dixon, coastal policy lawyer with Clean Ocean Action, a Sandy Hook- based coalition, said the federal Clean Water Act of 1972 “wasn’t designed for a 60-, 70-, 80-year life span. It was designed to address problems 30, 40 years ago, so we need a new set of solutions.”

They include investing in wastewater treatment systems, new pipelines, other infrastructure, water recycling and new technologies, he said.

That’s a crock of shit, my friends – and shocking coming from a so called “coastal policy lawyer” (whatever the hell that is).

So, let’s take those claims one at a time:

1. Contrary to the impression created by that quote, the Clean Water Act is not some “quaint” ancient dinosaur – it has worked and needs to be enforced, not abandoned.

The biggest loopholes in the Act that require closing deal with failure to regulate agriculture and land use and to impose regulatory standards on non-point source pollution.

But they were political concessions made back in 1972 – that still hold today – and have nothing to do with the age of the Act.

If anything, they suggest a need for renewed and aggressive political advocacy by environmentalists – the kind of activist grassroots protest efforts that created the political demands on Congress that led to passage of the Clean Water Act – not new technologies or pipes as Dixon suggests.

Furthermore, the land use driven non-point source pollution control weaknesses of the Act can be addressed by enforcing other provisions of the CWA – directly and indirectly – including the Section 208 “areawide water quality management planning” provisions, and the Section 303 “water quality standards” “anti degradation policy” and “total maximum daily load” (TMDL) programs.

The combined sewer overflow (CSO) problem will need leadership and planning from Trenton, based on an integrated enforcement and financing effort. Perhaps Baykeeper’s lawsuit and petition will spur action on that front.

But all these observations are inconvenient truths to those that support Governor Christie and DEP Commissioner “core mission – Do Less with Less – customer service” Sloganeer- in-Chief Martin.

Governor Christie and his DEP Hatchet Man Bob Martin are dismantling what works:

• Water Quality Standards

Many serious pollutants are not currently regulated and current standards need to be tightened in light of new science and new problems (more to follow on this issue).

But DEP Comisisoner Martin has issued a moratorium on new regulatory standards by DEP. The failure to move forward with nitrogen standards in Barnegat Bay is just one illustration of this Martin policy.

Worse, he has outsourced and privatized the development of standards by delegating those functions to a new industry influenced Science Advisory Board.

• Integrated land Use and water resource planning and regulation

Martin not only dismantled DEP’s watershed planning Division and transferred Director Larry Baier to enforcement.

He has replaced that DEP driven integrated watershed based planning and regulatory model with a voluntary, locally driven, “partnership” model, which is based on the failed local Barnegat Bay Partnership.

Martin also issued an Administrative Order extending the implementation of the DEP’s Clean Water Act Section 208 based Water Quality Management Planning rules.

This Order providing the impetus and green light for the recent legislative attack.

Obviously, governor Christie will not veto THAT bill.

Martin has opposed any efforts to improve DEP’s ability to regulate noin-point source pollution via the multitude of growth management, infrastructure, planning, and regulatory tools in DEP’s arsenal (including CAFRA and the Water Supply Management Act).

This is a formula designed to fail.

• Investment in Infrastructure

NJ has a $28 billion clean water infrastructure deficit.

But Governor Christie is ideoligically opposed to raising the public revenues required to close this deficit and stem the decline and restore water quality.

That is why Christie vetoed a bill that would have allowed few to be imposed on development to fund storm water management, the number one problem in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

• Enforcement

The Christie administration ideologically prefers voluntary and partnership efforts over regulatory mandates and enforcement.

The Christie veto of the Barnegat Bay Clean Water Act “TMDL” legislation is just one illustration of this ideology in operation.

• Independent science

The Clean Water Act implementation has been driven by independent university based and EPA science.

DEP’s Division of Science and Research has been abolished and DEP science capabilities greatly diminished.

Independent and public science has been outsourced to the new DEP Science Advisory Board .

Given the corporate interests on that Board, we can expect gridlock and/or rollbacks.

2. The second major falacy in the above quote relates to the claims regarding the need for new pipelines, water recycling, and new technologies (desalination?).

Pipelines are engineering solutions that merely shift a problem from one place to the other. They create even more “infrastructure capacity” to support even higher levels of unsustainable sprawl development.

In the nation’s most densely populated state, the last thing we need is more technological solutions.

Of all people, a coastal policy expert should understand why regionalizing the coastal sewage treatment plants and huge ocean discharge pipes have destroyed the coastal zone.

Regionalization of huge treatment plants and dumping via ocean outfalls have provided enormous capacity to support explosive levels of growth and development. This has dramatically increased impervious surfaces and non-point pollution.

The demand for drinking water to satisfy over-development – coupled with one way ocean discharge and loss of groundwater recharge from impervious surfaces – has resulted in mining groundwater. This greatly reduces stream base flows, impairs ecological function, and accelerates salt water intrusion.

Wastewater recycling is the next iteration of this engineering insanity.

Pipelines and technologies have been a disaster. We don’t need more of that.

Well, we’ll leave it at that for now – more to follow based on parts 2 and 3 of the series.

We close with this head in the sand idiot of the day quote from DEP, which is shocking in light of the data on how NJ waters have degraded:

Kerry Kirk Pflugh, DEP manager of public participation and stakeholder involvement, said in an email that “as new technologies become available to treat water and restoration efforts get implemented, the waters will continue to improve.”

“Continue to improve”? WTF!