NJ Open Space Voters Did Not Support Slashing Funds for State Parks and Clean Water Programs

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.