Q: Why would farmers attack clean water?
A: Pure greed
In the latest attack on the Highlands, the NJ Farm Bureau today is prematurely gloating about a Court decision. According to the Bergen Record:
“The court’s decision is a victory for Highlands landowners, especially those in the Preservation Area,” said Richard Nieuwenhuis, president of the New Jersey Farm Bureau, which brought suit against the DEP. “The septic density standards are at the core of the DEP rules”
http://www.northjersey.com/environment/Farmers_fighting_Highlands_Act_win_a_round_in_court.html
Richard Nieuwenhuis, president of the New Jersey Farm Bureau,attacks Highlands Plan.While that decision may be a victory for farmers more interested in building condo’s than growing crops, it is a threat to your drinking water supply.
With this litigation threat looming, last week’s controversial decision by the Highlands Council to approve a flawed Regional Master Plan is shown to be even more shortsighted, while the arguments for Governor Corzine to Veto the Council’s approval become stronger.
Legally, the Court did not reverse but merely remanded the DEP septic rules for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). DEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson will make the final decision to accept or reject the ALJ’s opinion. In the event that the ALJ agrees with the Farmers, it would be highly unusual – and a HUGE sellout – for Jackson to agree and kill DEP’s own rules.
[read decision: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a0984-05.pdf
But, curiously, environmentalists are as confused as the farmers:
“The DEP did a sloppy job of putting these regulations together,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the N.J. Sierra Club. “The DEP better have its act together when it comes to court.”
Mr. Tittel surely knows that the DEP standards are based on a core protection of the Highlands Act and sound science.
The DEP standard attacked by the Farmers is based on a provision of the Highlands Act designed to protect drinking water from the pollution caused by septic systems.
The cornerstone of the Highlands Act are legislative findings that the most stringent protections are warranted because the existing DEP policies and regulations are not technically well suited to the region and would not protect the critical water supply of 5 million New Jersey residents from further degradation. The Legislature found:
“the existing land use and environmental regulation system cannot protect the water and natural resources of the New Jersey Highlands against the environmental impacts of sprawl development”;
“this comprehensive approach should include the adoption by the Department of Environmental Protection of stringent standards governing major development in the Highlands preservation area;”
“the preservation area of the New Jersey Highlands that would be subjected to stringent water and natural resource protection standards, policies, planning, and regulation”;
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/highlands/docs/highlands_bill.pdf
In the sensitive Highlands Preservation Area, the DEP septic standard allows one home per 88 acres in forested lands, and one per 25 acres on farmland. Large land areas are needed to dilute septic pollution due to the geology of the Highlands region, where very little of the rainfall seeps into the ground and “recharges” drinking water aquifers.
The Act set a strict “antidegradation” policy to protect public water supplies. To implement this policy, the Act mandates that DEP set septic development density based upon “deep aquifer recharge” (DAR). “Recharge” is the portion of rainfall that percolates into the ground. Recharge may be lateral (feeding streams and wetlands) or vertical into the aquifer to provide drinking water.
DAR is the vertical component of recharge that goes into the aquifer to replenish drinking water supplies.
This DAR standard was established to protect precious Highlands aquifers. It explicitly recognized that the prior statewide policy and DEP standard – implemented by a methodology known as GSR 32/nitrate dilution model – was not sufficiently protective of the Highlands region or reflective of Highlands geology, which has very limited groundwater recharge.
In adopting this DAR standard, the legislature sought to assure that groundwater was not further degraded by over-development. The legislative intent was to make the current DEP standard and methodology far more protective in the Highlands.
Therefore, I am confident that the Courts will determine that DEP is fully justified both legally and scientifically in making conservative assumptions in setting that septic density standard.
For those interested in the technical details, see below DEP response to comment (#86 – mine) in the recently adopted statewide “water quality management planning” rules.
1015. COMMENT: Where the New Jersey Geological Survey nitrate dilution model identified to be used in N.J.A.C. 7:15-5.25(e) was initially used to implement the standard in the Highlands Act, which calls for recognition of deep aquifer recharge, lot sizes from six to 12 acres were produced. The Department recognized that the model was inappropriate for the Highlands; the model was abandoned and an alternative methodology was developed for the Highlands which produced the lot sizes of 88 acres in forested areas and 25 acres in agricultural areas. This shows
that the Department has already been on record recognizing the implicit flaws in that model. (86)
RESPONSE: The Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act required the Department to establish a septic density standard “at a level to prevent the degradation of ground water quality, or to require the restoration of water quality, and to protect ecological uses from individual, secondary, and cumulative impacts, in consideration of deep aquifer recharge available for dilution.” (N.J.S.A. 13:20-32e). This Act for the first time introduced the concept of deep aquifer recharge, a term that was undefined, in establishing appropriate septic densities in the Highlands Preservation Area. To accomplish this statutory objective, the Department undertook an analysis of drought of record flow in streams in the Highlands Preservation Area under the assumption that drought flow must only come from ground water sources, and under extreme
drought conditions shallow aquifer contribution to stream flow would be negligible. This was a very conservative assumption that the Department believes was appropriate in the Highlands Preservation Area given the Legislative mandate. Details on the development of the septic density standards is provided in Basis & Background of the Septic Density Standard of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act Rule at N.J.A.C. 7:38-3.4, available through the Department’s website at http://www.nj.gov/dep/highlands/docs/septicdensity.pdf.
Precipitation falling on the surface of the land has three possible fates: runoff, shallow ground water infiltration and aquifer recharge. Under normal conditions all ground water recharge, whether shallow or deep is available to dilute the nitrate load from septic systems. The NJGS GSR-32 recharge calculation has been both peer reviewed and scientifically validated. The Department is convinced that the assumptions in the model concerning average recharge are appropriate to a planning level nitrate dilution analysis. Where better local information is available or specific geological conditions exist that would warrant a more conservative approach the rule at N.J.A.C. 7:15-5.25(a) allows an alternate standard to be determined.”
@page 812
http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/adopt_080707a.pdf
O/T – why did the Editors Pick on this post last only 15 minutes?
I haven’t seen that happen with any other posters here (but it did happen to me once before).
Was the editor edited?
Maybe this state should look at alternative septic systems. The existing regulations are antiquated. Thirty years ago in Maine I saw a septic installer drink the water coming out of the end of one of their systems.
I live in the Highlands Preservation Area. What I see as far as where development is being persuaded (Planning Area) is often nonsense. Example-Building an 85+- complex on the edge of a pristine river, just because it was placed in the Planning Area. Yet, in the Preservation Area there is a plot far from any river that has already been well invaded by humans, just because of the line delineation is under strict regulation.
I also know a number of farmers, and they have been interested in selling out to condos. So to group them all as “pure greed” is very offensive and degrading. What some of them may have wanted to do is build a few homes for their children on the property.
Correction-they have NOT been interested in selling out to condos.
Abitha – maybe the farmers you know are interested in selling out not to condos but to McMansions, strip malls, or corporate office parks?
Maybe the state should look at how much water has been allocated to farmers and whether it should be taken back for better uses, like water supply and ecosystem protection.
Of course you must know that the Highlands Act allows construction of a single home to be built on every parcel of land – so that big lie about building a house for the kids has been discredited.
Abitha – with respect to “greed” – how would you describe a person’s motive to cash out and destroy the natural environment, instead of continuing to engage in the honorable, but far less profitable, practice of agriculture?
I know of no farmers who wanted to sell, period. Although I am sure there are some out there who would. And allowing the building of a single home would not accommodate a home for more than one child.
“…how much water has been allocated to farmers and whether it should be taken back for better uses, like water supply and ecosystem protection.” This statement makes me believe that farms are not wanted in this state, and maybe that is the big goal of many in this state. Starve out the farmers. After all, Corzine did want to eliminate the Agriculture Department.
In order for us to be democratically fair the Highlands needs to be compensated for loss of property values by providing all this water. Unless, we want to scrap our democracy for socialism.
Abitha – the Highlands Act authorizes DEP to revoke any unused portion of existing water allocations and mandate conservation.
The farmers challenged this and LOST.
If farmers are not using – or not efficeincy using – water they should be required to do so.
If farmers are going to hold the public water supply hostage by lawsuits, the public should fight back to protect teh broader public interests.
This is democracy no? There are Lots more people drinking water than farmers irrigating or developing land with it.
Capitalism also – as free markets call for the highest rate of return to determine eater allocation.
If real farmers want to farm, they ought to realize the DEP regulations PROTECT THEM.
If farmers want to develop, to hell with them.
Why else would farmers legally attack DEP water regulations that do NOT EVEN APPLY to farming but only to MAJOR DEVELOPMENT?
Abitha – I might also add that the farmers lawyers were none too bright.
They legally challegned the water allocation provsions of the DEPr rules.
But, as the Court noted in dismissing this attack, the DEP water allocation rules do not even APPLY to agriculture! DEP created a HUGE loophole!!!
From the opinion (@ pageg 8):
“the water diversions and allocations for agricultural and horticultural
uses are regulated by rules the DEP adopted under the Water
Supply Management Act rather than under the Highlands Act. See
N.J.A.C. 7:38-2.5(c)(1). Consequently, the rules that the DEP
has adopted under the Highlands Act do not affect Farm Bureau
members who continue to devote their land to agricultural and
horticultural uses.”
This gaff does not inspire confidence in the farmers’ legal arguments or the lawyers.
Abitha – here’s the text of the DEP Highland rules on water allocation – as anyone can see, it DOES NOT APPLY TO FARMING!!!
(c) This chapter does not apply to:
1. Diversions for agricultural, aquacultural; or horticultural purposes as defined in N.J.A.C. 7:20A-1.3;
“There are Lots more people drinking water than farmers irrigating or developing land with it.” Here in the Highlands, year after year we face water restrictions. Yet in the cities, where much of this water is going, they build sports complexes, wash their cars, and hose their driveways. Point is, they are not just drinking the water.
As far as the farmers, what they need is their property values restored so they have equity to borrow with in order to continue viable farming. The only way to have both the Highlands Preservation and farming is to compensate the farmers for the loss of value.
Sorry folks – I did not fully cite the DEP regulation that exempts agriculture from water allocation provisions or provide a link, so here they are:
NJAC 7:38-2.5(c)1
Link: http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/njac7_38_20050509.pdf
Perhaps DEP should reconsider this loophole they gave to farmers.
Abitha -= aha!!! Now you’ve laid your cards on the table!
I wonder – Just who is “they”???
” Yet in the cities, where much of this water is going, they build sports complexes, wash their cars, and hose their driveways.”
Maybe you should be a cover artist for the New Yorker.
And oh no, those virtuous (white, republican) Highlands residents never waste precious water filling their swimming pools, watering their sprawling McMansion lawns, or irrigating golf courses or corporate office parks!
“They” means the citizen in the cities that receive the Highland water, any anyone building the complexes there, including the state or encouraged to with state aid. “They” means no more or no less. I have no swimming pool, don’t water my lawn, golf, or work for a corporation. Two of us use less than half the average water usage. We do not live by the Al Gore principle of do as I say not as I do. I love my semi wild little plot of land and the 100+ year old trees here are taken care of. I’m with you on love for the natural beauty of the earth. But this plan is not equitable.
Abitha – more than 100 Highlands watersheds are in deficit – meaning the people that live there already use more groundwater than is recharged locally. .
These deficits are not caused by exporting Highlands water to the cities.
Also, the majority the the region’s stream and reivrs are legally “impaired” by pollution from existing development.
This pollution flows out of the Highlands and causes downriver water users to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars to treat their drinking water to remoove that pollution – examples: Passaic Valley Water Supply Commission and North Jersey District Water Supply Commissioner pay millions to treat Passaic & Pompton river water that is polluted by Highlands sewage treatment plant discharges and development runoff.
Where’s the equity in that?/
Current development in the Highlands
Nohesitation, how would you like if the government came in and basically took away the value of your land. Farmers in the greenland preservation areas do not get market value for their land from the state if they try to sell and as Abitha pointed out, they lose equity that they need to borrow. Most farmers sell out for one or two reasons. One is they can no longer borrow and can no longer make the farm work. The other is they can no longer work the farm and they do not have children or grandchildren who want to continue. If they need to sell out they deserve fair market value.
bassman69 – The value of land is what economists refer to as “use value”.
To a real farmer, this “use value” is soil productivity.
The government can’t possibly take away the soil productivity value of land.
What you, Abitha, and the farmers are talking about is what is known as “exchange value”. Please, just be honest about it.
Exchange value (what you call “fair market value”) is created by government action (zoning, roads, schools, utilities, et al) and so therefore can be reduced by government action. The exchange value is also increased by the surrounding community, yet when a farmer develops land, he keeps 100% of the profits and shifts 100% of the costs to the community that has to manage the impacts of that development. This is outrageously unfair.
Farmers are asking for government action only to increase their private value and subsidize operations. But, govenrment is a two way street – it cuts both ways.
In terms of the “loan collateral” argument – that’s a bunch of hooey. The future is looking good based on curretn crop commodity markets.
What other loan is based upon government created “asset” value? How can someone who argues for “fair market value” make that argument?
Bill, as always, all your arguments are spot on. Also thanks for clarifying “use value” and “exchange value” though I’d add that exchange value fluctuates in any sector regarding any product (whether real estate or a manufactured product, etc.) and is NOT ever guaranteed. Period.
Ditto stock investments and other speculative purchases. How would the farmers like it if others (not me, I’m too poor to own stock) asked them to guarantee their stock purchases?
No one guaranteed the farmers that they could despoil our land by selling out to developers. As you’ve stated, farmers who want to farm are protected.
Unfortunately, now–if the gov signs the RMP–they’ll also be able to put clustered developments on 20% of their land. This is more assurance than they had when they bought the land.
When is enough enough?
isbjorn1 – thanks
But everyone failed to notice the photography –
I thought the belly level shot said it all!
nohesitation:
I am sorry but I really can’t agree with you on this issue. While I think you have a tremendously viable point, you are failing to recognize that property value and equity may be everything to certain people. The farmers were not the only ones displeased with this plan. Even members of the council have expressed disappointment. Hopefully Corzine will veto this plan today. How would you feel if over regulation led to the value of your home decreasing dramatically. For many farmers, their land is their retirement policy. Fair market value is not created entirely by the government. Demand that stems from where jobs are located (New York in this case) and desireable location also play a role in one’s decision of where to make residence. The government really should not have control over one’s PRIVATE property. If they do have control, a situation in which civil rights are being violated may begin to emerge.