Murphy DEP Is Misleading The Public And NJ Spotlight Is Printing Falsehoods On DEP Flood Rules

I let it go last week when NJ Spotlight falsely reported that DEP had proposed new flood hazard rules.

Here is DEP’s webpage for formal rule proposals, and there is no flood hazard rule proposed (or stormwater management, NJPDES, WQMP, and other related land use rules that all must be revised).

That serious error reporter Jon Hurdle made last week could have been poor writing, or he could have been confused by DEP’s own press release and public announcement, which very misleadingly confused and conflated the public release of a proposed rule outline for Stakeholder discussion with a formal regulatory proposal.

On October 18, Hurdle wrote this same falsehood:

The state Department of Environmental Protection scheduled two “engagement sessions” this week to hear comments on the proposed Inland Flood Protection Rule, released last week.

But today, Hurdle doubled down on his prior error by reporting that DEP had “formally proposed” a new rule. Today, Hurdle wrote this:

“In mid-October, the agency formally proposed its new Inland Flood Protection Rule, which would add 2 feet to anticipated flood heights in inland areas, so increasing the developable area that DEP regulates.”

That is an astonishing error for a veteran reporter to make and for NJ Spotlight editors to allow to be published.

The DEP did NOT formally propose a new flood rule – all DEP did was announce that they were holding additional Stakeholder meetings and that they had abandoned the emergency rulemaking procedure LaTourette initially planned.

I blame DEP for this as well, because DEP did not correct the first error or todays second error, and it is based on a very, very, very misleading DEP October 13 public announcement.

That DEP announcement is very clearly designed to create the false impression that DEP has proposed new rules, after years of delays.

I have never seen anything so dishonest by DEP before in my almost 40 year career working on DEP rules.

I wrote this note below to DEP Commissioner LaTourette and reporter Jon Hurdle (and his editor John McAlpin) demanding that they correct their errors – we’ll let you know of any response:

Jon – Today you wrote:

“In mid-October, the agency formally proposed its new Inland Flood Protection Rule, which would add 2 feet to anticipated flood heights in inland areas, so increasing the developable area that DEP regulates.”

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/10/stormwater-utilities-lancaster-pennsylvania-wilmington-delaware-not-new-jersey-flooding-climate-change-dep-hoboken-newark-montclair-red-bank-princeton/

DEP didn’t formally propose new flood hazard rules, see DEP website:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/notices.html

Here is DEP website that may have confused you, so I am copying Commissioner LaTourette to correct that misleading DEP material

https://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2022/22_1013.htm

In mid-October, DEP announced that they were holding more stakeholder meetings and abandoned the emergency rule – you got that wrong in your prior Oct. 18 story as well:

“The state Department of Environmental Protection scheduled two “engagement sessions” this week to hear comments on the proposed Inland Flood Protection Rule, released last week.

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/10/state-dep-inland-flood-protection-rule-public-sessions-backs-away-from-emergency-plan-imminent-peril-tropical-storm-ida/

Two serious errors can’t be an honest mistake or unclear writing.

I also blame DEP for creating the false appearance of rule proposal. I’ve never seen anything this misleading and essentially dishonest from DEP, ever.

Wolfe