DEP Funds And Hides Regulatory Failures Behind Rutgers’s Flood “Resiliency Primer”
Voluntary Local Approach Has Failed Miserably – Not One Stormwater Utility Created
Time For State Mandates & Development Impact Fees To Fund Mitigation
(Caption: In case its too small to read, the red arrow about points to the “500 Year Floodplain”)
Fairy Tale
We’ve written many times over the years to criticize and explain the serious flaws in a suite of DEP planning and regulatory programs that exacerbate NJ’s severe flooding problems. Those flaws have been magnified by the climate change driven increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather.
Most recently, we focused on DEP’s highly touted flooding and stormwater rules, particularly their reliance on outdated rainfall, runoff and flooding data and statistics, especially DEP’s continued reliance on the obsolete 100 year statistical interval, see:
So we were not surprised by today’s NJ Spotlight story on flooding – which is another in reporter Jon Hurdle’s longtime misleading Fairy Tale efforts to find the positive local needle in the haystack of State government and DEP failures.
Specifically, Hurdle uses the release of a DEP funded Rutgers voluntary “Primer” for local governments to paint a favorable and highly misleading portrait of the status of NJ’s flood prevention programs. This kind of misleading and diversionary fairy tale media coverage is exactly why DEP funds these kinds of projects.
But right there in plain sight – NJ Spotlight printed a graphic – is the elephant in the room: that shows the 500 year flood (see above).
The Spotlight story also included this on point quote about the implications (i.e. failure) of reliance on inadequate engineering design standards (like the DEP 100 year statistic):
“They work to their design-engineering specifications. The problem is that storms are predicted to exceed those. You have this false sense of security, you have a sea wall, but it didn’t do anything for you during Sandy.
“Once you exceed those specs, you are going to flood.
But despite the graphic, and this quote, and the fact that NJ Spotlight has written many stories praising DEP’s flood and stormwater regulations, no mention was made of the fact that the DEP still relies on the obsolete 100 year storm (plus 25%) – “specs” which are exceeded by today’s storms, never mind the increasingly extreme climate change driven weather.
Compounding that misleading reporting (by omission), Hurdle also managed to find one town – Lambertville – that is considering (and not yet adopted) the failed stormwater utility model for finding stormwater management and flood mitigation.
Not one of NJ’s 566 Municipalities and 21 Counties have adopted the stormwater utility model created in enabling legislation several years ago. But Hurdle found the single needle in that haystack of failure.
I wrote him the following notes on DEP regulatory flaws and funding, with copies to legislators, DEP, and environmental groups:
Jon – your story today has a good quote about engineering design standards being exceeded and the graphic shows the 500 year flood, so why no mention of the fact that DEP’s recently adopted flood (and stormwater) regulations that have gotten so much (misleading) praise are based on the 100 year flood and are clearly obsolete and under-designed?
NJ municipalities’ Master Plans, zoning, and stormwater management requirements are all based on the seriously flawed DEP regulations, not this voluntary Rutgers technical guidance.
I’ve been trying to warn the public and policymakers about these flaws for many years and instead of highlighting them, your story obfuscated these risks and regulatory flaws.
On the funding issue, why not do a story on the use of off-site impact fees on existing and new development to provide funding for flood mitigation?
This development and the impervious surfaces create the runoff that causes the flooding.
The so called “rain tax” legislation is a total failure, because it was enabling and not mandatory and no one has adopted it.
Towns were given a chance to voluntarily do the right thing and failed to do so, so now its time for the State to step up with mandates.
DEP could also do a lot more on the regulatory side with stricter standards for wetlands, stream buffers, stormwater management, CAFRA, flood hazard and forestry regulations.
Bill Wolfe