WolfeNotes.com

RFK, Jr. Is The Big Lie

I normally stick to State and local issues, but the Trump campaign lies have gotten so outrageous that I must respond, particularly in light of this pledge RFK, Jr. made in his campaign kickoff speech:

to end the corrupt merger of state and corporate power that is threatening now to impose a new kind of corporate feudalism in our country.

I was sickened but not surprised by RFK, Jr.’s endorsement of Trump. Even worse, RFK Jr. is now touting his personal commitments to environmental and children’s health issues and Trump’s lead mouthpiece Tucker Carlson is using his platform to expand and support even bigger lies, see:

• Trumpers Discover Ecology, Toxicology, Public Health, and Scientific Integrity

So, we need to provide the facts on Trump’s environmental record to expose their fraud and hypocrisy.

In January 2017, on his first day in Office Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order (13771)  that directed the rollback of hundreds of environmental, climate, energy, public lands, and public health protections, see:

He followed that up with Executive Order (13979) with the darkly cynical Orwellian title: “Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulemaking”.

Trump dismantled EPA climate programs.

Trump installed climate denier Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. He was so bad he was forced to resign under at least 14 investigations after only a year in Office:

• E.P.A. Chief Scott Pruitt Resigns Under a Cloud of Ethics ...

On an issue that resonates today with so much criminal conduct, Trump even issued an Executive Order that made it far more difficult if not impossible to criminally prosecute corporate violators. (I’ll bet executives at Boeing, Big Oil/Gas, and railroad corporations were pleased by that).

The Trump record was well documented – for those who like the receipts and to explore the weeds, here are some of the best sources: The NY Times, Brookings, and Columbia Law School, respectively:

• The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List

• The Trump administration’s major environmental deregulations

• Climate Deregulation Tracker

Despite all that, both RFK, Jr. and Tucker Carlson’s liars have emphasized commitments to children’s health and, in particular, strong opposition to toxic pesticides. Given this emphasis, perhaps the most egregious and current illustrations of the fraud and hypocrisy is the story of one of the most toxic pesticides on earth, Chlorpyrifos.

This is particularly stunning example given the Tucker Carlson specific emphasis on the alleged Nazi development of organophosphate pesticides.

The story of Chlorpyrifos illustrates all facets of the Trump Project 2025 Agenda:

1) appointments of political loyalists in government agencies;

2) Executive Orders to set policy;

3) deregulation;

4) denial of science;

5) corporate lobbying; and

5) right wing courts to strike down any regulation that makes it through the deregulatory gauntlet.

Here’ the opening of the chlorpyrifos story by the Environmental Working Group, but I suggest you read the whole thing:

Chlorpyrifos is the most widely used organophosphate pesticide in the U.S., with millions of pounds sprayed every year. Scientists have definitively linked it to severe brain damage in children and fetuses, but a scheduled federal ban was scuttled by the Trump administration. Now some states are taking regulation into their own hands.

Did you get that? The Trump EPA killed a proposed BAN.

Let me put a finer point on that, from EWG:

October 2015

Numerous studies found overwhelming evidence showing that even small exposures of chlorpyrifos can cause irreparable damage to the parts of the brain that control language, memory, emotion and behavior, and that exposure during development leads to lower IQ levels. The EPA’s assessment of these studies concluded that current levels of chlorpyrifos found on food and in drinking water are unsafe. Based on this assessment and the FQPA standard, the Obama administration’s EPA proposed a ban of chlorpyrifos on food crops.

Landrigan said of the rule, “Based on the strong consensus of the pediatric and the public health communities, the FQPA stated unequivocally that regulation of toxic pesticides must focus, first and foremost, on protecting infants and children…. When the EPA fails to apply this principle, children may be exposed to levels of chemical pesticides that can profoundly harm their health.”

But look what happened to that Obama EPA ban: 

March 2017

Scott Pruitt, the first EPA chief in the Trump administration, ignored the evidence and overruled his own scientists, rescinding the ban just days before it would have taken effect.

The Biden EPA restored the ban:

The Biden administration

Shortly after taking office in January, President Biden used an executive order to direct the EPA to review the decision to reverse the ban on chlorpyrifos.

The EPA under President Joe Biden announced a ban on all uses of chlorpyrifos on food. The move will make it illegal to have trace amounts of chlorpyrifos present on food – something that the agency had previously permitted.

August 2021

The EPA announced on August 18, 2021, that it would ban all uses of chlorpyrifos on food, after decades of allowing its use. EWG applauded the long-overdue move as a vital step toward protecting public health.

But a right wing corporate Federalist Society US Circuit Court struck that rule down –

So the Project 2025 dismantling is proceeding as planned.

Don’t be fooled by liars and frauds like RFK, Jr. and the Tucker Carlson Crew.

Twisted Views Serve as Cover For Project 2025 Dismantling

Blame Government, Regulatory Capture, And Conflicts Of Interest For Neoliberal Corporate Greed

Tucker Carlson Interview And RFK, Jr.’s Endorsement Expose The Cynical Strategy

Trumpers are now posing as advocates for a myriad of left/progressive issues, from feminism to organic food to ecology to opposition to corporate greed

There’s been a stunning reinvention. Let me explain.

I thought I understood the strategic and rhetorical game that Trumpers were playing, in seeking to hijack the climate crisis and environmental policies and bring them into the culture wars and conspiracy theories.

Examples of that game were obvious: e.g. blame the World Economic Forum and hypocritical jet set elites like George Soros and Al Gore for trying to ban your (insert: car, SUV, truck, lawn mower, steak, gas stove, etc) under the guise of the climate emergency.

Or accuse Bill Gates or governments of seeking to confiscate private farmland to control the world food supply under the guise of reducing nutrient pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

The strategy was an indirect one: i.e. the culture war or conspiracy theory was advanced as the primary theme, while the specific substantive issue (climate, energy, pollution, etc) was used as a subordinate illustration of the particular lead culture war issue (elites, corruption, conspiracy, etc).

There was no attempt to engage the substance or advocate in behalf of the particular issue used as the example.

But I was wrong – that strategy recently has changed dramatically and the Trumpers are now frontally engaging the substance of the issue and seeking to hijack what have historically been left/progressive issues.

Trumpers are now posing as advocates for left/progressive analyses of a myriad of issues, from feminism to organic food to corporate greed.

Watch how that’s done by Tucker Carlson:

• Calley & Casey Means: How Big Pharma Keeps You Sick, and the Dark Truth About Ozempic and the Pill

Notice how the issues are framed and analyzed. Note the solutions suggested.

Virtually every issue is grounded in a right wing conservative ideology, e.g.

• the role of women in the home (to have babies, stay at home, and cook food)
• the role of government (to get out of the way, not to regulate and tax corporations)
• the role of free markets (to eliminate corrupt governments and promote public health and economic well being)
• the role of science (to expose and dismantle corrupt and captured government scientists and regulators)

These views just happen to be a perfect justification for the corporate deregulatory policy agenda of Project 2025.

And this is not a coincidence.

Examples:

Problem: FDA is funded by big pharma fees (75% of their budget). This funding creates conflicts of interest.

Solution: Eliminate that source of funding. With gridlock in Congress incapable of shifting funding to Legislative appropriations, that would “starve the beast” and advance Project 2025’s “dismantle the administrative state” policy.

Problem: Big Pharma is allowed to advertise drugs and stoke demand for drugs.

Solution: Ban advertising, which would just so happen to eliminate 50% of media revenues, attack “fake news” “enemy of the people”, and further cripple the media’s ability to expose corruption and the effects of Project 2025.

Problem: FDA, CDC, EPA, and other government agencies’ scientific advisory panels are dominated by industry scientists. The scientific research budgets of these agencies support corporate funded scientists and universities with conflicts of interests.

Solution: Ban scientists with conflicts of interest from serving on scientific review panels. Ban government funding of scientific research at universities with conflicts of interest. The just happens to create gridlock in any government regulatory initiative (which depends on this science), while attacking the elite university, again advancing the Project 2025 agenda.

Problem: Our food is contaminated with toxic pesticides that are poisoning us. Government programs, like food stamps, provide incentives to the food industry to market these toxic foods.

Solution: Ban government funding of food production support and social programs that provide incentives to the food industry to produce these toxic pesticide laden foods. This just so happens to coincide with the austerity and family values agenda of Project 2025.

Problem: Government food and drug safety regulations and dietary guidelines are scientifically flawed and were developed by Big Pharma and the food industry, who have captured and corrupted government. They promote and subsidize toxic processed food and dangerous and expensive drugs that merely treat chronic disease caused by toxic processed food.

Solution: Eliminate the flawed regulations and replace them with consumer choice and promotion of organic agriculture and good old fashioned home cooking and family meals. This agenda is twofer: it just so happens to justify Project 2025 deregulation and attack on government, while it also advances the “new feminism” and “family values” social agenda of stay at home moms who cook wholesome food from scratch.

There are many, many more examples I could cite from the works of RFK Jr and exposed in that Tucker Carlson interview.

The Tucker interview mentioned several specific Executive Orders that have “already been drafted” for the incoming Trump administration. Again, this is expressly part of the Project 2025 plan.

The Tucker interview even let the ideological cat out of the bag: that Stanford educated surgeon turned organic foodie alternative medicine man let it slip that her youthful family meals – with her Harvard Business School corporate lobbyist brother – included dinnertime conversations of topics such as “philosophy” and the ideas of Ayn Rand. Right.

Oh, and this woman, who denounces corruption in government and the health care industry, just so happens to be an entrepreneur who owns a business that sells a blood sugar monitoring device to women seeking to avoid IVF treatments merely by shifting their diet.

Harvard MBA and former corporate lobbyist Brother also is some kind of entrepreneur running a business related to his brand new “public interest” advocacy views.

You really can’t make this shit up.

[End Note: A stunning example was when our Stanford Surgeon turned organic foodie feminist claimed that German organic chemistry research that produced the Nazi gas (she didn’t mention the concentration camps) was directly related to the chemistry of pesticides that poison our food supply for the purposes of expanding production and lowering food prices (while blaming the Nazi’s for toxic agricultural chemicals, she didn’t mention the Green Revolution and role of western governments, industry, and institutions).

This claim prompted Tucker to accuse the Nazi’s of killing Christians (he didn’t mention the Holocaust or jews, or socialists, gays, et al). Tucker then went on to accuse the Nazi’s of developing nuclear weapons (he didn’t mention the US nuclear development program and actual use of nukes in Japan, twice).

See how this twisted game is played?

Who Derailed The DEP’s Long Delayed Modest Effort?

Today we explore two important questions:

• Who derailed the Murphy DEP’s rather modest attempt to update NJ’s State Surface Water Quality Standards?

• At what point does regulatory delay become deregulation?

With no explanation, the Murphy DEP has indefinitely postponed a “Stakeholder” meeting on long delayed updates to NJ’s Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS). This process began about 3 years ago, and the DEP was way behind in updating SWQS at that time.

DEP relies on these “Stakeholder” meetings to precede any regulatory proposal, and the meetings typically drag on for many months, even years, as business and industry lobbyists and lawyers are given access and a platform to “kill the baby” in the crib, and defang or weaken any DEP staff attempts to put teeth in regulations, as required by the science, before they are even formally proposed for public review.

So by the time any DEP rule is proposed in the NJ Register, it has already been weakened and watered down by the running the gauntlet of industry political influence on the “Stakeholder” negotiations.

The federal Clean Water Act (“Act”) authorizes and requires that States adopt SWQS to meet the fishable and swimmable goals of the Act. The SWQS must protect human health and the existing and designated uses of a stream or river (or lakes, bays, and wetlands) from pollution. The SWQS form the basis of pollution discharge permits, pollution cleanup plans, and other restrictions on activities that may pollute our streams and rivers. States also set waterbody specific “antidegradation policies” and “implementation procedures” to prevent high quality waters from being polluted.

The Act mandates that States conduct a review of SWQS every 3 years and update SWQS to reflect current science. State SWQS are subject to US EPA review and approval, and must be as least as stringent as federal SWQS, which are called “water quality criteria”.

NJ DEP was once a leader in adopting strict SWQS, in particular by creatively using the Act’s “antidegradation” policy framework to advance strong regulatory protections.

For example, few people (or environmental groups) understand that the SWQS “antidegradation policies and implementation procedures” are what established the “Category One” (C1) high quality stream protection program and the 300 foot buffers to protect water quality. Similarly, the Highlands Act is based on the antidegradation framework. DEP’s enforcement of SWQS has killed major housing and corporate office park development projects and new and expanded sewage treatment plants and sewer lines to serve that development.

But all that regulatory innovation was done over 20 years ago during the McGreevey DEP and the leadership of Commissioner Brad Campbell (full disclosure: I was an architect of these efforts).

Since then, the DEP’s SWQS program has largely been stagnant and gone in reverse on some grounds (e.g. variances and other site specific regulatory relief).

DEP has made little or no progress in expanding the C1 program, applying the SWQS to critical land use programs, and adopting new SWQS to protect wetlands and human health from hundreds of “unregulated” pollutants.

Non point source pollution, particularly from development is not regulated under DEP’s interpretation of the SWQS. Instead, DEP arbitrarily assumes that installation of engineered “best management practices” (BMPs) automatically comply with SWQS, without any science or monitoring of polluted runoff or impacts on nearby water.

The DEP’s “Forestry BMP” is 30 years old and exempts logging and “forestry” from compliance with SWQS and other regulatory standards and permit requirements. The DEP has failed to adopt SWQS to protect wetlands.

There are hundreds of known chemical pollutants that are not adopted in and regulated by SWQS. There are no enforceable nutrient policies to prevent disasters like harmful algae blooms, fish kills, and the ecological decline or risk of collapse of Barnegat Bay.

As a result, NJ’s water quality continues to decline, risks to human health and ecosystems worsen, and polluters and developers are provided huge regulatory relief.

So, I was surpassed to be advised, just 3 weeks ago via an August 4 email, that DEP was holding a “refresher” SWQS Stakeholder meeting on September 11.

The DEP invitation included a specific and rather narrow regulatory issues agenda as well, including the following:

The anticipated SWQS rule amendments will include updates to human health criteria for toxic substances at N.J.A.C. 7:9B and addition of numeric criteria for eight toxic substances, primarily based on recommendations published by the USEPA in 2015, and new human health criteria for 1,4-dioxane, and three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances which are commonly known as PFAS: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). 

(Note that the federal EPA criteria DEP is required to meet are from 2015, 9 YEARS ago.)

The DEP email emphasized that there had been no change in the issues agenda over literally several years of Stakeholder process:

This meeting features no substantial changes from the June 2022 stakeholder meetings and is intended to be a refresher. 

That really disturbed me, because over a year ago, I had objected to DEP’s narrow amendment agenda and urged Commissioner LaTourette to broaden the agenda.

Over this timeframe, I also had filed 2 formal petitions for rule making regarding SWQS. DEP denied both, ironically in part because they had NOT been subject to a Stakeholder development process. Here’s what I urged DEP to do back in August of 2023:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: “swqs@dep.nj.gov” <swqs@dep.nj.gov>, “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>, “Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov” <Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov>, Maya K van Rossum <maya@forthegenerations.org>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, “dpringle1988@gmail.com” <dpringle1988@gmail.com>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, “tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org” <tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org>, “kdolsky9@gmail.com” <kdolsky9@gmail.com>, Silvia Solaun <ssolaun@gmail.com>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, Robert Hennelly <rhennelly55@gmail.com>, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, asmmckeon <asmmckeon@njleg.org>

Date: 08/04/2023 3:16 PM EDT

Subject: SWQS Stakeholder agenda item

Dear DEP Surface Water Quality Stakeholder Manager:

I am responding to your “refresher” SWQS Stakeholder meeting invitation email of 8/4/23.

I request that the Stakeholders meeting include an additional agenda item and that Stakeholders be provided a copy of my petition for rulemaking submitted on 9/22/22, to amend SWQS to Adopt Regulations to Address Acute and Chronic Effects of Aluminum, see:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/petition/pet20220922.pdf

The Department denied this petition on 12/19/22, see:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/petition/pet20220922noa.pdf

The Stakeholders would benefit from knowledge of the content on my petition as well as the bases for the Department’s denial.

Some of the underlying scientific and policy rationales in support of the petition involved the impacts of forestry on water quality. Forestry also has significant climate and carbon cycle implications. Reforms of Department’s various forest management and climate programs and policies are currently underway.

Accordingly, Stakeholders would benefit from an integration of these multiple concerns that are implicated in SWQS. 

I appreciate your prompt and favorable consideration.

Obviously, those 2023 recommendations and regulatory petitions were ignored, so upon receipt of the DEP August 4, 2024 meeting invitation, I immediately objected and fired off another email to DEP Commissioner LaTourette, with a copy to US EPA, the press, and NJ environmental groups.

This time, I included additional and more specific recommendations:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: “swqs@dep.nj.gov” <swqs@dep.nj.gov>, “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>

Date: 08/21/2024 11:59 AM EDT

Subject: Fwd: SWQS Stakeholder Meeting on September 11, 2024

Dear DEP SWQS staff:

I was just made aware of this Stakeholder process and would like to expand the agenda of amendments under consideration to include at least the following:

1) update aluminum criteria – acute and chronic effects. See my recent petition for rule making for the scientific and regulatory basis:

https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/rules/petition/pet20220922.pdf

The DEP denial document suggested that an upgrade was pending. The Department wrote:

“the changes the petitioner suggests would benefit from stakeholder
engagement attendant to a thorough rulemaking process.”

https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/rules/petition/pet20220922noa.pdf

2) update criteria to address currently unregulated contaminants known to be present in waters of the state, including drinking water source waters. See my recent petition for rule making for the scientific and regulatory basis:

https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/rules/petition/pet20230901.pdf

The Department denied this petition (see: 55 N.J.R. 2430(a)) but never posted the denial document on the DEP website. I again urge that the denial document be posted on the website

https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=63387ae6-97e8-4742-9879-4b853d07ca82&nodeid=AABAABAABAAEAADAAB&nodepath=%2fROOT%2fAAB%2fAABAAB%2fAABAABAAB%2fAABAABAABAAE%2fAABAABAABAAEAAD%2fAABAABAABAAEAADAAB&level=6&haschildren=&populated=false&title=55+N.J.R.+2430(a)&config=025154JABiMmFjYzAxMy1hNjIyLTQ0YTctOTY0NS1iOGNlMTRiYzBkNGQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2flnvGwky16hNN9rcMfcun6&pddocfullpath=%2fshared%2fdocument%2fadministrative-codes%2furn%3acontentItem%3a69PB-6GX1-DYFH-X2M1-00008-00&ecomp=bgf5kkk&prid=5e19549d-d856-4725-b036-59e241fa212c

3) Numeric nutrient criteria

4) antidegradation policy and implementation procedures

5) methods and standards to characterize and regulate groundwater and surface water interactions

6) source water protection policies and standards

7) water quality standards for wetlands

8) methods and standards to characterize, monitor, measure and regulate non-point source pollutants, particularly from agricultural lands uses and forestry

I request that the Department distribute this request to all Stakeholders for their review and consideration. I make this request now because I was unable to comment during prior SWQS Stakeholder meetings and had no ability to influence the selection of amendments to be considered. The Department failed to notify me of this SWQS Stakeholder process.

Bill Wolfe

So, who intervened at DEP to derail the scheduled September 11, 2024 Stakeholder meeting?

Was it the polluters, trying to block DEP’s proposal to update several EPA human health toxic criteria?

Or did my recommendations flag serious defects that forced DEP to rethink their issues agenda?

Or is DEP just facing too much political blowback from the “REAL” climate proposed rules and is overwhelmed and can’t fight another regulatory war on SWQS?

When will these long delayed SWQS reforms be finally proposed by DEP?

Will DEP finally close numerous loopholes in enforcing SWQS?

Does anyone care? (if you got this far, you must).

Minnesota Gov. Walz’s Environmental Record Has Been Greenwashed

The Council Is Bending The Rules To PROMOTE Warehouse Development On Farmland

The Highlands Council staff – with no objections by the Murphy administration’s DEP – is claiming that paving over and constructing a 400,000 square foot warehouse on 40 (of 52) acres of environmentally sensitive forests and farmland (development of 80% of total land) would “maintain and enhance water quality”.

And that’s a quote. But I’m getting way ahead of myself.

On July 29, the NJ Highlands Council staff recommended approval of a major warehouse development application under the guise of a “Redevelopment Area” designation of farmland and forested land in rural Lopatcong and Pohatcong Townships (read the full staff Report). It would approve construction of over 1.2 million square feet of new warehouse development.

The Council’s designation would also trigger the DEP water quality management planning rules for extending sewers to serve new development, which is something that is prohibited in the preservation area and highly discouraged in the planning area” under the Highlands Act and Regional Master Plan (RMP):

The RMP does not support extension of water/sewer service in the Conservation Zone or any of the environmentally constrained sub-zones (rear property). The service extension would only be permissible for the proposed warehouse with the approval of the Highlands Redevelopment Area.

Get that? Repeat:

The RMP does not support extension of water/sewer service in the Conservation Zone or any of the environmentally constrained sub-zones … sewer service extension would only be permissible for the proposed warehouse with the approval of the Highlands Redevelopment Area.

The public comment period was scheduled to expire on August 9 but was extended to August 30. In an unusual move that appears to be an attempt to frustrate public opposition, the Highlands Council cancelled its scheduled August 15 meeting.

This approval is the first test of the Council’s highly touted new “Warehouse Policy”, which was purported to more strictly regulate and discourage inappropriate warehouse development in the Highlands. The Council pronounced:

Warehousing Policy

As the source of drinking water for more than 70% of the State’s residents, the Highlands Region requires special protections. For this reason, the Highlands Council developed Highlands specific policy standards for siting of warehouses in the Highlands Region

• Policy Standards for Warehousing in the New Jersey Highlands Region (pdf) **NEW**

The Council’s pending approval of this warehouse “redevelopment” application vindicates my prior criticism of the warehouse policy as toothless and doomed to fail, see:

• Highlands Council Considers “Policy Standards” For Warehouses

This could be one of the worst abuses to promote inappropriate development I’ve ever seen in my 35 year career. Let me highlight just the worst abuses, which illustrate that:

• the Highlands Council is not merely ineptly failing to enforce the law and protect the Highlands forests, farms and water quality. They are actually promoting warehouse development on environmentally sensitive farmland and coaching the developers on how to exploit loopholes; (note the use of the passive voice: “it was recommended”):

The Township originally submitted a Highlands Center designation proposal including these properties. After a review of the proposal by the Plan Conformance Committee on October 5, 2023, it was recommended that the Townships amend the center petition to remove these properties and instead submit a Highlands Redevelopment Area application. This recommendation was based on the proposed redevelopment of the Phillipsburg Mall property and the lack of comprehensive center-based planning that the finding for a consistent Highlands Center would require.

The Council itself cooked up this scheme because the prior plan was not approvable. The Highlands Council – not some lawyer for developers – recommended abuse of the NJ Redevelopment law, which allows developers to skirt Master Plan and Zoning ordinances and has been abused across the State for many years to promote inappropriate developments.

How can undeveloped forests and farmland be “in need of redevelopment”?

• the Highlands Council manufactured an absurd scheme to include an exempt nearby existing Mall development in order to allow the farmland to meet “impervious surface” requirements to allow the redevelopment designation;

The Phillipsburg Mall redevelopment project is exempt from the Highlands Act and has received all local approvals. It is included in the application to reach the necessary impervious surface calculations to qualify the rear area as a Highlands Redevelopment Area.

Did you get that? The Council is allowing developers to use a Mall, which is exempt from the Highlands Act and technically not part of the “redevelopment”, to meet impervious surface (roofs, parking lots) standards on a farm!

• the Highlands Council approved a “restoration plan” that would allow destruction of 40 of 52 acres of “priority preservation” designated farmlands, with this sham claim:

Such a restoration initiative would be protective of the riparian, wetland, and open water resources on the site and would contribute to maintaining and enhancing water quality.

Did you get THAT? The Council is claiming that destruction and warehouse development of 40 acres of a 52 acre farmland and forested parcel (80% of the land) will not only “maintain” but “enhance water quality”!

This contradicts well established science – which is the basis for several DEP regulations – that shows that just 10% impervious surface leads to impairment of water quality. It also contradicts common sense: how can all that polluted runoff from a warehouse roof and heavily truck used roads and parking lot “enhance” water quality?

Does this farmland look like “an area in need of redevelopment”? The land is surrounded by forested lands in the NJ Highlands, which are supposed to be protected from development under the NJ Highlands Act:

Block 102 Lot 9 in Lopatcong (57.2 acres). The property is currently farmland with a wooded area providing a buffer along the Lopatcong Creek to the western edge. The project as proposed would consist of a 367,350 square foot warehouse with a total impervious surface of 15.38 acres. Vehicular access would be provided via internal driveways through the former mall site to US Route 22.

Here are the sensitive environmental features for 52 acres that will be converted to a warehouse: (see Highland Council staff Report recommending approval):

Take a close look at the environmentally sensitive features on this site.

• 100% – all of it – of the site is “environmentally constrained” and a “priority agricultural preservation area”.
• Over 80% of the site is a “well head protection” area. Get that? A warehouse on top of your drinking water recharge!
• Almost 30% of the site is forested.
• There is even 13.3% bald eagle critical habitat.

On top of all this, the Highlands Council is reversing prior plans and allowing an expansion of a previously approved “Center”, which did NOT include these environmentally sensitive farmlands:

Lopatcong and Pohatcong Townships are conforming Highlands municipalities located at the southernmost end of Warren County. Each sought and received Highlands Council petition approval for Preservation and Planning Area lands, along with Highlands Center designations in the 2011-2012 timeframe. The area subject to this Highlands Redevelopment Area application was not included within the previously approved Highlands Centers.

Warehouse development of 52 acres of environmentally sensitive farmland is not the entire plan the Council staff recommended approval of. It includes almost a million square feet of warehouse development on 75 acres of nearby parcels:

Block 102, Lots 9.01 and 9.03 in Lopatcong (30.58 acres) and Block 1, Lot 1.01 in Pohatcong (44.08 acres): The mostly vacant 577,000 sq. ft. Phillipsburg Mall is being redeveloped into an 833,000 square foot warehouse.

The Phillipsburg Mall redevelopment project is exempt from the Highlands Act and has received all local approvals. It is included in the application to reach the necessary impervious surface calculations to qualify the rear area as a Highlands Redevelopment Area.

The staff Report relies on an absurd form of “regional planning” (i.e. including nearby paved Mall property to allow a farm to comply with “impervious surface calculations to qualify the rear area as a Highlands Redevelopment Area”).

But it fails to consider cumulative regional impacts of truck traffic!

The staff Report relies on an old traffic study, and reaches these incredible conclusions (are they aware of the fact that a 18 wheeler truck trip to a warehouse is VERY different from a passenger car going to a mall?:

The results suggest that under the proposed build-out, trip generation would be similar to existing conditions for the weekday morning peak hour, but significantly reduced from existing conditions for weekday afternoon and Saturday midday peak hours.

The staff admit that they lack a credible traffic analysis and that their approval puts the cart before the horse:

The one-mile travel distance on Route 22 between the subject site and the I-78 interchange is in keeping with the Highlands Council Warehouse Guidelines. Assuming ample highway capacities to absorb the increase in flows, such proximate and direct access should ensure that heavy truck traffic needn’t use local roads and byways to get to or from the facility.

A much more comprehensive regional study is needed to understand the impacts of full build-out of these and all the other projects already in the ‘pipeline’ for Route 22 and I-78 on the highways’ through-lane levels of service. Highlands Council staff have discussed this issue with NJTPA and will look to work with NJPTA and Warren County moving forward.

The Council’s pending approval exposes their new Warehouse Policy as sham.

Water to supply the project would be sucked out of the Delaware River from groundwater wells (“induced recharge”), and the Council staff have no problem with this abuse and damaging precedent either:

The Highlands Council has determined that the wells Aqua uses draw essentially all of their supply from the Delaware River through induced recharge. Thus, they do not represent a consumptive or depletive water use relative to the source sub watershed.

The site is underlain by Karst geology (prone to erosion and sinkholes) which makes the required on site recharge of stormwater impossible. That alone could be a basis for denial. Yet once again, the Council issues this absurd and dangerous precedential finding:

Due to the presence of Karst Topography, no recharge on site is proposed. The development should provide for 100% of the average annual pre-construction groundwater recharge volume elsewhere in the same subwatershed.

Elsewhere? Like where? Somewhere over the rainbow?

Yet despite all these major flaws – which individually should be fatal flaws and a basis to deny the application – the staff Report finds the redevelopment area consistent with the Highlands Act and RMP.

The primary basis for that consistency determination is fatally flawed by allowing the impervious surfaces of the Mall to qualify the farmland as eligible for redevelopment are designation.

The other primary basis for approval clearly elevates sham economic development arguments over protection of natural resources, community character and water quality, forest, and farmland.

Here it is – and it reads like it was written by lawyers for the developer:

d. Given that redevelopment is a significant opportunity for sustainable economic development and smart growth in the Highlands Region, this proposed redevelopment project was reviewed regarding consistency with RMP policies and objectives relevant to smart growth and sustainable economic development. The RMP calls for economic development that is “sustainable over time,” and not dependent on “development of undeveloped lands.” The Highlands Act calls for the RMP to “promote compatible…uses and opportunities within the framework of protecting the Highlands environment.”

e. Designation of the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area provides for beneficial use of the site. By reusing and redeveloping previously disturbed areas, economic investment and community development within the framework of smart growth is assured. The project promotes smart growth policies by maintaining land use patterns, balancing economic development with resource protection, and providing an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of redevelopment. The proposed parking lot expansion complements the existing development pattern of this area.

The Highland Act does NOT authorize or direct the Highlands Council to “balance” economic development and resource protection. It is heavily weighted toward protection. The word “balance” is used just twice in the Act, and the term refers only to a “balanced transportation system”, not balance of economic development and protection. (I know, I wrote portions of it and was part of a very small team that drafted the introduced version of the bill.)

The farmland parcel of land is not “previously disturbed area”, so that’s just a falsehood.

Oh, and of course, leaving the worst for last, there was absolutely NO CONSIDERATION of any energy demand, renewable energy potential, and climate impacts associated with this massive development project.

[End Note: Clarification: The staff Report’s recommended approval with conditions must be voted on and approved by the Highlands Council. That must be done in a public hearing. The staff report was signed off on by Executive Director Ben Spinelli and the staff recommended approval makes it much harder for the Council to vote it down and creates legal vulnerabilities if they don’t do it correctly with the proper scientific and regulatory basis. The Council has not voted on the recommended approval. My apologies for creating confusion here.]