WolfeNotes.com

The Urban Heat Island Effect Already Is Killing People

The Murphy DEP, Conservation Groups, And Media Don’t Want To Talk About That

Where Did Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force Recommendations Go?

Prior aspirational goals, incremental approaches, and voluntary and market based solutions have all failed. It is time to be bold.

[Update: 3/10/23:

+ Between 2001-2010, monthly extreme heat events that would be expected to occur once every 1,000 years (a 0.1% chance in a given year) were now occurring once every 20 years—an increase by a factor of 50 over the previous three decades.

There’s a lot going on right now in NJ on forestry and climate issues and a lot of diversion and gaslighting to mask controversial issues. You probably never heard about any of it from media or environmental groups. Consider:

1. Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force recommendations seem to have fallen into a black hole. Reforms to address climate and carbon sequestration/storage were one of only two main focal points of that group.

2. The Murphy DEP is conducting a Stakeholder process to discuss revisions to NJ’s Green Acres regulations, including insane policies to allow logging (forestry & “stewardship”) on preserved Green Acres lands and expand logging on all public lands, including State Forests, State Parks, and Wildlife Management Areas (this would include county and local Green Acres parkland).

3. DEP adopted a statewide climate “carbon defense” policy in the pro-logging State Forest Action Plan and used that policy to justify logging 1,400 acres (2.4 million trees) in the Pinelands Wildfire Forestry Plan.

4. The DEP is about to adopt proposed regulations to implement the environmental justice law. That law is supposed to regulate “stressors” that disproportionately impact the environmental quality and health of poor and minority communities. There is no greater stressor than the urban heat island effect and no more serious adverse impact than mortality (death), but the DEP ignored all that in their proposed regulations. 

DEP’s EJ regulatory proposal fails to mention mortality and cites a 2006 study in Phoenix, Arizona (@ page 51. Phoenix is nothing like NJ’s climate) not their own prior 2004 regulatory science and findings. DEP relies on impervious surface as a surrogate indicator of stress, not canopy cover or actual NJ specific air quality (ozone, fine particulates, hazardous air pollutants, carcinogens) and health data on morbidity and mortality (or emergency room visits, et al). There are no mitigation mandates to address these stressors.

[Note: Why would DEP cherry pick a 2006 study in Phoenix, and ignore their own scientific basis of a 2004 DEP regulation? Obviously, the DEP scientists are either incompetent (e.g. unaware of their own scientific basis of regulation), or the DEP intentionally ignored this prior science to obscure the fact that they’ve known of these mortality risks and have done nothing for 18 years.]

No one wants to talk about any of that. And they are doing their best gaslighting and diversion so you don’t know about any of that.

[Note: DEP proposed a “Guidance Document” (EJMAP)  that identifies certain “stressors”. But the guidance and stressors are not proposed as regulatory standards and methods and are thus not enforceable and purely voluntary. The DEP is misleading the public about that by creating the false impression that this Guidance is meaningful and constitutes enforceable requirements.]

Similarly, the DEP’s “Extreme Heat Action Plan” is a misleading diversion. Any progress on these issues will require substantive changes to existing DEP regulatory programs, as I listed above. All these diversionary “action plans” and stakeholder processes are voluntary fake solutions that divert from enforceable requirements and from DEP’s failure to walk the talk.

5. The Murphy DEP recently used NJ conservation groups in a public relations campaign to rebrand a carbon sequestration program enacted under a 2007 climate law as the Murphy DEP’s “Natural Climate Solutions” program.

NJ Spotlight and Philadelphia’s PBS outlet WHYY both drank that Kool-aid and printed favorable and highly false and misleading stories.

Both stories failed to mention the DEP’s own 2004 science on the huge increase in mortality caused by the “urban heat island effect”.

The WHYY story not only failed to mention the urban heat island effect on mortality, but they falsely claimed the DEP’s “Natural Climate Solutions” program was funded by license plate sales and part of DEP’s “No Net Loss” reforestation program.

Both claims are factually false and flat out lies.

So, in an attempt to pull all of this together and establish a set of science based enforceable policy demands (before the fake NJ green mafia can sell them out), I wrote the below self explanatory letter to Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith. NJ DEP already enforces wetlands mitigation requirements and a mitigation bank. DEP already collects air pollution permit fees based on emissions. DEP regulations already require GHG emissions inventories for certain major emission sources. Under the Municipal Land Use law, towns are authorized to collect off site impact fees. Those approaches could be expanded to include carbon:

(* Note: a mitigation scheme would not replace the need for direct regulation of GHG emissions by DEP, as in NY State’s climate law)

Dear Senator Smith:

I am writing to urge that you consider legislation to expand the current No Net Loss (NNL) Reforestation Act of 1993 (N.J.S.A. 13:1L-14.1 et. seq.)

https://www.nj.gov/dep/workgroups/docs/forestry_20111205_law.pdf

In light of the climate emergency, the current policy of “no net loss” must be scrapped and replaced by an affirmative reforestation approach that increases current tree biomass and canopy cover. That reforestation approach could be integrated with a broader new mandatory carbon mitigation program.

The current no net loss reforestation law is narrow in scope and not based on the science of carbon sequestration and storage and NJ’s climate and environmental justice goals.

The law fails to reflect DEP’s recent climate science reports and assumptions on carbon sequestration and storage. The law fails to reflect the carbon goals of the Global Warming Response Act or the recent Environmental Justice law.

The law applies only to certain State projects – not to the private sector – and deforestation of lands more than 1/2 acre in size. The reforestation requirements are not sufficient to meet climate or public health goals and lack scientific basis.

Back in 2004, DEP found that the urban heat island effect had dramatic negative public health effects, including huge increases in mortality:

“Human Health Impacts 

Rising temperatures will increase heat stress, especially for vulnerable urban populations, such as the elderly and urban poor. Climate models predict an increase in the number of  days per year with temperatures above 90oF in the New York City metro area, with a potentially significant impact on human health due to heat stress… By the 2020s, climate change could result in an increase in summer heat-related mortality of 55% and a more than doubling in related mortality by the 2050s.  ~~~  (NJ DEP, 2004)

A study just published in The Lancet confirms those DEP findings:

“Findings

The population-weighted mean city temperature increase due to UHI effects was 1·5°C (SD 0·5; range 0·5–3·0). Overall, 6700 (95% CI 5254–8162) premature deaths could be attributable to the effects of UHIs (corresponding to around 4·33% [95% CI 3·37–5·28] of all summer deaths). We estimated that increasing tree coverage to 30% would cool cities by a mean of 0·4°C (SD 0·2; range 0·0–1·3). We also estimated that 2644 (95% CI 2444–2824) premature deaths could be prevented by increasing city tree coverage to 30%, corresponding to 1·84% (1·69–1·97) of all summer deaths.”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02585-5/fulltext

These serious adverse public health effects are clearly “stressors” as defined by the recent environmental justice law, but were not addressed by DEP’s proposed implementation regulations.

On January 18, 2023, DEP issued a press release touting what the DEP called their “Natural Climate Solutions” program. DEP emphasized the carbon sequestration and storage benefits of urban tree planting, but far more needs to be done.

https://nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2023/23_0003.htm

As you know, the legislature established that program by the sequestration provisions of the 2007 Global Warming Solutions Fund Act P.L 2007, c.340 which authorized the use of RGGI proceeds.

Similarly, Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer publicly stated that the Pinelands Commission would soon adopt a net net loss policy under the CMP.

I assume your Forestry Task Force also made recommendations along these lines.

There are numerous legislative strategies to codify and implement such a no net loss policy.

I recommend a carbon based approach with at least a 3/1 reforestation ratio.

Legislation should establish an enforceable Statewide reforestation goal and timetable, again based on carbon and the goals of the GWRA.

The thresholds in the current law should be abandoned and apply to any tree removal or cutting by any entity.

The program should be funded and implemented not only with RGGI proceeds, but as a carbon mitigation requirement in all DEP permit programs that would authorize any activity that produced carbon emissions. New carbon mitigation requirements would be based on a lifecycle carbon footprint for the authorized project. Mitigation options would include reforestation, as well as other energy and carbon management activities that produced real reductions in carbon emissions.

Prior aspirational goals, incremental approaches, and voluntary and market based solutions have all failed. It is time to be bold.

I look forward to your earliest and favorable response and of course am available to work with OLS in drafting such legislation.

Bill Wolfe

Murphy DEP Rebranded And Took Credit For A 15 Year Old Climate Law

NJ Conservation Foundation Now Lying To Obscure That Fact

Planting 1,000 Trees Is Tokenism And Manipulation, Not Transformational Change

Human Health Impacts 

Rising temperatures will increase heat stress, especially for vulnerable urban populations, such as the elderly and urban poor. Climate models predict an increase in the number of  days per year with temperatures above 90oF in the New York City metro area, with a potentially significant impact on human health due to heat stress… By the 2020s, climate change could result in an increase in summer heat-related mortality of 55% and a more than doubling in related mortality by the 2050s.  ~~~  (NJ DEP, 2004)

NJ Spotlight today published a piece by their WHYY affiliate about the Murphy DEP’s so called “Natural Climate Solutions” carbon sequestration program:

• New Jersey communities of color grapple with lack of trees, environmental inequity

The WHYY story is spun to emphasize the environmental justice and traditional urban forestry issues like canopy cover, while completely ignoring the “urban heat island” public health effects, including huge increases in heat related mortality and downplaying the carbon sequestration issues.

But the story goes beyond gaslighting and spin and engages is straight up falsehoods and lies.

Lies are used to obscure the truth. If environmental justice activists and urban communities understood these truths, they would make real demands for real change, not accept token gestures.

There is a reason that NJCF is lying and its to cover up and obscure the facts and criticisms I’ve made.

Here is the telling lie:

According to DEP’s own press release, the tree planting program is funded by the sale of RGGI carbon allowances:

Projects announced today are funded through New Jersey’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a multi-state, market-based program that establishes a regional cap on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel power plants.

But WHYY reported – obviously based on NJCF input – that the program is funded not by RGGI, but by license plate sales and a NJ Forest Service program:

The money is provided by the Natural Climate Solutions grant program funded by “Treasure Our Trees” license plate sales and New Jersey Forest Service No Net Loss Compensatory Reforestation Program.

That factually false spin is no accident. It is designed to obscure important issues, like these:

1. I’ve written to explain how the DEP rebranded a 15 year old climate law that created the funding for the carbon sequestration program.

DEP merely repackaged and rebranded a carbon sequestration program created way back in 2007, under the Global Warming Solutions Fund Act, see P.L 2007, c.340:

“(4) Ten percent shall be allocated to the department to support programs that enhance the stewardship and restoration of the State’s forests and tidal marshes that provide important opportunities to sequester or reduce greenhouse gases.”

This rebranding is part of a larger cynical Murphy DEP gaslighting project to use environmental groups to provide green cover and create the false impression that they are policy innovators and leading on climate and environmental justice issues.

2. I exposed the fact that DEP knew 18 years ago that urban heat island effects would dramatically increase mortality (death) of urban poor and elderly people.

I wrote about that DEP failure a decade ago:

• Extreme Heat Compounds Injustice In Our Cities – Climate Change is Here

People living in urban areas, especially children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to rising heat

Despite this knowledge, I explained how DEP has failed to use existing regulatory authority to require “mitigation” of climate impacts in DEP permit programs, including urban reforestation and air pollution control (ozone SIP).

3. I noted that the RGGI carbon allowance price is a paltry $13 per ton of carbon emissions, while the DEP grant program is paying over $700 per ton to sequester that carbon in trees and urged that polluters be required to pay far more for RGGI carbon pollution allowances.

As I noted last week on the GHG emission “metrics” of this DEP’s patronage program parading as a “natural” carbon sequestration program:

DEP claims that the grants will sequester “32,710 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO₂e) by 2050.” (that’s about $733 per ton sequestered while the RGGI carbon price is about $13 per ton emitted. That’s a valid point, because the source of funds for today’s DEP grants  are proceeds from the sale of RGGI allowances. It would be far more cost effective and equitable to simply ratchet down on the RGGI cap to make polluters pay, or to impose regulatory mandates on carbon emissions, or to invest in energy conservation in low income homes or simply stop logging NJ forests.)

4. I’ve noted that DEP’s Forest Action Plan actually promotes logging in direct contradiction of climate carbon sequestration goals and that the DEP’s existing urban forestry program is totally ineffective in responding to the urban heat island effect. To begin to address the flaws, I’ve recommended a million tree urban forestry program.

In a 2014 followup, I urged that legislation be amended to begin to address the problem:

• Climate Change and Urban Forestry Must Be Part of NJ’s “Forest Stewardship” Program

2. Recognize urban “heat island” and related energy, clean air, public health, environmental justice, and aesthetic benefits of an urban forestry program

The basis for these recommendations is provided here:

• Two Key Words You Won’t Find in “Forest Stewardship” Bill

3. Establish an urban forestry program and set a time bounded numerical planting goal – 1 million trees in NJ’s cities.

Urban forestry is justified not only by science and public health, but by environmental justice, redevelopment, and aesthetic concerns.

Those recommendations were ignored.

5. I’ve noted that if DEP were serious, they would be doing far more in using existing regulatory authority to address climate and environmental justice issues.

By lying about the source of funding for the program and not mentioning RGGI, all the facts and criticisms above are obscured. Polluters are not threatened by increases in RGGI allowance prices or by new DEP regulatory mitigation requirements.

DEP bureaucrats dodge any accountability for their historic failures. Real reforms are derailed.

By lying that the source of funding is the license plate and no net loss program, DEP and NJCF creates the false impression that those programs are effective. DEP bureaucrats gaslight the public about their lame performance and dodge accountability and pressure to reform.

By lying about the source of funding, NJCF gaslights and repeats the Murphy DEP propaganda. That’s why Murphy DEP funds these organizations, like NJCF, to manipulate and gaslight the public and reinforce the false perception that DEP is leading and aggressive on climate and environmental justice issues, when exactly the opposite is true.

See how all that works?

[End Note: New study just published in The Lancet in European cities confirms DEP’s 2004 increased heat stress related mortality findings – note that the study also evaluated the benefits of increasing canopy cover to 30%. Trenton canopy cover is just  7% and 1,000 small young trees will not significantly increase that and won’t come close to 30%:

Findings

The population-weighted mean city temperature increase due to UHI effects was 1·5°C (SD 0·5; range 0·5–3·0). Overall, 6700 (95% CI 5254–8162) premature deaths could be attributable to the effects of UHIs (corresponding to around 4·33% [95% CI 3·37–5·28] of all summer deaths). We estimated that increasing tree coverage to 30% would cool cities by a mean of 0·4°C (SD 0·2; range 0·0–1·3). We also estimated that 2644 (95% CI 2444–2824) premature deaths could be prevented by increasing city tree coverage to 30%, corresponding to 1·84% (1·69–1·97) of all summer deaths.

The Death Of Environmental Enforcement

Just Call The “DEP Helpline”! – We Work For You!

“There’s this wink and a nod going on where the DEP is saying, ‘We won’t squeeze you too hard if you just come to the table and settle,’” Wolfe said.

It’s been “a quiet little dance for 10 years,” with the state knowing it can’t get more than pennies on the dollar”, Wolfe said. ~~~ NJ Law Journal, April 15, 2015

The recent controversial Murphy DEP settlement with corporate chemical giant BASF in Toms River clearly exposed the Murphy DEP’s corporate friendly enforcement policy: essentially it’s “Let’s make a deal”.

But, if you were one of the gullible or naive people who were fooled by the NJ Sierra Club and NJ Audubon Society’s support for that deal  – in the DEP’s press release, no less! – then perhaps this “reminder” note from DEP enforcement to toxic polluters will convince you.

DEP sent this note to those subject to enforcement of new DEP pesticide fumigation regulations. It says everything but “please, pretty please”: (emphasis mine)

This listserv is being sent as another reminder to the regulated community that the fumigation rules, which became operative on June 6, 2022, have an allowance that allows applications for existing fumigation facilities to continue operations, provided the facility has submitted an air permit on or before February 3, 2023.

A facility that has applied by the February 3, 2023 deadline that was in operation prior to June 3, 2022, and has been working cooperatively with the Department to obtain a permit will not be subject to enforcement action. Enforcement actions may be taken for facilities that failed to submit prior to the deadline or fail to work cooperatively with the Department.

There are no provisions to extend this submittal deadline in the rule adoption in April 2022.  Air Quality staff are available for assistance and can be reached at 609-292-6716 (Helpline).

For more details on fumigation, applicability and application content, please refer to the updated Q&A document which can be found at https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/boss/permitting-guidance/fumigation-faq-2-1-2023-update.pdf

Another! In other words, the DEP groveled like this more than once!

In case it’s not obvious from the words themselves, here’s what that means.

DEP is giving the regulated companies a HUGE heads up, in case they missed the HUGE loopholes in the regulations, that all they need to do is give DEP a call and say you’re working on it, then you can just keep on doing the deadly things you do and will be immune from any enforcement!

Check out this LOOPHOLE from the DEP FAQ – it grandfathers all existing industrial fumigation:

The permit regulations lack any clear enforceable numeric standards and prohibitions and lots of technical discretion (making it virtually impossible for DEP to deny a permit), so it will be easy for you to get a permit to continue business as usual.

Just pay DEP a permit fee and keep on truckin’! The permit makes your operation legal!

The EPA doesn’t conduct oversight of DEP anymore, environmental groups are in the tank for DEP, and the media only reports on DEP press releases, so you’re good to go, no one is watching and we got your back!

Easy peasy.

This is incredible.

It’s bad enough that there are loopholes and weak standards in the permit regulations, but for DEP to go out of their way to give advance warnings and advise companies how to exploit these loopholes is a very clear nail in the coffin of environmental enforcement.

DEP is not only failing to enforce regulatory requirements, they are essentially working as consultants for the regulated companies.

And we thought the Christie DEP was bad for doing that! see and be sure to watch the ABC TV news segment:

• Why Does Gov. Christie Get A Pass On Regulatory Policy?

Eyewitness News Reporter Jim Hoffer: – “You’re saying that this executive order will bring the polluters and government to an even cozier kind of relationship?”

Wolfe: “Right, it will make government facilitate, not regulate, but actually promote the interest of the polluters, protect the polluters, not the people of the state.”

End Note – I was aware of the DEP “Hotline”, but I never heard of the DEP “Helpline” before. When did DEP create this service?

Has there been any news coverage that documents Murphy DEP enforcement performance? How many fines issued, penalties collected, criminal enforcement referrals, et al?

Have any environmental groups issued reports and held press conferences on Murphy DEP enforcement?

I’ve already written that DEP is violating the law and no longer issuing the mandatory Clean Water Enforcement Act annual reports, and that spawned crickets from media and the NJ Green Mafia, see:

• They Don’t Have An App For That: Critical Environmental Information Buried In The Bowels Of the Bureaucracy

Media Whitewash In The Making

Oroho Paved The Road To Fascism

Gov. Murphy’s Praise Echoes “Bipartisan Biden’s” Embrace Of Southern Racist Senators

It is a very troubling sign that a man with these far right wing views could get elected in so called liberal Blue State NJ.

Equally shocking, is that this is a man that Democratic Senate President Sweeney negotiates and cosponsors bills with. ~~~ 2/28/12

Senator Oroho (2012 photo)

The retirement of Sussex County Republican Senator Oroho is already triggering political homages that ignore Oroho’s radical right wing agenda and the fact that he served a larger national corporate right wing project as the NJ State Chair of the notorious Koch brothers funded group called ALEC – American Legislative Exchange Council.

Gov. Murphy issued a statement, a move that echoed the political scandal of President Biden’s embrace of his southern racist US Senate colleagues:

“Steve Oroho exemplifies how our politics should be – holding true to one’s positions but never letting the political get in the way of the need to connect personally with those with whom we may disagree.

Oroho was radically out of step with liberal NJ and even traditional Nixon conservative Sussex County. Back in 2012, I wrote to expose this right wing attack, and was again ignored by NJ’s lame media:

Here is a list of some of the worst bills and Constitutional Amendments Oroho is sponsoring – many are grounded in model ALEC bills. A virtual boatload of bad ideas.

They illustrate a sweeping pro-corporate attack on virtually all progressive values, policies, and governing institutions.

Oroho attacks labor, the environment, immigrants, the urban poor in “special needs districts”, science, government, civil service, taxes, the judiciary, fairness, and gay and women’s rights.

Oroho’s agenda is shocking in its scope and audacity. He would make English the official language and repeal the Global Warming Response Act, the Highlands Act, and the Estate Tax.

His proposed Constitutional amendments are equally radical and would dramatically alter the social contract and severely weaken and dismantle government as we now know it.

The common theme, with the exception of hunters and gun owners who he supports, is the elevation of corporate interests above the public interest.

It is a very troubling sign that a man with these far right wing views could get elected in so called liberal Blue State NJ.

So, to illustrate that, we repost a February 28, 2012 post in full:

[Update: A Trenton friend emailed me to warn, with a photo:

Wait till you see who replaces him – it make him look like Bernie Sanders – Parker Space

My reply:

That’s why the subtitle in my post is:  Oroho Paved The Road To Fascism

Gov. Murphy and NJ media need to call this out, not like David Cruz euphemistic BS about a “conservative conservative” (Lonegan is Koch money too). ~~~ end update]

Meet ALEC’s NJ State Chairman – Senator Oroho

Senate Bill Conflicts With 45 Years Of NJ Environmental Law And DEP Planning And Regulation

A 30 Year Old Gov. Florio’s Executive Order And DEP Regulations Memory Holed

Policy Of Bill Would Take NJ Back 30 Years

NJ Spotlight reported favorably today on a Senate bill (S421) that would seek to divert 75% of organic waste currently going to landfills to composting facilities. One of the goals would be to reduce methane emissions. Sounds good, right? WRONG!

The story is highly misleading for several reasons, most importantly for creating the false impressions that:

1) legislation is required to control methane emissions from landfills;

2) legislation is required to address the management of food waste by generators, solid waste haulers, and composting and disposal facilities;

3) goals (as “targets”, no less) focused on reducing disposal – as opposed to “source reduction”, i.e. reducing generation – are somehow progressive;

4) legislative “targets” are enforceable and self implementing without regulatory mandates and funding; and

5) the Murphy administration and DEP are responding aggressively to methane emissions from landfills as part of a climate strategy.

All of that is totally false.

• The bill is totally unnecessary – DEP already has comprehensive planning and regulatory authority and has failed to enforce it.
• The bill conflicts with and undermines  DEP’s 30 year old “source reduction” and solid waste management hierarchy policy that seeks to reduce generation of solid waste as the priority policy and puts DEP in charge of solid waste management and recycling (by private industry and county and local governments).
• The legislative “targets” in the bill have no teeth and no funding.  There are no sanctions, i.e. nothing happens when the targets are not met. That’s the legal and practical real world difference between aspirational goals as “targets” and “regulatory standards”.
• The Murphy DEP has done nothing – and this bill would not require that DEP do anything – to regulate methane emissions. Just the opposite: DEP has issued approvals for natural gas pipelines, compressor stations, an LNG export terminal, and power plants – all of which emit huge volumes of methane. The bill provides cover for all that.

Of course, this reality is exactly the opposite of the impression readers would get from reading the NJ Spotlight story.

Apparently, the NJ environmental “activists” are either technically incompetent or duped again, because they either don’t know all this or they do know it and are intentionally letting DEP off the hook by supporting the bill and not criticizing DEP’s failure to aggressively regulate and plan.

Since the 1975 passage of the NJ Solid Waste Management Act (“Act”), the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) has had comprehensive regulatory authority over all aspects of solid waste planning and management – from the source of solid waste generation, to transporters, and to management and disposal facilities – particularly to regulate to protect public health and the environment from the landfill disposal of solid waste.

This DEP authority includes the power to restrict exactly what specific waste materials a landfill can legally accept for disposal, e.g. DEP could impose limits on organic waste in solid waste permits and in DEP solid waste regulations.

Current DEP solid waste management regulations implement that Act, and, among many other things, mandate that all existing and new landfills collect landfill gas (methane).

Here are just a few of many DEP regulatory requirements:

7:26-2A.4. General prohibitions and requirements

[(a) – (d)]

(e)  No sanitary landfill shall be operated in a manner that would result in the degradation of the ambient air quality beyond the standards established by the Department pursuant to N.J.A.C.7:27.

[(f) – (l)]

(m)  The owner or operator of an existing sanitary landfill shall be required to design in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26-2A.7(f)3 or 4, and after Departmental approval of the design, construct, operate and maintain, a gas collection, venting and monitoring system when gas is detected at the points set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:26- 2A.7(f)3 or4;

Did you get that?

Let me repeat it for our “activists” friends and NJ Spotlight reporter Tom Johnson (who clearly knows better):

The owner or operator of an existing sanitary landfill shall be required to design in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26-2A.7(f)3 or 4, and after Departmental approval of the design, construct, operate and maintain, a gas collection, venting and monitoring system

Gov. Florio was the first to set lofty and enforceable goals for solid waste management. (See Florio Executive Order #8, 4/6/90)

Florio established NJ’s first source reduction policy and material specific and enforceable numeric composting, recycling, and procurement goals (See Executive Order #91).

And he backed them up with enforceable DEP Statewide State Solid Waste Management Plan and DEP regulations, solid waste and recycling permits, and field enforcement.

State level disposal taxes ($30 million/year) and bond act money ($168 million) funded County and local programs to implement the goals, backed by BPU Orders.

Tom Johnson knows all this but omits it from his misleading cover story.

The bill takes NJ policy BACKWARDS by over 40 years.

Tom Johnson then falsely describes former DEP manager Gary Sondermeyer as an “advocate”.

That is false. Sondermeyer currently works for private industry. He previously was a longtime DEP manager.

I worked with Gary for many years at DEP and can tell you that he was a huge barrier to reforms we sought during the Florio administration. Gary was a champion of the incineration industry and an opponent of using DEP’s legal powers to direct County solid waste planning.

While it is environmentally preferable to divert organic waste from landfills, the primary goal must be to reduce generation, as would be the approach if the Murphy DEP enforced DEP’s 30 year old “source reduction” policy.

[End Note: I sent Senator Smith a note requesting that he withdraw the bill because it is unnecessary, undermines DEP’s legal authority, and conflicts with 40 years of law, policy, and practice. If he wants to do more on these issues, he should pass a Resolution expressing legislative intent and hold DEP oversight hearings to hold DEP accountable to failure to enforce current law.

Smith is playing right into the hands of the right wingers who attack the “administrative state” and seek to limit DEP discretion under false legal doctrines (e.g. “non-delegation doctrine” and the “major questions doctrine”) that would require specific legislative delegations before an agency could act to regulate.

I also sent this note to Doug O’Malley:

Doug – I’m sending you this because apparently you are not aware of DEP’s legal powers to plan for and regulate solid waste and the NJ history of gubernatorial and DEP leadership on the issue which the current DEP betrays. Tom Johnson knows all this so it’s obvious that he’s either over the hill or intentionally providing cover.