WolfeNotes.com

Land Preservation Advocates Attack Regulation And Support Privatization

Elliot Ruga of the NJ Highlands Coalition testified today on Senate bill S699.

The bill seeks to provide compensation (public subsidies) to private landowners who deed restrict forested lands. But despite the public subsidies, the bill *explicitly allows private landowners to prohibit public access to those publicly subsidized forested lands:

(2) A landowner shall not be required to provide public access to woodlands acquired pursuant to this section.

This is total bullshit. I really don’t need to say more.

The Republican sponsored bill itself is bad enough. But Mr. Ruga shocked the Chairman – and anyone listening – by not only supporting the bill, but by parroting the attacks on the Highland Act by former NJ Governor Christie by claiming that the Highlands Act had “failed” and screwed private property owners!

Ruga began his testimony by claiming that the Highlands Act had “failed”, had harmed landowners, and he could not even bring himself to say the word “regulation”: instead he used the term “restraints” (time 34:32).

[Note: those deed restricted forested lands could still be logged under NJ’s private lands forestry program.]

If you think I exaggerate, listen to his testimony here, at time 33:55.

Aside from smearing the Highlands Act and its regulatory protections, parroting Gov. Christie, advocating private property rights, promoting public subsidies to wealthy landowners, and excluding public access, Mr. Ruga of the Highlands Coalition went so far as to threaten that the right wing US Supreme Court might strike down the Highlands Act as a “taking of private property”.

Mr. Ruga knows that the NJ Supreme Court has upheld the Act on those grounds, so his testimony is ill informed and ideological.

This is extreme right wing rhetoric that not even Federalist Society and  NJ based right wing property rights groups advocate

NJ conservationists need to start questioning their so called advocates.

Time for Mr. Ruga to retire.

*clarfication

Arthur Parton (1842–1914)

Bill Would Make Fossil Industry Pay Part Of Huge Costs Of Climate Chaos

The Bill Would Do Nothing To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

[Update 12/16/24 – The New York State Legislature passed a Climate Superfund bill which is now on Gov. Hochul’s desk: $3 billion per year for 25 years. Once again, NJ way behind NY. ~~~ end update

Update 12/13/24 – Wayne Parry’s Associated Press story does a good job. ~~~ end update]

I must admit that I enjoyed listening to the absolute panic in the voice of Ray Cantor, lobbyist for the NJ Business And Industry Association (NJBIA), as he testified to the Senate Environment Committee today in opposition to the NJ Climate Superfund Act (S3545).

Ray’s voice was shaking and he was clearly in meltdown mode.

His testimony was so deranged and bordering on climate denial that it prompted a sharp rebuke from Chairman Smith, who at the conclusion interjected that he had never more strongly opposed any testimony! Ouch!

The bill would:

SYNOPSIS

“Climate Superfund Act”; imposes liability on certain fossil fuel companies for certain damages caused by climate change and establishes program in DEP to collect and distribute compensatory payments.

I sent the sponsors a note of support, with some ideas for amendments to strengthen the bill.

Fossil industry strict liability and compensation for the damages that their fossil products caused is a great idea, and legislation is superior to litigation to recover these damages, but this bill is limited to adaptation and does nothing to reduce emissions, which has to be priority number 1.

Basically, this bill is a RGGI on steroids.

Global climate activists made the same strategic error by focusing almost exclusively on compensation – not emissions reductions and climate science – in the recent COP29.

Senator McKeon emphasized that the bill was solely a cost recovery bill (not emissions reductions or renewables). He expressed confidence in the legal basis surviving challenge.

McKeon ridiculed the opponents’ criticism that the bill would stop fossil fuels. He noted that Exxon earned $115 billion in profits, and that the bill would recover only a tiny fraction of the Exxon annual profits (just a quarter of one percent). 

McKeon made my point.

The bill was released by the Committee with minor technical amendments by a party line 3-2 vote.

I’ll leave the details for future posts and let the NJ media have at it for today’s story.

How Far NJ Sierra Chapter Has Fallen – From Activists To Cheerleaders

Sierra Club NJ Chapter Director Anjuli Matos (C), a former DEP technician, is close to DEP Commissioner LaTourette (R). Ed Potosnak, NJ LCV on left.

“De-listing means thousands of acres of water front property open for development- We stopped a power plant in Bordentown because of eagles nest , or Petty’s Island etc.” ~~~ longtime activist

NJ Sierra Club is literally pitiful.

Under a misleading headline: “DEP Proposes to Lengthen the Endangered List“, the Chapter leads with pity:

Pity the poor rusty-patched bumblebee.

Yes, but pity the NJ Sierra Chapter, for a pitiful post that provides cover for the Murphy DEP’s proposed delisting of the bald eagle!

After leading with the pity for the rusty-patched bumblebee, Sierra then highlights the good news –  the headline itself is really all you need to read – because this is all about providing cover for the Murphy DEP:

Under a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) proposed rule, conservation status for this insect would be changed to endangered.

In all, 30 species would see increased concern under the proposed rule. They include butterflies, freshwater fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and land mammals.

Back in June, we warned that the Murphy DEP proposed to delist the bald eagle.

That was not only bad conservation policy and a dangerous precedent, but it would weaken land use regulations that protect eagle habitat, see:

• Murphy DEP Proposal To Delist Bald Eagle Raises Important Questions

Of course, that DEP proposal was supported by the NJ Builders Association – gee, I wonder why.

That controversial DEP June proposal is pending adoption right now.

The Murphy DEP obviously is looking for public support to soften the blow and shape the media’s coverage of their upcoming adoption of the proposal.

Which explains the timing of the NJ Sierra Club’s pitiful post.

The Sierra Club ignores this entire controversy.

Instead of criticism, they offer praise for DEP success:

To be sure, there are conservation successes, too, notably the bald eagle, which in the 1970s was reduced to just one nesting pair in a remote corner of Cumberland County. Now, there are 262 nesting pairs located throughout New Jersey. This is thanks largely to conservation efforts and the banning of DDT, a pesticide that made eggshells so fragile chicks could not hatch in the wild.

The bald eagle would see its conservation status changed from endangered to special concern.

The osprey is a similar success story. Its conservation status would be changed from threatened to stable. There are an estimated 800 nesting pairs of this apex, fish-eating predator in New Jersey.

That could have been written by the Murphy DEP press office (in fact, something very, very similar was, read and note the similarities:

• MURPHY ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES REMOVING BALD EAGLE AND OSPREY FROM NEW JERSEY’S ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST

When NJ Sierra Club is parroting DEP press releases, you know we’re in trouble. How far they have fallen since Jeff Tittel retired..

Curiously, after praising a delisting of Bald Eagle that will REDUCE habitat protections, Sierra end the post with this contradictory CYA statement:

The Sierra Club’s NJ Chapter is advocating for stronger protections for declining wildlife populations via greater curbs on habitat encroachment and incidental harm to animals.

Sierra can’t have it both ways! How can they support a delisting, which by definition reduces and weakens protections for habitat, and then claim to support “greater curbs on habitat encroachment” (and its a LOT more than “encroachment”, the builders will now be able to destroy habitat).

That was purely a throw away line tacked on to the end of the post to mislead readers and critics of the DEP proposal and Sierra’s failure to oppose it.

Sierra also understands the timing issue and the role they are playing to provide cover for DEP:

The DEP proposed rule was subject to a public comment period that has now ended, and a final rule was expected before the end of 2024.

Exactly. Pitiful clowns.

Murphy DEP Delayed Public Records Request For Drought Documents & Data

[Update below]

The NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) met yesterday.

Before I get to the important issues I tried to put on the meeting agenda in written submissions and again during the public comment period (see this and this for details), let me first note that one issue on the DWQI meeting agenda was about development of next year’s (2025) workplan to specify what chemicals they would be developing drinking water standards for (MCLs).

The DWQI Chair suggested that they conduct a survey of members to identify priority chemicals to work on. I interjected and requested that the DWQI issue a public notice and provide an opportunity for public comment on what the DWQI workplan should be. Surprisingly the Chair agreed to do that! So folks should look for that and weigh in to help set the DWQI priorities and focus.

During discussion, DWQI member Judy Klotz suggested that the DWQI consider some kind of recommendation to insulate and protect NJ’s drinking water program from anticipated attacks at the federal level under the incoming Trump administration. Trump has pledged to rollback environmental regulations even more severely than he did during his first term (over 120 regulations) under the Project 2025 strategy to “dismantle the administrative state”. Klotz’s suggestion was ignored by the Chair.

During public comment, I supported Klotz’s suggestion and emphasized that the entire regulatory framework was in jeopardy and that there was a LOT the DEP Commissioner, Governor, and Legislature could do to block Trump rollbacks, including working with the outgoing Biden EPA. (One example: EPA & DEP have a contractual commitment called “NEPPS”. Revisions could lock in funding and program commitments via contract.)

During Trump’s first term, he issued Executive Orders that directed federal agencies to repeal and not enforce not only regulations, but funding and even basic foundational elements (data, methods, databases, etc). One example was the repeal of the EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon – so suppose the new Trump EPA erased the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System?

IRIS is the scientific foundation for DEP risk assessments, regulatory standards, and permit decisions. An Emergency Order by the Governor or new legislation could freeze current science and data from any abolition or rollback, And that’s just ONE example.

During public comment period I also posed specific direct questions to the Chair:

Status Of The DWQI Recommended “Treatment Based Approach”

What was the status of the prior DWQI recommend “Treatment Based Approach” to hundreds of unregulated chemicals? Was it abandoned and defunct? Did it require new legislation? Or is DEP planning new regulations to implement it? I cited my petition for rulemaking which was recently denied by DEP. I emphasized that current low flow conditions greatly exacerbated the risk from unregulated chemicals for which there is very little data and that pass through drinking water systems into your tap water.

The Chair completely ignored and failed to respond to those critical questions.

Drinking Water Risks And Water Quality Monitoring Under Commissioner LaTourette’s Drought Order

What is the ambient river water quality upstream of drinking water intakes during the extremely low flow drought conditions? What are the risks of regulated and unregulated chemicals in that source water? Do current drinking water treatment systems remove these chemicals? How does the Department coordinate the wastewater treatment plants with the downstream drinking water intakes? For example, if there is an accidental chemical spill that impacts a river, the downstream drinking water intakes are shut down.

The Chair directed me to the Water Supply Advisory Council and felt that these issues were better addressed there, not at the DWQI.

I objected by noting the broad legislative charge to the DWQI to make recommendations regarding not just MCL’s but “implementation of the drinking water program”. I stressed the expertise in toxicology and risk assessment at the DWQI and the institutional composition of the DWQI, which includes laboratory and treatment experts and the private water purveyors.

No response to that from the Chair or members of the DWQI. Pure cowardice.

Risks And Impacts Of Water Transfers – Is NJ Replicating Flint Michigan?

I asked about how paragraphs #5 and #6 of Commissioner LaTourette’s drought Order regarding water quality were being implemented, including for reduced reservoir releases, reduced minimum flow requirements AND any water transfers.

Weeks prior to yesterday’s meeting, I filed an OPRA public records request to obtain this water quality data as well as communications with the drinking water purveyors, BEFORE the DWQI meting. DEP failed to respond by the legal deadline and instead delayed response for an indefinite period.

I asked how the public could be assured of the quality of the drinking water during drought, particularly given the DEP Water Supply Plan’s findings that during the 2016 – 2017 drought Order, which clearly stated that water purveyors refused to comply with the DEP Ordered water transfers due to concerns about changed source water chemistry leaching lead from distribution pipes, which is exactly what happened in Flint, Michigan.

The DEP representative on the DWQI responded, by assuring me that things were under control and referred me to DEP “Guidance” and US EPA regulation and Guidance. I was told that the DEP’s “Drinking Water Watch” (DWW) website regularly posted the data.

During the meeting, I pushed back on the DWW claim by asking whether that data included source water data, e.g. the chemicals upstream of drinking water intakes. I got misleading replies to which I pushed back by noting that DEP’s Water Supply Plan explicitly states that DEP lacks authority to require sampling of source water.

After the meeting, I Googled those documents and found that the DEP Guidance is not enforceable and not applicable during drought emergency.

I found that the EPA regulations and Guidance were not enforceable and that NJ, as a state with “Primacy” under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and DEP is the lead agency and not really directly supervised by EPA.

So, the public can have no assurance about or confidence in the safety of their drinking water, especially during drought.

The DWQI is evading its responsibilities and not responding to important science based questions.

The DEP is not cooperating in sharing information, is not replying timely as required by law to OPRA requests, is not conducting a transparent program, and is evading regulatory updates and enforcement.

Folks might like to know about that. So where are the environmental groups and media?

[Update: 12/13/24 – I resent being stonewalled and gaslighted by DEP bureaucrats, so I filed the following OPRA public records request just now. This will be interesting. I’ll share DEP’s response:

During the 12/10/24 meeting of the Drinking Water Quality Institute, in response to my questions, I was directed to 2 document: 1) the NJDEP Guidance “SOURCE WATER CHANGES AND TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS” and 2) US EPA Guidance “Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water Systems”.

I request the following public records regarding those 2 documents:

1) technical reports submitted to the DEP by regulated water purveyors pursuant to those Guidance documents (and DEP & EPA regulations) during the 2016 – 2017 and current (2024) droughts, including pursuant to DEP Administrative Orders.

2) correspondence between NJ DEP and regulated water purveyors regarding the two subject Guidance documents (and DEP & EPA regulations during the 2016 – 2017 and current (2024) droughts, including pursuant to DEP Administrative Orders.

3) correspondence between NJ DEP and US EPA regarding water quality data, technical Reports, or implementation regarding the two subject Guidance documents (and DEP & EPA regulations during the 2016 – 2017 and current (2024) droughts, including pursuant to DEP Administrative Orders.