Hearing Casts Serious Doubt on DEP’s ability to Protect Public Health and Environment
In articulate, substantive, and at times charming testimony, DEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson had the Senate Environment Committee completely under control on Monday.
The Commissioner presented her 2008 priorities, and responded to mostly softball questions from the new Committee.
[Update: link to hearing transcript: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/pubhear/sen012808.pdf
We invited public involvement and outlined our priorities in a Sunday post What are your environmental priorities for 2008?
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/01/what_are_your_environmental_pr.html
Lisa P. Jackson, Commissioner of NJ Department of Environmental Protection testifies before the Senate Environment Committee.Jackson outlined 5 priorities in extemporaneous testimony:
1) climate change; 2) update of the Water Supply Management Plan; 3) strengthening the toxic site cleanup program; 4) taking care of the “green side of the house” (natural resources) and 5) smart growth and regulatory reform at DEP.
After questions by the Committee, she diplomatically added recycling as #6 in savvy deference to Chairman Smith’s recent legislative accomplishments in sponsoring laws to restore funding for recycling and development of a recycling program for electronic waste.
Committee Chairman Senator Bob Smith (D/Middlesex) listens intently. In a breath of fresh air, instead of spinning, she honestly acknowledged that the current version of the Highlands Regional Master Plan needed work.
In a key concession, Jackson agreed with environmental critics that the science supporting the plan was not complete and inadequate.
She conceded that DEP was broken – that DEP single objective permit programs operated “in silos” and as a result, failed to protect the environment. She pledged to fix these programs and integrate cross cutting concerns.
In a startling revelation than is certain to embarrass the Governor and set the stage for the upcoming budget battle, Jackson disclosed that the DEP had been cut deeply under her tenure; that she had lost over 200 employees; and that she lacked resources to accomplish important new programs, such as global warming.
Those admissions did, however, come with some misleading statements that DEP information technologies and management reforms could “do more with less” and address the resource, funding and staff shortfalls.
In response to oversight questions about why fishing and hunting license revenues were declining – a question that could have prompted a technocratic defensive response – Jackson instead wisely offered the example of her own kids, who prefer video game versions to outdoor activities like hunting and fishing. Her personal warmth – and to be sexist, motherly worldview – effectively communicated a complex issue in human terms.
And she prompted an outburst of laughter with her “wily coyote” wildlife management comment. Her immediate comeback quip “everything you need to know comes from bugs bunny” brought the house down.
Commissioner Jackson (right) is accompanied by Assistant Commissioner Irene Kropp (left). Kropp oversees the DEP toxic site remediation and landfill closure programs that have come under sharp criticism for a series of major failures. But on a more substantive note, paradoxically the strength of her performance undermined the DEP’s mission to protect public health and the environment.
This is because she put a very positive face on some deeply flawed policies, lack of funding, and poor DEP performance. Her testimony simultaneously disarmed critics, avoided problems that need to be fixed, and controlled and limited the agenda.
Listening closely to what Jackson said – and didn’t say – was deeply disturbing:
1) Jackson said nothing about environmental justice or urban environmental health. This silence was deeply disappointing, given that existing air quality a) violates federal standards for ground level ozone; b) exceeds EPA cancer benchmarks for a score of toxic air pollutants, and c) causes disproportionate health and environmental impacts in urban NJ;
2) Jackson dodged many land mines, including a) the need for more stringent regulation of industrial sources of pollution; b) tougher land use regulations to manage growth and stem continuing high rates of forest and farm land loses; c) stricter standards to reflect new science on cumulative impacts or children’s health; d) vigorous enforcement, or e) the need for additional funding.
3) Jackson backpedaled on the controversial Oyster Creek nuclear plant Clean Water Act permit, distancing herself from the former Administration’s draft permit that mandated cooling towers. At one point, she claimed that the ecosystem had adapted to the warm water discharge from the plant. The stage is set for DEP to fold on this permit.
4) On the issues she chose to discuss, Jackson made absolutely no substantive commitments (she did not commit to any firm dates for mandated reports, plans, regulations, funding, or permit decisions, etc). For example, the Global Warming Response Act signed by Corzine last July mandates an important plan on how to meet the emission reduction goals be submitted to the legislature by June of this year. Jackson not only failed to discuss the elements of that plan, she failed to commit to a date for completion or even acknowledge that the plan was to be submitted to the legislature (she mentioned the Plan being developed for the Governor). But here’s the law the Committee allowed her to tap dance around:
b. No later than June 30, 2008, the department, … shall prepare a report recommending the measures necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the 2020 limit. The report shall include specific recommendations for legislative and regulatory action that will be necessary to achieve the 2020 limit. The report shall be transmitted to the Governor, to the State Treasurer, to the Legislature pursuant to section 2 of P.L.1991, c.164 (C.52:14-19.1) and to the members of the Senate Environment Committee and the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee., (emphasis supplied. P.L 2007, c. 112) http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/PL07/112_.HTM
Some of the most interesting legislative oversight concerns were expressed by Senator Andrew Ciesla (R/Ocean) who criticized the lack of coordination and took a swipe at Corzine’s toll plan. Ciesla suggested that DEP and the Administration look to Europe for leadership on how to better plan and integrate transportation, land use and environmental concerns.
Senator Ciesla (R/Ocean) suggests Jackson look to Europe for leadership, and asks why costly roads are built without consideration of land use, environmental and transportation planning.
Senator Jeff Van Drew (D/Cape May), new Vice Chair of the Committee, prepares a question.New Vice Chair VanDrew’s approach was disappointing, as he chose to focus on predictable narrow district or special interest concerns, including fishing and hunting fees; the need for a better “dialogue” between DEP and the business community; and beach replenishment.
As usual, listening to the environmental community testimony was like watching the herding of cats.
Mike Pisauro, NJ Environmental Lobby, recommends the Precautionary Principle.They were all over the map on dozens of individual organization based issues.
Armed with the strong support of the public and motivated by the public interest, nonetheless they lacked a coordinated strategy or coherent message.
The few new ideas and policy recommendations came from Mike Pisauro of the NJ Environmental Lobby, who praised the new ocean ecosystem based management policy; suggested the Committee explore legislation to implement the Precautionary Principle; and consider implementation legislation and DEP oversight to breath life into the NJ Constitutional guarantee of a right to a healthy environment for all citizens.
Chemical industry lobbyist – a former DEP employee and example of the revolving door between corporate polluters and DEP regulators – testifies in favor of even more private access to DEP decision-makers, less public oversight, and more profits from pollution. In contrast to the environmentalists, the usual suspects – lobbyists from the Chamber of Commerce, Business and Industry Association, and chemical – were far better prepared and on message.
NJ Business and Industry Association lobbyist testifies in favor of less environmental oversight by DEP, lower fees, and weaker pollution standardsOpen-space skimping assailed
http://www.northjersey.com/news/njpolitics/14628187.html
NJ Chamber of Commerce lobbyist calls for less regulation, lax enforcement, and more subsidies to corporate polluters.Smith – Environmental Panel Hearing Offers Solid Direction For State
http://www.politickernj.com/smith-environmental-panel-hearing-offers-solid-direction-state-15861
DEP chief outlines her goals, without funds to realize them Jackson says she must ‘do more with less’
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1201585015136880.xml&coll=1
It’s unconscionable that environmental justice and urban health were not mentioned, especially given the contamination of land on which schools and daycares in the state have been sited in recent years, the re-use of former dry cleaning and manufacturing sites before they were sufficiently tested, air quality, problems that still continue with lead paint in poor areas, the issues Wolfe cites above, and more.
Thank you, Wolfe, for pointing out this enormous lacuna in Commissioner Jackson’s testimony to those of us who may not have noticed it.
Strengthening the toxic site cleanup program is essential, but how about strengthening measures to ensure that we do not produce more such sites?
Did Jackson mention requiring stronger open disclosure of chemicals kept on site and enforcement of strict measures for those who do not comply with disclosure reporting? Or developing a more effective and efficient plan for our toxic and hazardous waste disposal–at the community level, with more accessible hazardous-waste recycling, as well as at the corporate level?
Had the Precautionary Principle been foundational to the state’s strategy in the past we’d likely not be confronted with the insane contamination of our water and land now. Hopefully it is not to late install the Precautionary Principle as a central lens through which the DEP views every issue.
It didn’t sound as if there was much concrete “testimony” about measures to preserve our water, not surprising since the DEP seems to have just weakened its buffer regulations.
And then there are the tough–and very specific–questions about the Highland Act’s RMP (draft revised plan for implementation of the Act) and whether in its current form it would guarantee clean water for the future. It’s a shame Jackson did not disclose her suggested revisions to the RMP or discuss the plan in more detail, both raising critical questions and asking for input from local activist groups who are on the front lines trying desperately to save our remaining open lands, wetlands, farms, and the like from developers, big box stores, and strip malls.
Despite the graciousness in Wolfe’s portrayal of Jackson’s posturing (while providing the truth behind the veil), her defense of the DEP’s ability to work effectively under its current staff and funding constraints sounds like spin to me; I’d have preferred if she’d said, as Chairman Smith did, “All the laws in the world won’t have any positive impact on the State’s ecosystem unless these programs are being implemented properly and monitored constantly”–and recognized that given the state of the DEP today, this is not possible.
It’s unconscionable that environmental justice and urban health were not mentioned, especially given the contamination of land on which schools and daycares in the state have been sited in recent years, the re-use of former dry cleaning and manufacturing sites before they were sufficiently tested, air quality, problems that still continue with lead paint in poor areas, the issues Wolfe cites above, and more.
Thank you, Wolfe, for pointing out this enormous lacuna in Commissioner Jackson’s testimony to those of us who may not have noticed it.
Strengthening the toxic site cleanup program is essential, but how about strengthening measures to ensure that we do not produce more such sites?
Did Jackson mention requiring stronger open disclosure of chemicals kept on site and enforcement of strict measures for those who do not comply with disclosure reporting? Or developing a more effective and efficient plan for our toxic and hazardous waste disposal–at the community level, with more accessible hazardous-waste recycling, as well as at the corporate level?
Had the Precautionary Principle been foundational to the state’s strategy in the past we’d likely not be confronted with the insane contamination of our water and land now. Hopefully it is not to late install the Precautionary Principle as a central lens through which the DEP views every issue.
It didn’t sound as if there was much concrete “testimony” about measures to preserve our water, not surprising since the DEP seems to have just weakened its buffer regulations.
And then there are the tough–and very specific–questions about the Highland Act’s RMP (draft revised plan for implementation of the Act) and whether in its current form it would guarantee clean water for the future. It’s a shame Jackson did not disclose her suggested revisions to the RMP or discuss the plan in more detail, both raising critical questions and asking for input from local activist groups who are on the front lines trying desperately to save our remaining open lands, wetlands, farms, and the like from developers, big box stores, and strip malls.
Despite the graciousness in Wolfe’s portrayal of Jackson’s posturing (while providing the truth behind the veil), her defense of the DEP’s ability to work effectively under its current staff and funding constraints sounds like spin to me; I’d have preferred if she’d said, as Chairman Smith did, “All the laws in the world won’t have any positive impact on the State’s ecosystem unless these programs are being implemented properly and monitored constantly”–and recognized that given the state of the DEP today, this is not possible.
The back pedaling on the Oyster Creek issue is a symptom of the same problem that brought the dismantling of the toxic site cleanup program (instead of cleaning up toxic site – we build schools on them), the abandonment of the well head protection program (that was suppose protect the water supply of the %50 percent on NJ that rely on wells and don’t get its water from the highlands), the indefinite extensions given to coal power plants to meet air quality standards, the joke of an environmental justice program that allows and urban residents to be exposed to excessive toxics, the clear cutting of the pinelands protection area for power lines and the abandonment of the watershed protection program. Ms. Jackson is not in charge of environmental agenda. She is in charge of putting an environmental window dressing on a corporate agenda. And she’s pretty good at it.
Thanks for the excellent commentary, Wolfe. I enjoyed reading the real story, and more in depth analysis, especially on the many facets of the DEP I’m less familiar with.
Bravo, Wolfe! Great to hear that Ms. Jackson too realizes the numerous faults in the draft Highlands RMP, and completely disappointing that the Governor doesn’t get it or isn’t willing to listen to her.
What is even more disappointing is the the Gov’s “freeze” on spending will no doubt insure that those 200 missing DEP employee positions remain unfilled for the near future, probably means additional cuts, and therefore further diminsh the DEP’s enforcement abilities.
Would a comparison of Corzine to Bush in their ability to “Talk green but act brown” be inappropriate here?
Wolfe here – Sorry for the delay in reply folks, I just got back from a meeting in Flemington of the Highlands Council’s presentation to the Hunterdon County folks on the “opt in” provisions of the Highlands Act.
1. Isbjorn1, you are exactly right – I was trying to be kind to the Commissioner and avoid an perception of a personal attack. Perhaps I was too kind – please keep writing about and advocating for repairing the dep flaws that you note.
2. jerseyswamp2 is a real swamp buster! Yes, absolutely, a corporate agenda is the Corzine policy, and Jackson legitimizes the environmental destruction end of it. You are virtually he only one that’s talked about the lack of a well head protection program, which is absurd in a state like NJ where almost half the residents of the state rely on groundwater and there are 16,000 toxic sites (we know about) pollution spoil and groundwater.
3. spacemom – thanks. This is exactly what I set up this blog to do – tell the inside story and explain the ramifications behind the official spin and the superficial media coverage. MAybe if the public begins to understand that DEP is not necessarily looking out for them, we can build pressure for change.
4. bryamaniac – you the man. I agree with the comparison to Bush “talk green but act brown”, but we haven’t (yet) gotten nearly as bad as Bush. The lies and deceptions and hypocrisy are on a par, though, and maybe worse, because the public expects better from a liberal democratic “pro environment” governor in a strongly pro environment state.
Wolfe here – Sorry for the delay in reply folks, I just got back from a meeting in Flemington of the Highlands Council’s presentation to the Hunterdon County folks on the “opt in” provisions of the Highlands Act.
1. Isbjorn1, you are exactly right – I was trying to be kind to the Commissioner and avoid an perception of a personal attack. Perhaps I was too kind – please keep writing about and advocating for repairing the dep flaws that you note.
2. jerseyswamp2 is a real swamp buster! Yes, absolutely, a corporate agenda is the Corzine policy, and Jackson legitimizes the environmental destruction end of it. You are virtually he only one that’s talked about the lack of a well head protection program, which is absurd in a state like NJ where almost half the residents of the state rely on groundwater and there are 16,000 toxic sites (we know about) pollution spoil and groundwater.
3. spacemom – thanks. This is exactly what I set up this blog to do – tell the inside story and explain the ramifications behind the official spin and the superficial media coverage. MAybe if the public begins to understand that DEP is not necessarily looking out for them, we can build pressure for change.
4. bryamaniac – you the man. I agree with the comparison to Bush “talk green but act brown”, but we haven’t (yet) gotten nearly as bad as Bush. The lies and deceptions and hypocrisy are on a par, though, and maybe worse, because the public expects better from a liberal democratic “pro environment” governor in a strongly pro environment state.
I got to see you in action tonight in Flemington. I sleep better knowing you are here. And hey, if you have any thoughts on what you heard tonight, I look forward to hearing them. After listening to all of the hemming and hawing tonight, isn’t it a no brainer that if you have portions of your municipality in both preservation and planning, that Highlands opt-in is the way to go? I say let’s get on with it.
Thanks Stone!
I live in a wood cottage in West Amwell – agree that there was lots of avoidance tonight on critical questions.
I will write to lay out the Council has it all wrong on the “opt in” process, why they failed to comp,y qwith the amdate of the act to designate “no build” preservation zones; and some aspects of planning area protections and standards.
In my view, planning area towns should be banging down the Council’s door to “opt in” to the more environmentally protective standards in the preservation area. These include far lower densities and far less development and thus lower taxes and a better community.
This is a no brainer – residents of these towns need to get active and start pressuring municipal elected officials to jump start the opt in process.
The state plan must be rejected for the Highlands.