WolfeNotes.com

Don’t Blame just the Rain
Here we go again.
Another statewide flood.
And the press will write stories quoting weathermen. And all they will talk about is the rainfall.
The unstated premise is that we can’t control the rain. But that dis-empowering notion is false and diverts attention from the real causes and factors we can control.
Flooding is caused by the interaction of rainfall with the landscape. Extent of flooding is related to land use and development controls, stormwater management, flood prevention, and infrastructure systems that are put in place, funded, managed and enforced by governments.
More pavement & rooftops – and continued destruction of forests, wetlands and stream buffers – means more flooding. PERIOD.
Goodness sakes, just two weeks ago DEP issued a press release bragging about the wonderful job they were doing on stormwater management:
DEP REPORT SHOWS MUNICIPALITIES ARE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS MEETING STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
TRENTON – A new Department of Environmental Protection report demonstrates that New Jersey’s municipalities are making good progress toward implementing programs that will reduce the impact of pollutants that are carried into the Garden State’s waterways through stormwater runoff, Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson announced today. http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2008/08_0011.htm
Doesn’t anyone want to hold DEP accountable to that spin?
What ever became of the Governor’s Flood Task Force?
STATE FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2005/05_0093.htm
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/Flood%20Mitigation%20TF.pdf
GOVERNOR CORZINE ANNOUNCES NEW FLOOD CONTROL RULES http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/approved/20060823a.html
Are DEP and the Governor walking the walk on flood prevention? Is sufficient funding in place? Are regulations being enforced? Are we losing the war on sprawl?
Here are some sources to consider in asking those important questions::
1. DEP to Flood Victims: Protection “Cost Prohibitive”
$38 BILLION for tolls, $380 million for bond consultants, and NJ can’t find money to map where the flood risks are? http://www.nj.com/njvoices/index.ssf/2008/02/dep_to_flood_victims_protectio.html
2. Ignoring Climate Change – In the Highlands, past is not prologue. One thing global warming science makes clear is that the future will not be like the past – droughts and floods will be more frequent and severe. We are already experiencing 50 to100-year interval droughts and floods in 5 to 10-year cycles. http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/02/potemkin_plan_highlands_plan_a.html
3. DEP weakens protections of stream buffers http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/02/dep_weakens_protections_of_str.html
4. DEP budget cuts are backdoor polluters agenda http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/02/dep_budget_cuts_are_backdoor_p.html
“The strengths of this budget policy are that polluters bear the burden of DEP regulatory oversight, not the taxpayers. The drawbacks, however, are that critical and popular programs like State parks, forestry, fish & wildlife, flood control, science, air & water quality monitoring, global warming, and policy & planning are severely underfunded and neglected.
5. Letter to Commissioner Jackson on loopholes in new flood hazard rules: http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/stream_encroac_%20rules.pdf
6. NEW JERSEY CUTS DEEPLY INTO PROTECTED STREAM BUFFERS — Commissioner Revokes Her Year-Old Order, Leaving Buffers at Mercy of Politics http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=986
7. NEW JERSEY WATER TESTS UNDERSTATE POLLUTION — County Complains Standard Does Not Truly Measure Development Impacts http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=916
8. “Ocean County, just south of Monmouth, found the DEP regulatory estimation method severely under-estimates stormwater runoff volumes and impacts from development;” http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/Impact%20of%20Soil%20Disturbance.pdf
9. WHEN IT RAINS…IT FLOODS — New Jersey Continues to Lose War on Sprawl New Figures Show http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=845
10. NEW JERSEY FLOATS DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES ON CLEAN WATER FUNDS — Golf Courses, Transit Villages and Transferable Building Rights Are Eligible Projects http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=813
11. HUGE NEW JERSEY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS NOT BEING MET — State’s Economic Future Threatened by Not Investing in Environmental Quality http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=764
12. JERSEY SHORE HIGHLY VULNERABLE TO STORMS AND SEA LEVEL RISE — Environmentalists Urge Corzine Administration to Include Global Warming and Land Use Reforms in Pending Insurance Industry Bailout http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=755
13. NEW JERSEY ABANDONS ADDED STREAM PROTECTIONS — DEP Employees’ Recommendations Pushed Aside As Persistent Flooding Worsens http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=563
14. FLOOD REDUCTION PLANS STUCK IN THE MUCK — New Jersey DEP Delays Enforcement Despite Big Flood Toll http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=552

Bill WolfeAssembly Environment Committee Chairman, John McKeon (D/Essex).

The Assembly Environment Committee today was scheduled to hear two bills related to the controversial issue of children’s exposure to toxic chemicals while in school. Wisely avoiding opening a huge can of worms, the Committee took no testimony and decided to table the bills for further consideration by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). See:”The Chemical Schools Cleanout Pilot Program
(A1313(McKeon/Stender)http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A1500/1319_I1.HTM – a bill to establish a “school chemical management program” (A 1769 (WatsonColeman/Scalera)http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A2000/1769_I1.HTM
As demonstrated by a series of fiasco’s across the state, NJ has major problems with potential exposure of children to toxic chemicals while at school. Had these bills been heard, they would have been panned as avoiding the real problems (See:A Tale of Two Toxic Schools – What are we telling our kids when we put them in these environments? http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/02/a_tale_of_two_toxic_schools_ho.html
The problems stem from NJ’s flawed DEP toxic site cleanup program. Under the “urban brownfields” logic, laws that previously sought to cleanup sites to protect human health now are focused almost exclusively on promoting economic redevelopment. Lax DEP oversight provides Incentives to cut corners – often at the cost of proper cleanup. Due to a large number of toxic sites (over 16,000) and a scarcity of develop-able clean land, reckless urban brownfields redevelopment laws are now impacting school sites and children as well. For an absolutely mind numbing expose’ of the problem, see: New Jersey Program Bought Polluted Lands for Low-income Schools –

Bill WolfeAbandoned housing behind Early Childhood Development Center, Camden, NJ.

“In what critics consider one of the more blatant examples of environmental racism, a fund supposedly intended to give a leg up to impoverished pupils of color was used to put them at risk while favoring private developers” http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3800
Here are illustrations of the just some of the problems yet to be addressed by state officials:

Bill WolfeParamus Middle School, Paramus, NJ.

1. No Parental Notification Parents are typically the last to know if there are toxic problems at school. In Paramus – an upscale Bergen County community – the discovery of a small pile of pesticide contaminated soil caused a huge furor, and forced the resignation of the Superintendent, who had failed to disclose and then covered up the problem. A bill has been introduced to mandate parental notification of toxic problems at schools S480(Gordon – D/Bergen)http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/S0500/480_I1.HTM
Yet, at a controversial school site in Allentown, contrary to the community’s demands, DEP approved of capping and “blending” highly contaminated pesticide soils at the school site. There are scores of schools with far greater risks than Paramus where information intentionally has been withheld from parents -including the fact that schools are located on or nearby partially cleaned up toxic sites. Parents in nearby Garfield didn’t know their kids were going to a school where a cleanup was not yet complete, or that the school foundation itself served as a “cap” in the DEP approved cleanup plan (imagine that: sending your child to a building that technically and legally was part of a toxic site cleanup.)
2. Lax oversight/shoddy school construction.

Bill WolfeMiddle School, Neptune, NJ.Millions of dollars were wasted to tear down poor construction.

NJ State Inspector General Cooper issued a scathing report to former Governor Codey regarding mismanagement of the Schools Construction Corporation(SCC).http://www.state.nj.us/oig/pdf/njscc_preliminary_report.pdf
Among the mismanagement, IG Cooper found that over $330 million had been spent on purchase of sites “patently unsuitable” for schools – this does not include millions in resulting toxic cleanup costs for contaminated sites that never should have been bought.See:RADIOACTIVE SCHOOL SITE IS TIP OF NEW JERSEY TOXIC ICEBERG — Over 100 School Site approvals expedited under Secret Deal http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=679
The SCC has reckless judgment as well as deep pockets, while DEP looks the other way and refuses to tighten cleanup standards at school sites. DEP even signed off on an SCC plan to build a school at a contaminated former Manhattan Project site in Union City. In blowing the whistle on that site, NJ PEER disclosed a secret Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the SCC and the DEP. http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/06_24_4_dep_moa.pdf
To implement the State’s effort to expedite school construction, the MOA explicitly relaxed safeguards and expedited DEP environmental review of toxic school sites (see: NEW JERSEY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION REFORM GETS FAILING MARKS — No Environmental Reviews Prior to Building More Schools on Toxic Sites http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=899
As a result of this disclosure and the Union City fiasco, the MOA was revoked. Since then, the Legislature has abolished the SCC and replaced it with the Schools Development Authority (SDA). But many underlying problems remain. See: TOXIC SCHOOL SCANDAL SPOTLIGHTS WEAK NEW JERSEY LAW — Parents Get No Notice of Child’s Exposure in Deregulated State Clean-Up Program http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=864
3. Poor School Siting, reckless land acquisition, lax environmental oversight

Bill WolfeDemolition of Jefferson School, Trenton, NJ.
SCC wasted $25 million in taxpayer dollars to demolish the partially built Martin Luther King replacement school because SCC contractors imported toxic soil to the site as clean fill.

Bill WolfeFederal toxic Superfund site selected as a Middle School site, Gloucester City, NJ.
Millions of educational dollars wasted on toxic cleanup and buying out homes and relocating residents.

4. Toxic chemical vapors seeping into schools
There are several examples of where schools have been impacted by toxic vapors seeping into the school – a Franklin (Warren Co.) school was impacted by solvents from a federal Superfund site. Parents and children in schools and day care facilities in Gloucester, Middlesex and Ocean Counties have been affected as well. Thousands of homes are at unknown risks.

Bill WolfeMiddle School, Garfield, NJ.In foreground are soil and groundwater wells to monitor toxic chemical vapors during active cleanup while school is occupied

5. Partial cleanup, caps & engineering controls

Bill WolfeEarly Childhood Development Center, Camden, NJ.

Bill WolfeECDC under construction. Camden NJ.
The center is located on top of an old dump. Due to inadequate DEP cleanup, high levels of toxic chemicals remain in soils under the building and at the site.

6. Environmental Injustice

Bill WolfeEarly Childhood Development Center, Camden, NJ.
Construction workers told me that installation of pipes 3 feet under this portion of the building unearthed all sorts of debris. This discovery conflicted with what the story they were told that 8-12 feet of soil across th entire site had been excavated prior to construction.

Scores of schools built on toxic waste sites are in poor, black, and disadvantaged “Abbott District” communities. For example, th Early Childhood Development Center (ECDC) in Camden is located on a former dump. Toxic chemicals in soils and groundwater exceed DEP toxic cleanup standards and DEP is not taking enforcement action against the original polluters. I was told by workers at the site that construction had unearthed old garbage, debris, tires and contaminated soils. This is a racist policy that puts children at risk and diverts scarce educational dollars..

Bill WolfeUnsecured abandoned dump across the street from ECDC. Camden, NJ.

7. Pollution sources nearby poisoning kids
The health risks of toxic exposure to kids are not limited to urban areas or toxic waste sites. Air pollution sources nearby schools – such as chemical facilities or truck stops – poison kids too:

Bill WolfeHigh School. Paulsboro, NJ.

Bill WolfeTruck stop – Mahwah High School just feet away in background.
Diesel fumes impact kids at school and on athletic fields directly above truck stop.

8. Real estate deals and developers rule – Flawed Brownfields Policy
State toxic site cleanup laws promote redevelopment at the expense of public health.The DEP needs to regain control of the construction industry and the movement of toxic contaminated soils, Under current law, DEP has very little oversight – an industrial construction site is treated no differently than a school yard. This is crazy.

Bill WolfeMartin Luther King School site, surrounded by homes in Trenton, NJ. Importation and previously existing contaminated soils outraged the community and forced a $25 million demolition of the partially built school.