Alert: More Political Science Coming To DEP
It is beyond shortsighted and recklessly foolish to reduce coastal flood protections at a time when global warming science is telling us that there will be sea level rise and an increased frequency and intensity of coastal storms.
We have been predicting the increasing politicization and abuse of science by the newly created DEP Science Advisory Board (SAB). We have warned that the SAB would become involved in regulatory issues, inject political and economic issues into science, and be used to provide political cover for bad decisions by DEP.
DEP has repeatedly denied all that and made assurances that the SAB would stick to science.
Well, sure enough, we were correct.
The first issue the SAB will engage is a political one having nothing to do with science: LOWERING the height of dunes that provide flood protection for Atlantic City.
According to today’s Press of Atlantic City (“Department of Environmental Protection to consider allowing decrease in Atlantic City dunes height“):
City officials and 2nd Legislative District lawmakers met privately with the department Thursday to find a compromise between aesthetics and storm protection.
“The dune is providing shore protection. But we’re looking at the dune as it relates to scenic resources and visual access to the waterfront,” said Assistant DEP Commissioner Marilyn Lennon, who oversees land use.
Lennon said the newly created Science Advisory Board will examine the city’s request as one of its first tasks. The advisory board was created by Gov. Chris Christie to evaluate state policies based on science, but to also consider the costs and benefits of decisions. Several business officials sit on the board.
“We will consider this as part of the new administration’s approach at looking at all our rules and regulations,” Lennon said.
Wow! Lennon is way off base. Talk about muddled thinking!
First of all, the aesthetics of views from the boardwalk are purely subjective and have nothing to do with science. The science can examine the increased flooding risks of lowering the height of the dunes. But there is no scientifically valid method to compare or balance these risks with alleged aesthetic benefits.
That comparison is not science, it is a policy call.
It is unfair to task scientists with such an assignment. Worse, it is purely an attempt by DEP to avoid accountability for DEP managers to ask the SAB to do so.
Second, the SAB is not empowered under its enabling Administrative Order to consider economic costs and benefits. The appointees to the SAB are scientists, not economists.
Furthermore, Governor Christie’s Executive Order #2, which mandates cost benefit analysis (CBA) in decision-making, applies to DEP, not the SAB. So again, it is simply wrong to ask scientists to become economists and do a CBA.
Third, this is a regulatory policy issue. DEP has repeatedly denied our complaints that the SAB would become involved in regulatory issues and not stick to the science.
Fourth, there won’t be any tourists on the boardwalk if it gets washed out by storm surge.
It is beyond shortsighted and recklessly foolish to reduce protections at a time when global warming science is telling us that there will be sea level rise and an increased frequency and intensity of coastal storms.
We need to be increasing shore protections in light of these increasing risks!
And a minor correction is in order. The SAB was created by former DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, during the Corzine Administration DEP. The appointments to the SAB were made by current DEP Commissioner Bob Martin, but almost all of them had previously been made but not publicly announced by outgoing Acting Commissioner Mark Mauriello.
[Update: clarification: I do not consider beach replenishment as a coastal protection (see this 11/16/09 post). Even DEP, in reports submitted to US EPA, has found that false public perception a barrier to reducing coastal hazards. DEP wrote:
All of the impediments to meeting this 309 programmatic objective that appeared in the last New Jersey Coastal Zone Section 309 Assessment and Strategy remain. These include lobbying efforts of special interest groups, legal challenges to DEP permit decisions, provision of flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program, and public perception that large-scale beach nourishment projects eliminate vulnerability to coastal hazards.
(ps – note to Tittel and Dillingham: Strap it on gentlemen. This is not a “tough call” or an issue you signal “compromise” on.
