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.

A dispute in Washington Township (Morris County) illustrates at least three significant statewide policy issues that stem from flaws in New Jersey’s Water Supply Management Act and how it is implemented by DEP.

The first is the lack of legal authority for DEP to regulate the withdrawal of water by farmers regardless of competing uses for water supply and/or impacts on the environment. Into that legal void, farmers generate expansive and false expectations under the Right to Farm Act. But the Right To Farm Act does not provide any protections to pollute or deplete public water supplies.

The second is failure of DEP to enforce clean water laws to restrict use of chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers) by farmers to protect public health and the  environment.

And the third is the lack of an overall rational policy framework to address issues of allocating water among competing water users and the environment, due to failure by DEP to Update the Statewide Water Supply Master Plan since 1996.

But you wouldn’t know any of that that by reading the news coverage of this dispute, in fact, you might get exactly the opposite impression.

The coverage did not bring those issues out because it incompletely defined the issue by  focusing too heavily on the use of eminent domain to condemn private property.

The Morris Daily Record reported: “NJ opposes Washington Township MUA bid to seize private Long Valley Far to dig wells”.

At issue is a plan by the township authority to invoke eminent domain and take over 0.86-acres on both the Smith farm on Drakestown Road and the Searles farm on Flocktown Road for the installment of public water wells. Both farms are in agricultural development areas, where agriculture is the preferred use of the land. Additionally, both farms are located within the Highlands Preservation Area.

Does the Record reporter know that the primary objective of the Preservation Area is the protection of public water supply for half the State’s residents? (that’s both water quality and water quantity protection – “clean and plentiful”, as the DEP slogan goes).

The Star Ledger story also failed to engage the key issues because – like the Morris Daily Record – it allowed the farmers to define the problem.

In doing that, the story unfortunately created a false impression that the lack of state authority was limited to an inability to block the use of eminent domain to condemn private property for public uses; and that the use of pesticides and fertilizers is strictly limited (i.e “prohibited”) to protect water supplies:

The problem, said Hope Gruzlovic, spokeswoman for the Agricultural Development Committee, is that the two farms are in an Agricultural Development Area, a designation awarded by Morris County, which means that agriculture is the preferred use of the land.

Digging wells on the two working farms would have “unreasonably adverse impacts on the preservation and enhancement of agriculture,” Gruzlovic said.

Pesticides, herbicides and livestock would all be prohibited for fear of contaminating the water supply.

“It limits the type of agricultural activity that can take place on the farm,” Gruzlovic said. …

…  The state cannot stop the MUA and has only the power to delay the project and hold a public hearing.

“Beyond that, its authority is limited to recommendations,” Gruzlovic said.

No, the County Ag designation is not THE problem (and there is not just one problem and it can not be defined by one special interest group) and the far more important limit in State authority is inability to regulate agricultural withdraw of water.

New Jersey is entering another drought and some portions of the state are under drought emergency conditions. For example, last week, DEP issued a drought watch for the northeastern region of the state and Bergen County Executive imposed  mandatory water conservation requirements.

Yet while people and businesses are being asked - and in some cases legally forced - to conserve water, farmers are under no such obligations.

In fact, DEP has no legal power to restrict the use of water by farmers.

That’s right, regardless of the severity of the drought emergency,farmers can continue business as usual. As I wrote on August 11:

4. Develop a management program to better restrict and impose allocation requirements on farmers. Under current rules, a DEP issued water alllocation permit is NOT required for agricultural uses, regardless of volume or impact. An Agricultural Water Usage Certificationor Agricultural Water Use Registration must be obtained from the County agricultural agent if a person has the capability to withdraw ground and/or surface water in excess of 100,000 gallons per day for agricultural, aquacultural or horticultural purposes.

Obviously, that is not good public policy and it must be reformed.

And I didn’t even mention the fact that not only does farm irrigation have large impacts on the environment (e.g. by depleting groundwater and reducing stream base flow), farming is one of the biggest polluters of groundwater (e.g. nitrates from fertilizers) and nearby streams via runoff of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics used on the farm.

Farmers have to become part of the water supply solution, instead of part of the problem.

This Op-Ed ran today in the Asbury Park Press - I was given 700 words and I appreciate their commitment to this story.

People really need to start asking about where the NJ environmental groups are on these issues, because they supported a package of bills that they must know will not work:

Bills to save bay not sufficient

State must provide funding, develop enforceable standards

Barnegat Bay has been described as the second-most-polluted bay in the United States — first prize goes to Chesapeake Bay. While there are significant differences between the two bays, they share common threats — pollution, overdevelopment and habitat loss. The solutions to these problems also share a common thread.

The Asbury Park Press’ superb series “Barnegat Bay Under Stress” documented the problems and helped galvanize a scientific and political consensus that the bay is dying and must be restored. Last week, after more than a year of deliberation, a joint legislative panel released a package of four bills purported to protect and restore the ecological health of the bay. Unfortunately, those bills offer up piecemeal, loophole-ridden, scientifically baseless and unfunded schemes that will not work.

The core bill, to merely allow Ocean County to create a stormwater utility, is opposed by the county. Rather than taking direct state action, our legislators, like Blanche DuBois in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” rely on “the kindness of strangers” to turn around a deteriorating situation.

A better approach can be found in examining the recent set of reforms enacted to fix Chesapeake Bay. The management failures that brought the Chesapeake to the edge of ecological collapse are echoed in Barnegat Bay.

Back in 2004, The Washington Post exposed the fact that managers of the Chesapeake Bay program were inflating progress and misleading the public about the health of the bay. Congress directed the Government Accountability Office to investigate the program. In a 2005 report, the GAO found that despite having spent more than $5 billion in direct aid and support funds over the prior decade, the Chesapeake Bay’s health actually was declining.

GAO recommended that the administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency develop a “comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy” for restoring the Chesapeake.

Responding to the GAO report, President Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson took a series of dramatic steps.

In a May 2009 executive order, Obama took federal control of the previously locally driven management program. The order also assured progress, performance and accountability by mandating legally enforceable standards and imposing numeric goals for pollution reduction and timetables for action.

Jackson backed that up by appointing a well-respected environmentalist and former head of Maryland’s environmental agency to lead the new program. Jackson also invoked the Clean Water Act’s Total Maximum Daily Load regulatory program to replace the failed voluntary partnership effort. A TMDL caps pollutant loading and mandates reductions in pollution to achieve water quality standards.

The same science-based and comprehensive Clean Water Act quality standards and regulatory tools are available to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection but it has yet to step up to the plate. It doesn’t have water quality standards for nitrogen pollution, which is killing the bay, or water quality monitoring and assessment methods to measure the bay’s ecological decline.

To save Barnegat Bay, legislators would need to direct DEP to adopt those necessary reforms. And the Legislature would have to provide funds, not just rhetoric, to back up these regulatory tools. For instance, backing its commitment to restoring the Chesapeake, the state of Maryland recently enacted a $2.50 per month “flush tax” on homes to pay for necessary upgrades at sewage treatment plants to cut pollution loads.

The Barnegat has different infrastructure needs than the Chesapeake, but similar financial challenges. So instead of relying on the kindness of strangers, New Jersey legislators could tailor a suite of small dedicated fees paid by the sources of pollution — businesses, homeowners, recreational users (marinas, jet skiers) and summer tourists — to fund an effective program.

Annual revenues from those fees could securitize the large infrastructure upgrade and restoration program required to save the bay. This investment would be well worth the cost; the bay produces more than $3.4 billion each year in economic benefits. On top of that, homeowners have hundreds of billions of dollars in equity invested in a healthy bay.

Continued inaction will cause the collapse of these tremendous and irreplaceable ecological and economic assets. The loss of Barnegat Bay as a functioning body of water is not an option.

Bill Wolfe is director of NJ PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) and a former policy analyst and planner with the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Connecting the dots and stating what I thought was the obvious, on July 1, I wrote “Heat, Drought Threat Linked to Global Warming”. Becoming more frustrated, I openly criticized the media’s “freak show” coverage of the science in this August post.

But in an earlier April 6, 2010 post “Adapt or Die“, I posed a challenge with this question:

Why is the relationship between global warming and increased storm frequency/intensity/pattern rarely if ever made by the same tired meteorologists quoted in the NJ news stories?

Well, now that the New York Times has broken the ice and answered the same question in a page one story “In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming“, perhaps that gives our NJ State Climatologist and journalists permission to state the obvious and honestly discuss the science.

According to the Times:

The floods battered New England, then Nashville, then Arkansas,then Oklahoma — and were followed by a deluge in Pakistan that has upended the lives of 20 million people.

The summer’s heat waves baked the eastern United States, parts of Africa and eastern Asia, and above all Russia, which lost millions of acres of wheat and thousands of lives in a drought worse than any other in the historical record.

Seemingly disconnected, these far-flung disasters are reviving the question of whether global warming is causing more weather extremes.

The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably.

“The climate is changing,” said Jay Lawrimore, chief of climate analysis at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “Extreme events are occurring with greater frequency, and in many cases with greater intensity.”

OK guys and gals, the Grey Lady, “the paper of record”, has opened the door.

It’s now safe to write the story – you can cite the Times as insulation from the backlash you will get from the global warming deniers out there.

Go for it!

[Update - a friend passed along this information in an email note: I checked the first 3 stories, all ow which were after the NY Times story ran. The Times is the news gatekeeper, and they opened the door on and legitimized this story. Other papers frequently follow the lead of the Grey Lady.

Actually, the Washington Post serves the same function and they were the first I saw to begin to connect the dots with this August 11 story: “Huge ice island could pose threat to oil, shipping“

Do storms, heat prove global warming is real? Palm Beach Post (blog) Because of human-fueled global warming, one scientist said, “Extreme events are occurring with greater frequency, and in many cases with greater intensity. … See all stories on this topic » Palm Beach Post (blog)

Russia fires caused by global warming? Maybe not, say scientists. Christian Science Monitor The Kremlin’s top meteorologist said that Russia’s recent spate of extreme weather and wildfires ‘are signs of global warming.’ That’s not quite right, … See all stories on this topic » Christian Science Monitor

Global Warming Protects Antarctic Sea Ice — But Not For Long Wired News A new study finds that global warming is responsible for snowfall that’s expanded the range of Southern Ocean sea ice, even as western Antarctic glaciers … See all stories on this topic » Wired News

Official: Russian disaster sign of global warming The Associated Press Taken together, they “are signs of global warming,” Bedritsky, who also serves as president the World Meteorological Organization, said at a news conference … See all stories on this topic »

Global warming: World’s highest island glacier vanishing Christian Science Monitor The glacier on Puncak Jaya in Papua, Indonesia, the Earth’s highest island, is quickly melting away, giving geologists little time to extract ice core … See all stories on this topic » Christian Science Monitor

TWC’s Stu Ostro talks weather-climate links Washington Post AF: What do you tell people who ask questions such as, “is this heat wave because ofglobal warming,” or “is this flood because of global warming? … See all stories on this topic » Washington Post

Hammer Forum: Global Warming (Jeff Biggers & Cleo Paskal) Los Angeles Independent Global Warming: Cause and Consequence with Jeff Biggers and Cleo Paskal. Jeff Biggers, the author of Reckoning at Eagle Creek: The Secret legacy of Coal in … See all stories on this topic »

Colorado Republican Ken Buck: I Believe In Global Warming — But Humans Aren’t … TPMDC (blog) Global warming? Colorado Republican Senate nominee Ken Buck believes in it — but that doesn’t mean there’s anything we can do about it. … See all stories on this topic » TPMDC (blog)

Crisp: Electric Car faces ideology, market issues Scripps News Or who at least want to appear as if they care about pollution and global warming. The Volt, Goldberg says, is an expensive gadget that will help “affluent … See all stories on this topic »

Sunspots are behind climate change, Johnson says Milwaukee Journal Sentinel A global warming skeptic, Johnson said extreme weather phenomena were better explained by sunspots than an overload of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, … See all stories on this topic »

How Much is Your Life Worth - And Who Decides That Value?

I have long written about the evils of Governor Christie’s Cost-Benefit Policy in his Executive Order #2 (and to set the record straight, we broke today’s radon story with this July disclosure: RADIOACTIVE WELLS POSE BIGGER RISKS IN NEW JERSEY — Hundreds of Thousands Exposed Daily to Rad Levels Many Times over Safety Limits”)

Examples of that fatally flawed policy are starting to percolate to the surface – just like the hand of the dead body that pops above the surface of the water at the end of the movie “Deliverance”.

According to today’s Daily Record:

The 2009 report estimated it would cost between $480,000 and $1.4 million for water systems to install remediation systems. Statewide, using the 800 picocuries standard, the institute placed the total cost at $78.8 million. Estimating it would save 195 lives, that breaks down to a cost of about $404,000 per life saved.

The report calculated the cost for a more stringent standard of 300 picocuries, the toughest being considered by the EPA, and found that would save 368 lives, but at a cost of $785,000 each, for a total cost to the state of $288.7 million.

Ragonese said that as the DEP considers setting a standard, it will consider how well it would “protect public health and meet other considerations of the Governor, such as consultation with affected parties and economic efficiency.”

DEP will decide, based on “other considerations” and “economic efficiency”" – right.  But don’t say we didn’t warn you.

[Update: 8/19/10 - maybe Obama migth walk back the Gulf comments in light of the science: Report Paints New Picture of Gulf Oil as reported by PBS Newshour Gulf Oil Plume Map Adds to Debate Over Spill's Undersea Impact and concerns of Congressman Markey and scientific testimony at Tuesday's House hearing: Hearing on “The BP Oil Spill: Accounting for the Spilled Oil and Ensuring the Safety of Seafood from the Gulf" - I mean, even the New York Times said so! ]

Change? How is this any different in terms of propaganda than Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” flight deck photo-op? Or EPA Administrator Christie Whitman declaring the air safe after 9/11?

We’d like to thank all those environmental groups that focus so heavily on beach “water quality” for enabling moments like this. Will even one criticize Obama for this move?

Maybe Governor Christie will take the plunge in Barnegat Bay next week – “Jellyfish? We don’t need no stinkin’ jellyfish” – and claim the Bay is pure and open for business.

Obama takes plunge, swims in Gulf

Obama swims in Gulf, says beaches open for business

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That’s how it goes
And Everybody knows ~~~ “Everybody Knows” Leonard Cohen (1988)

Yesterday, the annual special summer shore session of the joint Senate and Assembly Environment Committees released a package of four bills purportedly designed to stop the decline and restore the ecological health of Barnegat Bay. DEP failed to testify.

The following report on the hearing is provided in three parts – please hit the links for important information: Part I, Background; Part II, Problem Diagnosis; and Part III, Proposed Solutions.

I) Background

The hearing was standing room only, packed with about 300 or more Bay supporters. The turnout was the result of years of campaigning and an all out organizing effort by all of NJ’s leading environmental groups.  From senior citizens to kids dressed up as jellyfish, the turnout was a powerful expression of public support for doing something real to “save the Bay” .

The hearing was preceded by a week-long page one outstanding in depth investigative news series of the Bay’s problems by the Asbury Park Press, written by NJ’s most veteran environmental reporters, Kirk Moore and Todd Bates – see “Barnegat Bay Under Stress”.

The hearing follows a summer where jellyfish have proliferated in the Bay to the point that they have become an extreme nuisance, and very visible indicator of the Bay’s declining ecological health.

NBC TV NY affiliate reporter Brian Thompson summed it all up in this broadcast: “Stinging Jellyfish, Dead Bunker Fish, Dangerous Oysters: NJ Coast Under Stress”

Last August, another joint hearing took testimony from a series of experts on the Bay’s declining health. Scientific and political consensus emerged that the Bay was dying (see “All Quiet on the regulatory front – DEP sits on sidelines as Barnegat Bay is dying“).

During and in the wake of that August 2009 hearing, on a bipartisan basis, legislative leaders of both Senate and Assembly Committees supported and promised a  legislative package.

Since then, Republican Governor Christie, during the campaign and again as Governor, acknowledged the critical importance of the Bay and  made commitments to protect it.

Opponents were dealt a weak hand, forced to work behind the scenes, and mounted no credible public opposition.

In other words, there were supremely optimum conditions present to achieve a major victory in securing real legislative, regulatory, institutional, and financial commitments to restore the Bay. Environmentalists could have asked for the sun, moon, stars and the planets, and gotten most of it.

It just doesn’t get any better – science, politics, public support, media, and visible evidence of the problem. Comparatively,  these conditions were far better than those that have led to other major NJ environmental victories, most recently like the Highlands Act.

But despite this optimistic context, regretfully, I have to write about a total failure and huge missed opportunity that is being falsely praised in media circles and perversely celebrated as significant progress among Barnegat Bay supporters and activists.

And I am not talking here about legitimate disagreements over a political compromise legislative package, where the legitimate disagreements are over whether the package goes far enough or fast enough.

No, I am talking about fatal design flaws and omissions, some of which were known in advance, and thus suggest either cynical politics or cowardice. So let’s break  those issues out:

II)  Problem diagnosis ignores known management failures

Since 1995, the management of Barnegat Bay has been under the National Estuary Program. DEP and EPA have largely deferred to the local BBNEP process, which has replaced traditional federal and state roles.

The  NEP model relies on a voluntary, local, market based and consensus “partnership” approach to management, in-lieu of mandatory federal and state regulatory requirements available under the Clean Water Act.

Instead of rehashing the legislative history that led to the NEP in 1987 and the Whitman Administration’s designation of Barnegat bay for the NEP Program in 1995, here is EPA’ view of the approach of the NEP (Note: this occurred at the apex of the ideological period in which policymakers and industry lobbyists disparaged “regulatory command and control” while seeking  ”third way” local,  corporate, voluntary, and market based approaches to environmental problems)

EPA explained in “About the National Estuary Program”:

The National Estuary Program was established in 1987 by amendments to the Clean Water Act to identify, restore, and protect nationally significant estuaries of the United States. [View the authorizing legislation. Read about the program's 10th Anniversary.] Unlike traditional regulatory approaches to environmental protection, the NEP targets a broad range of issues and engages local communities in the process. …

The National Estuary Program is designed to encourage local communities to take responsibility for managing their own estuaries. Each NEP is made up of representatives from federal, state and local government agencies responsible for managing the estuary’s resources, as well as members of the community — citizens, business leaders, educators, and researchers. These stakeholders work together to identify problems in the estuary, develop specific actions to address those problems, and create and implement a formal management plan to restore and protect the estuary.

As such , the NEP model is a political compromise and alternative to the more powerful regulatory tools available under the federal and state Clean Water Acts.

The BBNEP has done excellent scientific studies and technical work, but it has failed miserably in managing the protection and restoration of the Bay. This failure is because it lacks effective legal and political power, enforceable management tools, and resources required to get the job done.

It is time to admit that and design solutions that reflect that knowledge.

These failure were brought out in a 2004 Washinton Post story that revealed that EPA was intentionally misleading Congress and the public about alleged progress being made in Chesapeake Bay titled: “Bay Pollution Progress Over-stated – Government Program’s Computer Model Proved Too Optimistic. But that optimism was in bad faith:

Several scientists affiliated with the Chesapeake Bay Program said the water monitoring reports offer a more reliable measure of pollution reduction than the computer estimates that the program has used.

“Basically, what we’re seeing is that the government has had its thumb on the scale for years,” said J. Charles Fox, former secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. “There’s no question now that the government was inflating progress in the Chesapeake Bay.”

He attributed the overstatements to “an institutional bias to show progress.”

The WaPo story led to a General Accounting Office Report -

The GAO Report: “Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies are Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress” prompted US EPA to acknowledge the weaknesses of the NEP in the Chesapeake Bay.

Congressional oversight also forced EPA to admit that they had been misleading Congress and the public for years about the performance of the Chesapeake NEP.

So where is the critical legislative oversight by the NJ legislature on very similar failures in Barnegat Bay? Where is the Governor? Where is DEP Commissioner Martin?

To respond to the Chesapeake crisis, on May 29, 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order titled: “Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration” (a must read!).

The Obama Order: a) revoked the NEP program lead, b) federalized the Chesapeake management effort under EPA lead control, c) invoked Clean Water Act regulatory tools, and d) assured progress, performance, and accountability by mandating legally enforceable standards and numeric pollution reduction goals and timetables for action. The Order said:

Despite significant efforts by Federal, State, and local governments and other interested parties, water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay prevents the attainment of existing State water quality standards and the “fishable and swimmable” goals of the Clean Water Act. At the current level and scope of pollution control within the Chesapeake Bay’s watershed, restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is not expected for many years. The pollutants that are largely responsible for pollution of the Chesapeake Bay are nutrients, in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus, and sediment. These pollutants come from many sources, including sewage treatment plants, city streets, development sites, agricultural operations, and deposition from the air onto the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and the lands of the watershed.

Restoration of the health of the Chesapeake Bay will require a renewed commitment to controlling pollution from all sources as well as protecting and restoring habitat and living resources, conserving lands, and improving management of natural resources, all of which contribute to improved water quality and ecosystem health. . The Federal Government should lead this effort.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recognized that priority by appointing  a “Czar” named Chuck Fox to lead the effort. Fox is a well respected environmentalist and former EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, Secretary of Maryland’s DNR, and Pew Environmental Group oceans expert (full disclosure: I worked at Pew when Fox was there).

EPA has invoked the Clean Water Act’s TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) program as the primary tool restore the Bay.

But instead of learning from the Chesapeake and the same mistakes made in NJ’s Barnegat Bay, we are repeating mistakes made because we fail to admit them.

Worse, we failed to propose reforms that can address these failures and provide adequate tools to solve the problems.

Shockingly, NJ environmental groups seem either totally ignorant of this entire major policy debate, or are willing co-conspirators in their own manipulation in failing to protect the Barnegat Bay.

III) Proposed Solutions – a quick and dirty on the four bill package

1) Soil compaction – (click for bill, S 1410)

A 2001 Ocean County Soil Conservation Service Report documented the problems associated with compacted soils. Compacted soils behave more like pavement than natural soils.

When it rains, this results in loss of groundwater recharge, lots of stormwater runoff, soil erosion, sedimentation, destruction of streams, flooding, destruction of habitat, pollution, and reduction of critical freshwater inputs to the Bay.

The Bay has lost over 30% of freshwater inputs from groundwater, streams, and rivers, which increases the temperature and salinity of the Bay, as well as increasing pollution concentrations (via less available dilution) that cause the eutrophication that is killing the Bay.

The biggest casue of soil compaction is the way builders develop on a site and use equipment – site preparation, construction, soil stockpiling, and demobilization are what compact the soil and cause the problem.

Yet NONE of these activities are regulated by the bill!

The bill only applies to post construction activities and restoration plans – it does not prevent or minimize soil compaction in the first place or limit construction practices that cause the problem.

As a result, it will not achieve its stated objectives. It is designed to fail.

In addition, th Monmouth County Health Department identified significant flaws in DEP water quality standards and monitoring and assessment programs that regulate the water quality aspects of the problems associated with soil compaction and stormwater runoff.

We disclosed both the Ocean County SCS soil compaction work and the Monmouth County criticism three years ago in this Report:

NEW JERSEY WATER TESTS UNDERSTATE POLLUTION — County Complains Standard Does Not Truly Measure Development Impacts

Yet the bill fails to address the serious flaws documented by Monmouth County, to direct DEP to correct or respond to those flaws, or to apply revised DEP standards to the soil compaction related and restoration plan water quality issues addressed by the bill.

Without soil compaction activities and site restoration plans subject to legally binding scientifically valid and  enforceable DEP water quality standards, the bill will not achieve it stated objectives.

2) Stormwater Utility ( 2 inter-related bills – S 1815 and S 1856)

I will only say one thing on this topic.

The bill is enabling, or  permissive, i.e. it merely allows Ocean County to develop and adopt the stormwater utility program outlined in the legislation. Ity does not mandate that they do so.

Accordingly, for the legislation to be effective, it must be supported and embraced by Ocean County.

But Ocean County Freeholders and Planning Board strongly, vehemently, and in arrogant detail flat out rejected the bill.

Senate Chairman and sponsor Bob Smith got in a rather nasty exchange with Freeholder Bartlett, who, topping off his rant in opposition to the bill, claimed that Smith was so arrogant he didn’t even reach out and meet with Ocean County officials.

Smith took exception to that and interrupted Bartlett. Correcting Bartlett, Smith said he met with Ocean County’s business adminsitrator and Chief engineer and was told that the Freeholders “wanted no part of the legislation”.

Smith knew this before the hearing.

Yet despite this knowledge Smith - and NJ environmental groups – went with and continue to back a bill they know  will not work and continue to  ignore a stronger Clean Water Act TMDL based approach that they know can work.

Aside from totally failing in the Chesapeake Bay and the Barnegat Bay, the approach of merely enabling local officials to manage critical natural resource protection programs that involve raising local revenues via taxes or user fees has been rejected in Morris County(Lake Hopatong Commission) and Passaic (Greenwood Lake Commission).

The enabling approach of the legislation is designed to fail.

3)  fertilizer nitrogen controls – (S 1411)

I am not up to speed on fertilizer issues and reserve comment.

However, I will note two things.

First, legislators sat silent like bumps on a log – asking no questions and making no comment - during hours of pubic testimony about the declining health of the Bay and the adequacy of the proposed solutions. But they woke up and they strangely became animated and chock fill of detailed questions when the fertilizer bill was up.

It was obvious – and disgusting – to see the degree of influence that fertlizer industry lobbyists have and who legislators listen to. Their behavior was an indictment of democracy – a handful of lobbyists had far more influence that thousands of people concerned about the Bay.

Second, and more important, it is important to note that nitrogen pollution loads to the Bay come from many more sources than fertilizer applications and that it is the total load of nitrogen (and other pollutants) that are killing the Bay.

Regardless of time release or percentage of the nitrogen content, a fertilizer ordinance CAN NOT ADDRESS TOTAL NITROGEN LOADINGS.

However, a TMDL under the Clean Water Act would require that all sources of nitrogen loadings are identified and quantified. A TMDL would set a comprehensive science based numeric “total load” or cap on total nitrogen loading to the bay from all sources. A TMDL would legally mandate pollutant load reductions.

The TMDL regulatory approach is FAR superior to a fertilizer ordinance based approach because it addresses all sources, sets numeric regulatory requirements and reduction timetables, is measurable, and therefore far more effective than the fertilizer ordinance approach.

4) Critical Issues Not Addressed

In addition to all this failure by design, the legislative pacakge does NOT address the followign issues that are killing the bay:

a) over-development - the unrestricted build-out allowed under local zoning in the watershed is monstrously large and totally unsustainable. It is the elephant in the room. As I testified, this exact finding by the US Forest Service Highlands report was the lynch-pin to enactment of the Highlands Act ;

b) freshwater supply and inputs to the bay – aquifer depletion, saltwater intrusion, loss of freshwater inputs to the Bay, and long term water supply deficits are ignored (the shore already has trouble meeting demand and we are entering another drought). Where is the water going to come from to support all that development? What are the ecological and economic costs of that?

c) ocean discharges from regional sewer plants deplete the groundwater. At least 30% of that water needs to be recharged on land to offset loss of freshwater to the bay, but only after pollution treatment upgrades.. AND last, but not least,

d) Oyster Creek cooling towers! See:

Christie Back-pedaling on “Commitment” to Oyster Creek Nuke Cooling Towers To Protect Barnegat Bay

e) Update:  infrastructure financing plan – show me the money!

No wonder DEP failed to testify!

Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died

NJ lurches from drought to floods, but Christie Rollbacks Weaken DEP Management

[Update: 8/23/10 - as I said, "NJ lurches from drought to floods" : today's news: "Bergen County flood waters  starting to ease" and "North Jersey cloudbursts bring spot flooding, outages"

"The ground is so hard now that when it rains it’s like pouring water on concrete, it’s running off everywhere,” Ziff said. ]

[Update: 8/14/10 - perfect example of chaos and DEP abdication - AP reports that Bergen County has declared mandatory restrictions at the request of private water company via Order of County Executive.: "Bergen County Imposes mandatory water restrictions" - Don't worry, DEP said they'll get their at together by NEXT MAY! ].

Last week, DEP finally issued a drought watch, and today said a warning or drought emergency would be issued in the next ten days unless there was significant rainfall (watch today’s NJN News Report by Ed Rodgers) (click on “Water Supply Low” (Aug. 11, 2010) – I can’t believe that as we are entering a drought, DEP says they will update the 14 year old Water Supply master Plan, by NEXT MAY!] .

Sources in DEP advised me that private water companies are preparing their own drought emergency declarations and management plans, with little coordination with or deference to DEP regulators.

Worse, sources indicate that anticipated drought restrictions are causing chaos on the ground right now. Municipalities and private water companies are scrambling to exploit their DEP water allocations and fill their tanks ahead of any restrictions, damn the consequences for the environment, the economy, or other towns and cities .

Documenting this first come/first serve “I’ve got mine Jack” chaos and lack of DEP management control of the situation, yesterday, the Bergen Record reported:

The DEP’s drought watch announcement last week “caused an immediate surge” in demand, said Colleen DeStefano, deputy executive director of the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission, which runs the Wanaque and Monksville reservoirs that provide water to both municipalities and utilities. “Everyone wanted to top off their reservoirs.”

The commission supplies United Water, the Passaic Valley Water Commission and individual cities and towns from Wayne to Newark.

DeStefano said many of the commission’s municipal and utility clients have been allowed to overdraft — that is, they’re taking more water than they are normally allocated, because of the increased demand on their supplies.

The Wanaque Reservoir, which has a capacity of 29 billion gallons, is down to 17.6 billion, or 59.6 percent of capacity, compared with 93.3 percent last year at this time. “We’re concerned,” DeStefano said.

Normally, the smaller Monksville reservoir is not tapped until late in October, but the commission may have to do it sooner this year.

The Oradell Reservoir — one of four operated by United Water, which serves about 800,000 customers in Bergen and Hudson counties — is at 47 percent of capacity, said United Water spokeswoman Sonja Clark. Combined, she said, the four are at 51 percent of capacity, compared to above 90 percent last summer.

The Oradell has taken on a greenish tinge because the lower water levels have allowed seeds to germinate and grow. In addition, the hot weather has increased water temperatures, encouraging more algae to bloom.

The Wanaque reservoir system also has an emergency backup source of water — pumps along the Passaic and Ramapo rivers.

Normally, the DEP does not allow the commission to pump from the rivers until September, because dwindling river flows affect pollution levels and can harm fish and wildlife. The commission has petitioned the DEP to start pumping now, but so far the state has not granted permission, DeStefano said.

Despite these serious - and worsening – problems that demand statewide coordination and control, DEP’s already weak hand is being weakened further.

The resources and capacity of DEP programs to manage the causes and effects of drought have been eroding over many years and – remarkably – are now being rolled back by the Christie Administration. Follow this – it’s not  a pretty picture:

DEP last updated the NJ Statewide Water Supply Master Plan in 1996. That Plan establishes the scientific and policy framework for managing state water supplies. The law mandates that the Plan be updated every 5 years, so an update was due in 2001, nine yeas ago.

Since the last Plan Update in 1996, there have been major changes on the ground that effect water supply management:

• water demand has soared due to population increase, more McMansion residential lawn watering, swimming pools, and golf course and agricultural irrigation;
• water supply has been reduced due to landscape changes, higher temperatures, less rainfall, less groundwater recharge, and higher pollution levels that eliminate summer river flows in the Passaic, Pompton, Hackensack, and Raritan rivers for water supply purposes;
• An aging infrastructure has gotten older and leakier – a multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit has gone unfunded;
• over 300,000 acres of forests, wetlands, and farmlands have been lost to development, which significantly modifies the hydrological cycle;
• The ecological effects of diminished stream/river flows; loss of wetlands, riparian buffers, and vernal pools; and declining groundwater levels have become pronounced;
• The Highlands Master Plan process documented significant deficits in many watersheds;
• new science on water quality and unregulated pollutants has documented increasing public health and ecological risks; and
• global warming is increasing temperatures and changing rainfall, snowfall, and spring snowmelt patterns, thus altering fundamental hydrology.

Obviously, all these changes demand even stronger management by DEP, yet, despite these growing challenges, the Christie Administration started off with major missteps:

• Executive Order #2 imposed a moratorium on 12 DEP regulations, including 2 rules to update water supply regulations;
• The Transition Reports attacked the Highlands Council/RMP and DEP regulations and DEP’s role in  intervening in the private sector, thus curbing the effective power of DEP regulators and empowering private water companies;
• The Red Tape Review Process recommended that 15 other DEP regulations be reviewed for rollback, including rules related to water resource management. The 180 day Red Tape review of DEP rules is ongoing;
• The Water Supply Master Plan process seems to have fallen into a black hole;
• DEP Commissioner Martin blasted DEP “culture”,  issued a Reorganization, and announced a Transformation Plan. These have led to poor morale, bureaucratic chaos, and confusion. DEP is adrift; and
• Lack of Leadership – Commissioner Martin has yet to meet with the Water Supply Advisory Council, which has been perceived as a failure to make water supply issues a priority.

We leave now with a list of just a few of the benefits and controversial issues that must be addressed in the Water Supply Master Plan Update:

1. Revisions of Safe Yields and Minimum Passing Flows in light of new hydrological data, including revisions to the NJ Geological Survey Technical Memorandum 09-3 “The Hydrological Integrity Assessment Process in New Jersey”

2. Revisions of Safe Yields and Minimum Passing Flows to address Ecological Flow Goals protections and cumulative impact methodology, including new restrictions on hydro-modification of wetlands systems and alteration of stream base flow, as illustrated by the Berlin Boro well case – NJ Geological Survey GSR 29 “GUIDELINES [ARE] FOR PREPARING HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORTS FOR WATER-ALLOCATION PERMIT APPLICATIONS”;

3. Establishing Cumulative impact thresholds and ecological standards for allowable withdrawals in groundwater dependent areas, in consideration of currently unregulated withdrawals (see this historical classic);

4. Developing a management program to better restrict and impose allocation requirements on farmers. Under current rules, a DEP issued water alllocation permit is NOT required for agricultural uses, regardless of volume or impact. An Agricultural Water Usage Certification or Agricultural Water Use Registration must be obtained from the County agricultural agent if a person has the capability to withdraw ground and/or surface water in excess of 100,000 gallons per day for agricultural, aquacultural or horticultural purposes.

5. Financing necessary infrastructure upgrades and maintenence;

6. Strengthening the regulatory framework for emerging water quality and pollution issues.

7. Creating a real source water protection policy and implementing it in DEP programs;

8. Water conservation requirements, with effective monitoring and regulatory teeth;

9. Expanded hydrological monitoring network and more robust drought indicators;

10. Beefing up DEP resources and strengthening their control over private water companies;

11. Getting the Passiac/Hackensack Safe Yield Study on track;

12. Improved integration of water supply issues in DEP land use and water resource permit programs;

13. Improving science, monitoring, and data capabilities and coordination with the Highlands Council and RMP;

14. Educating the public on the need for water conservation.

15. Developing enforceable watershed specific and ecologically sustainable water budgets.

We welcome your additions to this list, as well as thoughts on how to address each concern.

Links to Water Supply Plan:

WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan (Pdf Format) Planning document for water supply	August 1996
New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan Appendices (Pdf Format) Planning document for water supply	August 1996
New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan Executive Summary (Pdf Format) Planning document for water supply	August 1996
New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan Ma