WolfeNotes.com

• The “Frankenstorm” should be a teachable moment to show how “extreme weather” and lax regulations of greenhouse gas emissions and coastal over-development have put thousands of people and billions of dollars of property in harms way. … The storm should be a clarion call for finally addressing the rising global warming crisis. (Bill Wolfe, 10/26/12

• Houses are built upon dunes, grasses destroyed, dunes breached for beach access and housing; groundwater is withdrawn with little control, areas are paved, bayshore is filled and urbanized. Ignorance is compounded with anarchy and greed to make the raddled face of the Jersey shore.  (Ian McHarg – quoted at Wolfenotes – 10/29/12)

• “When the North Carolina coast started being developed heavily we coastal scientists used to say ‘What we need is a big storm.’ We figured that people would see what a storm did and heed its warning. But then Hurricane Hugo hit and we learned that people start building again as soon as the wind dies down. Hurricanes have actually become giant urban renewal projects. The buildings come back bigger than before. But of course the site they are building on is even more dangerous because the shoreline has retreated landward and the dunes have been damaged. But still they re-build. It’s really a form of societal madness. I can’t put it any more strongly.”  Prof. Orrin Pilkey,  Salon – 11/3/12)

• We have this insane mentality, this boosterism along the coast,” said Wolfe, the former state environmental official in New Jersey. “For years and years, people have been putting up warning flags. The state has known this, and instead of regulating more restrictively they’ve pushed right ahead.”  (Bill Wolfe – Huffington Post – 11/12/12)

• But this “let’s come back stronger and better” attitude, though empowering, is the wrong approach to the increasing hazard of living close to the rising sea. Disaster will strike again. We should not simply replace all lost property and infrastructure. Instead, we need to take account of rising sea levels, intensifying storms and continuing shoreline erosion. Orrin Pilkey, Professor, Duke University (NY Times Op-Ed –11/14/12)

• “People keep saying we’re going to put everything back the way it was,” said Stephen Sweeney, the Democratic president of the New Jersey state senate. “No, we’re not. It makes no sense to do the same thing over and over again, throwing good money after bad.” (Wall Street Journal – 11/17/12)

Demented Cheerleading - Full Page Star Ledger (11/2/12)

Oh my, how the debate has evolved!

Does anyone still remember this disgusting drivel full page cover story “We Will Come Back” and photo from the 11/2/12 Star Ledger? – a piece I called the “most irresponsible Page One – Ever” in an email to my Ledger friends:

The wreckage will be cleared, the sand pushed back where it belongs.

New boards will be nailed down, new pavilions constructed.

The barrier islands will be re-overbuilt, just like always.

And sometime before Memorial Day, Gov. Christie will announce, “The Jersey Shore is open for business.”

It has to be.

Right.

I am pleased to admit I was wrong in predicting that the mainstream media would not engage the isssue of “strategic retreat” – whether to rebuild the Jersey shore.

NJ Senate President Sweeney

And I must say that I am shocked that NJ Senate President Sweeney is leading that debate, and saying and doing all the right things (except for pushing the global warming side of the story). So, let’s repeat that WSJ story quote:

“People keep saying we’re going to put everything back the way it was,” said Stephen Sweeney, the Democratic president of the New Jersey state senate. “No, we’re not. It makes no sense to do the same thing over and over again, throwing good money after bad.”

On Wednesday, the New York Times ran a superb Op-Ed by Orrin H. Pilkey,  We Need to Retreat From the Beach

But an Op-Ed is to be expected – it is not editorial news judgement on how to cover the story (and the global warming aspect is still largely ignored).

Alas, today, the Wall Street Journal broke the ice and framed the question succinctly:

But with the federal budget deep in the red and government flood insurance still straining to recover from Hurricane Katrina, Sea Bright and other coastal towns face questions over not just how to rebuild in a way that defends lives and property against surging sea levels and more intense storms, but whether to rebuild at all.

Sandy’s destructive path has united an unlikely coalition of free-market think tanks, environmentalists, business owners and insurers arguing the moral hazard of rebuilding in coastal zones that might best be returned to nature.

“It’s very difficult to get beyond the sympathy factor,” said Orrin Pilkey, a coastal geologist at Duke University. “But it works against us.” He said he knows the issue firsthand: Hurricane Camille in 1969 damaged his parents’ Mississippi home. Hurricane Katrina later obliterated it.

“We are subsidizing, even encouraging, very dangerous development,” he said. “It’s amoral, really, that our government continues to blindly and stupidly do this.”

Now that’s something to chew on.

So, enjoy the gorgeous weekend –

Next week, we begin to explore how a “strategic retreat” might be engaged. (Here’s a teaser)

Christie DEP Ignored Multiple Warnings on Imminent Coastal Storm Risks

homes built cheek to jowl along Long Beach Island, a highly vulnerable barrier island

“Bin laden determined to strike in US”.

That was the headline of the warning the CIA presented to President George Bush on August 6, 2001, just weeks before 9/11.

The warning specifically mentioned airline hijackings and The World Trade Center as a target (read the declassified transcript).

The CIA’s warning was ignored – the rest is history.

A recent NY Times Op-Ed (whose title I shamelessly stole!) called it “perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history”. No doubt (but I suspect that JFK, FDR, and Lincoln got similar consequential briefings).

Shifting gears from terrorism warnings to storm warnings, thus far, there has been virtually no mention of the fact that  NJ DEP Commissioner Bob Martin received similar warnings by DEP’s own Office of Coastal Management – and numerous other experts.

In a March 12, 2011 Report, Martin was told essentially that, like Bin Laden,  a “coastal storm is likely to hit the NJ coast, which is highly vulnerable and not prepared”. The March report warned of “imminent impacts”:

The scientific community has arrived at a strong consensus that global climate change is occurring and resulting in changes to shoreline dynamics. Climate change threatens to accelerate sea level rise and increase the frequency and intensity of coastal storms. As a result, citizens, development, and ecosystems will become more vulnerable to the impacts of coastal hazards, making it imperative to identify areas where special needs communities, vital public facilities and roads, and sensitive natural resources overlap areas of potential inundation.These issues need to be considered as New Jersey’s coastal communities plan to become more resilient. […]

Coastal communities need to improve efforts to adapt to climate change but face hindrances such as political will, resource scarcity, personnel availability or other institutional variables. To take action, resources, tools and science-based information are needed to adequately plan for and address imminent impacts, to make informed decisions to become resilient, and to collaborate for multi-disciplinary planning.

Martin ignored that warning – the DEP not only did nothing to respond in terms of DEP resources, programs, policies, or regulations. DEP didn’t even issue a press release on the Report. The Office of Coastal Zone Management merely quietly posted it on the program’s obscure website.

Perhaps even worse than merely ignoring the warnings, Martin took a series of specific management actions to bury the Report and the Coastal Management Program (including outsourcing essential work).

DEP Commissioner Martin - "Barnegat Bay Blitz" photo op

I guess Martin was too busy picking up garbage at “Barnegat Bay Blitz” PR stunts, media spin, and seeking to clearcut “killer trees”.

How are those priorities looking now?

Shortly after the March warning, in June, a Hurricane Irene storm damaged massive water line collapsed in Monmouth County, causing a water emergency for hundreds of thousands of people for over a week.

A reasonable person would have assumed that the Monmouth disaster would have sent a wake-up call to DEP and water companies about storm risks and vulnerabilities. But that event too was ignored and lessons were not learned.

Prior to the Monmouth disaster, for over a decade, the DEP Office of Coastal Management issued a series of warnings – on a biennial basis – of coastal hazards and vulnerabilities, known as the “309 Report”, which presciently warned:

Many parts of New Jersey’s densely populated coastal area are highly susceptible to the effects of the following coastal hazards: flooding, storm surge, episodic erosion, chronic erosion, sea level rise, and extra-tropical storms. Reconstruction of residential development and the conversion of single family dwellings into multi-unit dwellings continues in hazardous areas, the value of property at risk is increasing significantly. With anticipated accelerating sea level rise and increasing storm frequency and intensity, vulnerability to the risks of coastal hazards will not abate; it will only become more costly.

In 2005, Princeton Universtiy issued a very specific Report highlighting risks to the NJ shore and recommended a “gradual withdrawal of development” from high hazard areas : FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE AND THE NEW JERSEY COAST

Increasing rates of sea level rise caused by global warming are expected to lead to permanent inundation, episodic flooding, beach erosion and saline intrusion in low-lying coastal areas. ..  Our findings suggest that where possible a gradual withdrawal of development from some areas of the New Jersey coast may be the optimum management strategy for protecting natural ecosystems.

Commissioner Martin had to be aware of a 2010 Report “Climate Change and the Delaware Estuary”, which identified similar risks and vulnerabilities, particularly to water infrastructure (warnings of direct relevance given massive sewage and drinking water treatment plant outages caused by Sandy, which led to boil water advisories and a Gov.’s Emergency Declaration).

Other warnings came from experts within NJ – see a Report titled: NEW JERSEY SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM MANUAL FOR COASTAL HAZARD MITIGATION . If that is not an unheeded warning, I don’t know what is.

And  finally, in recent years, there were numerous scientific and technical warning reports issued by international institutions (IPC) and academic institutions about rising risks and vulnerabilities.

Of course, Martin had to know that prior Governor’s has declared multiple states of emergency at the shore.

(and it wasn’t just the Christie DEP that was deaf – the Legislature too had their heads in the sand – most recently the problem was ignored at their August annual shore meeting)

All ignored – The Deafness Before The Storm.

dunes eroded, Normandy Beach (photo prior to Sandy)

DEP Walks Back Claim of “No Role” in Shore Rebuilding

Climate Change Not on DEP’s Agenda

Too Little, Too Late: State Planning Commission and Legislature to Lead

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

DEP has finally acknowledged some responsibility for where and how the Shore is rebuilt.

After DEP Commissioner Martin:1) ignored and swept warnings under the rug; 2) limited storm preparedness to advising Mayors to ignore DEP regulations; 3) followed by Martin’s embarrassing Order deregulating the rebuilding of critical public infrastructure in the exact same vulnerable locations, and 4) followed all that by 2 weeks of denial by DEP of any role in “dictating” (that’s DEP’s word for planning and regulation required by environmental laws) where and how the shore is rebuilt, today Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight reports that DEP is holding shore rebuild meetings:

DEP’s Guest List Leaves Out Toughest Critics – 

Friendlier environmental groups invited to session today on restoring Jersey Shore

The state Department of Environmental Protection is quietly convening a meeting today to discuss issues relating to rebuilding the Jersey Shore with a small group of conservationists.

The session, to be held at DEP headquarters, comes at a time when some environmentalists are suggesting the state needs to radically rethink its policies in the wake of the worst storm ever to hit New Jersey, particularly when it comes to redeveloping the coastal region.

There is wide consensus the state needs to rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, but smart growth advocates and some environmentalists say it needs to be done in a way that protects coastal communities better from the wide devastation wreaked by the storm.

DEP spokesman Bob Considine described the meeting as an informal session with conservation groups. “It’s just an update on storm issues,’’ he said.

In an e-mail from the DEP to various groups who will be represented at the meeting, however, the session was described not only an as update on Sandy’s efforts but also as a meeting providing input on coastal protection and rebuilding. That issue is likely to become a hotly-discussed topic as the state addresses the enormous issues raised by Hurricane Sandy and its impact on the Shore. […]

Those invited to the DEP meeting, by and large, have been far less critical of the Christie administration’s environmental policies. They include Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society, and Kelly Mooij of the New Jersey Audubon Society.

Count me among the excluded “toughest critics” calling for “radical change”.

[So radical that I’m recommending that the federal taxpayer bailout include the nation’s own barrier islands policy.]

This is the denouement of the Christie/Martin cynical manipulation – the absolute nadir of both Martin’s and the ENGO Fakeholders’ credibility (and the DEP press office is again caught flat out lying).

DEP Commissioner Martin  is now exposed as an irresponsible ideologue by his “reduce red tape” Order deregulating rebuilding of public infrastructure in the exact same vulnerable locations.

[Note: maybe I can point a finer point on this.

Prior to heading up DEP, Martin had no government or environmental experience. None.

He was a retired consultant who made lots of money privatizing public utilities under Margaret Thatcher.

So, it is no surprise that he sees DEP and government as barriers to infrastructure rebuilding. He can’t privatize them, but he can deregulate them by fiat. That’s almost as good as Maggie Thatcher!]

The State Planning Commission rejected the notion that State Government has no role in planning and regulating where and how rebuild occurs.

Even Governor Christie himself – previously drunk on Springsteen and Snooki – was forced to admit that the status quo at the Shore must change, in response to tabling the Christie State Plan: (Star Ledger)

“It made sense for us to put it off and to reconsider it in light of some of the new challenges that have been presented by the storm and the aftermath of the storm,” the governor said.

I previously posed the question:

Do Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Oliver think that the Legislative branch and the people of the state have a seat at the table in developing  a “long term strategy” for the shore?

Or are they going to sit back and defer to Christie’s Cabinet meetings?

Well, we now have an answer: NJ Senate President Sweeney has finally jumped in to the fray, and announced a round of public hearings – not private Fakeholder by invitation only –  (Star Ledger):

Senate leaders plan hearings in Sandy’s worst spots to evaluate government response

TRENTON — A bipartisan group of Senate leaders said Tuesday it plans to hold hearings in the state’s most devastated areas to determine how the government performed before and after Hurricane Sandy churned through New Jersey, leaving death and destruction in its wake.

“We don’t want to point fingers or pass blame,” Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said in a news release. “We want to know where and how things went wrong and what we need to do to better protect ourselves in the future.”

Let’s hope Senator Sweeney walks the walk and supports a policy solution that refelcts this enlightened statement:

There is a solution to flooding that doesn’t include building levees. Steven Sweeney, president of the New Jersey State Senate, says there’s a community along the Raritan River that flooded last year after Hurricane Irene and this year after Sandy. Here’s what he suggests as a simpler and cheaper way to deal with the problem:

“Get appraisals for their homes, write them a check, knock the homes down, and just let it go back to its natural state,” says Sweeney. “I think that’s something we really need to take a look at. Because governments have allowed people to build right onto the water, and water has a tendency to move.”

These private “Fakeholder” meetings are Martin’s  pathetic effort to walk all that back and get in the game.

[Note: and DEP was not only meeting with a few hand oicked “conservationists” – there are other “Fakeholers” involved at more than one meeting.]

But, sorry Bob, its too little and too late – the damage is done and DEP is removed from the adult discussion.

This is the proverbial straw that broke the camels’ back.

DEP has held dozens of “by invitation only” Fakeholder meetings, with hand picked and well fed (i.e. DEP funded) Fakeholders and friends at the table. Take a look, DEP is actually proud of the “by invitation only” approach (I guess its a Republican thing, the elite mentality) (hit this link for a compendium of DEP’s fakeholdery):

DEP Commissioner Martin even took the extraordinary, unprecedented and illegal step of using State Police to eject a critic – yours truly – from the DEP public hearing room, see this.

Chickens now roosting.

Always a reckoning:

There always seemed to be a need

for reckoning in early days.

What came in equaled what went out

like oscillating ocean waves.

Oops, and about that climate change thing?

As Congress Contemplates A $50 Billion Federal Bailout of NY and NJ 

(source: US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Sandy exposed fatal flaws in failing to address climate change, land use, and infrastructure

A huge opportunity for positive change – I urge my friends to go large.

[Update: 11/14/12 – Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight covers the hearing well:

Administration Fails to Push Revised State Plan Through at Contentious Hearing:

[…]

“This plan cannot be a framework for coastal recovery,’’ said Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). He criticized the revision as an economic development strategy that ignores the land-use mandates at the core of the prior state plan. – end update]

The State Planning Commission met this morning.

The published agenda for the meeting – public noticed late friday, a move that prompted criticism from all quarters as limiting public review – was to finally adopt the Christie Administration’s “Strategic Plan”, it’s version of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.

The Commission pulled the vote at the last minute and instead had the plan up for discussion only.

At a time when DEP Commissioner Martin is denying any state role in coastal redevelopment and already has deregulated the rebuilding of critical public infrastructure, thank goodness sounder judgement prevailed and someone at the State level assumed responsibility.

(Riffing on the cliff motif, what I called a “step back from the land use cliff”).

At the start of the meeting, the Commission immediately went into a brief executive session and returned shortly to issue a brief prepared statement, explaining the rationale for postponing a vote on adoption of the final Plan.

The Commission expressed sympathy for families and businesses impacted by Sandy. They expressed hope that the State was getting back to business, so important matters could continue.

Perhaps in recognition of the criticism of the friday afternoon public notice, the Commission noted that many haven’t had ample opportunity to review the changes to the final version of the Plan. They claimed that those changes incorporate public comment, leading to a better plan.

At the same time, however, professionals in the Office of Planning Advocacy recommended postponing adoption today – because “mother nature had other ideas”.

Importantly, the statement emphasized that the final Plan could be “a framework for rebuilding the coast”, but that there need to be “further additions with long term coastal recovery in mind.”

The Commission pledged to “do additional outreach to impacted stakeholders“, alluding to those impacted by Sandy and those looking to redevelop the shore.

During public testimony, leaders of environmental groups criticized the Christie Plan as promoting development at the expense of the environment, particularly in the Highlands.

ANJEC, The Affordable Housing Coalition, and NJ Future continued to support the framework of the plan, but called for more details, especially on locational and natural resource criteria to identify where development should occur and where environmentally sensitive lands should be preserved.

I reiterated the highlights of my prior “Yes Men” testimony, where I focused on fatal flaws in the plan (for substance, see this and this and this).

Sandy had vindicated those views and has shone a bright light on the fatal flaws in Christie’s “Strategic Economic Development Plan”:

• A Strategic Economic Development Plan can not substitute for a Land Use Plan
• the Christie Plan fails to seriously engage climate change policy
• the Christie Plan fails to address infrastructure deficits, vulnerability, and investment finance

Here were my main talking points:

1) The shore devastation is a final wakeup call, so that we now take climate change and extreme weather seriously.

2) The shore devastation requires that State Government step up and get involved in land use planning for “strategic retreat” and rebuilding.

3) The shore devastation requires that infrastructure vulnerability and resilience be addressed substantively.

4) Sandy made a mockery of Christie’s economic development strategy and shows that economic development is reliant on functioning natural systems and reliable infrastructure.

5) The Christie Strategic Plan is not an appropriate framework for shore redevelopment  because it lacks a land use planning orientation and adequate infrastructure policies. Nor is the Commission the appropriate governing body.

Instead, there needs to be a broader legislative and public dialogue, and a new institution  formed. I suggested a Coastal Commission.

After an hour or so of gibberish attacks from delusional Tea Party types, the Commission adjourned.

But not before the Chairman made a strong personal statement about the new reality of global warming.

Overall, I was encouraged by the OPA recommendations and the Commission’s good judgment to table the Christie plan in light of Sandy and coastal redevelopment needs.

There could be a huge opportunity for positive change here –

I urge my friends to go large on global warming, adaptation, and coastal land use planning, including calling for legislative oversight hearings and a new Coastal Commission!