Archive

Archive for November, 2014

NJ Spotlight Asks: Are We Serious About Water Quality?

November 14th, 2014 No comments

The Answer Is A resounding NO!

Corporate power blocks effective government regulation – It’s “Them” not “Us”

oil pipeline under Crosswicks Creek and Hamilton marsh

oil pipeline under Crosswicks Creek and Hamilton marsh

Longtime professional planner and water resource manager Dan Van Abs – previously in leadership positions with the Passaic River Coalition, NJ DEP, the Highlands Council, and now Rutgers – has an important opinion piece running today at NJ Spotlight, see:

Dan is an expert that has seen it all over the last 30 years, so his views must be taken seriously.

But, unfortunately, Dan’s analysis itself is part of the problem in the way it tends to shift the focus away from the critical issues, evade controversial and costly regulatory solutions, and fail to hold institutions and individuals accountable.

We do a lot of work on water quality here, so here was the comment I just fired off – I will add supporting links and lots more material later today:

As Mr. Van Abs correctly notes, success in reducing water pollution was driven by and the result of: 1) regulatory mandates, 2) strong government, 3) funding, and two he ignores; 4) principled environmental activists and 5) an aggressive press.

But not made clear by Van Abs is that all of those successful tools are being dismantled – so the answer to your question is obvious: we are not remotely serious about water quality.

On the strong government and regulatory front, Gov. Christie has abandoned all forms of socialistic planning (including water quality and land use planning), while the Christie DEP has made DEP “customer” (i.e. corporate & polluter) friendly and hostile to “job killing red rape”. To push that agenda, DEP is seeking to weaken current water quality standards and has failed to move forward and keep pace with the science in adopting more stringent new standards, like for nitrogen driven eutrophication and wildlife criteria like PCB, DDT, & mercury.

On the enforcement side, long ago, DEP provided “flexibility” in NJPDES discharge permits to avoid the mandatory penalties of the NJ Clean Water Enforcement Act. Under Gov. Christie, DEP enforcement policy was gutted, and inspections and fines and penalties are at an all time record low.

With respect to Van Abs’ observations on phosphorus effluent limits in the Passaic Basin, that 25 year delay was the result of the Whitman DEP’s flawed “settlement agreement” in lieu of enforcing the Clean Water Act WQBEL and TMDL provisions.

I worked with DEP Commissioner Campbell to bypass the delay ridden settlement and TMDL process that failed the Passaic. Instead, we imposed P WQBEL effluent limits in NJPDES permit amendments in hundreds of sewage treatment plants statewide – not sure what the status of implementation of those permit limits are, but I can assure readers that that kind of regulatory stick is superior to negotiation, compromise and voluntary measures.

We see the same problem in Barnegat Bay, on the verge of ecological collapse, and the Christie DEP is still denying “impairment“,  and suppressing science, and evading Clean Water Act regulatory sticks, as the developers pave over even more of the Bay’s watershed.

In terms of what the author refers to as “hidden costs”, I find it curious that the hidden costs of water pollution to human health and the environment go totally unmentioned. Yet another example of a warped fixation on costs, with no countervailing assessment of social or public benefits. The same problem is present in how climate and energy issues are being framed today.

The USGS and NJ DEP have documented hundreds of unregulated chemicals in NJ rivers and over 500 in NJ drinking water supplies. These chemicals include carcinogens and human endocrine disruptors that cause serious health effects, including reproductive and behavioral problems. These chemicals impact ecosystems as well. Ecologically, the majority (>50%) of fish sampled in a recent study on the Delaware river were found to be dual sexed – male and female in the same fish.

But bowing to NJ’s powerful pharmaceutical and chemical industries who profit from these toxic chemicals, the Christie DEP is covering that up. The DEP (Governor’s Office?) even appointed and allowed a Dupont corporate official to drive the science policy question of how to regulate them – see the most recent Report of the DEP Science Advisory Board for the details of that. We have written about that scandalous abuse and been totally ignored. Instead, the press writes Big Pharma cover stories about police drug enforcement oriented collection programs.

And van Abs provides no discussion at all about land development, the cooling tower issues, and how the extreme energy industry threatens our water resources – from fracking to off shore drilling – and the corporate power that blocks effective government regulation. It’s “Them” not us.

On the environmental activist and financial fronts, we have a perfect storm of failure by the current crop of environmental “leaders”, who are not serious about water quality either – the most recent example being that the Open Space initiative diverted $10 million from DEP water quality programs and many millions more from underground storage tank and toxic site cleanup programs that improve water quality and reduce water pollution sources.

So, “we” are not at all serious – and the source of many of the most serious WQ problems still remains “them” – corporations, polluters, sewage plants, and developers.

The fact that all these problems are being virtually ignored by the environmental community – with the exceptions of CSO’s  and cooling towers and fracking– and that failure of leadership and activism goes unsaid here is part of the problem as well.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Cooling Tower Deja Vu

November 12th, 2014 No comments

The Original Sin of The Green Weenies?

“The past is never dead, it’s not even past” (Wm. Faulkner)

[Updated with End Note]

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight has a story today on the long running Salem nuclear power plant cooling tower issues, see:

I was struck by how Tom so vaguely alluded to the history, a controversial issue he covered at the time for the Star Ledger and surely must recall

At one time, the DEP ordered PSEG to install expensive cooling towers to reduce fish kills, a strategy favored by environmentalists. That decision was later reversed by a subsequent DEP commissioner.

Seeing that I once worked for both those DEP Commissioners – and was fired by the one who reversed the cooling tower requirements way back in July 1994, his name is Bob Shinn –  I thought I’d provide just a little bit of history on the Whitman Administration’s deletion of the prior DEP cooling tower requirements (virtually the same pattern of the Corzine Oyster Creek and Christie cooling tower reversal, no?).

William Faulkner once said: “The past is never dead, it’s not even past”.

Faulkner sure was right, because we are still dealing with this history, most recently on the open space ballot question, where some of the same organizations and individuals (ahem, green weenies) undermined environmental regulation and Clean Water Act programs for some of the same corrupt reasons.

So here is the DEP response to comments document on the NJPDES permit – read the whole thing to get an understanding of the green weenie sell out.

Comment #6 came from those who supported cooling towers as required by the Clean Water Act.

But there were several prominent individuals and organizations who did not join that comment.

First I will provide the text of the comment, then the list of those not supporting cooling towers:

Comment 6

Several commentors state that NJDEP should require PSEG to comply with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act and build cooling towers, which are best technology available. Several commentors suggest that PSEG be required to install dry-cooling. One commentor states that NJDEP has not provided the requisite legal justification for its failure to require cooling towers or dry cooling. Because cooling towers would reduce the fish kills by 95% and dry cooling could reduce the fish kills by over 99% these technologies represent “best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact”. One commentor states that there is no reason why Salem Units 1 and 2 can not be retrofitted with cooling towers. (Commentors 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 29, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 85, 86, 92, 94, 98, 105, 118, 119, 121, 122)”

[Note the absence of any green weenies here]

Those who commented on the permit but did NOT support cooling towers and instead supported the PSEG EEP were (commenter number next to individual – see comments below that show commenter number)

  • Franklin Parker, Trust for Public Land (#7)
  • Dave Moore, NJCF (#27)
  • Julia Somers, GSWA (#30)
  • Richard Sullivan, “consultant” (#52)
  • Rich Kane, NJ Audubon (#108)
  • Maureen Ogden (#23)
  • Ella Filipone, PRC (#4)
  • (where was Mike Catania hiding? He did not comment, but was deeply involved in the original 1994 permit compromise)

We are still dealing with this history, most recently on the open space ballot question, where the same organizations undermined environmental regulation and clean water act programs.

[End note: when I say “corrupt reasons” I am referring to this: – in reviewing these comments, ask yourself why someone from the Great Swamp Association, with no expertise on the issues and no cooling tower issues in her watershed, why would they support a PSEG project in the Delaware Bay? Why would land trusts support a PSEG water pollution control permit? Why would a “river coalition” support a PSEG discharge permit that kills billions of aquatic life and fish in the river?

CORRUPTION, that’s why.

Comment 9

Numerous commentors state that NJDEP is allowing PSEG to engage in experimentation, mitigation and other programs that do nothing to reduce the fish kills but have become an integral part of the company’s marketing plan. One commentor states that no amount of strobe lights, sound deterrents, experimental marsh building, fish ladders and scientific studies deal with the problems of once- through cooling. Some commentors state that the wetlands mitigation experiment, fish ladders and bay-wide monitoring program are not technologies applicable to the cooling water intake structure and therefore do not fulfill the requirements of Section 316(b). One commentor requests that NJDEP not allow any more experiments that do not represent proven technology at the intake structure. Some commentors state that the EEP should not be accepted as a trade-off for cooling towers. (Commentors 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 64, 65, 68, 86, 98, 99, 119)

[Note above the absence of green weenies here]

[Note below how now the green weenies comment in SUPPORT of PSEG’s plan EEP]

Comment 23

Several commentors state that the EEP is a reasonable alternative to the cooling towers that were originally proposed for the Salem Plant. One commentor states that although it is troubled that the Salem units were able to be constructed without cooling towers, the EEP is a positive response in trying to compensate for the ecological damage caused by the Salem units. Another commentor states that new cooling towers would have functioned for a limited number of years whereas the life of the restored wetland will be infinite. Another commentor states that although it recognizes cooling towers are probably BTA, such an investment is not going to happen today if it did not happen in 1994. Therefore, an alternate means to provide protection for fish and other aquatic life in the estuarine system is in order. (Commentors 7, 22, 23, 66, 71)

Comment 25

Many commentors express support for the EEP, given its lasting impact on the ecosystem, and make specific note of the magnitude of acreage included in the EEP. One commentor states that the creation and improvement of healthy and thriving wetlands and uplands are very worthwhile undertakings for the continued protection of the fish population. Several commentors state that the EEP is a model for other NJPDES permits. Some commentors state that those who drafted the 1994 permit conditions were thinking about the well-being of the entire estuary and that the proposed permit represents bold thinking in resource management. One commentor states that the effects of the Station will be short-lived as compared to the permanent protection of the Delaware Bay environment by the renewed permit conditions. Another commentor states that the restoration sites and adjoining uplands are protected by law and will continue to benefit fish and wildlife and be enjoyed by people long after the generating station is retired. One commentor states that the EEP is a showpiece of environmental sensitivity and practicality and a bright example for the nation. (Commentors 3, 4, 7, 22, 27, 34, 42, 49, 57, 71, 79, 81, 104, 111, 120)

Comment 27

Many commentors state that the EEP provides research benefits. Several commentors recognize the advancements in science and understanding of marsh ecology as a result of the EEP; the EEP has proven that coastal wetlands can be restored on a large scale basis. One commentor states that it is one of the most important projects in the nation due to the severely degraded conditions of the lands restored as well as the large scale of the ecosystem. Another commentor states that through its work in the EEP, PSEG has advanced the science of marsh studies and their conservation that will benefit others to further scientific knowledge of salt marsh restoration. One commentor states that the wetland restoration program with its successes and failures, can instruct those who want to move ahead with wetland improvements in other places in NJ. Another commentor expresses appreciation for the research reports and definitive studies that have resulted from the EEP. The EEP teaches us how to work with nature on such restoration projects. This information will serve the entire world in the decades to come. One commentor states that research and monitoring funded through the EEP has resulted in new and improved insights into marsh function and structure that can be applied throughout the nation. This commentor further notes that the EEP is serving as a model to other major wetland initiatives through a scientific workshop. (Commentors 3, 5, 22, 30, 34, 49, 52, 71, 76, 78, 80, 90, 109)

Comment 28

Several commentors indicate that PSEG is acting in good faith with respect to the EEP and/or other permit conditions. Several commentors note the outstanding effort PSEG has expended with respect to the EEP. Several commentors commend PSEG for the scientific expertise employed. Another commentor compliments the company and the EEP staff. Their demeanor, sincerity and willingness to be involved and helpful has positively impressed those who have worked closely with the staff. Several commentors, all of whom live in or are affiliated with townships that contain EEP sites, express gratitude for the EEP and for their good relationships with PSEG. One commentor commends PSEG for being beneficial stewards of the land. Another commentor states that PSEG kept its promises from 1994 to improve the Delaware Estuary and the citizenry who live, work and recreate here. (Commentors 4, 21, 22, 23, 28, 30, 32, 76, 80, 82, 84, 93, 96, 97, 101, 109, 110, 123)

Comment 38

Several commentors note that the restoration at the Maurice River Township (MRT), Dennis Township and Commercial Township formerly diked salt hay farm sites give evidence of being an impressive success. One commentor states that the restoration at these sites have resulted in dramatic changes and a mosaic of new habitats are emerging. Another commentor states that the restoration at these sites has restored the connection of these lands to the Bay thereby increasing production of valuable biological components, and that these marshes appear to be returning to a very productive level for fish habitat and reproduction. One commentor states that the restoration of these sites have exceeded his expectations. Another commentor states that as a local landowner near the MRT sites, he reports that there have been no negative impacts. Another commentor suggests that full acreage credit be awarded to PSEG under the permit for these three sites. (Commentors 22, 23, 30, 32, 78, 84, 90, 108, 111, 120)

Comment 44

Several commentors note that PSEG has successfully preserved the Bayside Tract and other uplands. The preservation of the Bayside Tract and other uplands are important. One commentor notes that the protection of this site from development is particularly important since it is adjacent to some of the most productive oyster beds in the Delaware Bay. Another commentor suggests that full acreage credit be granted for this site. (Commentors 28, 30, 78, 84, 111)

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

KIG Still Spinning Misleading Tales As New Facts Emerge On Open Space Disaster

November 11th, 2014 No comments

State Parks Must Now Compete With Open Space, et al for Far Smaller Pot of Money

Scott Fallon at the Bergen Record wrote a story today about how projects must now compete for a smaller pot of open space funding, see:

The story adds additional new facts to show just how bad a deal the Keep It Green coalition negotiated.

Voters were not told about any of what Fallon writes about, such as the new competition for funds, the much smaller pot of money compared to historic funding levels, and the backlogged need.

To his credit, Fallon has written previously about what KIG refused to tell voters during their $700,000 marketing campaign, i.e. the diversion of funds from environmental programs, including water quality, toxic site cleanup, brown fields, underground storage tank cleanup,  diesel air pollution, and State Parks.

That reporting prompted the Record to editorialize against the open space ballot question and urge voters to “read the fine print”.

But, in a larger sense, Fallon completely missed the real story about why there is a new competition for funds and he was spun by other Keep It Green cover stories.

As I’ve written several times now, the new competition for a much smaller pot of money is between State parks projects and open space, farmland preservation, historic preservation, and blue acres projects.

I fired off this LTE to try to clarify that:

Dear Editor:

The story:  “Demand for open space funding may force N.J. projects to compete with each other” (11/11/14) completely missed the essential point about how projects must now compete with each other.

The new open space funding approved by the voters was a radical departure from prior funding plans approved by voters 13 times over 50 years.

For the first time, the voters approved diversion of existing environmental funds, including $32 million per year Constitutionally dedicated to State Parks in 2006 for capital improvements, including money for addressing a $400 million backlog in deferred maintenance. Our State parks are literally crumbling.

That means that State Parks must now competed with Open Space, historic preservation, farmland preservation, and blue acres projects for a far smaller pot of funds (from $71 to $117 million dollars).

Passage of the open space ballot prompted State Park Director Mark Texel to write this note to the Keep It Green Coalition that spent $700,000 or more promoting the ballot question:

As the Director of the NJ State Park Service now coping with the reality that our entire Parks capital budget will be completely eliminated beginning July 1, 2015 as a result of the YES vote I can say this is the darkest day I have faced in my professional career. Worse than Superstorm Sandy. 440,000+ acres of preserved open space, 52 historic sites, 39 parks — used by 8 million visitors each year — all managed by my agency and now with no funding plan in place for stewardship beginning in just 7 months. This is not a bad reality TV show. This is New Jersey’s Inconvenient Truth hidden from voters throughout this campaign.”

Please tell readers the truth about how this new open space program will harm our State parks.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

What’s Up With The Baldpate Mountain Reforestation Project?

November 10th, 2014 No comments

 Destroying A Lovely Park Meadow In Pursuit of Stewardship

Familiar Faces, Familiar Failures

Baldpate Mountain reforestation project (11/8/14)

Baldpate Mountain reforestation project (11/8/14)

[Important update below]

I originally wrote about this issue in an October 18, 2010 post “Can’t See the Meadow for the Trees”, in which I laid out my opposition to the concept and design of the reforestation project in depth, based on the public parks philosophy and landscape design principles of Frederick Law Olmstead and my own aesthetics and personal experiences.

At that time, I was a regular – at least weekly – visitor to Baldpate, and had been so since 1992, before it was a Mercer County Park and the land was still privately owned.  But now, 4 years later, I’ve moved to Bordentown and rarely get there.

I visited for a walk on Saturday and was appalled by what I saw – the project is an abject failure. So, let’s drill down on that.

According to the Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space Strategic Plan – 2011 – 2016:

Objective 5: Demonstrate responsible land stewardship on FoHVOS preserves and encourage partners throughout the Hopewell Valley (e.g., nonprofit conservation groups, private and corporate landowners, state, county and local governments) to implement similar practices.

Strategies:   

  • Assure success of recent restorations (e.g., forest habitat at Baldpate, meadow habitat at Thompson), future restorations, and other stewardship activities to demonstrate effective stewardship within the Hopewell Valley. 

According to the Mercer County Parks Commission’s “Stewardship” webpage:

Baldpate Reforestation: In 2010, 8.3 acres of abandoned agricultural fields on top of Baldpate Mountain were planted with over 1,600 native trees and shrubs. To prevent deer from damaging the planted trees, an 8-foot fence was built to protect the reforestation areas. This project was made possible by nearly 300 volunteer hours and generous grants from Conservation Resources, Inc., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Grainger Foundation.

Back on October 17, 2010, in a conversation with a parks professional and an email exchange with FoHVOS, I raised objections to this project and asked about it’s conservation rationale and was told this:

I know the sight of the deer fencing is jarring but, without it, the new plantings wouldn’t stand a chance with the hungry deer.

This field and the smaller one near the orchard are the only ones being reforested.  The decision was made after careful consideration of bird habitat needs.  We have a substantial body of data on Baldpate’s bird populations and, without a doubt, the forest on Baldpate is its most critical habitat, particularly for forest interior nesting warblers.

A little over 4 years ago,  (on 10/17/10), the site looked like this: (does that look like what Mercer County called an “agricultural field” to you? It sure looks like a lovely meadow to me.)

Baldpate Mountain reforestation site (10/17/10)

Baldpate Mountain reforestation site (10/17/10)

Take a closer look at what it looks like now – it looks like there was a LOT more than a deer browse problem.

Especially note the invasives and the choking vines; the downed deer fence; the condition of those “1,600 native trees and shrubs” that were planted that are being choked; and the total lack of sustained “stewardship”:

(11/8/14)

(11/8/14)

(11/8/14)

(11/8/14)

I noted from the Mercer County Parks Commission “Stewardship” webpage description of the project that it was funded in part by Conservation Resources, Inc.  – note the similar failure to a nearby carbon sequestration project, also in Hopewell, managed by CRI:

carbon sequestration project in Hopewell, NJ.

carbon sequestration project in Hopewell, NJ.

Many of these same organizations and individuals – with the same scientific qualifications, the same sham conservation justifications, the same landscape values and visions, and elite worldview -have managed to commandeer $71 – $117 million per year in “open space” funding as a result of the voter approval of ballot questions #2.

As I wrote yesterday (and warned previously), a newly authorized use of the funds is “stewardship”, and up to 20% of those funds are expected to be appropriated for that purpose (which also includes commercial logging).

Meanwhile, NJ’s public parks – used regularly by millions of New Jerseyans – crumble with a $400 million deferred maintenance backlog.

Now that the public has been misled once in approving the open space ballot, it is critical that close scrutiny be provided to every single appropriations bill from that new fund to see that these same mistakes are not repeated.

We will keep you posted as all this unfolds.

[Update: A knowledgeable reader just sent me a relevant high quality April 2014 study:  Plant Stewardship Index Survey and Report Ted Stiles Preserve at Baldpate Mountain *Public Version* (I wonder what was edited out of the version not released to the public?)

The study confirms my layman’s observations  and criticisms (see page 44 – 46) – so even if you agree that reforestation is an appropriate management of the meadow (which I don’t), the project is a failure.

The parties responsible have known for more than 6 moths of these severe problems and have done nothing to correct the situation – the non-response just so happened to coincide with the silence on the “Stewardship” issue by the KIG open space ballot proponents. Outrageous.

And I would love to have a full and frank discussion of exactly what “funder approaches” are.

I restate the findings in full (boldface are mine):

Large Reforestation Exclosure:

This is the second, larger reforestation exclosure. Maintenance as turf ceased in 2010, and the area was fenced and planted with native trees and forbs.

The area showed substantially poorer sapling growth than the small exclosure. This is attributable to the significant breeches in the exclosure fence. Deer sign was conspicuous throughout the area.

Much of the sapling regeneration in this area is white ash. Other tree recruitment appears to be from nearby trees, mostly wind-dispersed species.

The ground layer is dominated by Japanese honeysuckle, Japanese stiltgrass, and other weedy, primarily non-native species. Common milkweed and wrinkleleaf goldenrod are the most common native forbs.

Autumn olive has largely been controlled by herbicide. Multiflora rose is severely affected by rose-rosette disease.

An interesting occurrence of black cohosh was found, flowering, inside the fence. The nearest population outside the fence is approximately 30 meters away.

Stewardship Discussion

A few observations were made that pertain to deer fencing and afforestation. These are not intended to second-guess any existing practices (which were structured in part by funder approaches and time constraints), but to build on observation to inform future approaches.

1. Most of the saplings appeared to be natural recruits. Given adequate protection from deer browse, trees have recruited quite readily. Given that survivorship of planted tree stock appears quite low, this calls into question the practice of introducing trees to afforestation sites (at least where thorough site prep and supplemental watering are not feasible), as opposed to allowing trees to recruit naturally.

2. Exclosures should be managed with a mowed perimeter inside or outside the fence so that the fence can be regularly inspected for breeches and easily repaired should damage to the fence occur.

3. The survey found low diversity in the sapling cohort, and a high degree of invasive plant colonization of the ground layer. Might an alternate restoration approach, a type of long-term managed succession, lead to a more diverse restored habitat than direct afforestation? That is to say, successfully restoring a habitat to a diverse meadow and shrub community may lay the groundwork for a structurally and species diverse forest in the longer term; taking a lawn or ruderal field and planting trees in it may not lead to the desired future condition of diverse native forest. 

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Stewardship – For Whom? Public Parks or Private Lands?

November 9th, 2014 No comments

“Stewardship” Becomes The Charter School of the Environmental Movement

Restroom at Bulls Island SP - closed.

weeds grow at restroom at Bulls Island SP – park is still closed.

Saturday was a glorious fall day, so the dog and I set out for our favorite walks in the woods along the Delaware River: Bulls Island, D&R Canal State Park, Washington Crossing State Park, & Baldpate Mountain (a Mercer County Park purchased in part with State Green Acres funds).

But even the tranquility of the woods could not get the Open Space disaster out of my mind, particularly State Parks Director Texel’s devastating words:

As the Director of the NJ State Park Service now coping with the reality that our entire Parks capital budget will be completely eliminated beginning July 1, 2015 as a result of the YES vote I can say this is the darkest day I have faced in my professional career. Worse than Superstorm Sandy.

As I walked, I saw multiple examples of the $400 million backlog in deferred State Parks maintenance.

I became even more agitated in recalling the testimony of NJ Audubon CEO Eric Stiles supporting the Open Space diversion – he was the only person to focus on the “stewardship” issue.

Consider Parks Director Texel’s words in direct contradiction to what Mr. Stiles testified to the Senate Environment Committee on December 12, 2013. Stiles said:

This strong measure makes me think about the birth of my fist daughter. It was a difficult birth, and after she came I thought the hard work was done.

When you buy land, you’ve done the easy part.

The hard part is taking care of that land through the stewardship. …..

This [Resolution] includes for the first time a provision for stewardship

If you buy the land and walk away, the water quality degrades, there’s no infrastructure for people to hike and fish. There not necessarily even safe. The wildlife,  the forests suffer.

When we look at the devastating impacts of hurricane Sandy and the emergency response the resilience, most of that is stewardship.

Its how do we invest in these areas to make them increasingly resilient? To help protect against floods. To make these safe and accessible.

So the one provision that we haven’t heard testimony about today, which we strongly support, are the stewardship funds.

All you need to do is that would you as a landowner buy a home with land, and walk away without making continued investments?

Its not different for the forests, the waterways, and the farms we are seeking to preserve.

Perhaps Mrs. Stiles might take exception to the “difficult birth” – given that she did all the work? Call the midwife!

But, getting back to the merits, I don’t see how it could be more clear.

Mr. Stiles is solely interested in stewardship of private lands under control of Audubon.

Mr. Stiles’ approach is similar to the proponents of Charter Schools. They seek to channel public funds to the private sector and don’t care about the public schools system or education of all the children. They don’t care that the private interests they serve effectively dismantle the public sphere and collective values. They benefit financially and politically from the competitive divide and conquer chaos they create in a community, as parents compete with each other and attack the “dysfunctional” public school system.

In fact, transferring public money to Wall Street, defunding and shrinking the public sector, and disempowering public employee unions is the strategic goal – the Charter School itself is just the trojan horse. Of course, those schools will help accelerate racist gentrification, as private Charter schools become the anchors of redevelopment schemes and real estate speculation.

[and if you don’t see the open space issue in terms of a huge transfer of wealth and taxpayer funds to private interests, just ask yourself: who owns land in NJ? Answer: corporations and the wealthy.]

Even so called environmental progressive share those market values:

Open space is a good investment in our future: Urban parks catalyze redevelopment. (Jeff Tittel, NJ Sierra Club)

Audubon’s Stiles doesn’t care about the public sector: the DEP science, planning, and regulatory programs and professionals that protect water quality. He was willing to steal $30 million a year from them and force deep program cuts and/or layoffs.

[and if you don’t see the open space issue as an attack on government and regulation, just ask yourself: who seeks smaller government and less regulation? Answer: the same folks who own the land that receive the open space money diverted from DEP regulatory programs!]

Stiles doesn’t seem to care about the competition and divisiveness in the environmental community he created in his rob Peter to pay Paul scheme.

He doesn’t care about “stewardship” of public lands and parks and was willing to steal $32 million dedicated to State Parks capital improvements, including addressing a $400 million backlog of deferred maintenance.

All of that is now Director Texel’s problem, not Mr. Stiles’.

So, let’s take a look at “stewardship” of State Parks that Mr. Texel must now deal with:

playground at Bulls Island SP - not safe, not accessible. Does Mr. Stiles bring his kids here? I have.

playground at Bulls Island SP – not safe, not accessible. Does Mr. Stiles bring his kids here? I have.

D&R Canal SP - trail closed, bridge over Swan Creek closed indefinitely. Just one of scores of crumbling water infrastructure in the Park.

D&R Canal SP – trail closed, bridge over Swan Creek closed indefinitely. Just one of scores of crumbling water infrastructure in the Park.

Washington Crossing SP - bridge out. The picnic tables, fireplaces, bathrooms are crumbling.

Washington Crossing SP – bridge out. The picnic tables, fireplaces, bathrooms are crumbling.

Washington Crossing SP - historic buildings crumbling.

Washington Crossing SP – historic buildings crumbling.

Baldpate Mountain - historic outbuildings crumble. They are not safe or accessible.

Baldpate Mountain – historic outbuildings crumble. They are not safe or accessible.

D&R Canal, south of Duck Island. Full of tire, debris, and sediment. I had support of Park Superintendent to explore dredging - but it's not going to happen now that capital budget is gone

D&R Canal, south of Duck Island. Full of tire, debris, and sediment. I had support of Park Superintendent to explore dredging – but it’s not going to happen now that capital budget is gone

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: