WolfeNotes.com

If You Don’t Care About Climate Chaos, How About This?

NJ Leads Nation In Antiquated Unsafe Gas Pipelines 

Not One Dollar Should Be Spent On New Lines Until Old Are Replaced

Another Reason To Impose A Moratorium On Fossil Infrastructure

Despite aging and unsafe gas pipelines, more than half of the gas industry is not prepared:

This map and bar chart are from a gas industry survey.

For the full report, see:

• 2015 Strategic Directions – US Natural Gas Industry Report

 And here’s how to scare the gas industry:

Will Republicans Support A Legislative Veto of Christie DEP Water Rules?

A Test for Senate Moderates Like Bateman, Kean, Allen, & Beck

“I spent the last 5 years dismanting the overreach that she [NJ DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson] did in New Jersey and our environmental protection area.  ~~~~ Gov. Chris Christie, Iowa, 3/7/15

On multiple occasions, NJ Republican legislators have backed Governor Christie and blocked Democratic efforts to over-ride the Governor’s vetoes of bills passed by the Democratically controlled Legislature.

As a result, Democrats have been frustrated and unable to muster super-majority veto over-ride votes.

But they may have a little payback opportunity with their own veto power.

The Constitutional power granted to the Legislature to veto State Agency regulations radically changes the political dynamics and institutional power compared to the Legislature’s power to over-ride a Governor’ veto of a passed bill.

Under a rarely used Constitutional legislative veto provision, Democrats need only simple majorities in both houses to veto the Governor’s regulatory initiatives.

The Governor plays no role – the Legislature can veto the Governor’s regulations without his approval.

The vote on the Resolution that would veto Christie DEP water rules released by the Senate Environment Committee on Monday followed partisan lines.

With pro-environment Senator Bateman absent from the Committee- Bateman has shown independence and broken with the Governor – Republican Senator Thompson was the only NO vote.

So the question becomes: Will the Republican party as a whole elevate partisan loyalty to the Governor and abandon clean water?

Will Republicans with aspirations for running for Governor back a deeply unpopular Governor Christie and fail a litmus test and walk away from the popular issue of protection of the environment and clean water?

Inland and coastal flooding is a statewide concern, as it opposition to dwindling open space and support for clean water. A lot of Republican voters in Hunterdon County – and PennEast pipeline opponents – support clean water. Ditto voters in Monmouth and Morris County.

So, today, we challenged the Republicans to do the right thing, see:

Dear Senators Thompson and Bateman:

I am writing to urge your consideration and to clarify my testimony in response to Senator Thompson’s statement in defense of his “NO” vote on SCR 180 last Monday at the Senate Environment Committee hearing.

I am including Senator Bateman because he was not present at the hearing and will need this information to vote on the Senate floor, and hopefully convince his republican colleagues to support the Resolution.

Senator Thompson opposed the Resolution because he said he was not convinced that supporters of SCR 180 had provided adequate arguments regarding alleged conflicts with legislative intent.

It was my view that testimony by Jeff Tittel of NJ Sierra Club and Mike Pisauro of Stonybrook Watershed had provided adequate testimony in that regard, so I did not address the legislative intent argument in my testimony.

Later testimony by Eliot Ruga of the Highlands Coalition made it clear that the DEP’s proposed rule would weaken protections for streams in the Highlands planning area.

Instead, I focused on tracing the regulatory history and explaining why the DEP’s proposed riparian mitigation credit, trading, and banking scheme lacked any legislative authorization and was ultra vires.

It is ironic that Governor Christie withdrew from RGGI on the basis that the program constituted a tax on NJ businesses with no corresponding environmental benefit, and then his DEP proposed a massive statewide tax on development that harms the environment.

If you would like to understand those arguments, please hit this link to review that argument.

Christie DEP Flood Credit Trading Scheme Is an Illegal Tax On Development

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2015/10/christie-dep-flood-credit-trading-scheme-is-an-illegal-tax-on-development/

So, to address Senator Thompson’s concerns, today I submitted the analysis below into the record on SCR 180. I ask that Chairman Smith enter this correspondence into the record as well for the benefit of all legislators.

It lays out the legislative intent in the various statutes that DEP relied on to authorize the proposed rules.

So we thought we’d draft an outline of the major provisions of the DEP rule we see as “inconsistent with legislative intent”. This is just an outline – we omit the specific regulatory citations, although these can readily be determined by reviewing the Table of Citations on page 27 and in Table 11.2 on page 690.

(the remained of the letter follows this prior post on legislative intent)

“I spent the last 5 years dismanting the overreach that she [NJ DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson] did in New Jersey and our environmental protection area.  ~~~~ Gov. Chris Christie, Iowa, 3/7/15

[Update 10/25/15 –  We are pleased that EPA held the line – but we are disgusted that DEP’s Ray Cantor was caught in a flat out lie in his testimony to the Senate Environment Committee.

NJ Spotlight wrote this:

At the hearing earlier this week, Raymond Cantor, chief advisor to the commissioner, said after meeting with DEP on the proposal, the state had essentially resolved those concerns.

But a letter from the Region II EPA office yesterday suggested otherwise. “The proposed regulations have not changed,’’ wrote Joan Leary Matthews, director of the Clean Water Division. “EPA continues to have concerns as identified in our previous letter.’’ 

But the EPA issue was not the only lie Cantor told the Committee – he also stated that no standards had been weekend, and that was a big lie.

He also stated that the Gov.’s Office provided no direction to the DEP on the proposal; that the proposal was generated by DEP staff and based on Stakeholder input; and that the Staekholder process was open and robust – all 3 of those claims are lies too.  ~~~ end update]  

During Monday’s testimony on SCR 180, the Legislature’s Resolution to veto the Christie DEP’s major “overhaul” of the flood hazard, storm water management, and coastal zone rules, DEP Deputy Commissioner Ray Cantor claimed that EPA had backed away from their prior opposition to the proposal.

Cantor claimed that it was all a misunderstanding because “someone” has sent the EPA Regional Administrator a “misleading” email and since then, DEP had explained the situation to EPA staff. NJ Spotlight:

Cantor said the EPA, after meeting with state officials, had essentially resolved those concerns, citing a story in the “Inside EPA,” newsletter quoting an agency official saying the EPA had “lesser concerns’’ following talking with the DEP.

Because I was the “someone” that sent that EPA email that Cantor referred to, I felt obligated to set the record straight and put the issue in the record on SCR 180.

Here is what EPA warned NJ DEP: (emphasis mine)

While EPA appreciates the importance of increasing consistency among regulatory requirements, measurable changes to Category 1 (Cl) waters as a result of proposed changes to these rules would not comply with New Jersey’s water quality standards. Cl waters have exceptional ecological significance, exceptional recreational significance, exceptional water supply significance or exceptional fisheries resources. Changes to these regulations that result in a less stringent condition in New Jersey’s Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit(s), will also be inconsistent with EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations.

Today, in followup letters to EPA and Chairman Smith (see below), I again laid out the regulatory basis for EPA oversight and how the DEP proposed repeal of the SWRPA buffer regulatory provisions and replacement by “riparian zone” rules would weaken protections for Category One waters and trigger federal oversight.

I urged that EPA expand the basis for the concerns expressed in their comment letter to DEP and refer the matter to Regional Counsel and EPA water quality program staff in the Surface Water Quality Standards, TMDL, NPDES, and Municipal Stormwater (MS4) permitting programs. The SWQS program in particular has an interest in assuring no backsliding in NJ SWQS regulations and a legally big oversight stick.

EPA has enormous legal oversight power in federal Clean Water Act delegated and funded programs, including the ability to withhold federal funds or even assume direct federal implementation of Clean Water Act programs in NJ.

It is vital that these issues are decided openly and transparently by EPA lawyers and professional staff on the merits and not subject to behind the scenes political pressure from NJ DEP or Gov.’s Office officials. That is why I am writing to keep these issues in the public domain.

It is also very important politically that EPA hold the line and not withdraw their prior concerns, as the EPA’s opposition and possibility of losing federal funds can provide cover for some Legislators reluctant to take on not only Governor Christie’s Office, but also the Chamber of Commerce, NJBIA, Builders Association, and labor unions being organized in support of the Christie rollbacks.

Dear Chairman Smith:

The below letter to EPA Regional Administrator Enck is provided for your information.

As I testified on SCR 180, the DEP’s proposed revocation of the SWRPA C1 buffer language in the storm water management rules at NJAC 7:8-5.5(h) would impact other regulations because that provision is explicitly linked to other DEP regulations.

Specifically, the SWRPA is linked to and implements the federal EPA approved anti-degredation policy in the Surface Water Quality Standards (NJAC 7:9B-1 et seq).

The SWRPA provision also is linked to and implements the federal EPA mandated Municipal Stormwater Permit Program (MS4) regulations at NJAC 7:14A-25.6, which requires that NJPDS MS4 permits  “shall require compliance with the applicable design and performance standards established under N.J.A.C. 7:8 for major development as defined in N.J.A.C. 7:8-1″

Those are direct federal hooks to federally mandated and delegated programs for which EPA has State oversight responsibility under the Clean Water Act.

There are additional federal hooks, but they are programmatic and technical, not regulatory, e.g. NJ DEP’s EPA approved TMDL’s include “load allocations” from non-point sources that consider pollutant removal from vegetated buffers and SWRPA BMPs.

Additionally, as a State adopted non-point source BMP, various EPA Surface Water Quality Standards and TMDL Guidance documents strongly suggest that a State adopted non-point source BMP become federally enforceable. I’d be glad to provide text and details on this, but it is beyond the scope here.

Because DEP Deputy Commissioner Cantor testified that I had sent a “misleading email to EPA” regarding these matters, I ask that this entire correspondence be entered into the record on SCR 180.

Although it is not a federal issue, the SWRPA regulatory provision is linked to and impact municipal storm water ordinances, including requirements to adopt stream buffer ordinances that comply with the SWRPA provisions.  I urge you to consider the testimony from ANJEC in that regard.

Finally, the NJ Appellate division rendered an opinion in ” IN THE MATTER OF NJDEP ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2007-01 and ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2008-02. (2009), see

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NJCO%2020090806243/IN%20THE%20MATTER%20OF%20NJDEP%20ADMINISTRATIVE%20ORDER%20NO.%202007-01

That decision goes into some detail on the SWRRPA provisions and validates my testimony regarding the significant change in regulatory standards that would result from repeal of the DEP’s proposed repeal of the SWRPA provision.

I am available to clarify and expand on this at your convenience.

Respectfully,

From: “Bill” <bill_wolfe@comcast.net>
To: “Judith Enck” <Enck.Judith@epa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:14:36 AM
Subject: EPA letter to NJ on storm water rules

Dear Regional Administrator Enck:

Yesterday, the NJ Senate Environment Committee heard a Resolution, SCR 180, that would initiate the process for a legislatively veto of DEP’s proposed revisions to the NJ Flood Hazard, Stormwater Management and Coastal Zone regulations proposed in the June 1, 2015 NJ Register., see:

During testimony, DEP Deputy Commissioner Ray Cantor stated that DEP officials had multiple conversations with EPA officials and resolved a misunderstanding. Cantor stated that EPA had withdrawn their prior concerns stated in EPA R2’s July 30, 2015 comment letter on the DEP proposal, see:

http://assets.njspotlight.com/assets/15/0831/1743

Mr. Cantor cited a quote to that effect from an unnamed Region 2 official that was quoted in a recent “Inside EPA” story.

FYI, the Chairman rejected that source and urged Mr. Cantor to provide a letter from EPA withdrawing their prior concerns.

I urge you to reject any request to withdraw EPA concerns if made by NJ DEP officials and to stand by and even expand the basis for the prior concerns expressed in the July 30, 2015 comment letter.

As you know, NJ relied on the 300 foot buffers codified in the State storm water rules (@ NJAC 7:8-5.5(h) and known as a “SWRPA” as federally approved “anti – degradation implementation procedures” to protect federally approved State designated Category One (C1) Waters from an “measurable change in existing water quality” (see NJAC 7:9B – 1.5).

C1 waters are codified in New Jersey’s EPA approved State Water Quality Standards (NJAC 7:9B- 1 et seq.)

The NJ State storm water regulations at NJAC 7:8-5.5(h) are linked to State antidegredation designations and anti-degradation policy in State SWQS NJAC 7:9B-1.5 for “Category One” water.

Thus, a revision to NJAC 7:8-5.5(h) constitutes an indirect revision to State SWQS at NJAC 7:9B. 

The NJ DEP proposed a repeal of NJAC 7:8-5.5(h) and replacement with a far weaker regulatory regime under State Flood Hazard Act known as a “riparian zone” NJAC 7:13.

The Clean Water Act requires that any revisions to State SWQS standards require EPA approval.

There is an additional federal oversight hook because the NJ DEP SWRPA provisions of the State storm water management rules are linked to the EPA approved Municipal Stormwater Permit Program.

NJ DEP MS4 regulations require that MS4 permittees meet the water quality BMPs and design and performance standards in the storm water management rules NJAC 7:8.

Specifically, NJ DEP MS4 permit regulations provide at NJAC 7:14A-25.6 Content of NJPDES permits for small MS4s  provides:

b) The Statewide Basic Requirements (SBRs) are as follows:    

ii. The program under (b)3i above shall require compliance with the applicable design and performance standards established under N.J.A.C. 7:8 for major development as defined in N.J.A.C. 7:8-1, unless:(1) Those standards do not apply because of a variance or exemption under N.J.A.C. 7:8; or(2) Alternative standards are applicable under a water quality management plan adopted in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:15. […]2) Adopt and reexamine a municipal stormwater management plan in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:8; (3) Adopt and implement a municipal stormwater control ordinance or ordinances in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:8. The ordinance(s) shall control stormwater from non-residential development and redevelopment projects. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/7_14a/sub25rule.pdf

The NJ DEP’s June 1, 2015 regulatory proposal would repeal the SWRPA waters and regulatory text @ NJAC 7:8-5.5(h) (see below) and replace the SWRPA buffers with “riparian zones” regulated under the “stream encroachment” regulations adopted pursuant to the Nj Flood Hazard Act.

The  “riparian zone” has far less protections than the C1 “SWRPA” – DEP’s proposal acknowledges this regulatory fact:

Therefore, while N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.5(h) prevents certain types of new development from occurring within SWRPAs, the FHACA Rules recognize that development within riparian zones is sometimes unavoidable, and therefore establishes requirements necessary to ensure that disturbance to riparian zone vegetation is avoided where feasible, minimized to the extent practicable, and, where disturbance to riparian zone vegetation would adversely impact the environment, appropriate compensation  is provided in order to ensure the continued preservation and/or improvement of riparian zone functionality.  (p. 59  60)http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/proposals/20150601a.pdf

I urge EPA lawyers and water program officials to conduct a detailed comparison between NJ DEP “SWRPA” buffer requirements codified at NJAC 7:8-5.5(h) with the DEP’s “riparian zone” requirements in the DEP’s June 1, 2015 proposal.

The proposed repeal of C1 SWRPA buffers and replacement with “riparian zones” reduces protections which allow more disturbance and development in the buffers. This would violate the State antidegration policy for C1 waters that protects “existing water quality” from any “measurable or calculable change”.

FYI, I’ve conducted a cursory comparison in this document, which includes the full regulatory text of SWRPA @ NJAC 7:8-5.5(h)::

Why A Category One Stream Buffer Has Far More Protections Than A Riparian Zone

Respectfully, Bill Wolfe

 

Proposed Repeal and “Overhaul” of Water Quality Management Planning Rules

I am taking a few days off – I feel burnt out from the weight of exhausting and massive and unprecedented DEP and climate rollbacks, all coming at once, some of which I have personal involvement with.

Here’s bullets some of the stuff germinating for future posts:

1. BPU final hearing on South Jersey Gas Pinelands pipeline – next steps

2. Legislative veto of Christie flood hazard rules – resolution released by Senate Environmental Committee

3. DEP proposal to repeal and “overhaul” water quality management planning rules

4. As Highlands Regional Plan and DEP regulations are in the crosshairs of the Christie “overhaul” machine, the Highlands Coalition wanders off into a cul de sac of cultural irrelevance

5.  The meaning of the Duke Farms dispute

6. Nancy Wittenberg has got to go

7. The case for a fossil infrastructure moratorium

8. The meaning of the Dodge Foundation’s recent confab

9. Activists speaking from the heart

10. What the US “climate commitments” at Paris COP really mean.

11. Joe Romm got played by Christie Whitman

12. Is the Christie DEP still giving HEDD to major air polluters?

13. Are Dems able to block Christie rollbacks?

14. Will EPA fold in opposition to DEP flood rules? Will they engage in WQMP rule repeal and “overhaul”?

15. Why are NJ enviro organizations so dysfunctional?

16. Energy market collusion by gas pipeline and power plant corporations – scheme smells exactly like the conspiracy and abuse of Enron and has many of the same players and dynamics of The Chairman’s role Port Authority, United, and Atlantic City airport scandals.

17. The NJ Spotlight’s new investigative series on Dirty Secrets.

Just some of the thoughts roiling around in my head right now – need a few days to simmer.

DEP justification based on “experience”, not published data

I can’t end this series without presenting and rebutting DEP’s arguments in support of the proposal.

In a prior post, I explained why a C1 buffer (SWRPA) has far stronger protections than a “riparian zone”.

Today, we consider the opposite: DEP’s arguments about how some riparian zone rules are broader than C1 SWRPA.

DEP’s Arguments Are Not Fact Based and Their Conclusions Are Ludicrous

Back in 2003, in the original DEP C1 buffer regulations, the McGreevey DEP was required to justify the 300 foot buffer width based on published scientific research and data about various buffer widths and pollutant removal rates.

In contrast, the current Christie DEP proposal is based on DEP’s claim of “experience“, which is simply asserted without supporting evidence, published data, or science:

The Department is proposing various amendments and new rules reflecting the experience it has gained in regulating riparian zones to assure protection is sufficiently robust, while adding flexibility in how the necessary protection can be achieved and making it easier to conduct necessary activities in a manner that will have minimal impacts on these important near- water areas. (proposal, @ p. 42)

Note that DEP’s “experience” is limited in scope to the “riparian zone” provisions of the FHA.

DEP failed to mention their “experience” with the C1 SWRPA program and regulations. That “experience” is documented in a November 2012 DEP technical Report titled:

• An Evaluation of NJDEP’s Category One Antidegradation Designation Process

That Report found that the C1 buffer were scientifically justified and recommended designation of an additional 121 miles of C1 waters.

There was no discussion in that report of any need for “alignment” or “streamlining” of the C1 buffer regulations – just the opposite – DEP scientists recommended that the Department expand the C1 SWRPA program. 

That Report is a critical part of the DEP’s “experience”, but it was ignored in the DEP’s proposed rollback.

The DEP claims – again without supporting evidence – that their proposal will “strengthen” and provide “better” protections:

Repealing the special resource protection area provisions (SWRPA) from the SWM rules and amending the standards for the 300-foot riparian zone in the FHACA Rules will appropriately regulate development near Category One waters and their tributaries and more effectively protect and promote the many benefits of near-stream vegetation …..

The Department anticipates that the proposed standards for development within a 300-foot riparian zone will provide better protection of vegetation along surface waters, thereby strengthening the attendant benefits to water quality and flood protection.  ~~~ DEP Environmental Impact of Proposed Flood Rule – at page 493-494

It doesn’t get more bizarre and Orwellian than that.

DEP asserts this claim, despite: 1) repealing strict restrictions on buffer disturbance, 2) weakening existing standards to allow more destruction of vegetation & more development closer to a stream, 3) allowing mitigation and credit trading to evade disturbance standards; and 4) by providing more variances and lax waivers from standards.

DEP claims that doing all that will strengthen benefits to water quality and flood protection.

If DEP can say something like that, they have absolutely zero credibility.

The DEP’s Orwellian conclusion is based on 2 claims:

1) the “riparian zone” rules regulate more streams that C1 SWRPA rules;

2) the “riparian zone” rules regulate more activities that C1 SWRPA rules;

DEP wrote:

Whereas the SWRPA applies only when a proposed project is deemed a major development, the requirements for development within the FHACA 300-foot riparian zone apply irrespective of the size of development. Furthermore, while the SWRPA applies only to features depicted on a USGS or soil survey map, a FHACA 300-foot riparian zone exists along a broader set of surface waters. (proposal at p. 493)

These claims are technically accurate but the conclusion is absurd. Let me briefly explain.

The C1 SWRPA protections apply to “major development”, defined as

“Major development” means any “development” that provides for ultimately disturbing one or more acres of land or increasing impervious surface by one-quarter acre or more.

It is technically correct that the riparian zone rules apply to more activities, smaller than an acre of disturbance. [Note: the 1 acre land “disturbance” to trigger major development is not buffer disturbance, but disturbance for the entire project. In contrast, some “riparian zone” “standards” allow disturbance of almost an acre of the C1 buffer! And far more for linear development like pipelines.]

But what are the factual implications of this distinction? DEP has permit data to answer that question.

Regardless, if DEP were sincerely seeking to “enhance protections” of buffers, all they would need to do would be to apply the broader scope of riparian zone regulated activities to the stronger SWRPA rules.

If DEP had valid arguments, they would be able to show, with actual permit based data, how many projects regulated under “riparian zone” rules are not regulated under C1 SWRPA rules and how many acres of buffer are disturbed as a result.

But DEP produced no data to back this conclusion up – they only waived the magic wand of their “experience”.

The “broader set of surface waters” claim is more complex, but even if true the same argument applies: if DEP truly wanted to enhance protections then they would apply the alleged broader “riparian zone” definition to mapping a C1 SWRPA water.

DEP has sophisticated GIS mapping technology and a robust stream network data layer.

DEP can use this GIS technology to illustrate with maps – and calculate in square feet or acres – the difference between stream miles and buffers regulated under C1 SWRPA versus stream miles and buffer acres regulated under the riparian zone rules.

But DEP did not conduct this technical mapping exercise to support their conclusion.

Plus, DEP’s conclusion failed to consider all the many weaknesses in riparian zone rules that will allow far more buffer disturbance – the “net negative impact” of the rule is obvious.

Senate Hearing

The Senate Environment Committee meets Monday morning (10/19/15) at 10 am in the Legislative Annex in Trenton to hear SCR 180 (Lesniak/Smith), a Resolution to begin the process of vetoing the Christie DEP’s proposed massive “overhaul” of the Flood Hazard, coastal, and storm water management rules.

I’ve done my level best – short of self immolating on the State House steps – to make the case as to why this DEP proposal is a huge rollback of current protections and why that is inconsistent with legislative intent.

I’ve been deeply disappointed by the passive public stance of my so called colleagues, who all backed the dramatic expansion in buffer protections enacted by the McGreevey DEP in 2002 – 2004.

Granted, 25 NJ environmental groups were unified and all quietly submitted  formal written comments to DEP opposing the proposal.

But there is a big difference between signing on to written comments and actually investing resources and mounting a public opposition to the DEP rules.

Very few groups showed up at the public hearings to testify, there was very little press coverage, and instead of using their resources to build public awareness and garner media coverage and pressure Democratic Legislators to step up and over-ride Gov. Christie self avowed rollback agenda, the have not only been silent, but spent the last weeks on the most lame, frivolous and inane self serving stunts and diversions.

The last few weeks have been a bizarre spectacle – truly “NJ’s Best” (Dodge confab): from road rally’s (Highlands Coalition), to oyster bars (NY/NJ Baykeeper), to events with boaters (ALS), to champagne toasts with Governor Christie’s Lt. Governor ( (NJEF/Clean Water NJ) . These are real events that actually happened. I’m not making this shit up.

Meanwhile, the biggest land use and water quality battle in over a decade has gone totally un-engaged and unreported.

The DEPs proposed rule impacts hundreds of NJ towns, over 2,00 stream miles, more than 150,000 acres of ecologically sensitive lands, all drinking water reservoirs, thousands of homes, and billions of dollars in property value.

So, it all boils down to Monday.

Preliminary political signals going into the hearing do not look good for the Resolution being released by the Committee on Monday.

In addition to the silence from the environmental groups – with the exception of an “Action Alert” from Sierra Club that was forwarded to me – to wit:

1)  the actual text of SCR 180 has not been publicly released and posted on the Legislature’s web site. In fact, I just learned that, contrary to a September 25, 2015 NJ Spotlight story that said the Resolution had been introduced on September 24,, the Resolution is “pending introduction and referral”:

“These so-called rule changes would eliminate important protections for our waterways, degrading water quality, endangering fish habitats, and increase the risk of flooding,’’ said Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), who introduced the resolution yesterday in the Senate.

2) the press has done no set up stories, but somehow has found space to cover 3 set up stories on the Liberty State Park oversight that was added to the Senate Environmental Committee’s Monday agenda.

So, here are the recent posts since DEP released the rule proposal on 6/1/15 – where I’ve tried to provide sufficient information and analysis to make the case:

• NJ Flooded Again – Christie DEP Proposes to Weaken Flood Protection Rules (6/1/15)
• Legislators Urged To Block Christie DEP Flood Hazard Rule Rollbacks (6/26/15)
• Media Coverage is Part of the Problem (Part 289)  (9/8/15)
• Christie DEP Denies Rollback in Stream Buffer Protections (9/27/15)
• Legislators Seek To Veto Christie DEP Flood Hazard & Coastal Rule Proposal (10/4/15)
• We Dedicate This Week To Stopping the Christie DEP Rollbacks Of Protections of Category One Streams and Reservoirs (10/11/15)
• Sidney Brook: NJ’s First Stream Designated “Category One” Based on “Exceptional Ecological Significance” (10/12/15)
• An Ode On The Paulins Kill – An “Exceptional” Resource (10/13/15)
• Christie DEP Allows Huge Increases In Stream Buffer Disturbance For Development (10/13/15)
• Christie DEP Flood Credit Trading Scheme Is an Illegal Tax On Development
• In the Weeds: Why A Category One Stream Buffer Has Far More Protections Than A Riparian Zone (10/16/15)

That’s all folks – we’ll keep you posted on what goes down on Monday. We urge you to let members of that Committee know how you feel or better yet, come to Trenton and tell them in person!