WolfeNotes.com

Murphy Administration Essentially Outsourced Policy Role To Private Group

Report on lead likely to provide platform for privatization & dodge key issues

Lead issue tip of iceberg in a collapsing water infrastructure & regulatory framework

Back in January, a private Foundation created and/or funded group who claims exactly 544 members called Jersey Water Works publicly announced – in a press release – that they would:

produce report of best practices and recommendations for eliminating lead from drinking water statewide.

So, at a critical time, this private group basically took on the challenge of developing State policy, as the Murphy administration and Democratic legislature abdicated the policymaking role and dodged accountability for multiple failures. Accordingly, the Murphy administration was glad to assign DEP staff to support this private group, instead of having to do the heavy lifting in developing a real response to the multiple crises involved.

[Update – 10/8/19: Just 2 days after I wrote this, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that NJ Senate Democrats held a press conference stressing what the stenographic media called a “sense of urgency“. They are especially desperate to avoid any discussion of the privatization issue and their lead role in supporting it. But just like I said, it’s all BS:

Sweeney said New Jersey needs money to fix its water issues but he doesn’t want to raise fees. It’s something, he said, that could knock him out of office. ~~~ end update]

Jersey Water Works is another classic in NJ’s long history of allowing self selected, unaccountable, private sector special interest groups to frame the issues and dominate the public policymaking process. These groups are not subject to any public process, transparency, scientific peer review, or ethical restrictions. This is not only undemocratic, poor policy development, and ideologically biased, but it reeks of self dealing and conflicts of interest.

These “Stakeholder” groups typically form when a huge public controversy overwhelms state policymakers, exposes government negligence or failed regulatory oversight, and creates the need for political cover. Typically, the stakes are large: a huge pot of public money, deregulation, privatization, and/or economic opportunity is about to be created by government. Everyone then jumps on the gravy train.

Accordingly, following NJ longstanding pattern, JWW’s membership is dominated by a melange of those with huge economic interests in water: private water companies, consultants, banking & finance,  engineering and construction firms, real estate, and developers.

This economic development oriented private group is provided a veneer of legitimacy, “diversity”, “balance”, “building consensus”, and cover by the corrupt “transactional” planning and environmental groups that feed at the trough of government grants and Foundation funding (i.e. Sustainable NJ, NJ Future, American Littoral Society, Clean ocean Action, Clean Water Action, Environment NJ, et al).

Individuals and groups with an independent orientation (those groups that are membership funded and/or not dependent on in NJ state foundation funding) and those with a critical approach or what is viewed as a “radical” policy agenda (e.g. Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch, local grassroots community groups fighting for clean water, against privatization & toxic pollution, and active private citizens – i.e. anyone that works contrary to Neoliberal corporate interests) – are not invited and their views are marginalized.

So, with that said, first, let me set the policy context for this JWW Report.

The announcement came after increasing focus on: 1) longstanding multi-billion dollar water infrastructure deficits; 2) failure by State policymakers to enact a new revenue source to fund these deficits; 3) a series of drinking water crises across the state; 4) eight years of regulatory rollbacks and under investment by the Christie administration, and 5) passage of controversial privatization legislation by the Democratic legislature that deregulated and stripped voters of their rights to vote on whether or not to privatize their local water system.

The implications of how the privatization law stripped voters of their formal approval role was brought to light recently in Edison, where voters overwhelming rejected a proposed privatization plan, by over 84%, see:

• Edison’s voters force public control of water after yearlong political drama

As I’ve previously written, the JWW Report is very likely going to provide a platform for privatization (look for the euphemisms “public-private partnerships” and “asset management” to provide cover for privatization.)

But here are some important issues that I suspect that the Report will downplay or ignore completely (I’ll provide supporting text and links to these bullets over the ext few days. In the meantime, intrepid readers can word search Wolfenotes – I’ve posted stuff on almost all of this).

• Scientific flaws, gaps, and loopholes in current drinking water regulations and how they are monitored and enforced, including the federal EPA lead and copper rule and corrosion control that NJ DEP relies on
• Inadequate oversight, negligence, and lax enforcement by NJ DEP
• What really happened in Newark – what DEP knew and when they knew it
• Lack of resources and professional expertise & capacity at NJ DEP
• A specific new funding mechanism to adequately finance infrastructure upgrades (water tax)
• Regulatory mandates to consider environmental justice in DEP policy, rules, and decisions
• a regulatory based new Source water protection policy
• a new “precautionary” public health approach to DEP regulation, MCL’s, and “risk assessment”, including cumulative impacts, multiple chemical exposures, and multiple exposure pathways
• New regulatory restrictions on industrial polluters & sewage treatment plants
• New regulatory restrictions on land use and development
• New regulatory restrictions mandating retrofit of existing development
• Real enforceable timetables and milestones in combined sewer overflow permits
• New regulatory restrictions on agriculture and forestry (including bans of toxic pesticides and water quality based regulatory limits on fertilizers)
• Addressing over 500 “unregulated contaminants” in drinking water via what DEP has recommended as a “treatment based approach” (including new treatment requirements for drinking water plants AND wastewater discharges)
• Limits on surface and groundwater withdrawals – maintenance of river and stream flows
• Regulatory consideration of Climate change impacts on water resources and infrastructure
• New mandatory water conservation requirements
• Regulatory consideration of ecological impacts
• Enhanced DEP and State role in water supply planning and regulation
• Specific recommendations for new legislation and regulation

All of these issues in some way touch upon drinking water and the lead issue.

Frankly, the lead issue is the tip of the iceberg in a collapsing water infrastructure and regulatory framework.

More to follow when the Report is released.

Proposal Fails To Consider Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 

The Murphy DEP just extended the public comment period until October 22 on the DEP proposed  State Implementation Plan (SIP) For Regional Haze for the Brigantine Wilderness Area.

I don’t know why the public comment period was extended, but when DEP does so, it typically means either industry opposition or technical flaws with the original proposal.

[Note: Jeff Tittel of Sierra Club just sent this explanatory note:

We requested an extension and 2 week extension was granted .Taylor from Sierra was only commenter at the hearing we requested. ~~~ end Note]

On a positive note, SIP proposals are complex and typically take several years to develop, which can span administrations. Accordingly, sometimes an extension of a public comment period can provide the DEP Commissioner with the opportunity to reconsider policy in light of new science or different policy objectives than the prior administration that drafted a proposal.

Once again, the Murphy DEP has ignored an opportunity to regulate and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Firstly, the SIP ignores climate change. Even DEP’s own Global Warming Response Act Report (2009) notes the linkages between climate change and ground level ozone, particulates, and haze:  (@ page 10)

The DEP GWRA Report discusses that science further on page 24:

That DEP Report was written 10 year ago and is based on science even older than that. That science has only become stronger over the last decade.

Secondly, the DEP SIP gives short shrift to the air quality impacts of energy efficiency.

I have very little technical background in this issue, but I decided to do a quick review of the proposal, for key issues I am somewhat aware of. Based on that cursory review, I submitted the below 5 comments. Here’s the story:

The Regional Haze SIP is required by the federal Clean Air Act: (DEP SIP, p.1)

I urge those more familiar with this issue to ask DEP why they extended the public comment period and whether the proposal can be strengthened, (as it was likely developed during the Christie DEP anti-regulatory days).

With that in mind and based on a cursory review, I submitted the following comments.There could be many additional issues, including implications for the Pinelands.

Greetings – I submit the below comments on the DEP’s proposed regional haze SIP:

1. Climate change

The proposal fails to address emissions of greenhouse gases which cause and contribute to global warming, ground level ozone, and regional haze.

Based on consensus atmospheric and climate science, one of the known impacts of global warming is an increase in ground level ozone and an increase in atmospheric moisture.

Based on consensus atmospheric and climate science, increases in ground level ozone, fine particulates, and atmospheric moisture are precursors to regional haze and reduce visibility.

Therefore, the proposal is deficient and must be withdrawn until the Department considers emissions of greenhouse gases and imposes control strategies to reduce those emissions (also see above excerpts of GWRA Report).

2. Energy Efficiency

The SIP states:

“This MANE-VU Ask requires that States consider and report in their SIPs on measures or programs to decrease energy demand using energy efficiency and increase the use within their state of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and other clean Distributed Generation technologies including fuel cells, wind, and solar.” (p. 28, emphasis added)

The proposal failed to evaluate fuel cells, wind, and solar.

Additionally, today, NJ Spotlight reported on a study:

https://www.njspotlight.com/2019/10/nj-makes-small-gains-in-energy-efficiency-but-is-no-longer-a-leader-among-states/

“New Jersey, once a leader in energy efficiency, inched forward, ranking 17^th in the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, rising one place in the rankings.”

The SIP proposal is flawed because it did not address and report on the energy efficiency programs and haze control strategies documented in the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Report.

Despite these deficiencies, the proposal concludes that NJ is compliant with energy efficiency requirements.

“New Jersey has met the requirements for this Ask.” (page 29)

The DEP must analyze the air quality implications of distributed energy technologies and comprehensive energy efficiency and impose stricter regulation of those programs.

3. Prescribed Burns

The proposal states:

“Therefore, the MANE-VU Class I area states need additional help from the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Land Managers in pursuing important reasonable emission control measures.30 These include, but are not limited to:

1. Federal Land Managers to consult with MANE-VU Class I area states when scheduling prescribed burns and ensure that these burns do not impact nearby IMPROVE visibility measurements and do not impact potential 20 percent most and least visibility impaired days;”

The proposal is deficient in addressing prescribed burn impacts.

Accordingly the DEP should impose a moratorium on prescribed burns until impacts are assessed and regulatory control strategies in place.

4. Agricultural Burns

The proposal states:

“New Jersey is required to consider smoke management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and forestry management in developing reasonable progress goals in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D). New Jersey addresses smoke management through its Open Burning rules, as follows:”

The DEP open burning rules are deficient because they do not assess or control agricultural burns.

The proposal does not adequately assess or impose control requirements for agricultural burns.

Accordingly the DEP should impose a moratorium on prescribed burns until impacts are assessed and regulatory control strategies in place.

5. Residential Wood Burning

The SIP proposal states:

“Fine particulate matter from wood smoke contributes to regional haze. Residential wood burning from woodstoves and fireplaces is one of the largest sources of direct fine particulate matter, PM2.5, emissions in New Jersey“ (emphasis added, p. 36)

Yet despite this finding, the DEP does not regulate residential wood burning and relies exclusively on public eduction:

“New Jersey does not regulate wood stoves and fireplaces” (p. 36)

The proposal is deficient in this regard. It fails to adequately assess or impose control requirements on credential wood burning.

Accordingly the DEP should impose a moratorium on residential wood burning until impacts are assessed and regulatory control strategies in place – or equivalent emissions reductions can be achieved and demonstrated via regulation of other emission sources.

Sincerely,

Bill Wolfe