WolfeNotes.com

Supports Development Moratorium 

This is what PR looks like - DEP Commisioner Martin spins (photo credit: NJDEP)

While I strongly disagree with their characterization of the Christie plan as “ambitious”, today a superb Asbury Park press editorial – as we recommended  – calls out DEP Commissioner Bob Martin for spin and frustrating public participation: Stop restricting public discussion -

it would be nice if state environmental commissioner Bob Martin’s public presentations had more public participation and less spin.

As per the typical pattern, I was not even aware of, never mind invited to Martin’s “briefing” session.

I wrote Tuesday’s piece based exclusively on the DEP press release and Kirk Moore’s story.

Who got invited to the DEP briefing? Was it public noticed? What ENGO issued an alert? 

Why would they participate in and thereby legitimize such a BS forum? I thought the inside Pringle game was over.

On the substance, APP slams DEP sewer plans and, surprisingly, calls for DEP to declare a moratorium:

In fact, the DEP should declare a moratorium now on development around Barnegat Bay until such time as all the in progress scientific studies and surveys have been completed and analyzed.

I take issue with the legal and political feasibility or even need for a moratorium, and instead urge DEP and EPA to enforce current laws.

Now, while they’re on a roll, the APP needs to call out NOAA for their policy that requires scientists to “avoid advocacy at all costs” or risk termination of NOAA funding.

Some might find mere engagement in the public debate to be “advocacy”.

NJ scientists and academic institutions need to step up and publicly denounce that NOAA policy as an egregious affront to academic freedom.

The opportunity to write that story comes today, at a NOAA listening session at Monmouth University.

[Update: 7/2/11 - Jeff Tittel Op-Ed lays out the solutions we have been urging for years now: Stand up for the bay, not special interests.

Tittel points to a big problem that has gotten little attention: loss of freshwater flows in coastal streams and into the Bay (the Bay has lost over 30% of freshwater input, which alters salt, temperature, and ecological conditions).  The water deficits in the Metedeconk and Toms River explain the lenghty DEP delays in update to the Water Supply Master Plan, which is years later now, as we noted last August. At that time, DEP claimd the draft plan would be released in May, 2011.  But, the only reporter to cover the issue, Ed Rodgers of NJN is no longer broadcasting, which is just what Christie wanted. - end]

The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind; …  By the public use of one’s own reason I understand the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world.              ~~~  What is Enlightenment? (Kant – 1784)

We all know that issues related to the management of NJ’s prescious coastal and ocean ecosystems are often highly controversial and scientifically complex.

That’s why we particularly need scientists who are willing to become involved in the public policy debates to ground the discussion in science. By doing so, they can serve as a counterveilling force to the “expert” hired guns of special interests, expose the corruption and deceit of anti-rational science deniers, and hold government accountable. 

By publicly talking about how their research applies to public policy issues, scientists can become public intellectuals and key advocates of the public interest as arrived at through public discourse (see Scholar as Citizen, a blog of University of Wisconsin Professor William Cronon for a perfect example of how this works).

Unfortunately, despite lofty American principles like “academic freedom” and “free speech” and “scientific integrity“, scientists run the risk of retaliation and loss of funding if they become involved and speak out.

NOAA policy mandates that scientists must avoid advocacy “at all costs” or risk being stripped of NOAA Sea Grant funding.

See below for a distressing example of this - the remarkable story of marine scientist and Professor Rick Steiner.

NJ scientists and professors are directly at risk. 

NOAA funds the NJ Sea Grant Consortium, which is comprised of  20 member NJ colleges and Universities, including Monmouth, Rutgers, NJIT and Stevens.  Their mission is:

New Jersey Sea Grant Consortium Member Institutions are colleges, universities and other groups with expertise in marine, coastal and/or estuarine science and an interest in New Jersey’s marine, coastal and/or estuarine affairs. Collectively the group works to advance knowledge and wise-utilization of New Jersey’s marine and coastal resources and make a positive impact on marine and coastal policy throughout the region. The Consortium also coordinates and seeks funding opportunities for cooperative research, education and extension projects among its members.

NJ Sea Consortium member institutions and scientists should speak out against this NOAA policy, which compromises their academic freedoms and free speech rights. ENGO’s should join that effort because we lose when science is muzzled or sidelined. And the media should oppose this as well, as they lose the best sources for stories.

News Releases

Print  Email

For Immediate Release: June 29, 2011
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

NOAA KEEPS GAG RULE ON UNIVERSITY MARINE SCIENTISTS — Rejects Petition to Lift Ban against “Advocacy” by Sea Grant Recipients

Washington, DC — The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will continue to forbid scientists who receive its marine research grants from speaking out on matters of public concern even as private citizens, according to its denial of a rulemaking petition filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a result, academics must avoid advocacy “at all costs” or risk being stripped of NOAA Sea Grant funding, under official guidance that remains in effect.

The PEER petition was sparked by a case in which the University of Alaska withdrew federal Sea Grant funding from a prominent marine scientist under pressure from NOAA officials who complained about his “advocacy” for marine conservation. The marine scientist, Professor Rick Steiner, came under attack by NOAA officials for speaking at a press conference protesting a pro-oil industry slant in a Sea Grant conference on proposed petroleum development in Alaska’s Bristol Bay.

PEER filed a rulemaking petition with NOAA on December 17, 2009 shortly after Prof. Steiner’s Sea Grant funding was stripped. In a decision dated June 1, 2011 (but actually delivered more than three weeks later), NOAA declined to clarify its policy, contending the guidelines were “not a binding legal requirement” even though NOAA sought to have the restriction enforced in the Steiner case.

Curiously, earlier this month NOAA circulated a draft Scientific Integrity Policy affirming the ability of its employees to express “personal” viewpoints in their fields but this policy would not apply to grantees. The text of the draft NOAA policy reads: “NOAA scientists are free to present viewpoints within their area of professional expertise that extend beyond science to incorporate personal opinion but must make clear they are presenting their individual opinions when doing so…”

“Rather than taking this opportunity to clarify its support for academic freedom, NOAA has chosen to hide behind the fig leaf of a legalism,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that it took NOAA over 18 months to issue a curt denial of the PEER petition, a delay which officials ascribed to the need to coordinate with its emerging Scientific Integrity Policy. “It makes no sense that NOAA agency scientists would be free to speak out but academic scientists who receive NOAA Sea Grants are not.”

Nonetheless, NOAA officials have consistently defended their position that academic grantees should not take “positions on issues of public debate.” In the Steiner case, a top Sea Grant official approached Prof. Steiner’s dean indicating that NOAA had “an issue with Rick Steiner” because “he was acting as an advocate,” adding that “one agent can cause problems nationally” and urging that Prof. Steiner “not be paid with Sea Grant funds.”

“If the U.S. wants to restore ocean health and integrity, then NOAA Sea Grant has to allow and encourage conservation perspectives to be voiced publicly by scientists it funds,” said Steiner, who resigned his professorship over the flap. “The denial of the PEER petition, which had simply asked NOAA to do just that, is a clear sign that NOAA remains clueless as to the desperate state of the ocean and their responsibility for correcting it.”

###

See the PEER Sea Grant petition

View the Sea Grant ban on advocacy 

Read the NOAA rejection

Look at NOAA draft Scientific Integrity Policy

Examine pending PEER petition to repeal Commerce-wide speech restrictions

Scan Alaska Legislature citation for Richard Steiner

 

[Update: 6/30/11 - While I strongly disagree with their characterization of the Christie plan as "ambitious", today a superb Asbury Park press editorial - as we recommended below - calls out DEP Commissioner Bob Martin for spin and frustrating public participation: Stop restricting public discussion -

it would be nice if state environmental commissioner Bob Martin’s public presentations had more public participation and less spin.

As per the typical pattern, I was not even aware of, never mind invited to Martin's "briefing" session. I wrote this piece based exclusively on the DEP press release and Kirk Moore's story. Who got invited to the DEP briefing? Was it public noticed? What ENGO issued an alert? Why would they participate in adn thereby legitimize such a BS forum? I thought the inside Pringle game was over. - end]

Yesterday, DEP issued a press release, ostensibly to provide an update on the “Christie Administration’s Action Plan Toward Long Term Restoration”.

Note the not too subtle insertion of the phrase “long term” in the headline. This is a caveat designed to dampen expectations, dodge performance accountability, and provide an excuse for more delays and lack of effective action. 

That “long term” caveat was not included in the Governor’s original plan, which was titled: December 09, 2010 – Governor Christie Fulfills Pledge to Clean Up and Restore Barnegat Bay; Announces Comprehensive Plan of Action. “Action” means action right? Not more study.

Anyway, aside from further politicizing the issue by holding Commissioner Martin’s event in a blatently partisan Republican Ocean County setting, I want to note that the DEP press release touted the following, first among “accomplishments” (note the past tense, as in “done already“):  

Some key accomplishments so far, the Commissioner said, include:

$44 million in grants and loans made available to local governments for nearly 100 projects, primarily upgrades to aging and ineffective stormwater systems;

To back that claim up, DEP even provided a link to a project list - it took some web navigation and 6 clicks to get to it, but did DEP think no one was going to find it and then read it?

It turns out, even a cursory review shows that DEP did not make $44 million  available for “nearly 100 projects”.

That is just flat out false.

Which embarrasssed and forced DEP Commissioner Martin to walk back those false claims from his own DEP press release.

Kirk Moore, a fine reporter who reads the documents, fact checks claims, and knows the difference between real money and an “accomplishment” versus a proposed project wish list, quoted Martin:

Some 90 stormwater projects are proposed across the 660-square-mile watershed, and $44 million for those could come soon from the state Legislature, Martin said. Funding for new projects in fiscal year 2012 will increase from $10 million to $17 million, he said.

“We expect to get that approved this week,” Martin said. “We only expected about $10 (million) to $15 million

How many times must DEP be caught spinning before they either stop doing it or are called out by media explicitly for doing it?

In terms of the substantive elements of the DEP status report, I’ve previously criticized the Governor’s vetoes of the stormwater management bill and the TMDL bill and written extensively about flaws in the Governor’s plan.

So, I would make the following new observations now:

1. Here are relevant quotes from a news story two years ago – my sense is that very little on the ground or in regulation, or DEP practices  have changed since then:

With Barnegat Bay’s survival in question, action demanded

Friday, July 31, 2009

STAR-LEDGER STAFF

It’s choked by invasive aquatic weeds, infested with jellyfish and devoid of clams and oysters that used to support an entire shellfish industry.

The Barnegat Bay, which separates mainland Ocean County from a barrier island of seashore towns, has been the subject of numerous studies, all pointing to the slow death of a fragile ecosystem over the last two decades.

“We’ve actually reached a critical threshold where action is required to protect the bay,” said Michael DeLuca, the senior associate director of Rutgers University’s Institute of Marine and Coastal Science. “Now it is clearly time to act.”

Representatives from many environmental groups said state officials have been aware of the bay’s problems for years but have taken no significant steps to correct them.

They worry yesterday’s meeting — like others in the past — will end up being nothing more than lip service from legislators who lack the interest or the political will to save the bay.

As commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection last year, Lisa Jackson publicly stressed the need to restrict the levels of nitrogen in lawn fertilizers that wash into the bay after rainstorms. Nitrogen promotes the excessive growth of algae and other plants, and deprives water of oxygen for native marine life, a condition known as eutrophication.

Bill Wolfe, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said neither Jackson — who now heads the federal Environmental Protection Agency — nor her interim replacement, acting Commissioner Mark Mauriello, has addressed the nitrogen issue.

2. Today’s Star Ledger coverage of DEP’s press release and remarks by Commissioner Martin notes that some environmentalists are calling for a development moratorium.

In the abstract, as a matter of policy, that would be great, but practically it is totally unncessary.

Politically, a moratorium is deploying the nuclear option, and politically it is not realistic.

In this economy, there is effectively almost a defacto moratorium, with very little development happening. So a moratorim is not necessary.

So, if a moratorium is an extreme policy measure and it is not needed, why would ENGO’s call for it?

That kind of demand only makes them look extreme and the Governor’s defiant do nothing approach seem reasonable.

Instead of a development moratorium, ENGO’s need to demand that EPA intervene and enforce the Clean Water Act and withold NJ’s federal EPA Clean Water Act funding.

EPA enforcement is required because the Governor of NJ – by vetoing the TMDL bill and not honoring prior DEP TMDL commitments to EPA – is flouting the Clean Water Act.

3. ENGOs’ need to demand that DEP fund and enforce NJ environmental laws and DEP regulations to protect and restore the bay.

Here is the DEP regulatory agenda I laid out, again two years ago.

It should become the set of demands for a unified ENGO community campaign (see: All Quiet on the Regulatory Front – DEP Sits on Sidelines While Barnegat Bay Dies:

If DEP were serious about protecting the bay, they would: 

1) adopt enforceable nitrogen standards and enforce nitrogen BMPs in regulatory programs; 
2) classify all streams draining to the bay as “Category One’ waters, which provide 300 foot wide protected naturally vegetated buffers; 
3) enforce cumulative impact standards in the CAFRA coastal permit program to limit the growth of addition soil/vegetation disturbance and new impervious surfaces, pollution sources and water withdrawals; 
4) mandate cooling towers at Oyster Creek; 
5) adopt the Ocean County Soil Conservation Service study recommendations on soil compaction and modify “TR 55″ manual to force builders to change site construction and storm water management practices; 
6) mandate water conservation measures and cap current water withdrawals; 
7) provide technical and financial assistance to Towns;
8 ) enforce the Clean Water Act’s “TMDL” program

9) restrict new sewers.

More to follow on the other elements in DEP’s status report when I get the time.

[Update: 7/2/11 - In contrast to the Ledger story, see Jim O'neill's Bergen Record story today, which specifically addresses each deficiency I noted in the Ledger story. Coincidence?:  River too dirty to host oysters - end]

Today’s Star Ledger runs a page one story on NJ’s toxic environment and the Clean Water Act: Piles Creek species remain at risk despite environmental protections

The story concludes with this recommendation:

Weis — who is chair of the [AHEM! "controversial"] science advisory board of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, has served on committees for the Environmental Protection Agency, and is currently writing about water for the United Nations — believes the Clean Water Act and other environmental protections since the 1960s have brought life back to Piles Creek and other places. Yet she said the environmental threats remain.

“The current regulations are allowing really dreadful places like Piles Creek become better,” she said. “However, it will take a lot more effort, money and stronger regulations — and a lot of years — for them to really become healthy environments.”

Wow. This is a page one story? Where do I begin?

Maybe next time, the Ledger reporter will explore and inform readers of the context and a few important facts, like:

• Who are the corporate polluters who made this toxic mess?
• Are they paying to clean it up?
• Are DEP or EPA enforcing the Clean Water Act on those polluters?
• What is the status of current regulations and is there any prospect of new regulations under the Christie Administration?
• What is the status of current funding and is there any prospect of increased funding under the Christie Administration?
• What are the threats to the ecosystem and public health from this pollution?
• How prevalent is this toxic pollution in NJ?
• What is the DEP Science Advisory Board and what are they doing?

Perhaps the Ledger reporter needs an intervention by Wolfenotes.

DEP Commissioner Martin testifies before Senate Budget Committee (2010)

Real Story: DEP Budget Slashed Further

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight reports that the Assembly’s budget eliminates the DEP Office of “Green energy and Economic Development”, created by Commissioner Bob Martin to implement his vision that DEP’s role is to promote economic development:

The draft budget proposed by Democratic leaders would eliminate funding for the office, saving $1.26 million, a fraction of the DEP’s overall $330 million budget. All told, the agency’s budget has fallen by $16.7 million from the budget introduced by Gov. Chris Christie in March. The drop-off is largely due to the fact that the administration lowered its projections of revenue coming from the corporate business tax. A portion of the tax is dedicated to specific environmental programs, such as cleaning up hazardous waste sites and leaking underground storage tanks.

First, I am pleased to see that Office scrutinized and the issue of economic development promotion at DEP finally engaged, but must note that Greenwald is not killing that Office because of policy reasons (i.e. Greenwald didn’t say that DEP should not be promoting economic development and that role violates their mission).

As such, this is more a political embarrassment to Commissioner Martin than a real challenge to the Christie environmental policy rollback.

But maybe Greenwald would have done the right thing for the right reasons if the enviro community opposed the Christie/Martin economic development Uber Alles from the start, 18 months ago.

If Greenwald is concerned about duplication of services and other management issues, he should restore the DEP Policy and Planning Office and function.

That was the ONLY place in DEP that even attempted to integrate the various permit silos in the Department. Bob Martin killed that Office.

For those interested, I’ve been writing about all this for many months, most recently, see: Some Stuff at Christie’s DEP

Second, I was one of the creators and worked on the 1996 Constitutional amendment to dedicate 4% of corporate business tax proceeds to DEP.

The intent of that was dedication was to stop diversions of DEP and environmental funds.

That CBT money was not supposed to displace General Fund appropriations to DEP.

So, if DEP’s share of CBT revenues is declining, they should be made up by more General Fund appropriations to DEP.

In this case, Christie is slashing DEP’s budget further – and the Democrats are allowing it to happen.

That’s the real story here – not Greenwald’s political games.

Every Picture Tells A Story – Which Do You Prefer?

Shooting a photo is fun, and often revealing, in what you choose to put inside and leave out of the frame. Do you “enhance” the original with photoshop?

The below photo is posted on DEP’s Barnegat Bay Restoration website, so one would assume that it is supposed to illustrate something positive about  Barnegat Bay - not the Lighthouse. And everyone knows that Lighthouses are vertical.

So note how the DEP photo of the Barnegat Bay Lighthouse emphasizes verticality, and in so doing brings the ugly green algae slime on the rocks prominently into view in the foreground. Was DEP trying to emphasize the fact that the bay has a eutrophication problem? (algae is an indicator of excessive nutrient pollution). And the un-natural exaggerated green color suggests the original photo was color enhanced via Photoshop to bring out the red of the Lighthouse and blue sky. Engineered rip-rap (rocks). And note what it leaves out: No public access, No people, and No dunes or any other natural features: 

In contrast, note how I avoid that nastiness and bring other desirable features of the Bay into the picture – water, boat, sand, and public walkway to access the Lighthouse:

In the alternate, one can shoot the Lighthouse from the back, and show dunes and vegetation and those ugly imported rocks: 

Or one can shoot the view from the top of the Lighthouse, and emphasize over-development and how vulnerable all those homes are:

Or you can emphasize the human aspects – picnic benches, walkway, seagulls overhead, and guy sunning himself on the rocks at left:

Or you could simply depict everyday people accessing  and enjoying themselves on the Bay/Shore: 

Or you can suggest irony, in a fisherman, with the Oyster Creek nuclear plant aquatic life slaughter machine just over his shoulder on the far horizon:

Or boating

Or what we’re fighting

“We don’t just keep up with changing times, we set the pace”

[Update 2 : 6/26/11 - Just read the NY Times story. So, in addition to a questionable corporate co-chair, Obama provided no policy agenda and no real funding. How is it possible to stimulate what Obama described as a "renaissance" without policy or money? As the Times story alludes to, Obama is beginning to deliver the same message in swing states. So, my take is that this initiative is more rhetoric and political message, than policy. It is an "umbrella",  not for policy  coordination, but as a political shield against criticism on the jobs front.

Again, this is a huge missed opportunity, because Obama could have really used this initiative as a way to pivot from his economic austerity (budget deficit dominated) agenda driven by Wall Street finance and Republican Teabaggers, to a major New Deal like Keynesian  jobs and domestic investment program, and political response to: 1) Depression Era unemployment; 2) huge infrastructure deficits; and 3) tremendous renewable energy opportunities.  

Update 1: 6/25/11 - a supporter delicately let me know that the Obama's "Advanced Manufacturing Partnership"  initiative is co-chaired by Dow Chemical Corp. That's not a very good sign. Dow is not the kind of innovation or manufacturing we need. The chemical industry expects that the Dow appointment will result in favorable regulatory policies  for the chemical industry. Dow co-chair also champions free trade - which has been used to destroy US manufacturing, offshore jobs, and implement a corporate race to the bottom strategy of cost reduction by sacrificing environmental and labor protections for windfall profits. This is the crap I hate most about Obama - the rhetoric soars and the fine print sucks. Gotta fine print and fact check everything with this guy. That's a real problem when he can smoke a hard core skeptic (borderline cynic) like myself. Or maybe I'm just getting lazy and just was looking for some good news on a Friday afternoon.  But at least the Universities that are participating are all elite.]

President Obama spoke today at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) about technological innnovation and reinvigoration of the US manufacturing sector (watch it).

Here is the text of the speech (with more pictures from White House blog)

Not only did I enjoy the speech, but I’m proud to say that both my kids attend CMU, a world class University with roots in Pittsburgh’s steel mills (Andrew Carnegie’s motto: “My heart is in the work“).

My son just graduated with honors and will move on to a PhD program in computer science at Johns Hopkins. My daughter just finished her junior year at CMU’s Tepper business school. (Ironically, I declined a full scholarship from Carnegie Tech in 1975).

As someone who views these issues from environmental and economic justice perspectives, I was pleased by Obama’s linkage of innovation to renewable energy and green jobs and focus on domestic opportunities.

As a member of the Luddite school (the Luddites got a bum rap), a skeptic of technology, and a critic of the positivists and technological utopians, I was comforted that Obama, at the outset, explicitly recognized that there were social and economic dislocations associated with the “creative destruction” of technological innovation.  

However, I wish he had gone further and talked about the devastation caused by the conscious deindustrialization of America and structural flaws in our finance driven economy. 

And Obama may have gone over the line in reinforcing the great American myth. He praised the ”adventurous pioneering spirit” of the sole technological innovator (you know: the unfunded and obscure individual – from Henry Ford and Thomas Edison to Steve Gates – working in the garage, that produce great breakthroughs).

In contrast to the myth of the 19th century rugged individualist, innovations in science and technology today are driven by large institutions, huge public investments, and collaborative efforts .

Obama himself recognized this reality by noting the critical role of the University in conducting research that was does not have an immediate commercial application and thus does not attract private capital investment.

These economic investment realities (what I learned were “public goods” and “market failures”, back in the day of “industrial policy”) are what drive the need for public investment – and university development and incubation.

These are major policy premises of Obama’s “Assuring Leadership in Advanced American Manufacturing“.

I hope these critical issues get more attention by both the media and the political process.

Carnegie Mellon University

Potential Good News For Bays, Estuaries, and Coastal Streams – Bad News for Highlands

The controversial Science Advisory Board recently issued important findings regarding DEP’s current nitrate dilution model.

The model is used in various DEP planning, land use, and water quality regulatory programs.

The model is used to determine development potential and the allowable density of septic systems, and thus has a huge impact on land use and water quality.

The model and its applications have been under attack by builders for many years. 

Yet environmentalists claim it is flawed, fails to consider adverse ecological impacts of nitrogen, and allows far too much development to occur that pollutes surface and groundwater resources.

A variant of the model is implemented as the basis for the controversial 88 acre “septic density standard” in the Highlands.

The Farm Bureau sued to block that Highlands standard. But that attack was rejected by an Administrative Law judge and affirmed by the Corzine DEP Commissioner.

But, as the Farm Bureau case moved into the Court’s, current Christie DEP Commissioner Bob Martin agreed to reconsider the standard and requested a delay in the Court case. (for details and links to documents, see: Is Bob Martin Sabotaging The Highlands Septic Density Standard?

To mask a transparent direct attack on the Highlands, as a part of the Farm Bureau litigation reconsideration, Martin charged the SAB with a broader series of science, regulatory, and policy questions regarding the DEP’s nitrate dilution model.

But Martin ignored the fact that the SAB was designed to stick to the science, and stay out of policy and regulatory issues.

Now, in response to Martin’s questions, the SAB provides several findings that involve science, policy, and regulation. Dangerously, the SAB findings may serve as a pretextual scientific basis to unravel the Highlands septic density standard in the DEP Highlands regulations.

I will discuss those technical issues in detail in a subsequent post.

But for today, we need to make one narrower but  important point made by the SAB.

This narrower focus is timely, in light of the discussion on Kirk Moore’s Pinelands story about water quality studies to support Barnegat Bay “Special Area Management Plan” (SAMP).

We have argued for a Clean Water Act “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) as the vehicle to address the Bay’s ecological collapse.

But Governor Christie vetoed a bill passed by the Legislature that would have mandated a TMDL for the Bay.

We have called on EPA to mandate a TMDL, given NJ’s continuing gross violation of the Clean Water Act and prior TMDL commitments with EPA.

We believe there are many reasons why this science based TMDL regulatory stick is preferable to the current Barnegat Bay Partnership locally driven management model and Christie Administration’s voluntary SAMP approach.

Now the SAB agrees with us.

The SAB findings explicity supported the TMDL approach for Barnegat Bay and coastal plain streams. The SAB found:

The most sensitive receptors for for excess nitrate are likely to be estuaries and low nutrient coastal plain streams. Given the nature of estuaries, a load-based regulatory approach (TMDL type approach) would make the most sense. Such an approach, furthermore, would be based on total nitrogen, not nitrate alone. (@ page 8)

We will be closely watching how Commissioner Martin implements these SAB findings. They have tremendous implications. More to follow.