NJ declares wind and solar energy as inherently beneficial

Written by Mike Pisauro on December 28th, 2009 in land use, legislation, Renewable Energy, Solar, Wind | No Comments »

Last month, the Governor finally signed legislation that decrees that wind turbines and solar panels are inherently beneficial under New Jersey’s land use laws.  This is a step forward for wind energy in New Jersey.

Up to now, in most cases if a person or business wanted to install a wind turbine in New Jersey they would have to seek a variance.  A variance is usually necessary because the wind turbine does not meet the height restrictions in most towns.  Some towns also consider the wind turbine as non-permitted structure.  In either event in many instances an applicant for a wind turbine must file for a D variance.  D variances are the toughest type to get.

In order to obtain a D variance an applicant must get the approval of 5 of the 7 board members i.e. more than a majority.  Also the applicant must prove that the wind turbine is has benefits to society that outweigh the negatives.  It also must meet other positive requirements.  One would think that proving wind turbines have a positive effect to society and that positive effect outweighs any negative effect.  The one thing that can be sure is that when a hearing for a wind turbine is scheduled anybody and everybody will be there to protest with complaints that are in large part invalid (in my humble opinion).

This is where P.L. 2009 C. 146 comes in.  This new law defines inherently beneficial under our land use laws.  Before this bill what was inherently beneficial was left up to the individual land use boards and ultimately to the courts to decide on a case by case basis.  This law defines inherently beneficial as, ‘a use which is universally considered of value to the community because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general welfare.  Such uses includes, but is not limited to, a hospital, school, child care center, group home, or a wind, solar or photovoltaic energy facility or structure.”  The law in essence removes one small hurdle to the installation of wind energy to NJ.  Once a project is considered inherently beneficial it now longer has to prove that the benefits to the public outweigh the negatives.  It is assume that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

There was opposition to this bill before it was passed and the League of Municipalities issued a statement on the law arguing that this is taking the power from the municipalities and the courts.  In particular the League noted that by including wind and solar energy as inherently beneficial that further legal challenges will be forthcoming.

I agree with the League on this issue, merely declaring wind and solar energy as inherently beneficial does not mean that litigation over the systems will end.  I am aware of at least two lawsuits in NJ involving the installation of a wind turbine.  I suspect as the green economy grows and the need for clean reliable renewable energy grows more and more businesses and individuals will like to install wind turbines.  Those applications will continue to be denied by land use boards for real reasons as well as NIMBY reasons.  This will lead to a multitude of lawsuits whose costs will far outstrip the energy benefits to the owner.

While P.L. 2009 C. 146 is a good start, what NJ needs is a laws that prevents townships from prohibiting (either directly or indirectly) the installation of wind turbines in their borders.  California has a similar law:

any ordinances regulating small wind energy systems adopted by local agencies have the effect of providing for the installation and use of small wind energy systems and that provisions in these ordinances relating to matters including, but not limited to, parcel size, tower height, noise, notice, and setback requirements do not unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners, farms, and small businesses to install small wind systems in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance.  It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of small wind energy systems and to limit obstacles to their use.” The statute goes further to provide that, “[t]he implementation of consistent standards to achieve the timely and cost-effective installation of small wind energy systems is not a municipal affair . . . but is instead a matter of statewide concern.”  Ca. Gov’t Code §65892.13(a)(5).

If New Jersey is going to meet its terrestrial goals of 200 megawatts of energy from terrestrial wind turbines in the state by 2020 it needs to do more than talk about supporting wind and P.L. 2009 c. 146.  We need to do more.

NJ's Open Space in Jeopardy

Written by Mike Pisauro on October 31st, 2009 in Sustainability | No Comments »

On November 3rd we all get a choice on whether we will preserve NJ or not.  On November 3rd we get to vote in favor of preserving open spaces, farmland and historic sites.  We get to vote yes to ballot question #1.

I have a guest post on the Green Jersey blog on why we all should vote yes.  I have also written about the importance of open space on this blog

You can also read more about NJ’s open space program at the NJ Keep it Green Facebook page.

On November 3rd, please vote for NJ’s open space program.

NJ's Endangered and Non-game Species Conservation Act

Written by Mike Pisauro on October 18th, 2009 in Endangered Species | No Comments »

Recently, a builders association petitioned New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to remove the northern pine snake from the threatened species list under NJ Threatened and Non-game Species Conservation Act.  Hopefully, in the future, I will look at the actual merits of the petition, but I wanted to take this chance to explain NJ’s endangered species act equivalent.

NJ enacted the Endangered and Non-game Species Conservation Act (ENSCA) in 1972 prior to the Federal Government’s enactment of the Endangered Species Act.  Some people say that the Federal government modeled their act after New Jerseys.  NJ’s ENSCA act can be found at NJSA 23:2A-1.  The State in enacted the law set forth the policy of the law:

a.         That it is the policy of this State to manage all forms of wildlife to insure their continued participation in the ecosystem.

b.         That species or subspecies of wildlife indigenous to the State which may be found to be endangered should be accorded special protection in order to maintain and to the extent possible enhance their numbers; and

c.         That the State should assist in the protection of species or subspecies of wildlife which are deemed to be endangered elsewhere by regulating the taking, possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale or offer for sale or shipment within this State of species or subspecies of wildlife including those on any Federal endangered species list.

The Act defines threatened as “a species that may become endangered if conditions surrounding it begin to or continue to deteriorate.” The ENSCA makes it unlawful to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale and species listed as endangered under NJ or Federal law or any nongame species regulated under this act.   It is therefore illegal for someone to “take” an endangered or threatened species.

The Act similar to the Federal ESA broadly defines “take.”  Under NJ’s act “take is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill wildlife.”  Under this broad definition the destruction of habitat could be considered as a take.

A violation of the act can result in civil and criminal actions against the offender.  There are also monetary penalties and injunction power available to the State to punishing offending behavior.

The presence of endangered or threatened species can also impact the implementation of several other laws.  For example, the existence of or probable existence of T&E species or habitat can influence whether a stream is classified as category 1 or not.  If a waterway is a category one, it is subject to stricter requirements for pollution discharges, and 300 foot buffers.  In fact the freshwater wetlands regulations prohibit the issuance of a permit if the Dept. finds that it will jeopardize the survival of T&E species under the State or Federal lists.  N.J.S.A. 13:9B-9

Another example is that the Pinelands Commission Regulations provide that:

[n]o development shall be carried out unless it is designed to avoid irreversible adverse impacts on habitats that are critical to the survival of any local populations of those threatened or endangered animal species designated by the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] pursuant to NJSA 23:2A-1 et seq.

The above examples give you the sense of the power that NJ’s ENSCA can have if implemented properly.  It can provide buffers along streams to provide necessary habitat and reduces impacts to the streams.  The less pollution and larger buffers not only assist in the survival of the species but can have added indirect benefits to us as well.  These benefits can range from the obvious less toxins in our water, to more land around streams to prevent flooding and recharge of aquifers.  So protecting T&E species can also mean protecting ourselves.

Why are we still dumping on our shore?

Written by Mike Pisauro on September 9th, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Labor Day is over and the shore season is over.  Over the last several weeks of this summer I took my family to the shore.  I love the shore. As a kid, I went to the NJ shore every summer with my family and I want to carry on the tradition with my children.  When I was a kid I do not remember seeing garbage on the beach.  I do not remember, at least until I was older, medical waste washing up on the beach.  When I was a child, I do not ever remember having a condom float by me as I swam in the ocean.  That is exactly what I saw a couple of weeks ago.

My children are not so lucky.  And that is a shame.   Over the Labor Day weekend, my kids picked up several pieces of garbage that had either been left on the beach by thoughtless people or had washed upon from the ocean.  To my pride they put the garbage in the garbage where it belonged.  This is what they and I saw as we took a short walk one evening (excuse the photography).

Garbage on the Shore 2Garbage on the Shore 3Garbage on the Shore 4

Around the same time I was looking at the garbage on the beach, 24 syringes washed up on the beaches of Long Beach Island over a few days period.  A news article ,written by Michelle Lee of the Press of Atlantic City, reported that LBI’s health officer believed that the syringes were because of combined sewer overflows and bad surf.

People need to stop littering at the beach and off their boats.  Government needs to upgrade combined sewer overflows that that garbage cannot be washed out to see.  Government needs to enforce the litter laws and anti-dumping laws.

Our coastal environment is too important to treat it as a place to dump our garbage.  It is too important to our economy.  It is too important to a tradition that my and many families in New Jersey have.  I do not want to ever have to explain to my child why a condom is floating past them in the ocean or that they have to watch were they walk on the beach so that they do not step on glass or syringes.  I want them to see and enjoy the beauty of New Jersey’s shore.Ocean and BirdOcean

EPA finds DEP's site remediation program lacking again.

Written by Mike Pisauro on September 8th, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Recently, the U.S. EPA released an audit report critical of NJ’s Department of Environmental Protection.  This audit report is on the heels of another negative audit report of the DEP’s handling of the remediation of contaminated sites.  The most recent audit looked to at whether DEP’s Quality System was in compliance with EPA’s required Quality control systems, whether DEP was implementing their Quality System and whether DEP was insuring that the data from their monitoring projects were adequate.  Instead of rehashing the entire report, I want to focus on the EPA’s finding regarding the Site Remediation Program.

None of the Site Remediation Program’s bureaus interviewed do any project assessment and/or process improvement beyond data validation, (i.e. no field audits, no split samples, no internal assessment, etc.)  The EPA assessment team was told that Responsible Party contractors and/or NJDEP contractors are “certified professionals and taken at their word.

It is kinda scary to think that DEP has a culture that allows for a complete disregard for the statutory and regulatory requirements.  We have seen over the last several years the impacts of DEP not confirming the information they have received from outside contractors.  I.e. W.R. Grace, Edison Ford plant, etc.

This audit report should be viewed in light of the recently enacted Licensed Site Professionals Law.  The LSP law deputizes outside contractors to decide how contaminated a site is, how best to clean the site and to determine the site is now clean and to issue the equlivant of No Further Action letters.   Once the LSP program is up and running will DEP continue to be so trusting?

When the LSP bill was racing through the legislature Environmental Organizations, including the NJEL, strenuously argued that DEP need to engage in aggressive oversight.  DEP fought enviros on this as well as enviros’ request that DEP maintain control over the worst sites.    The end result is that DEP cannot audit LSPs or even require the LSP board to audit an LSP.  DEP can merely recommend that an LSP receive an audit.  In fact the DEP’s ability to review or audit a site is mostly limited to document reviews and “shall review the performance of a remediation.”  §21b.  Another section of the law provides that DEP and LSP board can “investigat[e], sampl[e], inspect[], or copy[] any records, condition, equipment, practice, or property”  Even if DEP has the authority, will they overcome their culture of trusting the “professionals” and will they independently verify the information they receive from the professionals to ensure that sites are remediated and the environment and our health are protected.

Fisheries: How conservation now can lead to long term economic gains

Written by Mike Pisauro on August 10th, 2009 in Federal, Ocean | No Comments »

In the last couple of weeks, two reports came out regarding fish stocks.  Both of them give some measure of hope.  Before I get the actual reports, a little background is in order.  The ecological health of our oceans is in serious jeopardy.  Fish populations have been on a very steep decline, especially those fish we rely on for food.

In 2003 Pew issued a report called:   America’s Living Ocean:  Charting a Course For Sea Change.  The report noted that the U.S. Government believed that only 22% of the fish stocks (fish we rely on for food and recreation) were being managed in a sustainable manner.  According to the report almost 1/3 of our fishery stocks were over fished and were continued to be exploited in an unsustainable manner.  Of the remaining fish stocks, the report noted that there was not enough information on more than 655 different populations in order to determine whether the fisheries were healthy, being over fished or were over fished.  The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released a report similar to Pew’s in 2004, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.   In that report the commission found 25 to 30 percent of the “world’s major fish stocks are over exploited.”   The damage to the commercial fishing stocks also has a ripple effect and damaging other fish populations by removing either food sources or top predators.

NJ’s fish populations follow nationally trends.  In NJ approximately 30 different fisheries are managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.  Of those 30 fisheries, in 2003 12 species were over fished or experiencing overfishing.

In future post I will go into more depth of how our government regulates our fishing stocks, but until then I will provide a very brief overview.  Under the current system, if a species is over fished the Federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require that the fishing stocks be rebuilt, to sustainable levels, within 10 years if biologically possible.   The country is divided into marine councils.   It is the responsibility of the marine councils to create the rebuilding plans and then to allocate the yearly catch quotas to insure the plans are effective.  These quotas are then divided between the recreational and commercial fisheries.

There have been several problems with the current quota system.  One of the problems with the system is that the quotas are set too high; thus reducing the chances that the fish population will recover.  These already too high quotas are then exceeded.  Exceeding quotas further hampers the ability to rebuild the stocks in a timely and efficient manner.

Aside from the ecologically reasons for maintaining healthy fish populations, fishing is a very large economic engine in the US.  In 2001 the U.S. commercial seafood sector contributed 28.6 billion dollars to the U.S gross national product and we at 15.2 pounds of seafood per person. Recreational fisherman spent $25 billion enjoying their fishing.  These national and world trends also apply to New Jersey.  Fishing is very important in New Jersey.  In 2003 over 170 million pounds of seafood was brought into NJ ports for total revenue of $2 billion when combined with recreational fishing.  Coastal Ocean Coalition’s

Fishing is an important economic activity.  Fishing is an important recreational activity.  A healthy fish population is important for the ecological health of the ocean.  That economic and ecological health is in serious jeopardy.  But from a recent set of reports there seems to be hope that not only the ecological health of fisheries can recover but the economic health as well.

A couple of weeks ago, the Pew Environment Group released “Investing In Our Future: The Economic Case for Rebuilding Mid-Atlantic Fish Populations.”  In essence the report details that short term restrictions would lead to long term economic benefits.  Then the Journal Science published a paper indicating that it is possible to rebuild our fishing stocks to sustainable levels.  I will write about the Science article in a future post.

The Pew report asserts that if four Atlantic Ocean species (Summer Flounder, Butterfish, Black Sea Bass, Bluefish) were allowed to rebuild according to their management plans commercial landings have gone from $55.3 million a year to $88 million a year or a 48% increase.  The recreational sector would see a 24% increase or $536 million a year.  The total direct economic benefit to the fishing sectors would be an additional $570 million per year if the fishing stocks were allowed to rebuild.  These direct economic benefits would then have resulted in indirect economic benefits through the sale of the commercial fish to fish markets, restaurants, increased jobs for fish processors, etc.

In short if the fishing councils set the quota levels at the recommended scientific levels required to rebuild stocks within 10 years and those quotas are not exceeded, there would be a substantial long term economic benefit to the commercial and recreational fishing industries.  The State of New Jersey would also benefit from the increased activity and the fishing populations would benefit by reaching sustainable and healthy populations.   By ignoring the science the regional councils are exchanging diminishing yields and profits at the expense of increase yields and profits.  Hopefully with the new Federal task force on Ocean Policy there will be a sea change.

NJ Governor Canditates promote renewable energy, NJ needs more than rhetoric

Written by Mike Pisauro on July 18th, 2009 in land use, legislation, Politics, Renewable Energy | No Comments »

Recently the Republican and the Democratic candidates for NJ governor addressed renewable energy. NJ needs renewable energy. The Country and the World needs the switch to renewable energy. Christie’s website indicates we have one of the strongest renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS), but rank 48th in the country for renewable energy generation. Why? Well according to the EIA a vast majority of the renewable energy capacity and generation in the country is hydro power. NJ does not have a lot of hydro possibilities. So, if you take out hydro from the calculations, I am not so sure that NJ is doing so badly. For example, NJ is second only to California in solar generation. Granted NJ is a long way down from California but it is still ahead of 48 other states. Take a look at NJ is #2 in Solar and seeking to increase.

After hearing and reading about Chris Christie’s stump for renewable energy, I took at look at his website for more information on how he plans on getting us to the promised land of more renewable energy. With two exceptions the plan was a little sparse. Lots of rhetoric and not a lot of detail. Mr. Christie indicates that one of his methods encourage manufacturers of renewable energy systems to build plants here is to offer a credit of up to 100% corporate business tax or the insurance premium tax. I am not going to delve into the murky depths of whether a 100% tax credit is good or bad. I do wonder how a tax credit encourages the installation of renewable energy in NJ. The plan may or may not encourage companies to locate here, but it does not affect the actually installation of systems in NJ.

Christie also pledges to make solar farms a permitted use under our land use laws. He also pledges to require all landfills to install renewable energy systems on their properties. Lastly, he would allow up to 20% of a preserved farm to be used for solar farms instead of traditional farming products, i.e. vegetables, fruits, etc. There is no mention in his plan on how he will encourage and grow the use of wind energy in the State.

On the other hand, Gov. Corzine’s campaign website has no mention of a renewable energy plan. I presume he will point to the Energy Master Plan released late last year. That plan calls for 1000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2012 (that time frame looks to be way off, please see my post on MMS leases), and an increase in renewable energy generation to 30% by 2020 from the current goals of 22.5%. Those are good goals. But like the Christie plan goals without real concrete steps on how to reach them are not useful. The EMP is short on implementation. As noted above, NJ is not going to have 1000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2012.

Christies plan for solar farms on preserved farmlands is in one shape or form already in the works. S1538 was introduced in the Senate on March 17, 2008. It would allow wind, solar and biomass generation on up to 1% of the farmland including preserved farmland. The bill was passed in the Senate in June 25, 2009 and referred to the Assembly appropriations committee. An Assembly version was heard and reported out of committee, but it has not been considered by the full Assembly yet. With the upcoming elections in the Assembly, it may not be voted on by the full house until after the November elections.

There is also a bill (S1303) that would define wind and solar generation systems as inherently beneficial for land use purposes. This bill has passed out of both houses and is waiting for the Governor’s signature. That bill took almost a year and half to get where it is now. Hopefully the governor signs it into law. This bill is not the full measure that Christie calls for, but is a very small step in the right direction.

Last year the State did enact a law last year that prohibits municipalities from considering the value of renewable energy systems when calculating a properties value. That is a good step in encouraging people and businesses to install renewable energy systems. The law removes a perverse disincentive to renewable energy.

While it is good that both the Democratic and the Republican candidates have made renewable energy a part of their campaign, the State, its citizens and the environment needs more than rhetoric. The State needs to take the goals of the EMP and to implement them in an effective and efficient manner. The State will have to move several pieces of legislation in order to meet the 30% RPS goals some of which are noted above.

One of the most important steps to bringing renewable energy jobs and renewable energy to NJ is the removal of State and local impediments to renewable energy installation even the 22.5% goals by 2021 that are currently in place are unreachable. I have also called for the passage of a state law that would prohibit municipalities from restricting the installation of renewable energy systems. I have published an article discussing the conflicts between renewable energy and land use law. So far no legislator has been willing to introduce that legislation to would truly move the State to a renewable energy future. I do not believe that such legislation should not be earth shattering but would be a change in emphasis. We would be putting teeth in our current land use laws that require:

NJSA 40:55D-2.   It is the intent and purpose of this act:

a. To encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this State, in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare;

j. To promote the conservation of historic sites and districts, open space, energy resources and valuable natural resources in the State and to prevent urban sprawl and degradation of the environment through improper use of land;

n. To promote utilization of renewable energy resources . . .

Proposed legislation would elevate the goals of the land use laws to requirements for municipalities to meet. Municipal restrictions on renewable energy should be prohibited by state law unless there is a true public health and safety issue. This proposed legislation would be in line with laws already in places like California and Wisconsin. Such legislation would put teeth into the goals of NJ’s land use laws and to coordinate the States strong goals of promoting renewable energy. Hopefully, who ever the next Governor of NJ is, that person keeps their commitment to renewable energy and puts in place measures to really meet those commitments.

Cash for Clunkers Interview

Written by Mike Pisauro on July 7th, 2009 in Federal, legislation | No Comments »

On June 24th, President Obama signed into law the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. A part of this appropriations act is the “Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009″ or Cash for Clunkers as it is better known.

Prior to the passage of the act, I gave brief interview with Fox News on behalf of the New Jersey Environmental Lobby (I am their governmental affairs agent). The piece aired after the passage of bill and can be seen here. In a portion of the interview that did not air, I indicated that the House version of the bill was not an environmental bill and was not going to do much for the environment. The clip of me from the piece was in reference to the Senate version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Feinstein and Collins.

The Cash for Clunkers law defines a clunker as any car that gets 18 mpg and under. This definition is ok and not the problem. The real problem lies in the Act’s definition of fuel efficient vehicles. The act defines a fuel efficient car as almost any car that gets at least 22 mpg. This is 3 miles per gallon less than the actual average mpg of our fleet and 5.5 mpg less than what current regulations require. There are two tiers of vouchers. A person can get a $3,500 voucher is their new fuel efficient car is at least 4 mpg greater than what they trade-in (as long as it is at least 22 mpg.) A person can receive a $4,500 voucher if their new fuel efficient car is at least 10 mpg greater than the trade-in. Therefore, a person can trade in their 18 mpg gallon car for a 22 mpg call and get a $3,500 voucher. Also someone could trade in their 12 mpg car for a 22 mile per gallon car and get a $4,500 voucher. In contrast the Senate bill would provide vouchers for vehicles that got at least 25% than the current CAFE standard required.

I have a very hard time calling a car that gets less than the current fleet wide average and even less than what the law requires fuel efficient. I also have a very hard time justifying paying a voucher for such a program on environmental grounds. It would appear that the sponsors of the Senate version agree. While it may or may not be good for the economy and the auto industry, the Cash for Clunkers will not make any major improvements in the environment. As an environmental law, Cash for Clunkers is a clunker.

MMS issues lease for met towers off NJ Coast

Written by Mike Pisauro on June 28th, 2009 in Federal, Ocean, Renewable Energy, Wind | No Comments »

Last week, MMS announced they would be issuing leases to the three proposed wind farm developers so that they could begin the process of installing their meteorological towers. Bluewater Wind NJ Energy, Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey, and Deepwater Wind will all be placing met towers off the coast of NJ. These towers are a necessary first step to the eventual development of shore wind. Once the met towers are in place, they will be recording data for at least 12 months or mid to late 2010.

Back in October 2008 the State issued its Energy Master Plan. The Plan sets a goal of having 1000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2012. I have always thought that time table was very aggressive and was unlikely to occur. Assuming the developers do not begin the NEPA process at the same time as they collect the data from the met towers, that process will begin late 2010 or early 2011. The NEPA process of obtaining information, analyzing the information, etc will take a significant period of time. For example, the Cape Wind project, which began around 2001, took almost three years from the very beginning of the NEPA process to the issuance of the draft EIS. It then took another four+ for MMS to issue its final EIS on the project.

Now, a lot has changed from the time Cape Wind started their project. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed. The State of New Jersey has convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on Wind; evaluated the issues and set forth its recommendations. MMS has interim rules for renewable energy developed on the OCS. The nation as a whole has hopefully progressed towards acceptance of wind generation. (I question how far we have progressed on this score). Also, the State is in the process of doing performing their own biological studies off the coast of NJ. All of these things may help move the process along so that the planning of these projects is not a decade long process. The NJ developers will have a framework to follow that Cape Wind did not.

Hopefully, the fact that there is a legal framework in place will shorten the legal wrangling over the project. I do believe that there will be many lawsuits challenging these projects. Local, county and some legislators have expressed concern over off shore wind development. Local property owners will certainly band together to challenge these projects. There may also be an environmental group or two who may challenge the projects in Court.

In short I believe after the NEPA process has been engaged and the lawsuits resolved one or more of the proposed wind projects will go forward. What I am fairly certain of is that no project will be in the water and generating electricity by the end of 2012. The State will have to adjust their energy master plan to account for the revised time table.

State, Regional and National focus attention on our Oceans.

Written by Mike Pisauro on June 22nd, 2009 in Clean Water, Federal, legislation, Ocean, Politics | No Comments »

June, as national ocean month, has been a fairly busy one. Two weeks ago the Governors of NY, NJ, DE, MD, and VA met in NY to create the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Oceans. Governor Corzine has just appointed members to the NJ Coastal and Ocean Protection Council. President Obama also has created an inter-agency task force. These are all laudable steps on addressing the dire condition of the Oceans. They are long overdue steps.

In 2003 and 2004 the Pews Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued their reports on the health of our oceans. Without going into great detail the cliff notes of these reports were that our oceans are in serious jeopardy and actions had to be taken to reverse course. It has been 5 to 6 years since those reports were issued and at least in NJ the course has not been reversed. There might be debate on whether the continued degradation of our oceans has been slowed, but it clearly has not been reversed. There is still a dead zone stretching along 100 miles of NJ’s coast. Fishing stocks are still declining. Pollution is still running off compromised watersheds further deteriorating the health of our ocean. At the same time there is a push to increase exploration for fossil fuels and to install new renewable energy off our coast.

In order to help NJ address the Pews and U.S. Ocean recommendations, the New Jersey Coastal Ocean Coalition issued a report called: Ocean Protection in New Jersey: A Blueprint for Success. After several years of lobbying, the COC successfully got passed and signed into law the Coastal Ocean Protection Council law. That law took effect on January 13, 2008. In part the law created a council to help the State look at the issues affecting the coast and how best to address the issues. It took over 18 months from the time Governor signed this legislation into law to when he made appointments to the council. It has been 18 months without the council working towards strategies on improving NJ’s regulation of the ocean and coastal environments. It has been six years since the Pews report called for coordinated approaches toward regulating this resource without any meaningful movement to correcting the problem.

When Governor Corzine, entered into the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Oceans he said:
Any threat to these natural resources brings economic consequences that threaten jobs, local economies, and our economic well being. New Jersey is committed to working with our Mid-Atlantic partners to provide adequate safeguards and formulate a shared vision for the region’s future.

This is not a new sentiment, but one that the State asserted when the New Jersey’s Coastal Area Facility Review Act was passed in 1973. I hope that New Jersey and the surrounding states are seriously but addressing the multiple threats to our oceans.

We need a mechanism to coordinate policy with our neighboring states because as we all know the water along our coast does not stay within the jurisdiction of anyone state, but it moves. It is the plan that the Council will help the States examine the issues on the regional level and help the State address them in ways that are not counterproductive to each other.

Even more recently, the President created the Ocean Policy Task Force. One of the goals of the Task Force is to propose a national policy that will protect, maintain and restore the oceans, coastal and Great Lake ecosystems including the implementation of adaptive management; a way to coordinate interagency actions, and how to implement these proposals. The Task Force is also put together a recommendation for coastal and marine spatial planning. If I am reading this Memorandum right the goal for the Task Force is to take the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and to figure out how to implement it.

These are very important concepts that I hope are more than catchy phrases to government. If these are no more than words than there will not be an improvement. These words must the announcement of actual action. For NJ, they must implement the Coastal and Ocean Protection Council and allow the council to get to work. For the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Oceans the States must look how many of their regulations both water and land based affect the oceans and how each State can compliment their neighbor’s work. Lastly, the Federal Task for can look at how to assist the States and Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on their missions as well as to provide a uniform framework across multiple agencies on how to cherish and protect this vital resource. We will see if actions do speak louder than words.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »