Posts Tagged ‘senate’

The bullet train that will not stop

Written by Mike Pisauro on June 18th, 2008 in legislation | 1 Comment »

As I have noted in past blogs, the New Jersey Legislature is rapidly pushing through a bill that would toll the running of time on almost any governmental approval, permit, authorization, etc. It is scheduled to be considered in the Senate Economic Growth Committee tomorrow and in the full assembly on Monday. This bill is on the rocket path. It was introduced less than one month ago and will likely both houses by the end of next week. One wishes that good legislation would move so quickly. Bills involving renewable energy have taken months in in some instances over a year to move through committees and get considered by the legislature. Last year, there was a bill that would exempt renewable energy systems from increasing the value of your home for property taxes. That bill could not make it to the finish line last year and had to be reintroduced. It was a bill that not only would have a positive impact on the environment but also on the economy.

Despite the rhetoric the permit extension act will have no economic impact in the very near future. The day after this bill gets passed the economy will still be bad, financing will not be available for projects and the state will still be too expensive for many of us. One wishes that real economy boosting measures received the same effort as this false one.

State takes another step to promote renewable energy

Written by Mike Pisauro on June 10th, 2008 in legislation, Renewable Energy | No Comments »

Yesterday, the Senate Economic Growth committee passed three bills that will have a positive impact on the adoption of renewable energy in this State. While these bills do not put into the place the true policies that we need in order to move us from fossil fuels to renewables, it is better than nothing.

S1299 revises the State’s land use law by providing that solar and wind facilities are permitted use in all industrial zones where there are 20 acres or more. This is a step forward as prior to this bill, a town could zone its jurisdiction in such a way that wind and solar facilities were not permitted. Once these renewable systems are not permitted anyone who wanted to install the systems would have to apply to the township for a variance. Variances can very quickly become expensive, time consuming, and the outcome of the application is somewhat questionable.

S1303 adds a definiation to our land use laws. In order to obtain a “D” variance an applicant would have to show that their project is inherently beneficial, that it does not negatively impact the public good and does not substantially impair the municipality’s zone plan and zoning ordinances. Our current land use law has never defined the term -inherently beneficial. This bill codifies the term and provides that solar and wind systems are considered to be inherently beneficial. Again this is a step forward. It would be much better not to have to go for a variance, but if you do it is nice that part of your proofs are given to you by the State legislature.

S1538 would allow a farmer, who has sold his development rights to the State so that the farm is preserved under the farmland preservation program, to install solar or wind facilities for their own use. The farmer could also enter into an agreement with a third party for that third party to build the renewable energy system on the farmers property and the energy could be sold to the grid. Both scenerios are permitted as long as the renewable energy system does not substantially impact agricultural use of the property. The bill then goes one step further by stating that the right to install renewable energy systems is a agricultural activity; therefore, it is protected under the Right To Farm act.

These three bills again move us one step closer to a true policy that promotes renewable energy without the state. Hopefully we will quickly take the remaining steps.

Talk about Drugs and Water

Written by Mike Pisauro on April 16th, 2008 in Clean Water | No Comments »

Within the last week or so the issue of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water has gather some more attention. On Tuesday, April 15th, the United States Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works held a hearing on the topic. David Pringle of New Jersey’s Environmental Federation testified before the committee. Somethings to note from that hearing are: that there are over 140 chemicals found in our drinking water including gasoline additivies, pesticides, and other chemicals. Some of these chemicals EPA believes to be cancer causing. Other chemicals we have no idea what the effects of the chemicals are.

EPA is over six years behind schedule in listing endocrine disrupting chemicals that it will test for. It has not established the testing protocols for some of those chemicals and it is not ready to require that these chemicals be monitored by the companies that provide our water. In response to a request from a committee member the EPA provided some information. Part of what they provided is very disturbing:

“while there is much information about the health effects of pharmaceutical products at the therapeutic doses provided in medication, there is still uncertainty about their potential effects on public health and aquatic life from long-term exposure to the low levels observed in water. In the absence of fully understanding the risks associated with low levels, it is difficult to move forward to require monitoring and/or treatment that carry significant cost . . .”

What a failure of government to do its basic job of protecting public health and safety. In the face of uncertainty the best course of action is to be proactive not wait until someone proves that these chemicals are doing harm. This is the basic tenant of the precautionary principle. Must we wait until its is proven without a shred of doubt that these chemicals singularly or in combination are causing an impact before we as a society decide to do something?

Hopefully the U.S. Congress will start to put the pressure of EPA to do its job. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has at least started to address the problem. DEP has issued a bulletin outling how to dispose of unused medication. The issue of drugs in our water also came up in yesterday’s NJ Senate Environment and Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Joint Committee meeting concerning site remediation. (Of which I will write about shortly.)

New Jersey speaks for the Red Knot

Written by Mike Pisauro on March 18th, 2008 in Endangered Species | No Comments »

Yesterday, the New Jersey Senate passed unanimously S1331 which would put in place a moratorium on the harvesting of horseshoe crabs.  The Assembly previously passed A2260.  Now, it is up to the Governor to sign the bill into law.

As noted in my previous entry , horseshoe crab eggs are vital to the survival of the red knot as well as other shorebirds.  The red knot, without protection, is expected to become extinct by 2010.  It is with great hope that this moratorium on the red knots’ food will reverse the path towards extinction. 

That the red knot is on the road to extinction and that the New Jersey legislature had to enact a ban is a very sad commentary.  It is a sad commentary because current law was not enough to protect the red knot and that some on the Marine Fisheries Council decided to act in short sighted self interest instead of following the science and ultimately in their own long term interest.

That a ban was necessary is a sad because the red knot is listed as threatened under New Jersey’s Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act.  It is also listed under the United States Migratory Bird Treaty Act.  Under both laws it is unlawful to “take” a listed species.  The definition of ‘take’ is very broad.  Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, “it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill,” a listed species.  One would think this was enough to protect these birds, but it is not.  One would think that protecting the food source for an endangered species would be a paramount protection under these acts, but apparently it is not.

As the protections that were in place are not enough, the moratorium had to be pursued.   Thankfully the sponsors of the bills and the environmental advocates moved quickly and courageously to see that red knot would not be another victim of short sighted policies.