Lisa Jackson debate continues
Lisa Jackson’s selection as EPA chief continues to provoke arguments among the state’s environmentalists. As she inches closer to confirmation, the accusations and defenses continue to fly.
Hearings on Jackson’s nomination are scheduled for Wednesday at 10 a.m., and will be aired on C-SPAN.
As Star-Ledger reporter Brian Murray wrote in a Sunday story, the environmentalists who support Jackson are urging people to separate her record for the governor’s. Groups like the New Jersey Audubon Society and Sierra Club say Jackson tried to mitigate the environmental impact of Corzine initiatives they and others disputed. Murray also noted, and we agree, that more N.J. environmental groups seem for Jackson than against. But her detractors, which include PEER and the Edison Wetlands Association, have been vocal.
The (at times testy) conversation continues online.
Jackson has been a frequent subject of debate on the N.J. Highlands e-mail list. Last week, a Bergen Record story was circulating that highlighted Jackson’s work on the former Ford dumping site in Ringwood.
Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel and Bill Wolfe, who used to work for the DEP and direct NJ PEER, traded barbs. A disagreement began over who was more responsible for the improvement of the cleanup situation in Ringwood — Jackson or former DEP head Bradley Campbell.
Green Jersey asked Tittel and Wolfe if they wanted to comment on the back-and-forth about Jackson, because they seemed to be two of the loudest voices on her nomination. Tittel responded with a statement we’d seen, which outlines his group’s support for her. In it, he says Jackson has been his group’s “one true friend in this administration and has worked diligently to protect the environment for all of New Jersey.” Wolfe responded directly to a few questions we posed at his request.
Here are just a few of the points of contention between the two sides:
– Tittel and the Sierra Club say Jackson is being attacked based on decisions made by Gov. Corzine and her predecessors, citing several examples. “At some point the problems at DEP that are inherited become your own if you don’t fix them,” said Wolfe.
– The troubled Site Remediation Program was already under duress when Jackson took control of the DEP, Tittel says; while there are more contaminated sites and fewer case managers now than 15 years ago, the fault isn’t Jackson’s. Corzine’s hiring freeze for state personnel has meant cuts at the DEP. And Corzine has called for privatizing the program, not Jackson. Wolfe’s response: “The main reasons sites sit for so long is lack of enforcement and poor management. Staff cuts are not the primary problem”; Jackson pledged to prioritize the sites according to risk but didn’t follow through.
– Jackson has been accused of weakening stream protections and removing miles of waterways from the state’s highest level of protection. Tittel notes that Jackson nominated more than 900 miles of streams for Category 1 protection, the highest level; of them, 600 miles were adopted and 300 weren’t because of incomplete data and pressure from the governor’s office. Murray, in his story, says critics at the time pointed out that major development projects were planned for land along the waterways that were removed from the list.
– Wolfe says Jackson revised the C1 designation over environmentalists’ complaints, making it easier to exploit a loophole to reduce the 300-foot buffer. Says Tittel: Jackson signed an administrative order for 300-foot buffers, removing the order only when new flood hazard rules were adopted.
More: Jackson’s EPA bid has support of many state environmentalists (Star-Ledger)
January 13th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Let the readers decide, based on evidence, not spin.
Ask Tittel or others to support their praise of Jackson with evidence. I have documented my criticism.
Below find detailed background (with links to DEP regulatory documents) on the Category One” (C1) stream buffer program (full disclosure: I was architect of this program working for Brad Campbell from 2002-2004. I also was Campbell’s designee on Gov. McGreevey’s Highlands Task Force and wrote major portions of the Highlands Act). Lots of complex reading here. Call with questions. There are loads of press clips on this – I stuck to the primary regulatory documents to document the story.
1. C1 designation is a component of the State Surface Water Quality Standards “anti-degradation policy” required under the federal clean water act. The objective is to maintain high quality waters and prevent pollution from degrading them (i.e. “to maintain existing water quality” in these waters).
See: http://www.nj.gov/dep/wms/bwqsa/factsheet2.pdf
2. Prior to 2002, there were about 1500 miles of C1 streams in NJ. They were limited to trout production streams in northwestern NJ. C1 waters had no land use regulatory protections other than 150 foot wetlands “transition areas” (buffers) for only those wetlands that were adjacent and drained to C1 trout streams. The program had little impact.
3. In 2002, the historic narrow trout based C1 designation methodology was expanded to include long ignored “exceptional ecological” and “exceptional water supply” waters. This move was announced by Governor McGreevey on Earth Day 2002 and was his major clean water initiative. It was strongly opposed by developers and business community. Campbell designated over 1,500 miles of new C1 and major reservoirs and proposed a list of 1,600 “candidate C1″ waters that DEP scientists determined met the regulatory criteria for designation. This list was proposed in March 2003 NJ Register. The plan was to designate all 1,600 over time in a phased approach. Builders opposed. Some DEP staffers opposed and tried to sabotage this move. It was a turf war.
For the links to these rules – look under top box “Surface Water Quality Standards”, see: http://www.nj.gov/dep/wms/bwqsa/rule_archives.htm
There are LOADS of press clips on this initiative you can Google.
4. In 2004, DEP adopted major new stormwater management regulations – among other things, these regulations established 300 foot wide buffers along C1 waters. As a result, over 200,000 acres were regulated along over 3,000 miles of C1 streams (72 acres of buffer per linear stream mile). The move was HUGE – this is more land protection than 25 years of the NJ Green Acres program. Developers strenuously opposed. See: http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/2004_0202_watershed.pdf (see page 32)
7:8-5.5 Stormwater runoff quality standards
[a-g]
(h) Special water resource protection areas shall be established along all waters
designated Category One at N.J.A.C. 7:9B and perennial or intermittent streams that
drain into or upstream of the Category One waters as shown on the USGS Quadrangle
Maps or in the County Soil Surveys, within the associated HUC 14 drainage. These areas
shall be established for the protection of water quality, aesthetic value, exceptional
ecological significance, exceptional recreational significance, exceptional water supply
significance, and exceptional fisheries significance of those established Category One
waters. These areas shall be designated and protected as follows:
1. The applicant shall preserve and maintain a special water resource protection area in
accordance with one of the following:
i.. A 300-foot special water resource protection area shall be provided on each side of the
waterway, measured perpendicular to the waterway from the top of bank outwards, or
from the centerline of the waterway where the bank is not defined, consisting of existing
vegetation or vegetation allowed to follow natural succession is provided.
5. In 2005, Campbell came under severe media criticism for using the C1 designation to reward friendly democratic mayors and disgraced US Senator Robert Torricelli (I was directed and personally visited Torricelli’s property to inspect the stream that ran thorough it. It was later designated a C1 stream by Campbell. I blew the whistle on this in press after I left.). As a result, the C1 program was tarnished as bad science and political. Google stories by Newark Star Ledger reporter Alex Lane – he did a major expose in a Sunday edition.
6. The NJ Builders Association filed a lawsuit that challenged the DEP C1 designation regulations as not supported by science and beyond the scope of their regulations. The NJ Appellate Division upheld the DEP regulations rejecting the Builders claims. This green light from the Courts set the stage for an expected dramatic expansion of the program under Jackson
Looking now for a link to this decsion.
7.. In 2006, Jackson took over. The builders and some DEP staffers who opposed the move convinced her to change the C1 designation method. Enviro’s including Jeff Tittel strongly warned her not to do so. See this enviro letter to jackson: http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/c1_letter.pdf
8. Jackson rejected the enviro recommendations and revised the C1 methodology. It made it harder to dsignate C1′s by narrowing the eligibilty criteria. It erased the prior 1,600 “candidate C1′s. ADN it made it easier to exploit loophole to reduce buffer from 300 feet to 150 feet, thereby cutting the progrm in half!. See the rule – look especially at the comments and criticism by enviro groups (note that the praise is by watershed groups that got streams in their individual watersheds upgraded to C1, to the detriment of the statewide program).
See: http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/adopt_080616a.pdf
9. Enviro’s complained to press about loopholes Jackson was allowing to be exploited:
http://proriverview.org/APP10-12-06.htm
10. In 2007, Jackson issued an Administrative Order, purportedly to close loopholes.
See: http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/08_6_2_repealed_2007_administrative_order.pdf
11. We applauded and celebrated victory:
http://proriverview.org/APP1-6-07.htm
12. In 2008, Jackson did a U-Turn and repealed the 2007 Order:
http://www.njstormwater.org/docs/fva080124.pdf
12. We blasted Jackson for repealing her own order:
NEW JERSEY CUTS DEEPLY INTO PROTECTED STREAM BUFFERS — Commissioner Revokes Her Year-Old Order, Leaving Buffers at Mercy of Politics
http://www.peer..org/news/news_id.php?row_id=986
For additional info, see and search DEP website: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/
For additional confirmation – if you read almost the last paragraph, you can se that NJ Enviro’s opposed Jackson’s C1 rules (but seem to forget this now in their praise)
See: http://www.environmentnewjersey.org/newsroom/clean-water-news/clean-water-news/new-protections-for-state-rivers-marred-by-exemptions-developers-muscle-out-clean-water
And in case you think I pull any punches, or favor Campbell over Jackson, check out this letter to Corzine on ethics (and have you read the Wall Street Journal’s work exposing scientific fraud in NJ?
http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/06_19_4_ethicsltr.pdf
January 15th, 2009 at 11:18 am
You got it exactly backwards. Murray’s Star Ledger story didn’t say:”
“environmentalists who support Jackson are urging people to separate her record for (sic) the governor’s.”
What Murray said is:
“Most of the same activists who have been critical of the state Department of Environmental Protection during Jackson’s three-year tenure are now giving her an unqualified endorsement to join President-elect Barack Obama’s cabinet.
The New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club and New Jersey Audubon, for example, say Jackson is not to blame for practices they have openly condemned.”
This shows that the Jackson supporters are hypocrites.
Perhaps you confused the “separation” issue with the line where Murray said the opposite – that it would be DIFFICULT to separate Jackson’s record from the Governor – the story said:
Other groups, however, said the Senate review committee may find it impossible to sever the hometown EPA nominee from the governor who appointed her to lead the DEP in 2006 — and whose name she regularly invoked with praise when she announced department initiatives.
“The characterization of Jon Corzine as ‘Darth Vader’ and Lisa Jackson as ‘Princess Leia’ just does not match the reality,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility or PEER.
Noting Jackson became Cor zine’s chief of staff late last year be fore she joined Obama’s transition team, he asked: What she would do as EPA chief if she disagreed with Obama on policy?
“It seems like schizophrenia in the environmental community,” added Robert Spiegel, executive di rector of the Edison Wetlands Association.”
I make criticisms that are precise and backed up by evidence: links to regulatory documents and/or DEP staff experts.
Jackson supporters in the environmental community make general claims withotu any supporting evidence whatsoever.
This can not be allowed to continue as a he said/she said debate. Facts matter. Credibility is on the line.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:00 am
Bill Wolfe you should be sued for slander. Your opinion is in the minority yet at every turn you say everyone is wrong on every website supporting Lisa Jackson. You obviously are a disgruntle employee who has a personal hatred toward Jackson for whatever reason.