Clean Water News

Report Shows New Jersey Trails New York And Pennsylvania

As the new home of NJPIRG's environmental work, Environment New Jersey can be contacted regarding this news release. 

TRENTON—As the state heads into its annual budget season and in light of the drought, three of the state's top environmental groups called on Governor McGreevey and the Legislature to shift funding from watershed grants to fully fund implementation and enforcement of the state's water protection programs, especially its program to protect high quality waterways from degradation.

"In this fiscal crunch, we have to make the best use of our limited resources. In the absence of strong DEP rulemaking and implementation under Governor Whitman, the watershed planning grants have failed to improve protection of New Jersey's waterways. In fiscal year 2003, we'd rather the McGreevey administration spend the money where it can have the greatest impact on our waterways, on rulemaking and program implementation," said Douglas O'Malley of NJPIRG.

From 1995 - 2000, the Whitman administration granted over $25 million to local groups to identify watershed pollution problems and solutions. In January, the McGreevey administration froze the funding for these grants, and the status of the grant program in fiscal year 2003 has not yet been announced.

"Governor Whitman spent her last year in office on a traveling road show of photo ops with oversized checks instead of funding legally defensible water protections," said NJEF Campaign Director David Pringle. "That's why we need Governor McGreevey and the Legislature to temporarily suspend the watershed grants program and use the savings to ensure the state protects its people and endangered species as well as it protects its trout—preserving the state's ecological integrity and protecting public health must take precedence."

The three groups highlighted areas of the current budget that support programs not directly related to DEP implementation and enforcement of water protection laws that can be cut from next year's budget to realize savings. These programs total $11.5 million.

• $5 million for Watershed Management contracts, including recipients like the Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority who received $235,000 to develop a watershed plan for an area where they had a vested interest in expanding a sewage treatment plant.
  
• $6 million for Clean Water Initiatives that attempt to prevent non-point source pollution by planting grass along riverbanks.
  
• $500,000 for educational efforts and Watershed Ambassador funding.

The groups also identified more frivolous expenses than can be cut from the expenditures. "They are wasting money for refrigerator magnets, label pins and place mats instead of working to protect our water through planning, regulations and enforcement," said Jeff Tittel, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

The groups also released a New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG) report, titled Strengthening New Jersey's Anti-Degradation Regulations, which chronicles the weakness of New Jersey's program to protect high quality waterways, compared to its neighboring states. "Our report suggests that the DEP has a lot of work to do, and they will need resources to do this work," said Douglas O'Malley, NJPIRG's Clean Water Associate and author of the report.

The report's four key findings are:

• New York and Massachusetts provide stronger protections for drinking water than New Jersey. While New Jersey's definition of high quality waters includes "exceptional water supply", the state fails to include water supply in the criteria that results in increased protections. In contrast, both New York and Pennsylvania provide increased protections for drinking water.
• New York and Pennsylvania grant high quality water protections for habitat of endangered and threatened species, while New Jersey does not.
• New York and Pennsylvania monitor waterways to prevent pollution, while New Jersey only monitors waterways after they've become polluted. They use biological assessments as a method to protect sensitive and pristine waterways, while New Jersey only flags the biological health of its waterways when the water is already polluted and species are impaired.
• New Jersey should rectify this by providing strict, well-defined guidance for protecting pristine waterways, explicitly including areas of public drinking water, habitat for endangered and threatened species and areas that possess significant natural features.

O'Malley continued, "Our neighboring states have stronger regulations to protect drinking water sources and habitat for endangered and threatened habitat. Why don't we have the strongest protections?"

The report's recommendations focus on strengthening the state's anti-degradation regulations, or high quality water protections, by outlining specific criteria that will qualify a waterway for protection. According to the report, the department needs to mandate high quality water protections if a waterway segment fulfills all of the following criteria:

• The water segment serves as a source for public water supply
  
• The water segment is located in an area of 'special concern' or above on the Landscape Project's Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Map
  
• The water segment possesses significant natural features, and is a federally designated as "Wild and Scenic," located in an area identified as 'special concern' by the State Planning Commission or drains to any National Wildlife Refuge or any other federal public land.

If a waterway fulfills two of the three criteria, DEP should have discretion over increased protections.