The comment period for the amended version of the NJDEP’s controversial proposed flood rules expired this past week.
But not before NJBIA submitted feedback that showed just how damaging the updated regulations will still be to New Jersey’s economy if finalized.
NJBIA Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer Ray Cantor, who led the campaign against the Resilient Environments and Landscapes (REAL) rules when they were first proposed 14 months ago, said the changes proposed by NJDEP will still wreak havoc on affordability in the state and hurt economic development overall.
“This remains an extreme measure that is out of step with mainstream climate science on what is likely to happen,” Cantor said. “At the end of the day, it still uses low confidence assumptions, based on models, predicting events 75 years from now and at a 17% confidence level.
“It will have devastating economic impacts to coastal and river communities and their residents and exacerbates the affordability crisis while making it harder to build affordable housing.”
SEA LEVEL WISE?
Projected sea level rise has been, and remains, the critical issue of the DEP’s proposal.
Initially the department based its regulations on an assumed 5-foot sea level rise by the year 2100. The one data point NJDEP relied on was from a 2019 study that said there was a 17% chance of such SLR occurring based on a moderate emission scenario, even though no other climate study forecasted that much.
The DEP reduced its elevation standard as part of the updated rule to 4 feet over the next 75 years, it said, due to new modeling.
But Cantor said there is still no science showing the need to raise the level another 4 feet over current standards.
“There are no scientific studies that the Department can point to show that rapid ice sheet melting is likely,” Cantor said in his final comments.
“As the Department must well know by now, the IPCC and mainstream climate science on rapid ice sheet melting do not show (rapid ice sheet melting) to be likely this century.
“Without rapid ice sheet assumptions being built into the model projections, the likely sea level rise is 2 feet, not 4 feet. We strongly recommend the rule be proposed for another round of substantial amendments to reflect the current state of scientific knowledge which would reflect a 2-foot sea level rise in New Jersey by the end of the century,” Cantor added.
Cantor also said that even another 2 feet of sea level rise by 2100 is the most “stringent end of the likely range” according to the IPCC.
“If actual tide measurements or more knowledge is developed, the Department has decades to adjust,” Cantor said.
AFFORDABLE ROUSING
NJBIA and other local officials had previously warned that the original proposed provisions of the PACT rules would limit construction in flood-prone areas and impact certain towns’ abilities to meet affordable housing obligations.
The amended proposal, however, included language explicitly naming affordable housing as a compelling public need that could win exemptions to some flood rules.
Cantor said that flexibility update was “meaningless.”
“First the Department claims it is unsafe to locate such housing in flood hazard areas and then claims to be providing flexibility if a developer can show that it is safe through a hardship waiver,” Cantor wrote.
“We have no confidence in the waiver process given how hard it is to obtain one even under the current state of the law. We continue to have concerns that these rules will negatively impact the state’s ability to construct low-income housing.”
THE NEED TO START OVER
Another key, but not so reported provision of the PACT proposal treats stormwater removal requirements the same for urban development as it does for newer development in rural areas.
Cantor said this was also a big miss.
“While the intention of the Department is laudable, improving water quality in urban areas, a site-by-site enhanced standard is not the way to improve water quality,” he wrote. “This change is far more likely to harm urban redevelopment than it is to improve water quality.
“Has the Department done any analysis to support its claim of any meaningful enhanced water quality through this change? A regional stormwater approach is much more likely to result in the benefits the Department claims it is seeking rather than a site-by-site regulatory requirement,” Cantor wrote.
With these and many other concerns about the updated rule, Cantor urged NJDEP to start over with stakeholders before financially damaging the state.
“Given all the problems with these rules, the lack of credible science to justify its conclusions, and the overall negative impact of these rules in general, we urge the Department not to adopt the rules but to reengage stakeholders and work toward a solution for our resiliency challenges,” Cantor said.
To see Cantor’s full written comments to NJDEP, click here.
