Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 031007

0 views

Skip to first unread message

GSENet

unread,

Oct 7, 2003, 1:15:23 AM10/7/03

031007

GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{*} GOVERNOR'S NEW PITCH ON SPRAWL: BUY LAND
{*} CAMP TODD - LETTER SENT TO OAKLAND PLANNING BOARD
{*} PLANS DEFINING SUSSEX COUNTY GROWTH, LANDSCAPE
{*} TRANSPORTATION LAW TRIPPED BY BAD POLITICS
{*} WINDMILL GENERATOR PLANTS PROPOSED OFF JERSEY COAST
{*} STATE TO OPEN SPLITROCK RESERVOIR IN ROCKAWAY
{*} WHO OWNS THE VIEW
{*} BUDGET CRUNCH HAS RECYCLING EFFORTS IN DANGER
{*} LINGERING POISONS
{*} LAW ON PESTICIDES REINTERPRETED
{*} WHITMAN'S TURNAROUND A GAS
{*} GREENING RUTGERS CONFERENCE - OCT 9
{*} RAHWAY RIVER CLEAN-UP - OCT 11
{*} URBAN OPEN SPACE MAPPING INITIATIVE - DEC 11

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Many thanks to our volunteers: Jerry Cullins, Jeff Hook,
Peter Montague, Paul Neuman, Phil Reynolds, and to all
you folks out there who contribute in so many ways.
If you have a couple hours a week, and would like to help out,
please email us at mai...@gsenet.org.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

GOVERNOR'S NEW PITCH ON SPRAWL: BUY LAND

Date: 031007
From: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/

SEEKS VOTER SUPPORT FOR BALLOT QUESTION

By Steve Chambers, Star-Ledger Staff, October 06, 2003

Standing before a reservoir in the northern New Jersey Highlands last
week, Gov. James E. McGreevey railed against the evils of sprawl and
stressed the importance of preserving open space.

He stressed land purchases over broader regulatory and legislative
changes the administration has championed in the past.

McGreevey was trying to pull a coup of sorts, pitching hard for a
popular ballot question that slightly modifies a funding program
established by his Republican predecessor, Christie Whitman.

Public Question 1 on the November ballot will, if approved, mean $150
million more for open- space preservation, and it won't cost state
taxpayers a dime more than the $98 million a year they approved five
years ago, when Whitman was doing the cheerleading.

The administration is taking advantage of extremely low interest
rates to offer voters something for nothing. And McGreevey has pledged
to pour the benefits back into city parks, farms and land in the
environmentally threatened Highlands, where development pressures
abound.

"Common sense dictates that we should protect our open space, protect
the sanctity of our drinking water, the quality of our air and the
quality of our life," McGreevey said.

At a series of events last week touting open space, McGreevey was
backed by a broad coalition of environmentalists, sportsmen, municipal
officials and farmers - an illustration that land purchases are one
thing most can agree on in the war on sprawl.

"This is an unprecedented opportunity to get a whole lot more money
without additional costs," said Michael Catania, chairman of the
Coalition for Conservation. "Urban groups, land preservationists,
farmers and the League of Municipalities have gotten together to get
that message out to voters. This is a win-win for everybody."

The money is desperately needed, land-preservation groups say,
because the $3 billion open- space initiative passed in 1998 - which
provides $2 billion for land, $1 billion to pay debt - has grown
wildly popular.

Voters in Hudson County and 17 towns across the state will be asked
to approve open-space taxes in November. That could mean 200 towns and
all 21 counties in New Jersey would have the necessary cash to match
Green Acres grants or to sweeten farmland- preservation deals.

"This $150 million is going to be wonderful," said Maureen Ogden, a
former assemblywoman and chairwoman of the Garden State Preservation
Trust, which, along with the Legislature and governor, must approve
all open-space purchases. "We are turning down $4 of every $5 in
applications received from counties, towns and nonprofits" because the
money is not available, she said.

The trust - which has been sparring with McGreevey - has ensured the
$150 million will be available by winning a promise from state
Treasurer John McCormac to use savings from lower interest rates to
buy more land.

What voters are technically being asked to do in November is allow
the state to borrow $1.15 billion, instead of $1 billion, because
interest rates are lower.

The McGreevey administration plans to spread the new money around in
an effort to quell a potentially problematic mutiny between urban and
suburban legislators.

McGreevey has pledged to spend $50 million of the new money on parks
in cities and other heavily populated areas and another $50 million in
the Highlands, some of that on farmland preservation.

Although officials have said the new money will be spent in three
years, environmentalists say the quicker the better, since land prices
are escalating and land is being gobbled up.

"A big chunk of money could cause landowners on the fence to sell,"
said Jeff Tittel, director of the state Sierra Club chapter. "And
spending $50 million quickly in the Highlands would be good for
everyone. It could save 15,000 acres in an area vital to our water
supply, and it could provide a lot of ribbon cuttings for the governor
in an election year."

McGreevey went on record in January, during his State of the State
speech, about the importance of preserving farmland in the war on
sprawl.

But McGreevey also has been trying to assure city politicians that he
would right injustices in the doling out of Green Acres funds.

Bills pending in the Legislature would dramatically shift money from
the farmland-preservation program to Green Acres, the public open-
space program.

With generous city park spending - and other in-house changes at
Green Acres, including a relaxation of the maximum amount any town or
county could receive - McGreevey hopes to end that revolt.

Bradley Campbell, commissioner of the state Department of
Environmental Protection, which oversees Green Acres, spoke in favor
of Question 1 at a Newark event last week, where he announced that
Essex County would receive a record $6.9 million in this year's
funding cycle.

"I think our approach is resulting in a consensus between those
concerned with local parks and those concerned with preserving vast
undeveloped areas," Campbell said, when asked whether the compromises
would head off legislative tinkering.

But Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo, while pleased with the
change in direction, said it wouldn't be enough.

"I still want to change the formula, so we can get even more money,"
he said.

* * *

Steve Chambers covers land-use issues. He can be reached at
scha...@starledger.com or (973)392-1674.
Copyright 2003 The Star-Ledger.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

CAMP TODD - LETTER SENT TO OAKLAND PLANNING BOARD

Date: 6 Oct 2003
From: "WIlma Frey" {wi...@njconservation.org}

Attached is the letter being sent this afternoon to the Oakland
Planning Board. 30 copies are being sent to the Borough Clerk to
distribute. Thank you to the 21 organizations that signed on! I plan
to be at the hearing October 16. Hope others will attend as well.

Thanks, Wilma

* * *

New Jersey Committee
170 Longview Road
Far Hills, NJ 07931
908-234-1225 Fax 908-234-1189

October 6, 2003

Oakland Borough Planning Board, Mayor Robert Piccoli
Cc: Oakland Borough Council, Environmental Commission
Borough of Oakland
1 Municipal Plaza
Oakland, NJ 07430

RE: LMK/Camp Todd Preliminary Subdivision Plan (Blk 1505, Lot 1; Blk
1604, Lot 2)

Dear Oakland Planning Board Members, Mayor Piccoli and Council
Members:

The Highlands Coalition is writing to ask that you reject the LMK
development proposal before you. (See signatories below) The proposal
does not satisfactorily address the extremely sensitive environmental
characteristics of the tract, nor does it comply with the requirements
of the Consent Agreement. In addition, the project is not consistent
with goals and objectives of New Jersey's State Development and
Redevelopment Plan (2001).

The Highlands Coalition is an association of over 100 national,
regional, state and local organizations working together to protect
and enhance the sustainability of natural and human communities in the
four-state Highlands region, which includes parts of New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. The Camp Todd property is located
in the Highlands.

On September 12, 2003 the New Jersey Committee of the Highlands
Coalition voted unanimously to oppose the proposed development of the
Camp Todd property.

As you may know, a federal report has recognized the Highlands as a
"landscape of national significance, rich in natural resources and
recreational opportunities"...which delineates "where the pavement
ends, and nature begins." (New York/New Jersey Highlands Regional
Study, USDA Forest Service, 1992, p. 7.) The Highlands have also been
recognized as the State's first "Special Resource Area" in the 2001
State Development and Redevelopment Plan (State Plan). A Special
Resource Area is ":an area or region with unique characteristics or
resources of statewide importance which are essential to the sustained
well being and function of its own region: and to the quality of life
for future generations."

The Ramapo Mountains, where Camp Todd is located, have been
identified by the Coalition as one of the "Critical Treasures" of the
Highlands. The importance of the Ramapo Mountains, which form the
easternmost ridge of the Highlands region, has been recognized by the
State, which has protected Ramapo Mountain State Forest and Ringwood
State Park; by Bergen County, which has preserved a number of camps,
including most recently, Camp Glen Gray; and the Borough of Oakland.

The proposed development does not comply with the terms of the
Consent Agreement. In the Consent Agreement between the Borough and
LMK, LMK acknowledged that it could "develop the property in
accordance with the Steep Slope Ordinance." However, LMK has put forth
a proposal that requires variances from requirements of the steep
slope ordinance. It is the responsibility of this Board to reject
these proposed variances, as they are not in compliance with the
Consent Agreement.

Disturbance of and development on steep slopes is a critical matter.
Grading or excavating slopes, or disturbing their vegetative cover,
drainage patterns, topography or soils, causes a multitude of
problems. It usually increases the amount and speed of runoff of
precipitation, which can cause erosion, soil creep, slumping and even
landslides. The combination of increased runoff and stream siltation
harms the ability of streams and wetlands to retain water, and causes
increased flooding downstream. The Category 1 stream on the site is
protected by State Law (NJA.C. 7:9B) from such degradation.

Altering the soils or vegetation on slopes, in combination with
faster runoff, may also decreases groundwater and groundwateraquifer
recharge. The bedrock aquifers of the Highlands do not contain much
waterhave a high storage capacity, and any development or construction
that disrupts groundwater recharge also reduces base flows which
maintain streams during periods of drought. Roads require increased
maintainancemaintenance to repair erosion of sideslopes and remove
rocks, gravel and debris left by increasingly greater magnitude
runoff.

The Association of NJ Environmental Commissions has found that:
"Designing, building and maintaining development on steep slopes will
inevitably mean higher costs for the developer and for the
municipality. Problems often come to light after construction is
finished and the developer is gone. Then the municipality may be stuck
with burdensome costs for stormwater management, septic failures,
sewering, storm maintenance, construction of public water systems, or
fire and emergency services." (Acting Locally: Municipal Tools for
Environmental Protection, ANJEC, p. 72)

Steep Slope Guidelines: The US Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and the State Plan provide some guidelines to sensible
development on slopes. Slopes of less than 10 percent are considered
"minor'. (Nevertheless, there can be problems including runoff and
erosion on nearly level slopes forom 0-3 percent, depending on
soils.) Slopes of 5-10 percent present moderate septic problems
because of possible seepage. Slopes greater than 10 per centr are more
erodible, need special stormwater management and roadway
specifications and raise costs for utilities and other infrastructure.
They are more susceptible to septic system failures due to the
shallower depth to bedrock and consequently thinner soil profile.
Slopes greater than 15 percent have soils that tend to be thin and
less fertile. NRCS recommends that slopes from 10-25 percent should be
left in a natural condition, maintained in grass or tree cover, as
construction on such areas can increase the sediment load of streams
100-fold. (Emphasis added.) Slopes greater than 25 percent should be
left alone but can provide good sites for recreation or wildlife.

Oakland's Steep Slope Ordinance requirements acknowledge the serious
problems that occur with construction and disturbance on steep slopes,
and seek sensibly to mitigate them. Recent NJ Supreme Court decisions
have upheld the broad power of municipalities to adopt - and to
enforce - land use restrictions, including steep slope ordinances. See
Ferraro Builders v. Borough of Atlantic Highlands Planning Board,
August 2003. It is clear from the recommendations above that the
Borough of Oakland's steep slope ordinance is moderate, and emminently
enforceable.

The proposed development does not comply with the State Plan. New
Jersey's State development and Redevelopment Plan (State Plan)
provides a blueprint for the "Way to Grow" in the State. It offers an
opportunity to guide growth and protect resources. The State Plan
Policy Map provides the framework for implementing the Goals and
Statewide Policies. Camp Todd lies within PA-5, the Environmentally
Sensitive Planning Area. "The future environmental and economic
integrity of the state rests in the protection of these irreplaceable
resources." The proposed development on the ridgetop does not comply
with State Plan policies for PA-5.

The NJ State Plan also addresses Critical Slopes in Statewide Policy
Category # 121, Water Resources Open Lands and Natural Systems. Page
155. The proposed development directly contradicts Policy 26, New
Capital Facilities, which states: "New capital facilities should not
be extended to critical slope areas except where necessary to provide
emergency access to existing uses or to address a public health and
safety need."

Camp Todd is arguably the most critical open space parcel remaining
in Bergen County in the New Jersey Highlands, and ultimately, deserves
preservation in its entirety. Camp Todd lies adjacent to lands
preserved by the State of New Jersey in Ramapo Mountain State Forest,
as well as lands preserved by Bergen County. Its preservation is vital
to the conservation of the contiguous forests of the Ramapo Mountain
ridge. These values are well-recognized by the State, the County
(which so admirably preserve Camp Glen Gray just a short time ago),
and the non-profit land trust community. Development of the site as
proposed will degrade the values for which these adjacent tracts were
protected, and impact the public's investment in these lands.

We urge the Oakland Planning Board to enforce the Borough's steep
slope ordinance and to reject the LMK development, out of respect for
the values of the Oakland community, Bergen county, and the state.

Sincerely,
Highlands Coalition, New Jersey Committee

Please reply to: Wilma E. Frey, Project Director

Signatories:

Appalachian Mountain Club, Mid-Atlantic Region - James Daley, Director
Association of NJ Environmental Commissions (ANJEC) - Kim Kaiser
Citizens for Planning Responsibly (West Milford) - Kathleen M. Caren
Friends of Holland Mountain (Morris County) - Mark Van Ness
Friends of Holland Highlands (Hunterdon County) - Michael Keady,
Chairman
Highlands Coalition - Tom Gilbert, Executive Director
New Jersey Audubon Society - Eric Stiles, Vice President for
Conservation and Stewardship
New Jersey Conservation Foundation - Michele S. Byers, Executive
Director
New Jersey Environmental Federation - David Pringle, Campaign Director
New Jersey PIRG - Douglas O'Malley
NY-Northern NJ Chapter of the AMC - John Reilly, Chair
Open Space Institute - Sam Huber
Passaic River Coalition - Ella Filippone, Executive Director
Pequannock River Coalition - Ross Kushner, Executive Director
Ramapo River Committee - Geoff Welch
Regional Plan Association - Rob Pirani
Skylands CLEAN - Robin O'Hearn, Director
Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter - Dennis Schvejda, Conservation
Director
Vernon Civic Association - Dennis Miranda, President
Wanaque REACH - Sandy Lawson, Co-Founder
West Branch Conservation Association (NY) - Martus Granirer, President

* * *

Wilma Frey
Project Manager
Highlands Coalition/NJ Conservation Foundation
170 Longview Road
Far Hills, NJ 07931
908-234-1225

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

PLANS DEFINING SUSSEX COUNTY GROWTH, LANDSCAPE

Date: 031006
From: http://www.njherald.com/

By Lynn Olanoff, Herald Staff Writer, October 6, 2003

Smart growth, strategic growth, town center, plan endorsement, state
plan, BIG map, sprawl, corridors.

Huh?

The above terms may be confusing - and some debatable - but these
concepts are defining county growth. Economic development.
Environmental protection.

THE FUTURE

Every day, federal, state, county and local officials are making
decisions whether the local highway will be expanded to ease the
commute or whether a garbage dump will be placed in someone's
backyard, lessening property value and quality of life.

Residents can influence local growth by showing support or opposition
at municipal council, committee, zoning and planning meetings.

In the upper levels of government, officials can hold open meetings
to seek public input on issues. As the government levels increase,
however, the public often has less direct input.

This has become a topic of debate recently, with state agencies
strengthening their development plans and local officials, politicians
and residents crying out for "home rule."

Though the state has the final say in many respects, Susan Bass
Levin, commissioner of the state Department of Community Affairs, said
in a recent telephone interview that local plans and concerns will
have influence.

"We would give significant consideration to it," she said. "We're
looking forward for the county plan to be the framework."

Much of the local outcry has centered around the Blueprint for
Intelligent Growth, better known as the BIG map, which is a plan from
the state Department of Environmental Protection. Released in January,
the map initially colored most of Sussex County red, recommending
restricted growth.

When the map was updated in June, the map's colors were changed,
though most restrictions were not. Most of Sussex County is now
colored green, the color which currently stands for restricted growth.

GROWTH NOT FORBIDDEN

Though restrictions remain, Levin said growth is not forbidden in the
county.

"It has to be the right kind of growth in the right places and has to
be sensitive to environmental issues," she said. "We want to
concentrate in smaller village places, not large developments."

The county's strategic growth plan will be its tool in growth
negotiations once it is completed and approved, which should be this
fall and early winter. The approval will come after the state irons
out its own plan this fall, which combines the BIG map and proposals
from the state departments of transportation and agriculture, among
others.

Even though the state plan is scheduled to be finished first, the
county plan will have weight as long as the municipalities subscribe
to it, Deputy County Administrator John Eskilson said. He is also the
chairman of the county Strategic Growth Committee.

"It's a guideline to assist municipalities to design their master
plans," Eskilson said of the county plan.

Eskilson said the county plan is neither pro-growth or anti-growth,
but rather examines how growth and preservation should be handled in
the county's separate landscapes. The landscapes include lake
communities, historic town centers, rural areas and agricultural
lands.

"We're going to do the very best we can to give objective advice to
those who make decisions," County Planner Eric Snyder said of the
county's role. "There's a ton of smart things to do that have an
effect on growth. I'm not really sure anyone has figured it out yet."

A local environmentalist said forming a county plan is a step in the
right direction toward better planning.

"Municipalities often have their own little agenda, but don't look at
their neighbors," said Scott Olson, a member of the Byram
Environmental Commission.

TOWN CENTER DESIGNATION GIVES LOCAL CONTROL

Seeking a town center or plan endorsement designation is another tool
local officials have in gaining locally controlled growth. Receiving
one of the designations signifies state-approved planning, which often
leads to increased infrastructure and funds.

As state officials have sought to phase out town center
designations - stating they are too centrally focused - local
municipalities with petitions on file for up to nine years have
reacted negatively. Thanks to budget negotiations by state Sen. Robert
Littell, R-Sussex, the town center petitions received a 10-month
deadline extension until June 30.

The remaining local petitions - Andover Township, Byram, Hampton,
Branchville-Frankford and Hardyston-Franklin- Ogdensburg-Hamburg - may
still face obstacles. State Planning Commission officials admitted in
July that the remaining petitions have not been approved due to their
magnitude of environmentally sensitive areas.

While state officials are pushing officials in these municipalities
to consider plan endorsement designations, which encompass a wider
area, Levin said municipalities can still seek town center
designations.

"They have the right to go forward with town centers," she said.
However, plan endorsements "will be priority for funding," she added.

Town center petitions are also unpopular with many environmental
groups. The designation of a Montague town center and two Sandyston
town centers led the Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter to file a
lawsuit against the state in August. Jeff Tittel, chapter director,
said these designations in rural areas are not in line with Gov. James
E. McGreevey's commitment to fighting sprawl.

State officials defend the designations. Levin said the centers will
focus growth in approved areas, combating sprawl and strip malls.

COUNTY OPEN SPACE CONCERNS

Environmentalists also voiced concerns about the county strategic
growth plan.

Olson said much of the county's open space is not preserved, which
some county officials do not recognize when they say the county has
sufficient open space.

Dennis Miranda, president of the Vernon Civic Association, a
grassroots organization that follows local growth, said the county
plan does not provide incentive to preserving natural resources.

"The plan will fall short of preventing sprawl," he said.

Eskilson defended the county plan, saying it heavily considers the
county's environmental riches.

"One of the reasons people are driven to move here is because of
those assets," he said.

Tittel said environmentalists are not anti-growth.

"Growth is going to happen whether we want to or not," he said. "We
try to do it while protecting environmentally sensitive areas."

Environmentalists urge residents wanting a stake in future county
growth to get involved by attending meetings or writing letters.

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

Tied in with county issues of growth are transportation issues. The
state Department of Transportation holds most of the power on county
transportation issues, since it holds much of the funds.

Department officials have recently made statements against road
expansion. In the county, DOT officials have made a commitment to the
Route 206 expansion in Byram, which continues to progress.

Expansion on other major roads is not favorable. The DOT has released
its 2004 Transportation Capital Program, which contains a minor road
widening project on Route 206 on Cat Swamp Mountain in Byram and
installation of two wider bridges, one in Sparta and one spanning
Byram, Stanhope and Hopatcong.

Mass transportation continues to be put on hold in the county. Most
favorable is the revitalization of a commuter train along the
Lackawanna Cutoff. Since obtaining federal funding for the project is
proving difficult, officials currently estimate the revitalization
will not occur for five or six years.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

TRANSPORTATION LAW TRIPPED BY BAD POLITICS

Date: 031007
From: http://www.postwritersgroup.com/

By Neal Peirce, Washington Post Writers Group

Congress just struck out on the biggest jobs/environment/
infrastructure bill before it - TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century.

Instead of a full five-year reauthorization, committing $375 billion
to build and repair critical highway, bridge and public transit
facilities, the lawmakers came up with a lame five- month extension of
the expiring 1998 statute. Next spring, in the heat of a contentious
presidential election year, they're unlikely to do much better.

With 3 million jobs lost since winter 2001, the congressional
paralysis seems puzzling. Why not create 90,000 new jobs short-term,
1.3 million long-term, putting people to work building and repairing
infrastructure that undergirds a strong economy?

One reason is obvious: the Bush administration is viscerally opposed
to an increase in the gas tax - up to 5 cents a gallon - that
virtually every transportation expert says is necessary for an
adequate national program.

Apparently it's OK to pour billions into Iraq, running up the
national debt, but not to increase a user tax to pay for what we need
here.

So could Congress develop a veto-proof majority for a new and
appropriately funded TEA-21? Maybe, but here's where the plot
thickens.

TEA-21 and its predecessor, the 1991 Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act, only made it through Congress because a
new coalition of environmentalists and urban advocates, organized as
the Surface Transportation Planning Project (STPP), coalesced to break
asphalt- happy state highway departments' historic hammerlock on all
transportation spending.

Metropolitan planning organizations, in touch with business and
citizens, were given power to switch substantial highway monies to
public transit. Funds were set aside for transportation enhancements
such as greenways and bikeways. Bottom line: community welfare, not
just the interests of autos and trucks, would be served.

But this year, the highway lobby - road construction contractors and
their homebuilder allies - figured they could stiff the environmental
camp. Having spent more than $41 million over six years to influence
congressional campaigns, and with an ideologically rigid Republican
House leadership, the road crew figured it could gut provisions it
didn't like.

Onto the chopping block went rules protecting historic properties
from being demolished for transportation projects. Ditto Clean Air Act
rules requiring that highway projects conform to clean air goals.
Plus, TEA-21 reviews would be "streamlined" to stop environmental
agencies from asking about the "purpose or need" of highway projects.

This summer the highway lobby tried an end-run, getting the House
Appropriations Committee to strip enhancements from fiscal year 2004
appropriations ("times are tough, we don't have money for bike trails
and scenic byways," went the argument). The move succeeded in
committee, where the highway lobby's political contributions were
targeted. But on the House floor, a motion to restore enhancement
funds got a thumping 327-90 majority, including every Democrat and a
majority of Republicans.

"It was the easiest environmental vote of the session," says Rep.
Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., claiming an immense coalition now favors
balanced transportation law. It ranges, he says, from public transit
and "smart growth" groups to land trusts and Scenic America, cyclists
and trail enthusiasts, chambers of commerce, Main Street groups, city
and county organizations, historic preservationists, significant
chunks of organized labor, even sophisticated contractors who see
opportunity in building bridges, putting down rail or constructing
bike paths.

If the highway lobby used its noggin and made a deal with this
coalition, it's possible a renewed TEA-21, including a 5-cent gas tax
hike, could pass - even over a Bush veto. President Ronald Reagan
approved a 5- cent gas hike in 1980, and now - notes Blumenauer -
we're seeing "spikes in gas prices, up to 50 cents a month, with no
identifiable benefit to the public."

But to make peace with the environmentalists, says David Burwell,
former STPP president, the highway lobby has to recognize "the time's
long past when it can hold the public treasury hostage by pointing to
increased congestion and demanding more money to 'build our way out."'

One is reminded of how big transportation-funding initiatives,
heavily focused on roads and shortchanging transit, went down in
flames last November in Northern Virginia and Washington state.
Endorsed by road builders and local business coalitions, the measures
were too pro-sprawl to avoid environmentalists' opposition.

There's a new national politics at work. It's not anti-highway -
we're an auto-oriented land, and people recognize that repairing the
roads and bridges we have, plus selected expansions, makes sense and
does cost money.

But they want some proof that congestion will actually be relieved.
They oppose spending just to increase sprawl. They support
alternatives, especially public transit. And they want to be confident
that transportation law respects clean air standards, supports
alternatives like walking and cycling, and undergirds our communities.

It's a straightforward deal. But it probably can't move into gear
until the highway lobby and its political buddies agree to clear the
road.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

WINDMILL GENERATOR PLANTS PROPOSED OFF JERSEY COAST

Date: 031006
From: http://www.nj.com/newsflash/jersey/

Associated Press, 10/6/03

Neptune - New Jersey beachgoers may get to see more than waves when
the look out at the Atlantic Ocean within the decade.

Several companies propose to build power-generating windmills off the
coast of Monmouth, Ocean and Cape May counties.

Environmental activists claim there are insufficient standards for
siting and managing windmill farms, whose towers stretch hundreds of
feet into the sky.

Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society,
a Sandy Hook-based coastal conservation group, said the structures
would affect fishing and coastal tourism. There is also concern about
the threat they pose to sea birds.

"So any proposal to put windmills offshore ought to be viewed as
suggesting using land or water areas which are very valuable to the
public, and I think that that creates a high burden for the projects
to demonstrate that they're really in the public's interest," he told
the Asbury Park Press.

Coastal residents interviewed along the Belmar seaside are divided.

"I would think they would take away from all the natural beauty,"
Adele M. Byrne, 65, a retired school teacher who lives in Brielle,
told the newspaper. "I just can't see it. It seems like development is
getting too encroaching on nature and...this would be just one more
encroachment. We have enough already."

But Michael Ermann, 35, a dental technician who lives in Wall, said
windmills off the coast "sounds like a good idea."

"Alternative energy is the way of the future," he said.

Although wind farms have been built on land in several states and off
the coasts some European nations, none have been built off the United
States coast. A wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound, Mass., has
drawn controversy.

Wind power in New Jersey is moving ahead on several fronts.

The state Board of Public Utilities recently awarded a $300,000 grant
to a wind power company, Atlantic Renewable Energy Corp., of Richmond,
Va., to study the feasibility of offshore wind energy projects.

The company has developed six wind farms on land. Last year, it
proposed putting 25 wind turbines three miles offshore along Island
Beach State Park in Ocean County, according to the Army Corps of
Engineers.

Eric Stiles, vice president for conservation and stewardship at the
New Jersey Audubon Society, said it is wrong to hire a company with a
vested interest in the outcome instead of a government or academic
agency.

"The fox has been hired to answer the question, are the hens safe?"
Stiles, a former DEP official, told the newspaper.

Sam Enfield, vice president of development for Atlantic Renewable
Energy, said "basically, we're going to collect data that would be
relevant to an examination of the environmental impact of wind power
anywhere" off the coast of New Jersey.

In another proposal, the Bald Eagle Power Co. Inc., a New York firm,
seeks to build a 400-foot data-gathering tower at each of nine sites
off Belmar, Monmouth Beach and Long Island, N.Y., and two
demonstration wind farms off Long Island. The public will be able to
comment after the corps issues a notice.

Its 350-foot-high turbines would convert wind energy into
electricity, which will be used to make hydrogen that would be shipped
to shore for use as energy, said Lynn Ramsey, Bald Eagle Power
executive vice president.

The state Department of Environmental Protection began work on an
Ocean Resources Management Plan about two years ago and expects to
have recommendations on managing ocean resources, including wind
energy, by March, said Elaine Makatura, a DEP spokeswoman.

Meanwhile, the state's Renewable Energy Task Force has recommended
that the state get 20 percent of its energy from renewable and cleaner
sources such as the sun and wind by 2020.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

STATE TO OPEN SPLITROCK RESERVOIR IN ROCKAWAY

Date: 031006
From: http://www.news12.com/NJ/topstories/

STATE MOVES FORWARD WITH PLANS TO OPEN SPLITROCK RESERVOIR IN ROCKAWAY

10/06/03

Rockaway - New Jersey boaters and fishermen may soon be able to
explore the Splitrock Reservoir in Rockaway Township. The state
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) purchased the property
around the reservoir and plans to open up 1,500 acres for recreational
use.

For decades, the reservoir was closed to the public, and many nearby
residents are fighting to keep it sealed off. Neighbors have many
concerns including pollution and water safety. Residents say the
parking area will be open around the clock, and they fear people will
drown in the reservoir waters when they are unsupervised. The DEP says
it plans to have conservation officers patrol the area, but critics
are skeptical. Others in Morris County think the reservoir opening is
long overdue. They say the space is too beautiful to keep from the
public.

Crews are currently clearing the way for a parking lot along the
reservoir.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

WHO OWNS THE VIEW

Date: 031007
From: http://www.csmonitor.com/

AS POPULATION INCREASES AND SECOND-HOME PURCHASES GROW, MANY SCENIC
AREAS ARE EQUALLY VALUABLE TO DEVELOPERS AND VALUED BY
PRESERVATIONISTS.

By Teresa Mendez
Special to The Christian Science Monitor, October 01, 2003

Gary Johnson is so rarely behind his desk, he can be difficult to
track down. The chief resource planner for the Blue Ridge Parkway
spends most days wending his way through Virginia and North Carolina.
His daily activities take him along one of the nation's most scenic
roads - rural farmland and forested slopes streaming past his car
window.

Mr. Johnson spends countless hours inventorying the parkway's
"viewshed" - the area visible from a particular vantage point - and
plotting to protect its most prized vistas. After all, the impressive
views along the road are what bring millions of visitors to the
Parkway each year.

But what can the National Park Service (NPS) do about protecting the
famous panorama from scenery-spoiling development that occurs on
private property as far as 20 miles away?

It's an increasingly common problem around the US as population and
the numbers of second homes both climb.

And it brings up the thorny question: Can anyone own the view?

Land buyers and developers who are attracted to the same spectacular
scenery as visitors to an area ask: Who has the right to tell us what
we can do with private property?

Environmentalists and many local residents counter that the view
belongs to everyone, and no one should be allowed to spoil it for
future generations.

Meg Maguire of Scenic America, an organization dedicated to
preserving natural beauty, worries that as urban growth envelops rural
areas, the distinction between city and country is being lost:
"Everything is looking like everywhere, and everywhere is nowhere."

Others are concerned that the cherished right to do as they please on
their own land may be in jeopardy.

The term viewshed is best known from the writings of Frederick Law
Olmsted, the 19th-century father of landscape architecture who
designed retreats such as New York's Central Park. But according to
Niall Kirkwood, chairman of Harvard University's landscape
architecture department, the term dates to the Egyptian battlefield,
where strategy was determined by whom you could see and who could see
you.

This year, viewsheds appeared for the first time on Scenic America's
annual list of Last Chance Landscapes - places in danger of
disappearing but with potential to be saved. Two of the areas on the
list, California's Gaviota Coast and the Blue Ridge Parkway,
illustrate the conflicts - and some potential solutions.

BETWEEN THE MOUNTAINS AND OCEAN

North on Highway 101 out of Santa Barbara, Calif., the road narrows
to two lanes and the trees melt into a blur of rippling grasses.
Nestled between the Santa Ynez Mountains and the gripping blue of the
Pacific Ocean, the freeway gently follows the curves of the coastline.

Here, only a spattering of homes, the occasional backhoe, or the dot
of an oil rig on the horizon breaks the panorama of mountains, ocean,
and the Channel Islands. These 76 miles - known as the Gaviota Coast -
make up the longest span of undeveloped coastline left in southern
California.

But beneath the idyllic surface simmers a battle between champions of
public land and outside developers. Caught in the middle are private
owners who want their spreads protected, but don't want to be told how
to do it. At stake: close to 100,000 acres - a rural checkerboard of
cattle ranches, avocado and lemon orchards, and open space.

At one point in the past century, the Hollister family owned
virtually the entire Gaviota Coast. Today, J.J. Hollister III still
cares passionately about the rural coast where he grew up, patches of
which his family still holds. Mr. Hollister talks of a place "vibrant
with historical quality" and hopes the "agricultural overlay" will
remain intact. "I think there's a tremendous value in open space,
watershed, and view," he says.

Yet he was one of many old-timers who fought a recent push to
integrate the coastline into the National Park System. The reason? He
is as worried about public feet trampling the pristine ecology as he
is about developers' bulldozers.

Bernice ("Bernie") Stableford, a longtime avocado grower and cattle
rancher in the region, also opposed the area's being designated a
National Seashore, but for a different reason. "It is very well
protected," she says flatly. "The viewshed is not going anywhere."

Many of Mrs. Stableford's neighbors feel that the threat of sprawl is
overblown. Between existing restrictions and locals who, Stableford
says, will "fight as hard as anybody to keep the city limits where
they are," she believes the fear of development is a case of "the sky
is falling."

The real threat, some landowners in the region say, is from heavy
recreational traffic, with its accompanying litter and risk of fire.
Had the Gaviota Coast been designated a National Seashore (the NPS
decided against it earlier this year), its pristine hills would have
been marked by public access trails and roads.

Michael Feeney, executive director of the Land Trust for Santa
Barbara County, is disappointed that the Gaviota Coast will remain
mostly in private hands. "The only tangible enjoyment that most people
get is being able to look at [the scenery] as they drive up the
highway or go to the beaches. Instead of seeing a bunch of Malibu
mansions they're seeing oak trees and cattle and undeveloped land."

But that undeveloped land is being swallowed up.

Seventy-eight acres have already been turned into a beachfront resort
near Santa Barbara. Some see the resort as revitalizing a sleepy spot
just outside the city. To others, it's an ominous warning of sprawl to
come.

Another 485 acres, tapped for a luxury residential development, is
undergoing the approval process.

Stableford is unconcerned. She believes that the rules the developers
have agreed to follow - including planting trees so the houses can't
be seen - will ensure that the view won't be spoiled.

Others aren't as optimistic. Among them is Mr. Feeney, who says the
development is "going to be a wart on the Gaviota Coast."

But there are eager second-home buyers ready to snap up a residence
in such a beautiful area. In 2000Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt bought
a 11-1/2-acre coastal parcel here for about $4 million, although they
have not built on it.

Purchases such as theirs sometimes spark a cycle of soaring land
prices, increased propertytaxes, and a resulting decline of
agriculture, which can lead to more land gobbled up by developers.

RURAL FOR HOW LONG?

Across the country, nearly 22 million people yearly pass through the
Blue Ridge Parkway, which begins in Virginia and runs through North
Carolina. Ninety-five percent say they come for the scenery. They come
to traverse a 469-mile-long road that skims treetops and dips into
valleys sprinkled with old farmsteads and split-rail fences.

The parkway's viewshed is designed to move between overview and
detail - from grand panoramic vistas to sharply focused close-ups. But
some wonder how long that popular view will exist.

The federal government controls at least 200 feet on either side of
the Parkway - yet many of its best views lie beyond that boundary.

Working with developers since 1996, the parkway's planning team has
tried to influence development along the road without appearing
"heavy-handed" or "pushy."

They have worked with developers on six large projects and consulted
on a number of smaller ones.

One of the first developers they met with was Steve Musselwhite, who
lives next to the parkway. In return for permission to run a sewer
line under NPS land, Mr. Musselwhite agreed to reduce from 150 to 100
the number of homes he would build on his 40-acre tract. They'll be
clustered to maximize open space, and he'll plant trees and a
wildflower meadow to help shelter the houses from view.

Although negotiating was an arduous process that took two years of
negotiations, both parties agree it was worth it.

"We got a better product as a result of the cooperation," says
Musselwhite.

Johnson notes the fact that a dialogue took place at all as a sign of
success.

Preserving views can be a slippery slope. The modern landscape is
manipulated all the time. Even the Blue Ridge Parkway cuts vegetation
and overgrowth to frame scenic views and clear outlooks.

Among developers, preservationists, and private landowners, the
consensus seems to be that development will continue. The challenge,
then, is to figure out how best to do it.

Revitalizing already developed areas is key, says Professor Kirkwood,
the landscape architect, who specializes in reclaiming industrial
landscapes. Originally from Scotland, he contrasts the "American
predilection for starting from scratch" with the European habit of
building upon the past to create a palimpsest.

Many on both sides of the issue would agree with a statement on the
website of Scenic America: "Growth may be inevitable, but ugliness is
not."

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BUDGET CRUNCH HAS RECYCLING EFFORTS IN DANGER

Date: 031006
From: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/newjersey/

By Thomas Barlas, Staff Writer, (609) 272-7201
Press of Atlantic City, October 6, 2003

It's automatic for many people: Toss the empty glass bottle in a
recycling bin and not the trash can.

But public interest in recycling appears to be waning, as there's
less state money to pay for educational and advertising programs that
helped grow the recycling movement that began in the early 1990s.

Toss in a decline in state funds for recycling enforcement and
collection programs, and there's a corresponding drop in how much New
Jersey is recycling, according to some environmental groups and county
and municipal officials.

New Jersey's recycling rate dropped for three consecutive years
before improving slightly to 54.2 percent in 2001, the last year
statistics are available from the state Department of Environmental
Protection, or DEP.

The state never has achieved the 65 percent recycling goal it set by
the end of 2000. The statewide recycling rates started dropping in
1998. That's the year after recycling funds left over from a lapsed
litter tax - which helped finance a variety of recycling programs -
ran out.

"You always have to educate people," said Deena Mattola, executive
director of the New Jersey Public Research Interest Group. "I don't
think we're educating people anymore."

The Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority has all but
abandoned its mass-media recycling advertisements, relying instead on
less expensive fliers and hand outs, said Bridget O'Connor, who
oversees the authority's recycling programs.

Even the most basic recycling efforts are endangered.

For instance, the loss of thousands of dollars annually for recycling
efforts in Middle Township, Cape May County, will end the township's
program of giving free recycling cans to new residents, or as
replacements for broken cans.

"We're down to 200 cans," said Middle Township Administrator James
Alexis. "When they go, that's it. We expect that to happen by the end
of November."

County and municipal officials said they don't expect their situation
to improve soon. They said state Treasury officials are forecasting
lean budgets for the next few years.

Affordable, out-of-state landfill costs also make it more attractive
for many businesses to skip sometimes-cumbersome recycling efforts in
New Jersey in favor of having out-of-state companies do the work for
them, the officials contend.

What's needed, they said, is a whole rethinking of recycling efforts.

"I think those of us who are in this business need to work in a more
coordinated, effective, and less expensive way," Atlantic County
Utilities Authority President Richard Dovey said.

While DEP officials agree that less funding is hurting recycling
programs, they also said there are other factors involved.

More cans and bottles of soda, water and other beverages are consumed
outside the home and are tossed into trashcans with nonrecyclable
materials, said Guy Watson, chief of the DEP's Bureau of Recycling and
Planning.

People also are hesitant to toss tons of junk mail with perceived
personal information into recycling cans for fear that information
could be retrieved and used by someone else, he said.

Further, Watson said, New Jersey suffers from having a large
transient population that's not familiar with recycling regulations.

Local and county recycling efforts were aided for years by what was
called a litter tax - a $1.50-a-ton fee tacked onto landfill tipping
fees.

Forty percent of the $12 million to $14 million the tax raised
annually was distributed to municipal recycling programs based on the
success of each program.

The tax expired at the end of 1996, although there was enough money
left over to provide some funding in 1997.

Gov. James E. McGreevey signed legislation last year that established
a form of litter tax through the state Clean Communities funding. The
amount dedicated to recycling projects is capped at $4 million a year.

That's still too little to help, county and municipal officials said.

Many municipalities no longer have full-time recycling enforcement or
coordination staff, opting instead to hand those duties over to
employees who already are busy with other work, according to O'Connor.

Middle Township's trash enforcement is done on a limited basis
through its public works staff, Alexis said.

Watson said there might be some help in the future, as the DEP is
recommending the state considering a new levy to replace the old
$1.50-a-ton litter tax.

Instead of taxing landfills and other trash-handling facilities, the
tax would be imposed on trash-hauling firms, he said. That would allow
the state to earn money on the estimated 1 million tons of trash
brought into New Jersey from, primarily, New York.

Trash haulers would pass the expense on to customers, either directly
or through trash-hauling contracts with municipalities, Watson said.

New Jersey Environmental Federation President Amy Goldsmith said that
all brings the recycling effort back to a simple premise.

"It's the money," she said. "Money does matter."

* * *

To email Thomas Barlas at The Press: TBa...@pressofac.com

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

LINGERING POISONS

Date: 6 Oct 2003
From: "Peter Montague" {Pe...@rachel.org}

By Tom Avril, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 06, 2003

Newark - Eric Wernicki, a big man who flattens cars for a living,
reaches into the trunk of a 16-year-old Volvo to perform delicate
surgery.

Using a screwdriver, he deftly pries off a small light switch that
contains a drop of silvery liquid metal.

The metal is mercury, and if he didn't remove it, it could end up on
your dinner table later.

Wernicki's effort is part of a pilot program in New Jersey to remove
the toxic metal from cars before they are melted in a steel mill,
sending harmful vapors into the air and ultimately, into local
waterways and fish.

His task also illustrates a growing question in our throwaway
society, one that discards cell phones, computers and other high-tech
items by the millions:

Who is responsible for dealing with the toxins in the stuff we throw
away - the people who make it, the ones who use it and throw it away,
or those who melt it down to make something new?

Different solutions abound.

Last year, Maine required automakers to pay $1 to junkyards and scrap
dealers for every mercury switch they removed from cars - a law that
automakers are challenging in federal court. Recyclers in New Jersey
and Pennsylvania, among other states, are hoping for similar programs.

Last month, California established a $6 to $10 fee that consumers
must pay on new televisions and computer monitors to help cover the
cost of recycling them later. The state already has banned TVs from
landfills, as has Massachusetts.

U.S. manufacturers have endorsed voluntary approaches, such as
allowing consumers to return old electronic items on special
collection days, sometimes for a fee.

In New Jersey, five auto-recycling yards took the mercury out of 400
cars this summer for recycling. The cars were then shredded and will
be melted this month, with technicians monitoring the emissions to
assure that all of the toxic metal was removed.

Wernicki, who took the mercury out of 170 cars, has a more direct
suggestion: Don't put the toxins in products to begin with.

"Why don't we go right to the guys at Ford and say, 'You can't put
this in here'?" said Wernicki, plant manager at Noble Street Metals,
which is owned by the Jersey City-based recycling firm Hugo Neu
Schnitzer East.

He's not the first to have that idea. But for cars and many
electronic products, it has been slow to catch on.

Mercury was long used in car trunk lights, as well as in thermostats
and other switching devices. Designs differ, but generally when a
trunk is opened, gravity causes the mercury to slide inside a capsule
so that it touches an electrical contact, completing a circuit to turn
on the light.

When regulators discovered about 10 years ago that toxic vapors
escaped during the auto recycling process, manufacturers agreed to
redesign their cars with nontoxic alternatives.

Last year was the last time any new models contained mercury
switches, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Yet
many millions of such cars remain on the road, and some new cars still
have trace amounts of mercury in high-intensity headlights and in
navigation systems.

An estimated 10 tons of mercury are contained in the cars recycled
each year in the United States, according to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Virtually all the toxic metal, which can cause
neurological damage even in small amounts, is thought to be released
to the environment.

In Maine, automakers said they shouldn't have to pay for mercury
removal, arguing that junkyards already remove freon, oil and other
toxins without payment. They also note that other sources, primarily
power plants, contribute far more mercury to the environment.

Meanwhile, computers, cell phones and other electronic devices -
which are smaller, but discarded much more frequently than cars - can
contain toxins such as cadmium, lead and arsenic.

According to Inform Inc., a New York environmental research group,
100 million cell phones will be discarded annually by 2005. And 250
million computers will be obsolete by that year, according to the EPA.

Some of these discarded electronics might be in landfills, in which
case the toxins they contain theoretically would be isolated for the
time being.

Others could be incinerated, spewing poisons into the air, or taken
apart for recycling - sometimes by prisoners or in Asia, where worker-
safety conditions can be substandard.

A number of critics agree that there is a problem. But they can't
agree on who must fix it.

Witness the annual conference last month of the National Recycling
Coalition, a nonprofit group that includes government officials,
manufacturers and recyclers.

Computer-makers were peppered with questions at the Baltimore
conference about their efforts to design products that are easier to
recycle, said Kate Krebs, the coalition's executive director.

"We have our own little inner tension, because we're a coalition and
we have all the parties at the table," Krebs said. "It's always
lively. No one party wants to be completely responsible."

The coalition advocates sharing responsibility, she said.

That's a nice concept, but it won't work well without incentives,
said Margaret A. Walls, an economist who has studied recycling issues
at Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank.

For example, programs that charge consumers to take back their
electronics have limited effectiveness, she said.

"If somebody's going to charge me $5, why do I really want to take it
back?" Walls asked. She said a better way was to charge consumers up
front, then refund the fee when they bring the item back - similar to
a bottle-deposit program.

Then there's the mandatory approach common in Europe, where various
countries have banned certain toxins or required that companies
retrieve used products.

"Europe always is willing to make industry do things," Walls said.
"We tend to not do that in this country."

These are all new ideas for some, perhaps, but they resonate with
people such as Wernicki. When he used to fish for mako shark and tuna
off Montauk, Long Island, he didn't know much about the issue of
mercury in fish, Wernicki said. Even when he saw one of the tiny
capsules from a car trunk, he was unimpressed - at first.

"You look at the little switch and think, 'What can that do?' "
Wernicki said. "But when you get thousands and thousands of
them...that's a scary thing to think about."

# # #

Rachel's Environment & Health News
Environmental Research Foundation
POB 160
New Brunswick NJ 08903-0160
T: 732-828-9995
F: 732-791-4603
E: e...@rachel.org
W: http://www.rachel.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

LAW ON PESTICIDES REINTERPRETED

Date: 031006
From: http://www.usatoday.com/

GOVERNMENT ALTERS POLICY IN EFFORT TO PROTECT MANUFACTURERS

By Peter Eisler, USA Today, Oct. 6, 2003

Washington - The Bush administration has adopted a new policy that
aims to cut off farmers' ability to sue the makers of insect- and
weed- killers when their products don't perform as promised.

The new position is a sharp reversal in federal policy affecting
hundreds of thousands of farmers or anyone else who might seek damages
on claims that a pesticide didn't work as its label indicated. That
might include cases in which a chemical harms crops that it's supposed
to protect, or cases in which a chemical failed to wipe out a bug or
blight that it's supposed to attack.

In recent years, the government generally has supported people's
right to sue the manufacturer of a pesticide or herbicide in such
cases. But the administration now is taking the position that federal
law bars such suits, according to legal briefs and an Environmental
Protection Agency memo obtained by USA TODAY.

The reinterpretation will carry weight in the courts. Farmers who
file product liability, or tort, lawsuits on charges of pesticide
damage now must overcome the government's position.

The policy shift is a huge win for the pesticide industry, which
pushed for the change. Two billion pounds of insecticides, herbicides
and other agricultural chemicals are applied each year to fields,
gardens and forests in the USA. That accounts for a third of the $33
billion spent annually on pesticides worldwide. Manufacturers face
millions of dollars in claims each year from buyers who say that their
products caused damage, but there are no independent estimates of how
many judgments go against them.

Farm groups have mixed reactions to the new federal stance. Some
believe there must be limits on lawsuits over pesticide performance or
manufacturers will hesitate to experiment with new products that could
help growers.

Tom Buis of the National Farmers Union, which represents 300,000
independent farms, acknowledges the conflict. "But if a pesticide not
only doesn't do what it says it's supposed to do, but also kills your
crop, that could cost you a year's income," he says. "There has to be
some legal recourse and (this change) could really limit that."

The administration's shift is based on a reinterpretation of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The act directs
EPA to set label requirements for farm chemicals - - use and safety
warnings - and bars states from setting stricter labeling rules.

Courts have had mixed opinions on whether the law "pre-empts" damage
suits filed in state courts by farmers who have had bad results with a
product. Many have ruled that once the EPA approves a pesticide label,
the manufacturer is insulated from claims that they didn't warn of
potential risks on everything from health problem to crop damage.

The government was silent on the matter until 1999, when the Clinton
administration asserted that the labeling law did not block claims
that related to a pesticide's "efficacy" or performance. The Clinton
administration took the side of some California walnut farmers who
sought $150,000 for damage to three orchards after they mixed two
pesticides that didn't warn against combined use. The farmers lost,
but the federal position became an oft-cited legal pillar for farmers
in other pesticide damage cases.

Last month, EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant laid the legal basis
for reversing the Clinton policy in a confidential memo. "Developments
in the law and a re-analysis...(of) the potential impacts of allowing
such crop damage tort claims has led EPA to rethink the agency
position," he wrote.

The memo sets out a new agency policy based on arguments made by Bush
administration lawyers in a little-noticed brief filed earlier this
year in a case before the Supreme Court. In that case, the
administration said that the federal labeling law should "pre-empt" a
damage suit brought by Texas peanut farmers who claimed their crops
were destroyed after they used a manufacturer- recommended mix of two
pesticides. The court did not rule on the merits of the government's
brief.

Douglas Nelson of CropLife America, a pesticide trade group, says the
new federal stance "corrects a misread of the law" by the Clinton
administration.

Erik Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council says the change
immunizes pesticide makers from legitimate damage claims. The new
policy also could bolster pesticide makers' contention that federal
labeling insulates them from suits alleging that their products cause
illness or environmental damage, Olson says. "It...could really be
disastrous for public health."

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

WHITMAN'S TURNAROUND A GAS

Date: 06 Oct 2003
From: aozo...@aol.com (Aozotorp)

Denver Post

It looks like Christie Todd Whitman, who resigned as administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency in June, has come full circle.
Last week, she joined the board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, a
startup venture hoping to create a market for member companies and
governments to trade rights to emit gases associated with global
warming.

Shortly after President Bush took office in March 2001, Whitman
announced the president's denouncement of the Kyoto Protocol to curb
greenhouses gases believed to cause global warming.

She previously had urged Bush in a memo to support greenhouse-gas
reductions.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

GREENING RUTGERS CONFERENCE - OCT 9

Date: 05 Oct 2003
From: "stacey kennealy" {skhel...@hotmail.com}

GREENING RUTGERS CONFERENCE

October 9th, 11:00 am to 2:30 pm
Scholarly Conference Center, Alexander Library
Rutgers University, New Brunswick

Participate in a nationwide teleconference on sustainability within
higher education, with such speakers as David Orr and Kevin Lyons! The
speakers will discuss the possibilities of 'greening' higher
education, using such successful examples as the 'Living Building' at
Oberlin College in Ohio.

Following the speakers, we will break off into committees to discuss
particular issues of relevance to Rutgers University, including but
not limited to: recycling, environmental policies/regulations,
procurement, sustainable design initiatives and food issues.

Staff, faculty, graduate and undergraduate students will be in
attendance, all collaborating to acheive the one end: sustainability
within Rutgers University.

Even if you do not attend Rutgers, but you have a willingness to get
involved or some knowledge to pass along, feel free to attend.

Lunch will be served.

For further information on the conference, email:
skhel...@hotmail.com

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

RAHWAY RIVER CLEAN-UP - OCT 11

Date: 6 Oct 2003
From: {Joseph.J...@nan02.usace.army.mil}

On Saturday October 11th, Clark Township, in concert with scouts,
civic organizations and citizens will be performing a clean-up of the
Clark Reservoir (Robinson's Branch of the Rahway River).

This effort is open to everyone and is coming out of all the good
press and visibility received over the spring clean-up in the
Bloodgood's Branch of the Rahway River conducted under Union County's
Adopt-a-Park program. During the spring clean-up over 125 folks
participated, including girl scouts, cub scouts, boy scouts,
fishermen, local activists and citizens. The team cleaned up over a
one-mile stretch of the river through Rahway River Park, removing over
120 bags of garbage and debris. Sponsors came through with coffee,
bagels, danish, donuts, cookies, bottled water, and juice boxes. We
also had water bottles, coloring books, posters and some T-shirts as
giveaways for the participants. Photos are on the US Army Corps of
Engineers web-site:
http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/harbor/rahway/phrway.htm
An inventory of some of the major debris that was removed is also
contained on the web-site.

The logistics for Oct 11th are similar to the event in the
spring...the kick-off will be at the Brewer School on Westfield Avenue
in Clark at 8:30am where participants will receive a small snack
(coffee, bagels, etc), giveaways, a safety briefing, instructions and
equipment. Teams will be established and mobilized to four or five
locations along the reservoir where team leaders will manage the
clean-up. Clark Township public works will pick up and dispose of the
debris from the reservoir.

In addition to the reservoir itself, we have arranged with the County
of Union to mobilize a team downstream of the Madison Hill Rd Dam on
the stretch of the Robinson's Branch between the Clark Reservoir and
Milton Lake (in Clark and Rahway)...this is within Union County
parkland (Milton Lake Park). County Parks has agreed to pick up and
dispose of the debris from this section of the waterbody. The overall
clean-up will generally be between 9-12, but any amount of time or
effort that folks can volunteer is appreciated.

All participant's will be welcome to come back to the Brewer School
after the event(~12:15) where it is presently planned that pizza and
refreshments will be served.

As always, there is an overwhelming volume of debris and garbage to
pick up...this includes things like shopping carts, tires, and of
course floatables (cans, bottles, plastics, etc). Notwithstanding
though, if you haven't participated in an event like this before, they
are actually a lot of fun...especially for the scouts as they always
find something interesting; this adds both education and adventure to
the event. It is also rewarding in that I suspect any child, or adult,
who participates in this kind of event, even just once, and sees the
terrible situation that floatable debris has on waterways, will be
sensitive in the way they chuck their trash for the rest of their
lives.

So try to join us and pass the word...all participants should wear
jeans, long-sleeved shirts, gloves and boots. I recommend that each
participant bring a standard 5-gallon carry bucket with a handle (put
your name on the bottom)...this makes for easy carrying of "stuff" for
transfer to the large garbage bags. As was done in the past we also
hope to put together a "tiger" team of strong adults willing to get
down and dirty who can tackle some of the really big stuff that has
been in the river for years...like the tires.

There is no RSVP required but if you think you will attend please let
me know by email. This helps with planning coffee, bagels, etc. We
also expect to have some giveaways (posters, maybe water bottles,
etc). Finally, if it rains on the 11th, the following day, the 12th
will be the event. Please feel free to contact me with any other
questions.

Joe Seebode
Joseph.J...@nan02.usace.army.mil

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

URBAN OPEN SPACE MAPPING INITIATIVE - DEC 11

Date: 6 Oct 2003
From: "Craw, Veronica" {VC...@PVSC.COM}

Watershed Management Area 4 (Passaic and Saddle Rivers)
invites all to attend their:

URBAN OPEN SPACE PRIORITY ACQUISITION MAP ROLL-OUT

Date: December 11th, 2003
Time: 6:00pm - 8:00pm

Place: Room 200A
Science Building
William Paterson University
300 Pompton Road
Wayne, NJ 07470

Please join WMA4 as they introduce their urban open space acquisition
map and ranking criteria. Urban open space ranking criteria include
brownfields, flood plains, environmental justice, pocket parks, water
supply, riparian corridors, greenways, etc...Mapping provided by
volunteer William Paterson University interns!

* Free and open to the general public.

* Refreshments will be provided.

* Please RSVP, in order to reserve a parking permit, to
vc...@pvsc.com, 973-817-5958.

* Directions to WPU:
http://ww2.wpunj.edu/aboutus/directions.cfm#directions

* * *

Veronica Craw
WMA4 Public Advisory Committee
ph: 973-817-5958
vc...@pvsc.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Phil Reynolds - Editor - reyn...@gsenet.org
Tina Bologna - Executive Director - bol...@gsenet.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Back issues of the Garden State EnviroNews are available at
http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/11gsn.php

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Garden State EnviroNet, Inc.
19 Boonton Ave, Boonton NJ 07005
Tel: 973-394-1313 - Fax: 973-394-9513
mai...@gsenet.org - http://www.gsenet.org/

EnviroNews mailing lists:
TEXT - subscribe-en...@gselist.org
HTML - subscribe-en...@gselist.org

0 new messages