PROPOSED NJ WATER
REGULATIONS
Gov. Christie Whitman has
said she wants to step up the battle against sprawl but her critics say
her new regulations will promote overdevelopment and threaten the
environment.
Seventy-four lawmakers signed a letter to the
governor protesting the proposed rule. They want it changed to remove
exemptions they say will ruin the remaining rural character of the state.
But the Whitman Administration defends the rule as
a common sense way to steer development toward areas that can handle it,
and away from more sensitive parcels.
The problem, according to the environmentalists,
is the land in between the two extremes: sections of suburban communities
like Clinton Township in Hunterdon County and Lacey Township in Ocean
County that maps show are within long-planned sewer areas but where the
pipes were never actually installed.
Such in-between areas are included in the 300,000
acres that the state Department of Environmental Protection wants to
exempt from tough new water rule that control run-off and sewage
discharge. Elsewhere,
developers
would have to jump through many new
environmental hoops to win building approval under the proposal.
DEP spokesman Peter Page said the
critics must recognize that some development must be allowed to
accommodate natural growth in the state. The new rules reflect the reality
that more people need more houses, he said.
“The reality is, we’re living in
boom times and we have competing pressure: A public that is increasingly
upset about traffic congestion and sprawl and, at the same time, a demand
for housing that is greater in undeveloped areas,” he said.
Even in the areas of the state where the
tougher rules won’t apply, developers will still have to assure the
state that their projects will not degrade area water quality, Page said.
Page said regulating water quality is
almost a no-win proposition when it comes to the Legislature.
“The concern of the department is that
the Legislature would take us to task for making a rule that’s too
strict. But now a majority is saying the rule is too weak. We haven’t
quite sorted out what that means yet,” Page said.
(Gloucester County Times
- 7/12/00)
