A flood of regulations likely for Jersey Shore communities

With final approval at least a year away, shore communities are taking a close look at the proposal. Many do not like what they see.

“It seems to me that the few up there want to stop all construction on barrier islands,” Ocean City Mayor Jay Gillian said at the most recent City Council meeting, at which the council unanimously approved a resolution asking the state to move slowly and carefully.

Announced in the spring, the new rules’ name is a mouthful: Protecting Against Climate Threat Resilient Environments and Landscapes, or NJPACT REAL. The posted preliminary version of the proposal weighs in at more than 1,000 pages, with a goal of preparing New Jersey for the impacts of a changing climate. In a spring briefing for reporters, DEP Commissioner Shawn LaTourette said Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in 2020 ordered the agency to integrate climate change considerations into every aspect of its work.

“Which is a pretty large proposition for an agency that, for multiple years prior, wasn’t even allowed to use the phrase climate change,” LaTourette said.

A twofold effort would work to reduce carbon emissions and better prepare for stronger storms and higher seas in a state he described as ground zero for climate change dangers.

“We have to do more to help communities defend the current impact and the worse impacts to come,” LaTourette said.

Local communities have another take.

“This is almost like the windmills again, with the home rule,” Gillian told Ocean City Council.

Many Ocean City residents and officials saw efforts to build offshore wind turbines in sight of the coast as state government riding roughshod over local laws in the name of reducing climate impacts.

While a consensus of scientists around the world sees climate change and rising seas as a significant and growing threat and point to human activity as the cause, there remain some critics, including current and former elected officials, who argue that global warming is a hoax, despite significant evidence to the contrary.

That is not the argument made by local governments, who instead call for a careful approach that also weighs the economic impact.

The Ocean City resolution calls climate change and sea level rise and “documented risk to the coastal zone of New Jersey and its barrier island communities,” which requires a governmental response.

But the proposed rules would go beyond the flood zones created through the Federal Emergency Management Agency and were not proposed through the legislative process.

“These rules as currently written do not consider the economic impact these new standards may have on the ratables, real estate values, development and redevelopment statewide,” the Ocean City resolution reads, citing a $50 billion tourism industry in Cape May County.

Other shore communities have approved similar resolutions. A 90-day public comment period on the proposed rules change began in July. Three public hearings are planned, but details of where and when have not yet been released.

A posted version of the proposed rules calls for increasing the coastal flood hazard areas to account for increasing storm surges due to rising sea levels, extending the jurisdiction farther inland and requiring elevation and floodproofing.

The rules also include the creation of an inundation risk zone and call for support for renewable energy and shore protection efforts that work with nature. The final version has not been posted to the New Jersey Register.

In Cape May, City Manager Paul Dietrich told City Council that county officials wanted all 16 communities to adopt a resolution similar to the one Ocean City passed.

A Cape May County spokesperson declined to be interviewed for this story, saying the Cape May County Board of Commissioners has not yet voted on the matter. A vote could come at an Aug. 13 meeting.

Officials in Cape May expressed concern over the potential impact on local planning, with the potential for requirements aimed at putting buildings and infrastructure above future sea levels.

“That can change the characteristics of a community entirely,” Dietrich said.

Cape May City attorney Christopher Gillin-Schwartz mentioned properties that have already completed a process to lift a house above the floodplain elevation only to find that the rules have changed.

“They just went through the rigmarole of raising the structure,” he said. “They just went through that process, and they’re immediately out of compliance.”

The rules also envision critical infrastructure and roadways lifted above future flood hazards.

Cape May Mayor Zack Mullock said places like Sea Isle City already have multiple properties in which the first floor of living space is above flood elevation, with parking underneath. Several years ago, the previously flood-prone main route into Sea Isle from the mainland was raised above flood elevations. The rules will not have the same existential impact if enacted as they would in Cape May, he suggested.

“In Cape May City, this would be character-changing if we have to raise everything five feet,” Dietrich said. There may be some leeway within the city’s historic district.

Cape May Council member Michael Yeager called the proposed rules totally unreasonable.

“It’s off the wall,” Yeager said at a July council meeting.

Dietrich said Cape May has been in communication with other towns and counties.

“This is not just a Cape May issue,” he said.

Local state representatives agree with the city and county’s position, Dietrich said. But their concerns have not carried much weight with the DEP.

“Part of the frustration with this is, this is an administrative agency with rulemaking authority,” Gillin-Schwartz said.

“It’s not just (that) our local legislators didn’t vote for it, no state legislator voted for it,” Dietrich added.

Several local communities see the potential for significant impact. Gillian denies a bureaucratic process in Trenton that he sees as disconnected from the voters and the impacted communities.

The potential impact of the proposed rules would go beyond New Jersey’s barrier island communities, Gillian said at the council meeting, adding that sections of neighboring Upper Township would also be impacted were the rules enacted as proposed.

The proposed rule change has supporters. The New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club said the proposal would improve a lack of resiliency and enhance protections for shore towns, as well as protect wildlife habitats.

“The NJPACT REAL rules will keep people and properties safe and out of harm’s way, and most importantly will update our flood zones to reflect modern climate science,” said Anjuli Ramos-Busot, the state chapter director for the Sierra Club.

Other groups, including the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters and the American Littoral Society’s Delaware Bayshore Program, have supported efforts for stricter regulations in response to climate change.

According to the DEP, roughly 16% of the state lies within a FEMA-mapped flood zone. The proposed rules would add 1.5% more land area to the regulatory floodplain.

A posted overview of the rules states that almost two-thirds of New Jersey’s coastline is at high or very high risk of erosion and 98% of the coastline is at medium to very high risk from sea level rise.

The DEP denies the proposed rules will create “no build” zones and says they will not affect existing development. They will not require buildings to be elevated “when doing so is impractical,” according to the overview.

Adoption of the rules could come in the fall of 2025.