Senator Joe Kyrillos, a member of the Senate Economic Growth Committee, expressed disappointment about the $9 million diversion from the shore protection fund and proposed an update to the New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan in a letter sent to Commissioner Jackson of the Department of Environmental Protection today.
The monies were diverted in the FY 2009 budget. Published reports indicate that the $9 million in diverted shore protection monies could have been leveraged to pay for $34.3 million in federal/State projects, or $12 million in additional State/local projects.
“Our tourism industry is a primary economic driver in this state,” Kyrillos said. “To divert monies from this established and proven endowment is irresponsible, foolish and shortsighted.”
“A new, comprehensive, five-year master plan for shore protections projects which can be reviewed and commented upon by the residents of our coastal communities, will permit the Legislature to render a judgment as to whether the diversion of the protection monies was in fact justified,” said Kyrillos.
Senator Kyrillos is the author of the original Shore Protection Legislation adopted in 1992. The letter is follows:
August 1, 2008
Honorable Lisa P. Jackson
Commissioner of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
7th Floor, East Wing
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402
Dear Commissioner Jackson:
I am writing to call your attention to a recent media report regarding the consequences of legislation (P.L. 2008, c. 31) which diverted $9 million from the Shore Protection Fund in Fiscal Year 2009 for parks operations and maintenance purposes.
As the Senate sponsor of the legislation that created the Shore Protection Fund in 1992, I raised the concern that notwithstanding assurances to the contrary, needed projects would be delayed as a result of the diversion of shore protection monies to the State park system.
As you are aware, the Shore Protection Fund is the lynchpin of a multi-billion coastal tourism industry that generated $2.2 billion in State tax revenues in 2007. If our tourism industry — which relies heavily on the Jersey Shore — did not exist, each household in New Jersey would have to pay an additional $1, 330 in taxes to maintain current levels of state and local tax receipts. The existence of the Shore Protection Fund and the availability of State matching funds have allowed New Jersey to obtain 50 percent of available federal shore protection monies, despite the fact that New Jersey has only one percent of the nation’s coastline.
You can therefore understand my concern upon reading in the media report that the $9 million in diverted shore protection monies could have been leveraged to pay for $34.3 million in federal/State projects, or $12 million in additional State/local projects, according to the director of the Coastal Research Center at Richard Stockton College. Many of the State’s beaches are recovering from an unusual storm in the month of May that caused extension erosion. In addition, homeowners in my district are presently confronted with the prospect of paying steeply higher flood insurance premiums thanks to the structural deficiency of an existing shore protection structure in the Bayshore region.
These examples, along with others, belie the Administration’s argument that the Shore Protection Fund has too much money. Indeed, just eight months ago, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) testified to the Commission on Capital Budget and Planning that approximately $46 million was needed for shore protection projects in Fiscal Year 2009. The DEP staff testified to the commission that the failure to provide shore protection monies for “beach erosion and other protection problems could negatively affect tourism and the all around economy of the state.” I am deeply disturbed that the Administration is effectively repudiating what it said in December by pursuing the diversion of shore protection monies.
Moreover, there is no real comfort in the provision of the legislation that provides that the $9 million in diverted monies do not have to be repaid until the fund falls below $20 million. I believe that this language actually creates an inadvertent and perverse incentive for the Administration to slow down the pace of shore protection projects.
Rather than engaging in a fruitless bureaucratic dispute over which projects can be funded under what timeframes, I am proposing that legislation be enacted to revise and update the New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan prepared pursuant to section 5 of P.L.1978, c.157, which I am advised has not been updated since 1981. A new, comprehensive, five-year master plan for shore protection projects which can be reviewed and commented upon by the residents of our coastal communities, will permit the Legislature to render a judgment as to whether the diversion of shore protection monies was in fact justified.
I will, of course, provide you with a copy of the draft legislation when it is completed. If you wish to discuss this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Joseph M. Kyrillos
Senator, District 13
Link to Post:
Similar Posts:
- Kean, Rible & Angelini Blast Raid of Shore Protection Fund
September 30, 2009 - OLS: Corzine Fund Raids Require Separate Votes
April 28, 2009 - Haines: Corzine Must Show the ‘Moral Courage’ to End TDI Fund Diversions
May 12, 2009 - Allen: Corzine Must Stop Diversions from Clean Energy Fund
September 15, 2009 - Tom Kean: Corzine Can Help Ensure Budget Is Last that Diverts Workers’ Funds
March 24, 2009
