Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nj Pact Real Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislators Hear Split Testimony on DEP's PACT/Real Rules; Stakes Seen as Housing, Safety and Costs
Summary
A joint legislative hearing on New Jersey DEP's NJ PACT/Real Rules featured scientists and insurers urging stronger, science-based standards to reduce long-term flood damages, while builders, business groups and some municipal leaders warned the rules would raise costs, harm affordable housing and exceed agency authority.
A joint session of the Legislature's Environment and Solid Waste committees convened an informational hearing on April 22, focusing on the New Jersey DEP's recently adopted NJ PACT/Real Rules and their projected impacts on coastal and flood-prone communities.
The chairs opened with procedural instructions and a timeline for public comment, saying the record would remain open for seven days and that the committee would send the hearing transcript to all 120 legislators. Chair remarks framed the session around a history of rulemaking that began with Executive Order 100 in January 2020 and culminated in DEP's formal adoption of revised standards on Jan. 20, 2026, with many provisions slated to take effect July 19.
Mark Mauriello, a coastal geologist with decades of DEP experience who now advises developers, testified in support of DEP's approach. He said regional tide-gauge records (Atlantic City, Sandy Hook) show a more than one-foot rise over the past century and that FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program maps, which rely on historical data, systematically understate current and future flood risk. "FEMA was never a land use program," Mauriello said, arguing that the State's rules are intended to address land-use choices the federal program does not.
Scientists and academic witnesses presented the underlying projections used by DEP. A Rutgers-affiliated scientist summarized the 2025 staff report, giving likely ranges for New Jersey's relative sea-level rise: roughly 0.7—1.3 feet by 2040, 0.9—1.7 feet by 2050 and 2.2—3.8 feet by 2100 under an intermediate emissions scenario, and warned that rapid ice-sheet loss would expand upper-range possibilities. He said those ranges reflect uncertainty, and that selecting a regulatory standard is a policy choice about risk tolerance.
Industry and municipal witnesses pressed for different trade-offs. The New Jersey Builders Association, commercial real-estate representatives and the New Jersey Business & Industry Association argued the rules were adopted with insufficient stakeholder engagement, lacked quantified statewide economic and housing-impact analyses, and would raise construction and financing costs. Jeff Kolakowski of the builders' group said the measure "fundamentally changes DEP's permitting programs" and could make projects unfinanceable.
Jersey City Mayor James Solomon and urban planners warned the rules, as drafted, could place major affordable-housing projects at risk by complicating financing and adding elevation and stormwater requirements that are difficult to reconcile with existing urban infrastructure. Municipal and business witnesses urged tailoring standards to urban contexts and phasing changes.
Insurance and public-finance experts said stronger building standards and resilience investments reduce long-term losses and can be credit-positive. A representative of the property/casualty industry described programs that couple building standards to actuarially-sound premium discounts. A public-finance scholar said municipal bond markets already price coastal exposure and that mitigation investments can improve credit metrics over time.
Multiple witnesses urged implementation steps should accompany standards: mitigation funding and low-interest loans for homeowners, better administrative resources at DEP to manage permitting, clear hardship-exception criteria, and coordination with FEMA and federal programs. Several business witnesses asked the Legislature to review the rules under SCR 106 and to consider a phased approach (for example, a lower near-term standard with scheduled reviews).
The committee recessed after nearly four hours of testimony and public questioning. Committee chairs said the transcript and submitted materials would be circulated to all legislators for consideration and that the committee would accept written material to augment the hearing record.
The hearing presented a policy trade-off lawmakers must weigh: stricter, forward-looking standards designed to reduce future storm damage and taxpayer exposure versus near-term impacts on housing costs, redevelopment feasibility and municipal economic bases. The record makes clear both the scientific basis for heightened standards and the practical questions lawmakers and stakeholders will need to reconcile before next regulatory or legislative steps.
