The New Jersey Business & Industry Association (NJBIA) has voiced ongoing concerns regarding the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) proposed flood rules, known as the Resilient Environments and Landscapes (REAL) rules. The comment period for the amended version of these regulations recently ended, with NJBIA submitting feedback warning that the changes could harm the state’s economy if implemented.
Ray Cantor, NJBIA Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer, has led opposition to the REAL rules since their introduction over a year ago. He stated, “This remains an extreme measure that is out of step with mainstream climate science on what is likely to happen. At the end of the day, it still uses low confidence assumptions, based on models, predicting events 75 years from now and at a 17% confidence level.”
Cantor further commented on potential consequences: “It will have devastating economic impacts to coastal and river communities and their residents and exacerbates the affordability crisis while making it harder to build affordable housing.”
A central issue in the debate is projected sea level rise. The NJDEP originally based its regulations on an assumed five-foot sea level rise by 2100, referencing a 2019 study suggesting a 17% chance of this outcome under moderate emissions scenarios. The department has since lowered its elevation standard to four feet over 75 years due to new modeling.
Cantor argued there is insufficient scientific evidence for such requirements: “There are no scientific studies that the Department can point to show that rapid ice sheet melting is likely,” he said. “As the Department must well know by now, the IPCC and mainstream climate science on rapid ice sheet melting do not show (rapid ice sheet melting) to be likely this century.”
He added: “Without rapid ice sheet assumptions being built into the model projections, the likely sea level rise is two feet, not four feet. We strongly recommend the rule be proposed for another round of substantial amendments to reflect the current state of scientific knowledge which would reflect a 2-foot sea level rise in New Jersey by the end of the century.” Cantor also noted that even two feet represents “the most stringent end of the likely range” according to IPCC findings. He suggested adjustments could be made in future decades if needed.
The NJBIA previously warned that earlier versions of these rules—also known as Protection Against Climate Threats (PACT)—would restrict construction in flood-prone areas and affect towns’ abilities to meet affordable housing needs. While recent amendments allow exemptions for affordable housing under certain conditions, Cantor dismissed this flexibility as inadequate: “First the Department claims it is unsafe to locate such housing in flood hazard areas and then claims to be providing flexibility if a developer can show that it is safe through a hardship waiver,” he wrote. “We have no confidence in the waiver process given how hard it is to obtain one even under the current state of law. We continue to have concerns that these rules will negatively impact the state’s ability to construct low-income housing.”
Another provision treats stormwater removal requirements similarly across urban and rural developments—a move Cantor criticized: “While the intention of the Department is laudable, improving water quality in urban areas, a site-by-site enhanced standard is not the way to improve water quality,” he wrote. He questioned whether any analysis supported claims about improved water quality from this change and advocated for regional approaches instead.
Cantor concluded his comments by urging NJDEP not to adopt these rules without further stakeholder engagement: “Given all the problems with these rules, lack of credible science to justify its conclusions, and overall negative impact… we urge the Department not to adopt but reengage stakeholders and work toward a solution for our resiliency challenges,” Cantor said.
To see Cantor’s full written comments submitted to NJDEP, click here.
