Determines that DEP rules and regulations known as " New Jersey Protecting Against Climate Change - Resilient Environment and Landscapes" are inconsistent with legislative intent.
SCR136 is a concurrent resolution declaring that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s proposed “New Jersey Protecting Against Climate Change - Resilient Environment and Landscapes” (NJPACT-REAL) rules are inconsistent with legislative intent. The resolution focuses on the DEP’s August 5, 2024 rule proposal and argues that the package would make sweeping changes to flood hazard, land use, and other environmental programs in response to climate change, including expanding regulated flood hazard areas. It asserts that the DEP is attempting to create major climate policy through regulation rather than through new legislation.
The resolution states that the Legislature did not authorize the DEP to adopt these broad climate-related rules and contends that the agency is relying on outdated, repealed, or otherwise inapplicable statutes. It specifically points to the Global Warming Response Act as evidence that when the Legislature has intended to authorize climate-related action, it has done so narrowly, and it notes that the Legislature removed broader regulatory authority during enactment of that law. The resolution therefore directs that the DEP be notified of the Legislature’s finding and given 30 days to amend or withdraw the proposal, after which the Legislature could take further action to invalidate the rules in whole or in part.
If adopted, SCR136 would not itself change substantive environmental law, but it would formally express the Legislature’s view that the DEP’s NJPACT-REAL proposal exceeds statutory authority and is inconsistent with legislative intent. The practical effect would be to pressure the DEP to withdraw or revise the proposed rules and could set up a later concurrent resolution to invalidate them under the New Jersey Constitution. The resolution primarily affects DEP rulemaking authority, flood hazard regulation, climate adaptation policy, and stakeholders such as coastal property owners, builders, businesses, and municipalities that could be subject to the proposed regulations.
The sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly opposed to the DEP proposal and supportive of legislative oversight of agency rulemaking. The resolution frames the rules as an overreach and emphasizes concerns about higher property taxes, increased cost of living, and added construction and renovation costs, especially in coastal areas. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so the available context shows only the sponsor’s and resolution’s critical stance rather than broader bipartisan or committee sentiment.
The main point of contention is whether the DEP has statutory authority to adopt NJPACT-REAL without new legislation. Supporters of the resolution argue that the agency is relying on outdated or repealed statutes and that climate policy of this magnitude must come from the Legislature, not administrative rulemaking. Opponents of that view would likely defend the DEP’s authority to use existing environmental statutes to address climate risks, especially given the urgency of climate change and flood resilience. The dispute also centers on the policy effects of the proposal, with critics emphasizing economic burdens on homeowners, coastal communities, and businesses.