Shawn Garvin Brings ‘Teh Weak’.

Yep, we’re talking about The Underwater City At Fort DuPont.  You will surely recall this letter from Jack Guerin to DNREC Secretary Garvin concerning this boondoggle:

Hello Mr. Garvin,

I’m contacting you based on your dual role as Secretary of DNREC and Board Secretary of the Fort Dupont Redevelopment and Preservation Corporation (FDRPC).  You are one of seven state officials on the FDRPC Board along with Laura Lee who is a member of your staff.  I’m writing an article about FDRPC, and I’m seeking clarification of some issues.

The DNREC website shows two parcels of land protected by TITLE 7 CHAPTER 75 Delaware Land Protection Act.  The Fort Dupont Redevelopment and Preservation Corporation (FDRPC) is now selling the Grassdale parcel to become a private RV Campground.  The other parcel is also part of the FDRPC development plan.

My understanding is that these are wetland areas.  Here’s a quote from the FDRPC website.  “However, all of Delaware City is at risk of flooding.  Most of Delaware City if not directly in the floodplain is near the flood hazard area.”

The legislative intent expressed in TITLE 7 CHAPTER 75 Delaware Land Protection Act seems very clear.  This Act uses the word “permanent” 34 times and “conservation” 13 times.  There is no provision for “conversion” to private unprotected status.  I also understand that DNREC is appealing to the National Parks Department to remove federal 6(f) protections which are still in force for one of these parcels.

This area is now part of Delaware City and the City Manager also serves on the Board.  I’ve attached the Delaware City Floodplain Management Ordinance which requires the city to:

Minimize the impact of development on the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain;

Minimize the impact of development on adjacent properties within and near flood prone areas;

Provide that the flood storage and conveyance functions of the floodplain are maintained;

Prevent floodplain uses that are either hazardous or environmentally incompatible.

The FDRPC is bulldozing through these statutes with private development of the wetlands.  The citizens of Delaware City will be caught between a refinery and what was once called a trailer park.  This is one of the most vulnerable towns in Delaware and their flood risk is being increased by paving over wetland areas.

Based on State statutes this development would appear to be illegal.  Based on common sense, building in such a flood prone area seems simply foolish.  The gauge at Reedy Point is located in one of these parcels. NOAA predicts it will see 25-100 high-tide flood days in 2050. This prediction doesn’t include flood days resulting from extreme rain events, which are also increasing in frequency. 

I’ve also attached Senate Joint Resolution No 2 which charges your agency to “prepare a report on the findings, structure, and resource needs to support a State nontidal wetlands program and submit the report to the General Assembly and the Governor no later than one year from the enactment of this resolution”.

As DNREC Secretary your mission should logically be enforcing both State and local environmental statutes.  However, in your FDRPC role, you appear to be doing the opposite.  In addition, there has never been an audit of the more than $14 million in State funds appropriated for FDRPC.

I’m seeking any feedback to understand how facilitating FDRPC’s development of wetland areas is consistent with DNREC’s mission.

Jack Guerin
FightDECorruption.com

I wrote about it in this article.

We have now received Garvin’s response.  I will print it in its entirety:

Mr. Guerin – Thank you for the chance to provide some information on Fort Dupont Redevelopment and Preservation Corporation (FDRPC) and on DNREC’s regulatory role. While I appreciate your passion, your letter makes a number of statements and assertions which appear to be incorrect.

The vision and origin of Fort Dupont RPC as a mechanism for transforming the defined area into a new community with residential, commercial and recreational aspects came before my time as Secretary, but was based largely on the Riverfront Development Corporation in Wilmington, which is and should be considered a success at this point. By statute, the Secretary of DNREC and other state officials sits on the Fort Dupont RDC board (just like the Riverfront board). DNREC’s involvement in Fort Dupont is increased by the presence of Fort Dupont State Park, which continues to operate.

The 2014 state law creating FD RPC provides it authority “without limitation and notwithstanding any other laws” to, among other things, “hold, own, preserve, develop, improve, construct, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise acquire or dispose of any real property, including without limitation any real property comprising the Fort DuPont Complex.” That authority in state law brought all land in the defined area under the FDRPC regardless of how it was acquired. 

This state law provision does not however, avoid the requirements of Fort Dupont corporation to obtain the same state permits, including environmental permits issued by DNREC, as other entities and individuals. DNREC’s Division of Water accepts permit applications regarding subaqueous lands and wetlands from other state agencies (such as the Department of Transportation for road projects or the Office of Management and Budget that holds most state office properties) and even to other divisions of DNREC (like the Division of Parks and Recreation for state parks or the Division of Fish and Wildlife for wildlife areas). Just as with these other agencies that have connection to or are within DNREC, the position of the DNREC Secretary on the FDRPC board does not lessen the requirements and public processes that apply or the scrutiny given.

Wetlands and floodplains are different things, though you appear to use them interchangeably in your letter. Tidal wetlands are  defined in state code and regulated by DNREC, and most of the Grassdale property and the Fort Dupont property are not tidal wetlands. If and when the new Grassdale property owner (which at that point would not be the FDRPC) brings development plans to the state, the wetlands will need to be fully mapped and any impact to them avoided or mitigated, as with any property development by any owner. The permit process that will apply is public.

SJR 2 is a resolution to study possible regulation at the state level of non-tidal — also known as freshwater — wetlands, which are currently regulated only at the federal level. The state at this time only regulates tidal wetlands.  SJR 2, while aspirational and supported by DNREC, provides no authority yet with regards to non-tidal wetlands.

In conclusion, while I understand you and others may disagree with the location of or policy of redevelopment in the Fort Dupont area, that does not mean the development is “illegal” as you asserted, or that DNREC cannot carry out its responsibilities for environmental protection with regards to wetlands and other issues. The location of Fort Dupont makes it a challenge to develop in a way that accounts for past and future flooding impacts, but the same can be said increasingly of many parts of the state in which people live and work.  However, the development at Ft. DuPont are incorporating practices to address future impacts of Climate Change.

Thank you – Shawn

First, before I get into the specifics, I will point out that this response strikes me as a legalistic non-defense of inaction on DNREC’s part.  If you can find one phrase in Garvin’s letter that suggests any intent on the part of DNREC to diligently address environmental concerns associated with the project, please point it out to me.

OK. Next, Garvin’s basic premise, that this is like the development at the Riverfront, is incorrect. The revitalization of the riverfront included two essential environmental initiatives: the cleaning-up of the Christina River AND the Russell W. Peterson Urban Wildlife Refuge. The project would not have moved forward without those two cornerstones, and everybody (including me) who was involved knows that to be true.  It matters not to me whether Garvin is either unaware of these initiatives, or is being disingenuous.  Bottom line is he’s wrong. Misleadingly wrong.  BTW, in response to a possible defense, no, the Nicole ‘n Val Delaware City Pub Crawl does not constitute an environmental initiative.  Can anyone involved in this boondoggle cite even one environmental upgrade associated with it?  Of course, the area is already imperiled with rising waters before the (as Dave Carter puts it) ‘New Orleans-style theme park’ is completed.

Let’s now go to the ‘my hands are tied’ apologia:  “The 2014 state law creating FD RPC provides it authority “without limitation and notwithstanding any other laws” to, among other things, “hold, own, preserve, develop, improve, construct, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise acquire or dispose of any real property, including without limitation any real property comprising the Fort DuPont Complex.” That authority in state law brought all land in the defined area under the FDRPC regardless of how it was acquired.”

That’s true. The boondoggle was created legislatively.  However, Garvin, who should be familiar with developing legislation to be considered by the General Assembly, demonstrates no willingness to mitigate any environmental disasters associated with the project through legislation. He assures us that if/when any part of the project requires permits/licensing from DNREC, the regulatory process will respond accordingly. Hello? Is this mic on?  He’s the DNREC Secretary, he sits on the Fort DuPont Board as part of the enabling legislation.  Is he just gonna sit there until the project is so far along that it won’t be practical to impose restrictions?  Rhetorical question. Asked and answered:

“The location of Fort Dupont makes it a challenge to develop in a way that accounts for past and future flooding impacts, but the same can be said increasingly of many parts of the state in which people live and work.  However, the development at Ft. DuPont are incorporating practices to address future impacts of Climate Change.

The boldfaced section is a lie.  That is, unless Garvin is willing to cite other examples where we already know that the entire area being redeveloped is particularly subject to flooding, and a particular area is projected to be under water. And if a project is projected to be under water, why isn’t DNREC doing anything about it?
Garvin has demonstrated himself to be just another willingly-toothless DNREC Secretary who will allow nothing to get in the way of ‘economic development’, regardless of how ill-considered and environmentally-unsound it is.  Alby, in responding to the glossy Climate Plan brochure that Carney/Garvin just released, says it best:

If the state were serious about guarding Delawareans from climate change, they wouldn’t be allowing the abomination in Delaware City.

So I call bullshit.

So do I.