Court Opinion

ID: 9733799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:17:38.222437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.110522
License: Public Domain

Justice ZAZZALI,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion in full, including Part IV.B., which addresses the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) interpretation of N.J.AC. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(l) exempting General Permit 23 (GP23) from antidegradation review. I agree with the Court’s legal conclusion on that issue, but write separately to underscore my reasoning and my concern.
Appellants challenge DEP’s construction of N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(l), a regulation that DEP promulgated. When reviewing an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, we must give substantial deference to the agency unless its interpretation is inconsistent with the governing legislation. DiMaria v. Bd. of Trs. of Pub. Employees’ Bet. Sys., 225 N.J.Super. 341, 351, 542 A.2d 498 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 113 N.J. 638, 552 A2d 164 (1988). For the reasons expressed by the Court, I agree that DEP’s construction of N.J.S.A 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(l) is reasonable *442and that we therefore must afford it substantial deference. Ante at 440, 852 A.2d at 182.
Nonetheless, I am persuaded that appellants’ interpretation of N.JAC. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(l) better serves the express intent of New Jersey’s antidegradation policy to give pinelands waters the highest level of protection from changes in water quality. As noted by the Court, pinelands waters are classified as “Outstanding National Resource Waters of the State,” N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(i), and under our antidegradation policy, “[n]o changes shall be allowed” in such waters, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(4) (emphasis added). The policy further provides that with respect to waters in the pinelands, DEP “shall not approve any activity which alone or in combination with any other activities, might cause changes, other than toward natural water quality, in the existing water quality characteristics.” N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii).
As the Court explains, appellants argue that the exemption for water control found in N.J.AC. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(l) does not relieve DEP of its obligation to subject GP23 to antidegradation review. ‘Water control,” as they construe the term, encompasses the flow and volume of water and not its content. They, therefore, contend that GP23 applicants must comply with the stringent water quality standards applicable to pinelands waters as long as compliance does not interfere with the management of the quantity of water and the direction of its flow essential to cranberry bog operations. Conversely, under DEP’s reading of the exemption for water control, the agency can issue GP23 authorization and allow the expansion of cranberry bogs without having to assess the impact of that expansion on the quality of pinelands waters. Because appellants’ interpretation requires DEP to monitor the effects of GP23 on water quality, thereby ensuring that the waters in the pinelands are protected from change, I believe it is more consistent with the goals of our antidegradation policy.
Notwithstanding my preference for appellants’ reading of the regulation, I recognize that “[o]ur task is not to decide which among several competing interpretations best serves the regulato*443ry purpose.” Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 2386, 129 L.Ed.2d 405, 415 (1994). I therefore reluctantly concur in the Court’s opinion. If DEP has erred, as I believe it has, it is the Legislature that must take corrective action.
For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN and WALLACE — 6.
Opposed — None.