Fourteen years after Sandy, New Jersey is more vulnerable than ever

We rebuilt the Shore, but failed to learn the lessons of the disaster.

Fourteen years ago, Superstorm Sandy slammed into New Jersey, changing our state forever. Thirty-eight people lost their lives, 346,000 homes were damaged or destroyed, 2 million people lost power, and the state suffered an estimated $30 billion in economic damage.

Sandy was supposed to be a wake-up call. It should have fundamentally changed how we build, where we build, and how we prepare for the next major storm.

Instead, 14 years later, we are still making many of the same mistakes. In some ways, we have made them worse.

We have rebuilt homes, businesses, roads, bridges, and infrastructure in many of the same places that flooded during Sandy. We have continued approving development in vulnerable coastal and inland areas, putting more people and property in harm’s way.

We have spent billions recovering from disasters without making the investments needed to prevent the next one.

The next superstorm could be even more devastating. We have more development, more pavement, more people exposed to flooding, and aging infrastructure. Climate change is making the risks worse. Meanwhile, the federal government is rolling back climate protections, and New Jersey is delaying regulations designed to protect us.

Sandy was not just a natural disaster. The extent of its damage was also the result of decisions about land use, development, infrastructure, and environmental protection. Those decisions are still being made today.

We rebuilt from Sandy, but we failed to learn its lessons.

We rebuilt in the same places that failed us

One of the biggest failures after Sandy was our willingness to rebuild in vulnerable areas without adequately changing the conditions that made those places dangerous in the first place.

We elevated some houses, built dunes, repaired roads, and strengthened infrastructure. Those investments were important, but they did not address the larger problem: We continued putting more development in flood-prone areas.

We treated Sandy as a construction problem instead of a land-use and climate problem.

The numbers show how little has changed. An analysis by Climate Central and Zillow found that New Jersey’s housing growth rate in coastal flood-risk areas was nearly three times the rate in safer locations. About 4,500 new homes worth $4.6 billion were built in those risk zones between 2009 and the mid-2010s.

A Regional Plan Association analysis found that approximately 52,000 additional residential units were built in areas exposed to coastal flooding between 2000 and 2020.

New Jersey’s State Development and Redevelopment Plan impact assessment also found that tens of thousands of acres of development occurred in areas vulnerable to flooding from streams and coastal storm surges between 1986 and 2020.

These are not just statistics. They represent homes, families, businesses, roads, and infrastructure that could be exposed to the next major flood.

We continue approving developments that replace natural areas with concrete, asphalt, and buildings. Wetlands, forests, floodplains, and open space that once absorbed stormwater are being paved over. Every new parking lot, shopping center, and housing development can add runoff to an already overwhelmed system.

When the rain comes, that water has to go somewhere. Too often, it ends up in somebody’s basement, neighborhood, business, or drinking-water supply.

Nature brings the rain, but government land-use decisions help determine how much damage it causes.

Fourteen years later, we still haven’t gotten REAL about flooding

The clearest example of New Jersey’s failure to learn from Sandy is the state’s handling of the Resilient Environments and Landscapes rules, known as REAL.

These regulations were designed to update land-use, stormwater, coastal, and flood-protection standards to account for climate change, increased rainfall, and sea-level rise.

They were far from perfect. The original proposal was weakened through compromises, including reducing the proposed climate-adjusted elevation standard from five feet to four feet above federal flood elevations. Exemptions and loopholes also leave gaps in protection.

But the rules represented an important step toward recognizing that we cannot keep building as if climate change does not exist.

Instead of fully implementing these protections, the Sherrill administration moved to delay them. On Sept. 21, 2026, the Department of Environmental Protection extended the period during which qualifying projects can be reviewed under older regulations through July 20, 2027.

That means another year in which some projects can move forward under standards that do not adequately account for future flooding and climate conditions. Developers get more time, but communities face continued exposure.

The administration says it needs additional time to review the rules and engage stakeholders. But these regulations have already gone through years of development, scientific review, public discussion, and negotiation.

At some point, stakeholder engagement becomes another excuse for postponing action.

The development industry opposed the rules even after they were weakened. For many powerful interests, stronger environmental standards mean limits on where and how they can build.

The affordability argument also does not hold water. There is nothing affordable about repeatedly rebuilding flooded homes, replacing destroyed vehicles, repairing roads and bridges, restoring sewer systems, paying higher insurance premiums, and losing businesses.

Prevention costs money. But disasters cost much more.

When we allow development under outdated standards, we transfer the costs and risks from developers to homeowners, municipalities, taxpayers, and future generations.

Federal rollbacks are making matters worse

While New Jersey delays protections, the Trump administration is dismantling federal safeguards designed to reduce climate and disaster risks.

On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump revoked the federal Flood Risk Management Standard. The Federal Emergency Management Agency subsequently stopped applying requirements that directed federally funded projects to account for future flood risks, including climate-related conditions.

In February 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency rescinded the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding, which had provided the legal foundation for federal greenhouse gas regulations on motor vehicles. The administration has also moved to weaken climate-related requirements for power plants and other pollution sources.

This is not simply deregulation. It is removing safeguards intended to protect people from increasingly dangerous environmental conditions.

The administration also attempted to terminate FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which helps communities prepare for disasters before they happen. After states challenged the decision in court, a federal judge ordered the program restored. FEMA resumed the program in March 2026.

New Jersey has already experienced the consequences of federal disaster funding decisions. In September, Gov. Mikie Sherrill announced that the Trump administration had denied the state’s appeal for a federal disaster declaration following severe winter storms, leaving New Jersey taxpayers facing an estimated $84 million in costs.

The administration’s approach is especially troubling when communities need federal support not only to recover from disasters but also to prepare for the next one.

You cannot tell communities to be resilient while taking away the funding and tools they need to become resilient.

New Jersey cannot follow Trump’s playbook

New Jersey should be a firewall against federal environmental rollbacks, not an echo of them.

Yet we are seeing some of the same approaches: freezing regulations, accelerating permits, and treating environmental protections as obstacles to development.

Sherrill’s Executive Order 7 imposed a 90-day regulatory freeze in January under the banner of reducing red tape. Other executive actions have emphasized faster permitting and streamlining government approvals. The decision to delay implementation of the REAL rules fits into this broader pattern.

We are being told that environmental protections get in the way of affordability and economic development. But that ignores the enormous costs of flooding and climate disasters.

Fast-tracking development without adequate environmental review is like taking the brakes off a car because they slow you down. You might get somewhere faster, but you may not like where you end up.

The state also needs to stop treating redevelopment as automatically environmentally beneficial. Rebuilding a parking lot, shopping center, or other developed property without addressing stormwater runoff can make flooding worse. Older development rules often fail to account for the cumulative impacts of these projects.

We need stronger stormwater standards, not more exemptions. We need to protect wetlands, floodplains, forests, and stream buffers, not pave them over. And we need regional stormwater planning because water does not stop at municipal boundaries.

We also need independent DEP oversight. Fast-tracking permits and turning more environmental reviews over to private consultants hired by developers raises serious questions about accountability and public protection.

The DEP should be protecting the public interest, not functioning as a concierge service for the development industry.

Stronger dunes are not enough

After Sandy, New Jersey invested heavily in beach replenishment, dunes, seawalls, and other protective infrastructure. Some of these projects have helped protect communities, but they cannot substitute for comprehensive planning.

Coastal wetlands, marshes, forests, and open space absorb stormwater, reduce wave energy, and provide natural protection. We need to restore these systems rather than continue sacrificing them to development.

We also need to recognize that not every location can or should be protected through engineering. Some areas need elevation, some need infrastructure improvements, and others may eventually require voluntary buyouts and managed retreat.

That is a difficult conversation, particularly for homeowners who have invested their lives and savings in coastal communities. But pretending every property can be protected forever is not a plan.

We need updated flood maps that incorporate sea-level rise and future rainfall projections, stronger building codes, better infrastructure standards, and comprehensive hazard mitigation plans.

We also need a Coastal Commission to coordinate planning across municipalities and counties. Flooding is a regional problem, and individual towns cannot solve it by themselves.

Most importantly, we need to stop issuing permits for projects that increase flood risks without considering their cumulative impacts on surrounding communities.

We cannot continue treating every development application as an isolated decision when the flooding consequences are shared by everyone downstream.

We need to stop repeating the mistakes of the past

Fourteen years after Sandy, New Jersey still lacks the comprehensive approach to climate adaptation and flood mitigation that we desperately need.

We need to fully implement and strengthen the REAL rules rather than delay them. We need to reverse the Christie-era rollbacks that weakened stream buffers and other environmental protections, update flood maps and building codes using the latest climate science, and stop approving development that destroys wetlands, forests, and natural flood-storage areas.

We need meaningful stormwater controls for redevelopment, not just new construction. We need a Coastal Commission to coordinate planning, protection, buyouts, and managed retreat. And we need investments in natural infrastructure, flood prevention, and upgrades to roads, bridges, sewers, and utilities.

We also need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, move away from fossil fuels that are accelerating climate change, and demand that FEMA maintain adequate disaster preparedness and mitigation programs.

Above all, we need to stop confusing rebuilding with resilience. Replacing what was destroyed without correcting the conditions that made it vulnerable simply sets us up for another round of damage.

After Sandy, “Jersey Strong” became a rallying cry. The bumper stickers were everywhere, reminding us that New Jersey could recover from disaster.

But strength alone is not enough. Dinosaurs were strong, too, and they went extinct. Survival depends on the ability to adapt and evolve.

When I look back at Sandy, what troubles me most is not just the devastation of the storm. It is how many opportunities we have had since then to change course, and how many we have squandered.

The Christie administration weakened environmental protections. The Murphy administration failed to fully reverse those rollbacks. Now the Sherrill administration is delaying important flood protections while promoting faster development approvals.

Meanwhile, Trump is dismantling federal climate protections and undermining disaster preparedness.

Different administrations, different political slogans, but too often the same result: Development interests get priority while public safety and environmental protection take a back seat.

Sandy was a warning. Ida was another warning. The repeated flooding of communities across New Jersey is another warning.

Climate change is making these risks worse. Sea levels are rising, rainfall is becoming more intense, and more homes and businesses are exposed to flooding. Even FEMA’s flood maps do not tell the whole story because they do not adequately account for future climate conditions.

The question is not whether New Jersey will experience another major storm. The question is whether we will be prepared when it happens.

We cannot control the weather, but we can control where and how we build, what we protect, and how prepared we are.

Fourteen years ago, Sandy showed us what happens when we ignore nature. We have had 14 years to learn that lesson.

Unfortunately, New Jersey is still building the next disaster. And when the next Sandy hits, we won’t be able to say we weren’t warned.