The latest corruption scandal in NJ has received widespread press coverage and editorial opionion demanding reform. Importantly, for the first time, corruption has been linked to its effects on the environment (see: Bergen Record: Builders call the shots; and DEP E-Mails follow lawmakers request; Star Ledger: N.J. environmental groups call for investigation of DEP in light of corruption arrests; Courier Post: Groups call for Probe of DEP  and Star Ledger editorial: Consider CleanGreenNJ’s call for a DEP government cleanup (the CleanGreen NJ reform platform backed by the Star Ledger can be found here).

Yet, there has been no media coverage of the fact while the FBI investigation was ongoing and just weeks prior to the announcement of the criminal indictments of 44 state and  local officials – including 2 state Assemblymen for accepting bribes to pressure DEP to rubber stamp and expedite environmental permits – virtually the same corrupt game was going on during this craven and sickening hearing of the Senate Legislative Oversight Committee on June 4, 2009

What went on during this Senate hearing is effectively no different than the behavior of  Assemblyman Van Pelt (who bragged “DEP works for me” and that he “knew the “right guys,” at DEP and how to “work” the “channels.”) and Assemblyman Smith were criminally indicted for.

Follow the logic – 3 easy steps – and keep in mind that “rules” are LAWS, so what we have here is a State Senator (and Mayor) pressuring public officials to allow violations of law:

Step #1 – DEP lays out what’s at stake environmentally:

“We believe, and the current Rules reflect, that it would be poor public policy to extend sewer service at public expense to subsidize and encourage the development of resources the agency is charged to protect. Promoting the extension of sewers and to threaten endangered species habitats, unique and rare ecological communities, and wetlands just does not make sense to us.”

Step #2 – Senator Sarlo brazenly admits he privately intervened – on behalf of the economic interests of builders – to pressure DEP Commissioner not to enforcement the rules:

“We actually — this Committee met May 1 of 2008,  [the hearing was covered - read "Builders Gone Wild"] and we had a series of hearings — on May 1, 2008 — with regard to these Rules [issues discussed here, "Builders Escalate Assault on Environment"]  The Rules were ultimately adopted in July of 2008 and went into effect April of  2009 — of this year. In February and March of this year, I had begun an open dialogue with the Department of Environmental Protection and their Commissioner, sharing some of the concerns of the Legislature with regard to counties following through and having their plans approved. And as we know, there are many counties, as we sit here today, whose plans are not approved. What is the impact on the building community with these plans not being approved?”

Step# 3 – DEP admits they caved into political pressure from Senator Sarlo and will not enforce laws:

 “Senator Sarlo, I know that many present here have expressed concern to you over the draft line, and I know that Acting Commissioner Mauriello has been in communication with you on this issue. Foremost, there was significant concern that the Department would withdraw all future sewer service area on April 7 for counties or on July 9 for municipalities if they did not submit their Wastewater Management Plans. The counties are crucial to the success of this project. We are bound to them in partnership. As you know, the Department has extended the counties’ submission deadlines, and will continue to work with them as necessary and appropriate to see this process through. We have no plans, at this time, to unilaterally withdraw a sewer service area from counties that do not have current Water Quality Management Plans.” (page 4-5)

 [Note: DEP put this all in writing, read the DEP concession letter here]

Now, let’s take a look at multiple examples of Sarlo pressuring DEP and cheerleading for builders during that hearing. Whose interest is Sarlo representing? The public? The environment? Your interests? Or the narrow economic interests of the builders, property owners, and investors that fund his dual office holding campaigns (as Mayor and Senator?)

• SENATOR SARLO: Okay. And I just want to clarify that with Hudson being the only one approved right now — everything else pending, the other 16 pending, and the other four — the other three submitting their sewer authority maps, and Warren not participating at all — currently, today, if a plan is not adopted yet or approved by the Department, are we placing any moratorium on any projects that are currently pending before local boards — land use boards? (@ page 10)

 

•  SENATOR SARLO: If there are any projects that currently have been approved, not being built because of the difficult economic times, and then they fall within these restricted areas, how are we going to deal with those projects?  (@ page 10)

 

• SENATOR SARLO: Have we given the counties a definitive date? I know we’ve– And we appreciate the extension, and I think it’s the right thing to do from a public policy standpoint. But has a definitive date been provided? (@page 11)

 

• SENATOR SARLO :… Let me clarify that. Make sure we get that clarified. I live in Woodridge, where I serve as Mayor. Somebody lives out of state, owns a piece of property in New Jersey, and their property has been clipped from the sewer service area. How is that property owner going to know that his property has been clipped from that sewer service area? He lives out of state and is not paying attention. He’s not going onthe Internet, he’s not paying attention to what’s happening in New Jersey, but he owns a valuable piece of property. (@ page 12)

 

• SENATOR SARLO:  I mean, I have a concern that the perception here is, here is government coming in, taking away your rights as a property owner, and you have no say. You don’t have the ability to make a statement or make a say. If you’re sitting on a piece of property, perhaps it’s an investment property for down the road. And then you turn around to try and invest in it, you’ve made an investment, and now your property, in a way, has been devalued. So that is a concern of mine and I’m sure many others in the Legislature. (@page 13)

 

• SENATOR SARLO: And just one final question: Are we concerned that– Is the Department concerned that some of these rules may provide local officials with kind of a back-door method to deny an unwanted project in their community? Could they use this to hang over — not-in-my-backyard type of syndrome on a project? Could they say, “Down the road they can amend it, and your property may fall within that area that’s going to no longer be a sewer service area. So we should deny your project now”? Is there any concern by the Department on that — that it could be abused by the local municipalities? (@page 13)

disembowel |ˌdisemˈbouəl|

verb ( -boweled , -boweling ; Brit. -bowelled, -bowelling) [ trans. ]cut open and remove the internal organs of.

Every blue moon, Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine gets it right – like a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day.

Today, he wrote about West Orange, and in a brilliant column, managed to put together almost all the pieces of corruption in NJ’s perverse pay to play pro-development political and legal landscape.

Highly recommended – I won’t editorialize or comment. Read it for yourself, and be sure to check out the reader comments. After you read it and get angry, those interested in reform, should visit “CleanGreenNJ”

For Mulshine’s column, Click on:

Even Edison couldn’t invent a reason to stay in New Jersey

 

 

Think coal: Global warming. Mountaintop removal. Sludge impoundment blowouts. Poisoned waterways. Acid rain. Smog. Unsafe mines. Exploited workers. Devastated communities.

The most recent nail in coal’s coffin?

An important new study by the US Geological Survey released this week. The study documents extensive mercury pollution due to coal power and will provide a test of the Obama administration’s commitments to develop strict new mercury emissions controls at the nation’s dirty coal power plants.

Will EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson propose the equivalent of NJ’s strict State emission standards on the nation’s coal power plants?

What was Christie Whitman’s role in the NJ mercury issue? How did it shape her response as EPA Administrator to accommodate energy and coal interests during the Bush years (recall the Orwellian “Clear Skies“)?

WASHINGTON – No fish can escape mercury pollution. That’s the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country.

 

The toxic substance was found in every fish sampled, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become.

The study by the U.S. Geological Survey is the most comprehensive look to date at mercury in the nation’s streams. From 1998 to 2005, scientists collected and tested more than a thousand fish, including bass, trout and catfish, from 291 streams nationwide.

 

“This science sends a clear message that our country must continue to confront pollution, restore our nation’s waterways, and protect the public from potential health dangers,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement.

 

Mercury consumed by eating fish can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children. The main source of mercury to most of the streams tested, according to the researchers, is emissions from coal-fired power plants. The mercury released from smokestacks here and abroad rains down into waterways, where natural processes convert it into methylmercury — a form that allows the toxin to wind its way up the food chain into fish. (full story here)

This USGS study also confirms scientific research and regulatory standards adopted in NJ over 15 years ago.

Few are aware of this history. It can provide important insights into the current national policy debate. 

Former Bush EPA Adminsitrator Chritie Whitman had extensive direct involvement with mercury as NJ Governor. Whitman’s NJ role foreshadowed her actions as head of  the Bush EPA, which delayed and then proposed a weak mercury emission rule that was overturned by the courts.  

Current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson served as  NJ DEP Commissioner. Jackson was Assistant Commissioner for Land Use when her boss, Brad Campbell  led NJ DEP to adopted a strict emission standard for coal plants in 2004. Jackson’s EPA is now developing a new proposal to regulate mercury emissions at the nation’s dirty coal plants. 

So,  with the former and current head of EPA both coming from NJ, I’m sure we will hear the standard line about NJ’s environmental leadership.

But instead of the press corps merely parroting this talking point on NJ’s leadership, the press and the public should be doing some digging and asking tough questions.

So, let’s take a closer look at the NJ history in light of the current debate.

The mercury issue first arose in NJ in the late 1980’s in the fight against garbage incinerators. In 1990, the Florio Administration imposed a moratorium on garbage incinerators and created a Mercury Task Force. In 1993, the Florio Task Force issued a 3 Volume Report that provided the public health and scientific basis for DEP adopting what were (at the time) the strongest mercury air emissions standards for garbage incinerators in the world. While the initial focus was on garbage incineration, the  Task Force Report also announced plans to expand emission standards to coal fired power plants, another major mercury source. At the same time, DEP engaged the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences to study levels or mercury in freshwater fish across the state.

The Florio policy was derailed in 1994 by the Whitman Administration and new DEP Commissioner Bob Shinn. Their actions set back NJ for over a decade. It took 10 more years before NJ got back on track and adopted standards on coal plants in 2004. We will be paying for that with our children’s neurological impairment as a result of mercury poisoning.

Shinn was a strong supporter of garbage incineration and personally reversed the Florio policy. Shinn was also close to the state’s recreational fishermen, who were hotly opposed to the fish studies. Whitman was “Open for Business”  and close to state power utilities that operated coal plans. A major new coal plant was proposed along the Delaware River (Crown Vista). Mercury was a fly in the Whitman/Shinn ointment.

In early 1994, at the start of Whitman/Shinn, a DEP study conducted by the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences was leaked to the media and reported widely. The study documented statewide unsafe levels of toxic mercury in NJ freshwater fish. Widespread press coverage cast DEP and the Whitman administration in a negative light. In response, Governor Whitman sought to downplay the risks of this study.

She compared the situation to the recent public reaction (”scare”) to media reports of the health risks of the pesticide alar on apples. The apple industry suffered huge economic losses as demand fell in response to the alar story. Whitman felt the public’s reaction was unwarranted, and unfair to the apple industry. Whitman sought to avoid a similar situation in NJ.

To do this, the Governor and DEP Commissioner came up with a plan to mislead the public by saying that the Philadelphia Academy study was preliminary and inconclusive. The Whitman scheme relied on a bogus and knowingly false claim that the form of mercury found in the fish was unknown and therefore required further research before taking any action. Whitman and Shinn did not make honest mistakes or minor misstatements.

Whitman’s public statements, extensively quoted in the press, were part of a strategy to falsely inject scientific uncertainty and minimize health risks in order to avoid taking regulatory against specific pollution sources of mercury (garbage incinerators and coal fired power plants). When this scientific research was leaked and a coverup strategy memo were disclosed to the public by the press, Whitman not only repeated the lies but also retaliated against a career DEP employee who called her on those lies. Here is the DEP memo:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY,

 

March 28, 1994.

 

CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Commissioner Robert Shinn.
THROUGH: Robert Tucker, Ph.D., Director.
FROM: Leslie McGeorge, Assistant Director.
SUBJECT: Information on Mercury in Fish.

Over the past several weeks, it has been observed that information attributed by the press to the Governor’s Office on the issue of mercury in fish has contained some technical inaccuracies. We offer the information in this memorandum for your consideration in providing the Governor’s Office with further clarification of this issue.

As was stated by the Governor’s Office, there are three forms of mercury:

* Elemental Mercury (metallic mercury). This is the type of mercury used in thermometers.
* Inorganic Mercury (mercury salts). An example is mercuric chloride.
* Organic Mercury. Methylmercury is the most important organic mercury compound in terms of environmental exposure.

Contrary to the statements reported in the press, all three forms of mercury are toxic to humans. Elemental mercury is volatile, and it is toxic when breathed from the air; exposure to elemental mercury can cause effects on the central nervous system.

The toxicity of the other two types of mercury (inorganic and organic) can occur through ingestion, which is the exposure route relevant to mercury in fish. Inorganic mercury is toxic to the kidney. Methylmercury, the organic mercury of primary concern, is toxic to the central nervous system. The most sensitive toxic effect of Methylmercury in non-pregnant adults is paresthesia (abnormal sensations in the skin). Methylmercury is also toxic to the developing fetus, and causes defects in the development of the nervous system. This developmental toxicity is the most sensitive effect of exposure to methylmercury.

Of the different forms of mercury, all scientific data indicate that essentially all of the mercury in fish is methylmercury. The most recent and reliable investigation into the occurrence of methylmercury in fish conducted under ultraclean laboratory conditions (Bloom, 1992) showed that almost all of the mercury in the edible portion of fish and shellfish (muscle tissue) is in the form of methylmercury. This study included multiple samples (at least 3) of 15 species. For all species, the average percentage of methylmercury was at least 91 percent of total mercury, and for all freshwater fish species, methylmercury was 96 percent or more of total mercury. These results are generalizable to all marine and freshwater fish.

Information attributed to the Governor by the press indicated that there may be a marked difference in the ease of metabolism of different forms of mercury, and that the toxicity of mercury is-dependent on whether it is released naturally or by man-made processes. Actually, the time required for the body to rid itself of a dose of mercury is generally similar for all three forms of mercury. Additionally, the toxicity of a given form of mercury is not dependent on whether it originated from natural or man-made processes. Any type of mercury released may undergo changes from one form to the other in the environment. The mercury in fish may have come from either source, but the origin of the mercury in the tissue is not relevant to the potential for toxicity to humans.

In summary, there are three forms of mercury. For all intents and purposes the only form of mercury found in fish is methylmercury. Exposure to methylmercury through fish ingestion can pose a significant potential for adverse human health effects.

Mercury in fish may originate from human or natural processes, but this distinction is not relevant from a human health perspective.

The Division of Science and Research has additional information on all of the points mentioned above. We would be happy to discuss these issues further with you at your convenience if you so desire. (1)” [end]

 

 

Last week, I wrote about destruction of Ken Lockwood Gorge by DEP (here) – so, my head again exploded to read about another mad development scheme yesterday.

This time, DEP is planning on destroying forrested portions of historic Washington Crossing State Park.

Apparently, DEP wants to build a “30 bed cabin”  in “a deeply forrested” portion of the Park! And this is claimed to be a better alternative to the one vehemently opposed by neighbors!

 

Washington Crossing State Park has plenty of underused and deteriorating campsites. There is no need for a “cabin” to provide camping experiences in that park.

 

There are plenty of alternatives and far better things to do with DEP money, especially in these times of austere budgets and a huge backlog in maintenance across the state park system.

 

At Washington Crossing, trails are in very bad shape. Stream banks are eroding and badly in need of restoration. A small pond is sedimented and eutrophic. Picnic areas need lots of work. Historic structures are neglected. The theater is falling apart and could use rehab work as well. Habitat and forestry work has been neglected for years.

 

 

 

 

 

What the hell is going on in DEP? Are the engineer lunatics running the show? They need some adult supervision.

 

At a Trenton State House news conference today, Independent Chris Daggett released his ethics reform agenda.     

As I reported previously, Chris Daggett served as Chairman of the DEP “Permit Efficiency Review Task Force”. He was appointed to that position by then DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson. 

That DEP Task Force had ethical problems from the outset. Several of its members represented clients that had ongoing regulatory issues or projects seeking approvals before the DEP, including Daggett himself.

 

This, at best, created the appearance of a conflict of interest, or actual conflicts. State ethics laws prohibit creation of even an appearance of impropriety, as well as an actual conflict of interest:

(a) In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials and employees shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.” (NJSA 52:13D-12)

 

(3) No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should use or attempt to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself or others.

.(7) No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should knowingly act in any way that might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having knowledge of his acts that he may be engaged in conduct violative of his trust as a State officer or employee or special State officer or employee.

To remedy these problems, DEP Commisisoner Jackson was asked to make the Task Force deliberations tranparent and to restrict conflicts of interest – both she and Daggett failed to do so:

 

NEW JERSEY TO CONSULT INDUSTRY ON ECO-REWRITES IN SECRET – “Efficiency” Task Force Members Not Barred from Self-Dealing with DEP

Trenton – An industry-dominated task force to recommend an overhaul of state anti-pollution permits and policies will work in secret, according to an e-mail from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Lisa Jackson to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Commissioner Jackson also rebuffed PEER recommendations that materials submitted to the task force are made a public record and that task force members be barred from lobbying DEP for their clients.

On March 25, 2008, New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe wrote Jackson asking that task force sessions be open to the public, materials submitted to the task force be made publicly available and that task force members “be precluded from having any contracts, pending regulatory approvals, or financial relationships with the Department” during the 120-day life of the task force.

In a return e-mail on the evening of April 2, 2008, Commissioner Jackson denied all of PEER’s requests. Jackson stated:

 

“Public input “can only occur once the Task Force has completed its analysis and compiled the group’s thoughts and recommendations. At that time, I will determine how to most effectively seek and obtain input from the public”; and

“I do not consider it necessary or reasonable to restrict members of the Task Force or their respective employers from having other business before the Department.”

See this link for full documentation of these claims, including internal DEP documents, Jackson emails etc: 

 

BTW, a very reliable source has told me that Chris Daggett owned contaminated property and has huge economic stakes in DEP “brownfields”, permitting, and toxic site cleanup issues he presided over and made recommendations on as Task Force Chair. I was also told, but have not confirmed, that Daggettt owned the parcel of contaminated Jersey City land that was specifically the subject matter in the Assemblyman Harvey bribery criminal indictment.  

 

 

 

Like that proverbial Village in Vietnam that had to be destroyed to be saved, the DEP is destroying one of the few last remaining natural places to provide public access – (you can view all the ugly pictures  here: 

Read the press acounts by Star Ledger here:  

Naturalists dispute state’s idea of improvement

By BRIAN MURRAY

Sunday, August 02, 2009 –  click here for story 

The South Branch of the Raritan River sparkles on sunny summer mornings, crackling and babbling as it snakes through the towering, tree-covered ridges that define Ken Lockwood Gorge.

The wildlife management area is a 445-acre stretch of natural beauty tucked away in Hunterdon County, and its allure has attracted more than the usual mix of trout anglers whipping their fly rods and hikers searching for a brief afternoon of rustic serenity. Moms pushing strollers, friends walking dogs, picnickers lugging coolers and families pedaling bicycles are more frequent sights along the 2.5 miles of dirt, potholed road that hugs the south-side of the river bank.

Now they have company.

Backhoes, earth-movers and gravel-filled dump trucks are rumbling into the hemlock-lined gorge, along with engineers helping the state Department of Environmental Protection to accommodate throngs of visitors with what they call “improvements.” But some naturalists are calling it the destruction of the very thing people come to enjoy.”

I’ve previously written and posted photo’s of the beauty of Ken Lockwood Gorge, but here’s the story of how I happened upon this outrage and got the media involved. A few weeks back, on a fine July 1 day, my friend Benson Chiles gave me a call – he wanted to check out the fishing at a place called Natirar, a Somerset County park on the South Branch of the Raritan River. Glad to get out on a gorgeous day, I met him there. After a few hours with no luck, I suggested he might do better over at Ken Lockwood Gorge, so we headed over there. I can’t tell you how pissed off we were to see this ugly, poorly designed and needless destruction. A paved road, parking lots, fishing piers, and drainage pipes suited for an interstate highway project in one of the last pristine places in NJ! 

I came back the next day and took pictures which I circulated to my colleagues and the press in an effort to to get word out to try and stop the project. I later found out that DEP defended the project as access and drainage ”improvements”. But, curiously, the October 18, 2006 original project press release by former DEP Commissioner Jackson’s press said nothing about any roads or piers – in fact, DEP’s press release claimed the road would become a trail and be closed to traffic – and no mention of pavement or piers. 

But the trail only/road closure plan was scrapped along the way. DEP Deptuy Commissioner Jay Watson has refused to identify who the “public” was that DEP allegedly responded to.

To clear this all up (someone at DEP is misleading the public), I filed an OPRA to find out what’s going on – my file review is tomorrow, 8/19/09. 

We will keep you posted.

 

postscript – ironically, the Ken Lockwood destruction came to my attention at the same time I was re-reading Edward Abbey’s classic essay “INDUSTRIAL TOURISM AND THE NATIONAL PARKS” where he nails exactly what is going on here – just insert state for national:

“There may be some among the readers of this book, like the earnest engineer, who believe without question that any and all forms of construction and development are intrinsic goods, in the national parks as well as anywhere else, who virtually identify quantity with quality and therefore assume that the greater the quantity of traffic, the higher the value received. There are some who frankly and boldly advocate the eradication of the last remnants of wilderness and the complete subjugation of nature to the requirements of — not man — but industry. This is a courageous view, admirable in its simplicity and power, and with the weight of all modern history behind it. It is also quite insane. I cannot attempt to deal with it here….

The Park Service, established by Congress in 1916, was directed not only to administer the parks but also to “provide for the enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” This appropriately ambiguous language, employed long before the onslaught of the automobile, has been understood in various and often opposing ways ever since. The Park Service, like any other big organization, includes factions and factions. The Developers, the dominant faction, place their emphasis on the words “provide for the enjoyment.” The Preservers, a minority but also strong, emphasize the words “leave them unimpaired.” It is apparent, then, that we cannot decide the question of development versus preservation by a simple referral to holy writ or an attempt to guess the intention of the founding fathers; we must make up our own minds and decide for ourselves what the national parks should be and what purpose they should serve.

The first issue that appears when we get into this matter, the most important issue and perhaps the only issue, is the one called accessibility. The Developers insist that the parks must be made fully accessible not only to people but also to their machines, that is, to automobiles, motorboats, etc. The Preservers argue, in principle at least, that wilderness and motors are incompatible and that the former can best be experienced, understood, and enjoyed when the machines are left behind where they belong — on the superhighways and in the parking lots, on the reservoirs and in the marinas.

What does accessibility mean? Is there any spot on earth that men have not proved accessible by the simplest means — feet and legs and heart? Even Mt. McKinley, even Everest, have been surmounted by men on foot. (Some of them, incidentally, rank amateurs, to the horror and indignation of the professional mountaineers.) The interior of the Grand Canyon, a fiercely hot and hostile abyss, is visited each summer by thousands and thousands of tourists of the most banal and unadventurous type, many of them on foot — self-propelled, so to speak — and the others on the backs of mules. Thousands climb each summer to the summit of Mt. Whitney, highest point in the forty-eight United States, while multitudes of others wander on foot or on horseback through the ranges of the Sierras, the Rockies, the Big Smokies, the Cascades and the mountains of New England. Still more hundreds and thousands float or paddle each year down the currents of the Salmon, the Snake, the Allagash, the Yampa, the Green, the Rio Grande, the Ozark, the St. Croix and those portions of the Colorado which have not yet been destroyed by the dam builders. And most significant, these hordes of nonmotorized tourists, hungry for a taste of the difficult, the original, the real, do not consist solely of people young and athletic but also of old folks, fat folks, pale-faced office clerks who don’t know a rucksack from a haversack, and even children. The one thing they all have in common is the refusal to live always like sardines in a can — they are determined to get outside of their motorcars for at least a few weeks each year.

This being the case, why is the Park Service generally so anxious to accommodate that other crowd, the indolent millions born on wheels and suckled on gasoline, who expect and demand paved highways to lead them in comfort, ease and safety into every nook and corner of the national parks? For the answer to that we must consider the character of what I call Industrial Tourism and the quality of the mechanized tourists — the Wheelchair Explorers — who are at once the consumers, the raw material and the victims of Industrial Tourism. …

Accustomed to this sort of relentless pressure since its founding, it is little wonder that the Park Service, through a process of natural selection, has tended to evolve a type of administration which, far from resisting such pressure, has usually been more than willing to accommodate it, even to encourage it. Not from any peculiar moral weakness but simply because such well-adapted administrators are themselves believers in a policy of economic development. “Resource management” is the current term. Old foot trails may he neglected, back-country ranger stations left unmanned, and interpretive and protective services inadequately staffed, but the administrators know from long experience that millions for asphalt can always be found; Congress is always willing to appropriate money for more and bigger paved roads, anywhere — particularly if they form loops. Loop drives are extremely popular with the petroleum industry — they bring the motorist right back to the same gas station from which he started.

Read the whole thing here  

 

 

 

 

The Sierra Club’s endorsement of Independent Chris Daggett for Governor has caused a stir.

As with almost all news, the corporate media coverage and political blogosphere are narrowly focused on the short term electoral implications, and are completely ignoring the policy debate, or asking how we got to this juncture and what it means for policy going forward.

I’d like to take a step back and try to get some discussion about what this means for policy, and a shared understanding of the history of how we got to a point where Sierra does not renew its endorsement of a Democratic incumbent Governor in favor of a third party candidate.

How did it come about that a self-described and widely considered liberal, pro-environment, global warming fighting, green power champion incumbent is abandoned by Sierra?

How did Sierra come about endorsing a man who chaired the DEP “Permit Efficiency Review Taskforce”?  

The answer is found in an old fashioned story of co-optation and inside baseball. This dynamic necessarily leads to ignoring organizing and an impaired ability to develop any kind of public movement to provide political support for policy goals.

Ironically, Sierra Club’s early cheerleading for Corzine and their too close relationship with DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson basically created a very unhealthy dynamic.

Sierra greatly inflated and unconditionally supported Corzine’s accomplishments (e.g. the Meadowlands signing statement of the Global Warming Response Act). Because Sierra had so highly praised Corzine for passage of the GWRA, it made it very hard to tell the truth about flaws in the Act itself and to focus on DEP’s total failure to implement the Act. It also created all sorts of political momentum for polluters and special interests to hijack the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap and trade program bill. (for a critique of the GWRA, see: Star-Ledger Op-Ed: “No Teeth in ‘tough” pollution law” –  ) 


Sierra also either outright supported or looked the other way as Corzine continued to slash DEP budgets. Corzine watered down, ignored, or even rolled back every one of the policy commitments of his Gubernatorial electoral environmental platform (mandatory chemical plant safety, et al). Yet, there was no criticism for any of these compromises and sellouts – which sent a huge signal that Corzine could get a pass for promoting economic development over environmental and public health concerns.

At the same time, Sierra pulled punches by exaggerating the significance and/or withholding public criticism of the policies of their “friend”, DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson.  This dynamic included playing co-opting inside games in Jackson’s hand picked “stakeholder processes”.

 

For example, Jackson created the “Site Remediation Taskforce” that provided political cover to further dismantle and privatize the DEP toxic site cleanup program. When enviro’s agreed to participate “in the room”, their public campaign to expaose flaws in the DEP program fell flat and ran out of the media and political energy required to lobby for real change.

Similarly, Jackson issued an Administrative Order that established the “Permit Efficiency Review Taskforce” in response to political pressure by the NJ Builders Association and business community. The business community manufactured another bogus attack on DEP’s alleged role in the housing market and economic collapse. Jackson caved to that gross lie. Yet, instead of criticism of this Taskforce’s anti-environmental agenda, Jackson was given a pass. And now we are seeing the political consequences of that mistake, because now Chirs Daggett will get a pass for Chairing that effort. How many people know that DEP Commissioner Jackson abolished the Division of Science and research, based on this Taskforce report. 

Jackson negotiated the “Permit Extension Act” on behalf of Corzine, thereby providing green cover 

Yet we have heard very little from enviro’s about all that. Had Christie Whitman done anything remotely similar to that attack on DEP and science, Sierra would be holding multiple press conferences on the State House steps.

On the Legislative front, Sierra never pushed either for legislative oversight or to strengthen environmental laws. They basically gave a pass to friendly democrats who chaired the environmental committees, Assemblyman John McKeon and Senator Bob Smith. Neither had any appetite in holding fellow Democrats Corzine or Lisa Jackson of DEP accountable. Just look at how the Inspector General Cooper’s Encap Report was handled – softball questions and a pass by enviro’s.

Sierra’s multiple failures misled the public, provided green cover, and thereby enabled some really bad stuff at DEP on the regulatory front and in the Legislature (privatized LSP, Permit Extension Act, RGGI, et al)

Of course, things got so bad that even Sierra was forced to criticize Corzine to maintain their credibility.

We would not have gone down this road if Sierra and other enviro’s told the truth and held Corzine accountable to his campaign promises (which he failed uniformly to deliver on) from the outset.

The political lessons to be learned here? – play it straight with the press and use media strategically. Don’t get co-opted by the inside game. The Democrats are not necessarily your friends. Organize

With Barnegat Bay’s survival in question, action demanded

 

Friday, July 31, 2009             

STAR-LEDGER STAFF

It’s choked by invasive aquatic weeds, infested with jellyfish and devoid of clams and oysters that used to support an entire shellfish industry.

The Barnegat Bay, which separates mainland Ocean County from a barrier island of seashore towns, has been the subject of numerous studies, all pointing to the slow death of a fragile ecosystem over the last two decades. …

As commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection last year, Lisa Jackson publicly stressed the need to restrict the levels of nitrogen in lawn fertilizers that wash into the bay after rainstorms. Nitrogen promotes the excessive growth of algae and other plants, and deprives water of oxygen for native marine life, a condition known as eutrophication.

 

Bill Wolfe, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said neither Jackson — who now heads the federal Environmental Protection Agency — nor her interim replacement, acting Commissioner Mark Mauriello, has addressed the nitrogen issue.”

Tim Dillingham of American Littoral Society explains why the Bay is dying:

Barnegat Bay nearing point of no return

 Tim Dillingham/Special to The Star-Ledger August 14, 2009 7:07AM

 

Barnegat Bay is nearing the brink of ecological death.

The Bay is an environmental treasure that has been struggling to survive pollution created by decades of overdevelopment and a failure of local and state government to protect it. Unchecked sprawl development, ill-considered use of fertilizers and polluted runoff are the principle villains. Additionally, the Oyster Creek nuclear generating station uses and heats billions of gallons of Bay water every day, killing marine life in the process.

The Bay has lost its ability to provide a healthy, robust habitat for shellfish and other living creatures that rely on clean waters. The Bay is also unable to provide for our recreational enjoyment as it did in so many childhoods because it has now become home to stinging sea nettles and harmful algae blooms — thriving because of the pollution.

One of the crown jewels of the Jersey Shore, the Bay supports a $3.5 billion dollar economy built on crabbing, fishing, swimming, boating, waterfront property values, a robust rental market and breathtaking views. It is a premiere eco-tourist destination and its jobs and revenue-generating power are inextricably tied to its ecological health.“

 

 

 

While Tim did a nice job describing the problems in the Bay, he failed to identify solutions and hold officials accountable for the decline of the Bay’s health. There are plenty of things that can be done right now to stem the decline and move towards restoring the health of the bay.

In an article prior to the recent joint Senate and Assembly oversight hearing on the Bay, Kirk Moore of the Asbury Park Press identified key measures, mostly associated with enforcing standards and limiting pollution from nitrogen, a nutrient that accelerates eutrophication:

Lack of fertilizer rules likely a key issue at hearing

Senate Environment Committee to address Barnegat Bay water

BY KIRK MOORE • TOMS RIVER BUREAU • JULY 25, 2009

LACEY — Delayed action on cleaning up Barnegat Bay with fertilizer controls and a new state standard for nitrogen in surface waters are likely to be a focal point when the state Senate Environment Committee holds a public hearing here Thursday. …

The environmental group Save Barnegat Bay still is trying to get traction for its model ordinance for controlling use of lawn fertilizer, considered one of the larger sources of nitrogen emissions to the bay through storm water runoff. Nitrogen compounds in the bay act just as they do in fertilizer on land, fueling blooms of algae that scientists say are tilting the bay’s ecosystem at a basic level, to the detriment of native species like clams and eelgrass. …

“The DEP could do a lot more to help,” said Bill Wolfe, an activist and former DEP employee who worked for years on water quality issues. “DEP could have a model ordinance and offer technical advice” to spare municipal governments the cost of research and implementing fertilizer controls, he said.

 

Wolfe also takes the state agency to task for failing to deliver on a new nitrogen standard to protect the bay that was backed by former DEP commissioner Lisa Jackson before she left to take on the job of Environmental Protection Agency administrator for the Obama administration.

“If DEP had a (nitrogen) standard, they could pull the trigger and mandate local action,” Wolfe said.”

 

 

DEP is responsible for protecting the Bay, which is of statewide and national significance. But for years that have sat on the sidelines, not developed or enfored standrds to protect the Bay, and rubber stamped development permits that have paved the way to ecological collapse.

 

 

The problems have finally drawn the attention of the Legislature. On July 30, a joint hearing was held by the Senate and Assembly environment committees. I attended the hearing and prepared testimony that focused on 10 things DEP could do right bnow to imrove the Bay’s condtions.

 

But I was deeply disappointed that DEP Deputy Commissioner John  Watson (above) made a 25 minute power point presentation that completely ignored DEP’s responsibilities and failed to note tools DEP could rapidly deploy to stem water quality problems. The DEP “Action Plan” Watson presented amounted to a pack of band aids cynically offered to create the misleading appearance that they are doing something.

If DEP were serious about protecting the bay, they would: 

1) adopt enforceable nitrogen standards; 
2) classify all streams draining to the bay as “Category One’ waters which provide 300 foot wide protected naturally vegetated buffers; 
3) enforce cumulative impact standards in the CAFRA coastal permit program to limit the growth of addition soil/vegetation disturbance and new impervious surfaces, pollution sources and water withdrawals; 
4) mandate cooling towers at Oyster Creek; 
5) adopt the Ocean County Soil Conservation Service study recommendations on soil compaction and modify “TR 55″ manual and force builders to change site construction practices; 
6) mandate water conservation measures and cap current water withdrawals; 
7) provide technical and financial assistance to Towns; 
 8 ) enforce the Clean Water Act’s “TMDL” program.

YET DEP DID NOT EVEN MENTION ONE OF THESE REGULATORY TOOLS!

Yes, polluters and developers are pleased that DEP was silent – All’s Quiet on the Regulatory Front – despite the fact that just last summer DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson held a pres conference and made commitments to take regulatory actions, particularly to develop nitrogen standards and controls (nitrogen is the pollutant ht is driving the eutrophication that is killing the bay).

 

When DEP can not even talk about real solutions that involve enforcement of DEP regulations, adopting the findings of DEP scientists, and restricting development, something is terribly wrong.

 

DEP has totally abdicated its responsibility.

 

That should be an outrage to all New Jeresyeans.

 

Oh, before closing, about that 800 pound gorilla in the hearing room. You can’t make this stuff up.

 

The joint Legislative hearing was held in the district of Assemblyman Van Pelt, who just days before had been criminally indicted for taking bribes.

 

Van Pelt had been a member of the Assembly Environment Committee.

 

Van Pelt was indicted for agreeing to pressure DEP to issue CAFRA and wetlands permits. He bragged that he had successfully secured DEP permits and that “DEP works for me” and that he “knew the right guys” at DEP to “work the system”.  Unlike Mr. Watson of DEP, Van Pelt sure didn’t hesitate to focus on specific DEP permit actions.

 

Shockingly, despite the fact that Van Pelt had used his legislative oversight power as a member of the Environment Committee in a criminal way, Committee Chairman John McKeon was silent.

 

Despite the fact that DEP was cast in an extremely negative light in the indictments, DEP Deputty Commissioner Jay Watson was silent.

 

McKeon and Watson’s cowardly silence spoke volumes.

 

 

 

NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY AT HEART OF BRIBERY SCANDAL — New Rules Needed to Ban “Pay-to-Play” and Protect Staff from Strong-Arm Tactics

 Washington, DC — Last week’s indictment of 44 people, including several New Jersey officials and two state legislators, underscores that “pay-to-play” is alive and well in the Garden State, especially within its Department of Environmental Protection , according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Today PEER proposed new rules to end the closed door dealings within DEP that fuel corrupt practices and put its professional staff in an untenable position.

To facilitate development projects, state legislators pressure DEP to improperly approve permits, sign-off on incomplete clean-ups and shelve enforcement actions. Typically, legislators deliver their messages to the DEP Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioners, who in turn direct staff. As one of the indicted lawmakers, state Rep. Daniel Van Pelt, who sits on the committee overseeing DEP, bragged to the FBI confidential informant, he knows the “right guys” who “work” the “channels”.

“The back channels into DEP need to be shut down,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “As long as DEP does its business behind closed doors, corruption will continue to blossom.”

Today PEER is proposing transparency rules for DEP that are virtually identical to ones which the agency rejected when PEER first proposed them in 2007. These rules would provide:

• Notice of Meetings. DEP convenes closed-door meetings with lobbyists, legislators and other insiders with no public attendance or publication of meeting agendas. The agency defends this secrecy as a matter of “executive privilege and the deliberative process privilege”;
• Publication of Top Officials’ Calendars. The DEP Commissioner and top deputies routinely make decisions on enforcement and other pollution control policies in meetings with legislators and corporate executives, often from the same companies charged with violations. DEP shields appointment calendars to protect “the privacy interests” of attendees; and
• Repeal Gag Orders Forbidding Staff from Talking to Media and Public. Under current DEP rules, agency scientists and other specialists are barred from speaking without prior approval from the agency Press Office. DEP says this is needed to enforce the chain-of-command.

“A big problem in New Jersey DEP is that the professional staff has little recourse when confronting management orders to less than faithfully execute the law,” Ruch added, noting that the state’s whistleblower law does not protect employee disclosures about threats to public health, manipulation of science, mismanagement or ethics violations. “Sunlight is the best hope for deterring sleazy deals.”

Political influence over DEP is now so deep that it is an accepted fact of life. For example, in a July 14, 2009 letter, DEP Acting Assistant Commissioner Scott Brubaker explained why he was setting aside water anti-pollution rules because legislators had introduce a bill to bully DEP to bend over for a favored project:

“The Department is also under pressure from the development community, which fears that the Department will unilaterally remove sewer service areas. Recently, legislation has been introduced that would extend the submission deadline…Together these added burdens would preclude the Department from adopting any new or updated wastewater management plan for the foreseeable future. Any Department effort to withdraw sewer service areas would encourage this legislation.”

“So long as DEP succumbs to political pressure, it invites that pressure,” Ruch concluded.

###

Examine the DEP role in latest bribery scandal

Read the PEER petition

View the DEP letter acknowledging political bullying

Look at DEP rebuff of transparency rules in 2007

See the full text of the federal criminal complaints