WolfeNotes.com

A Look At An Amazing Propaganda Campaign

Source: USEPA

Let’s start with a few basic facts:

• According to US EPA and NJ DEP water quality monitoring data, NJ’s streams, rivers, lakes, bays, and groundwater currently do not meet water quality standards set under the federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts to assure that all waters are fishable and swimmable and safe to drink;
• there are a multitude of pollution sources that cause these pollution problems;
• there must be deep reductions in current pollution if NJ is to achieve clean water goals;
• there are a set of State regulatory programs designed to protect and restore water quality by limiting pollution discharge that either are not being aggressively implemented, rolled back, not adequately funded, or not enforced

These water pollution problems, their causes, and the regulatory programs designed to reduce pollution were recently discussed in a NJ Spotlight opinion piece by Dan Van Abs, as well as my critique of that analysis.

With that in mind, consider that the core claim of the Keep It Green Coalition’s support for the opens space funding ballot question recently approved by voters was that open space improves water quality and protects clean water.

Yet with very few exceptions (e.g. NY/NJ Baykeeper, some watershed groups), land trust & conservation member groups of the Keep It Green Coalition do virtually no work  – NONE – on the clean water and safe drinking water issues and programs outlined in the NJ Spotlight piece and expanded upon in my critique. 

Instead of actually working on clean water issues , KIG spent over $700,000 promoting this pack of lies:

On November 4, 2014 Vote YES on Public Question 2 to ensure dedicated state funds are available to protect New Jersey’s clean drinking water, open spaces, farmland and historic sites, as well as to improve water quality and clean up polluted sites.

Let’s be clear about some basics:

1) Open space preservation is merely the legal change in ownership in land.

A forest owned by NJ Audubon, or the State of NJ , or a developer provides the same ecological and water quality services.

The legal ownership of the land does not alter current conditions; e.g. the groundwater recharge,  infiltration of rainwater, pollution runoff,  drainage, wetlands characteristics, stream vegetation, or pollution filtration of the land.

I trained in environmental science and regional planning, so I understand the value of open space in PREVENTING POTENTIAL FUTURE NEW SOURCES OF POLLUTION via land development.

But preventing future potential pollution sources does nothing to reduce current pollution and will do nothing to restore water quality and make our waters fishable, swimmable, and safe to drink. Nothing at all.

And with NJ’s willing seller approach to land acquisition, we get the 100 acre parcel preserved across the street from the corporate office park or housing development. So even FUTURE benefits are often wiped out by the failure to plan and regulate on a regional basis.

2) And the lies get worse.

Exactly the opposite of what KIG claims, they are not only not protecting water quality, they are making current problems worse because the KIG ballot question slashed current funding for water resource protection programs that actually protect drinking water, improve water quality, and cleanup polluted sites.

The actual way water pollution is reduced and water quality protected and restored is via a) regulatory standards and permit limits on pollution discharge sources; b) mandates to reduce pollution loadings from current pollution sources; c) mandates to install pollution control technology treatment requirements; d) requirements to cleanup pollution sources like toxic waste sites and underground storage tanks, and e) restoration field work: things like installation of best management practices, construction of CSO controls, stream buffer restoration projects, or retrofit of storm water infrastructure.

Those DEP programs actually limit and reduce current pollution discharged to our waters.

Those DEP programs require water quality monitoring networks to collect data; scientists, engineers, and planners to analyze that data and set water quality standards and permit limits; inspectors to monitor and enforce compliance with standards and permit limits; and experts to design and install field restoration projects.

Those programs and professionals cost money.

But KIG just slashed about $45 million from DEP water resource programs and the funding source that supports the salaries of 266 DEP staffers who actually protect water quality and drinking water.

And all for the change in ownership of land (and fund their own organization’s budgets).

So, let’s recap:

1)  currently water quality is poor and programs to protect water quality are being rolled back and defunded;

2) so called environmental groups that do no work on clean water justify spending $100 million of public money on open space on the basis of protecting clean water;

3) the open space program does nothing to protect current water quality;  and

4) the open space program diverts funds from programs that actually protect water quality.

Only Orwell could imagine something like that.

[End note: our KIG friends never seem to mention these requirements, which I helped develop at DEP, that impose (at no cost to the taxpayer) protections on about 200,000 acres of the most environmentally sensitive high quality open space there is: riparian corridors. According to DEP:

Category One waters are protected from degradation through the implementation of a 300-foot buffer (on each side of the waterway) known as the Special Water Resource Protection Area in the State’s Stormwater Management rules (N.J.A.C. 7:8). Such waters are also protected through the implementation of the State’s Flood Hazard Control Act Regulations, which require a 300-foot riparian zone immediately adjacent to Category One waters and upstream waters within the same HUC14 sub-watershed. These buffers are often coincident with wetlands that are protected in permanent conservation restrictions through the NJDEP’s permitting program.  (@ page5)

All… for a mess of pottage:

Esau Sells His Birthright for Pottage of Lentils, a 1728 engraving by Gerard Hoet.

A story of Esau and Jacob

Esau and the Mess of Pottage, by Jan Victors.

Thoreau’s “Life without principle” (1854)

” If a man walk in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer; but if he spends his whole day as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making earth bald before her time, he is esteemed an industrious and enterprising citizen. As if a town had no interest in its forests but to cut them down!  …

Perhaps I am more than usually jealous with respect to my freedom. I feel that my connection with and obligation to society are still very slight and transient. Those slight labors which afford me a livelihood, and by which it is allowed that I am to some extent serviceable to my contemporaries, are as yet commonly a pleasure to me, and I am not often reminded that they are a necessity. So far I am successful. But I foresee that if my wants should be much increased, the labor required to supply them would become a drudgery. If I should sell both my forenoons and afternoons to society, as most appear to do, I am sure that for me there would be nothing left worth living for. I trust that I shall never thus sell my birthright for a mess of pottage. I wish to suggest that a man may be very industrious, and yet not spend his time well. There is no more fatal blunderer than he who consumes the greater part of his life getting his living.”

Issues at Play: Who was Assemblyman Fiocchi “representing”, was Fiocchi engaged in “lobbying”, and what is representative democracy? What is an independent State agency? What role can politics play in regulatory decisions? Does a Legislator’s intervention in an independent agency’s regulatory decision overstep separation of powers?

Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards – Chaired by John E. Wallace, Jr., a former NJ Supreme Court Justice not re-appointed by Gov. Christie (11/18/14)

[Update: Press of Atlantic City Story:

• Ethics panel finds cause to continue complaint against Fiocchi

“I applaud the committee’s thoughtful deliberation,” said Bill Wolfe, of Bordentown, N.J., director of the state chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Wolfe, one of the complainants, was granted permission by committee chair John Wallace to address the ruling body at the end of counsel’s 45-minute rebuttal of any wrongdoing by the assemblyman. “It is highly unusual for government to have the courage to reverse professional counsel’s recommendation.”

Wolfe called Fiocchi’s actions “a legislator’s effort to manipulate his constituents” and said the assemblyman’s plea to his constituents to take up a cause he champions “turned democracy on its head.”

“Mr. Wolfe raised some very interesting points in his presentation to the committee this morning,” [Chairman] Wallace said, calling for the group to go into closed session to seek advice from counsel.

“The committee is sending a message to the legislature to beware of lines where they can and cannot go,” Wolfe said. “The mere taking of jurisdiction of the case, the reversing of the staff recommendation and the intention to conduct a real investigation is very encouraging.”

Today, the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards agreed to accept jurisdiction and conduct an investigation of an ethics complaint filed against Assembly Fiocchi (R-Cape May) for his intervention in the Pinelands Commission’s pipeline review process.

The complaint was filed by Georgina Shanley and several others involved in the pipeline battle.

In a stunning and unusual move, the Committee, based on testimony by (yours truly) Bill Wolfe, rejected the Committee Counsel’s recommendations to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause of an ethics violation.

Instead, the Chairman of Commission directed Counsel to conduct an in depth investigation of the concerns Wolfe raised and allow Assemblyman Fiocchi and the complainants 10 days to submit additional arguments and supporting  facts.

A blow by blow of the hearing

The Committee Counsel began by making a thorough presentation of the facts, described the complaint, and concluded with his analysis and recommendations to dismiss the complaint.

Counsel dismissed the complaint’s claim that Fiocchi was effectively representing SJG before the Pinelands Commission, finding that claim lacking in factual support. Counsel found no evidence that Fiocchi was “representing” SJG or Rockland Electric before a State agency.

Former Assemblywoman Quigley made a statement in defense of Fiocchi.

Before the Committee could entertain what appeared to be a pending motion to dismiss the complaint based on Counsel’s recommendation, Wolfe rose from the audience to make a procedural point of inquiry and request to provide testimony to clarify Counsel’s analysis.

The Chairman replied that public testimony was not part of the Committee’s standard operating procedure and then consulted with Counsel. After several minutes of informal consultation, the Chairman decided to allow Wolfe to testify.

Wolfe then testified, opening by claiming that the Committee Counsel’s recommendation was based on questionable assumptions.

Specifically, Wolfe noted that Counsel characterized the Pinelands Commission’s review process as “political in nature”, as a “political interest of the day” that a legislator had a right and duty to speak out on and express his opinions on.

Wolfe noted that Counsel also assumed that the matter was not a live “contested case” and that the matter was over and no longer pending when Fiocchi intervened.

Wolfe instead characterized the Pinelands Commission’s review process as a regulatory proceeding, not a political matter.

Wolfe argued that the Commission’s decisions were made pursuant to statute and the regulations, policies, standards, criteria, and procedures adopted in the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.

Wolfe said that Fiochi was not responding to a constituent’s concern about a state agency. Fiocchi initiated the letter to his constituents and urged them to act. Wolfe called that act “inverted democracy”.

Fiocchi’ intervention, as a legislator and outside the Pinelands Commission’s formal public comment procedures, tended to create an appearance that undermined the independence of the Pinelands Commission.

Wolfe also clarified that the matter was in fact still a live “contested case” as a result of the South Jersey Gas litigation, and the matter was still pending before the Appellate Division.

Despite the Commission’s 7-7 vote on the proposed MOA, the SJG pipeline application has never been withdrawn, thus the application technically still remains before the Pinelands Commission.

Wolfe claimed that Fiocchi effectively was acting as a lobbyist, seeking to influence government processes, in essence “representing” the interests of SJG.

Wolfe called Fiocchi’s letter writing campaign a non-transparent “over the transom” form of involvement in government decisions.

The Chairman thanked Wolfe for his testimony, noted it raised interesting points, and then adjourned to executive session to discuss the matter.

Upon returning from Executive Session about 15 minutes later, the Chairman directed Counsel to conduct additional investigation, to find additional facts, and research the issues raised in light of Wolfe’s testimony.

Listen to hearing:

The complaint alleges that Assemblyman Fiocchi abused his legislative powers to advance the private interests of South Jersey Gas and compromised the independence and integrity of the Pinelands Commission’s review process.

(1)  We believe that this action injects raw politics into the regulatory deliberations of an independent State agency that is partnered with local and federal governments – the Pinelands Commission. This kind of manipulation by a legislator is highly improper and “creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.”

(2)  We believe that the petition serves the interests of the South Jersey Gas Company & Rockland Capital Industries, parties “other than the State”

(3)  We also believe that the petition is a form of lobbying and represents a disguised “appearance” before a State agency that is prohibited by law

(4)  The petition also spends taxpayer dollars to advance an improper and partisan political interest.

I was impressed by the thoughtful research, analysis, and deliberations of this Committee.

We will keep you posted as this matter progresses.

USFWS finds that “significant levels of contamination will remain” after flawed EPA cleanup plan

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is pursuing a natural resource injury claim against Dupont for the off site discharge of mercury, lead, and other hazardous substance to Pomtpon Lake and down river portions of the Ramapo and Pompton rivers.

The US FWS also submitted comments on the EPA’s most recent proposed cleanup plan for lake sediments. USFWS’s main concerns are that the cleanup will leave substantial amounts of mercury behind that will continue to poison fish and wildlife.

Get the details and the documents from our friends at PEER

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SEEKS DAMAGES VS DUPONT AT POMPTON LAKES
Mercury Contamination of Jersey Water and Wildlife Will Last after EPA Cleanup 

Trenton — The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is seeking monetary natural resource injury claims against DuPont for widespread mercury contamination that will remain long after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency completes its long-delayed and much criticized cleanup at Pompton Lakes, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  The Service has concluded that the EPA cleanup plan now being considered will leave natural resources surrounding the former E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company ammunition plant significantly impaired for which public compensation is owed.

Pompton Lakes is already one of the longest toxic removal operations in U.S. history.  After literally decades of dithering by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), EPA finally ramped up oversight of the cleanup four years ago but thus far has done little better.  The latest setback was this past April when EPA withdrew its RCRA cleanup permit for dredging mercury from Pompton Lake.  It has proposed a new permit now undergoing public review.

In 2012, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service severely criticized EPA’s initial plan for its scientifically flawed ecological assessment and for failing to address the fact that “significant levels of contamination will remain” from “mercury, which in certain forms is highly toxic and biomagnifies via the food web” flowing downstream from the old factory site. In comments filed on November 10, 2014, the Service repeats many of those earlier criticisms.

In addition, the Service disclosed it is pursuing monetary damages against DuPont under the Natural Resource Damage Assessment authority under Superfund.  In its “Preassessment Screen Determination” for the Pompton Lakes site dated October 13, 2013, the Service declares:

“DOI [Department of Interior, the Service’s parent agency] does not expect that the remedial measures carried out to date, or those planned for the future, will fully address the various sources and pathways of exposure to hazardous substances…or the past, present and future injuries resulting from such exposure. Therefore, DOI has determined that the response actions carried out or currently planned do not or will not sufficiently remedy the injury to the natural resources of Pompton Lake and the Ramapo, Pompton and Passaic Rivers.”

The Service is also confident about its prospects of collecting:

“DOI has further determined that there is a reasonable probability of making a successful claim… Therefore, DOI concludes that an assessment of natural resource damages is justified.”

“While we are pleased that the Fish & Wildlife Service will exact compensation for environmental damages, the long-suffering people of Pompton Lakes will still be living in a contaminated environment,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, a longtime former DEP analyst who had pressed for the Service review. “EPA has disserved the people of Pompton Lakes who deserve a complete cleanup of the Lake and downriver contamination.

###

Look at FWS Natural Resource Damage Preassessment

See U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service latest comments

Read FWS earlier, more detailed critique

Revisit botched EPA oversight at Pompton Lakes

Visit EPA web-center for Pompton Lakes 

New Jersey PEER is a state chapter of a national alliance of state and federal agency resource professionals working to ensure environmental ethics and government accountability

The NJ Farm Bureau held its annual meeting today in Princeton. Tomorrow is the Directors meeting.

I had planned to crash the event, as I did last year, but got diverted. Maybe tomorrow.

Last year, there was a floor debate on GMO and Monsanto’s  role in sponsoring the event, see

At any rate, if I were a real journalist, I’d give our new Farm Bureau head a call and ask him a few tough questions, like:

1) what’s your take on the NJFB GMO debate and pending legislation?

2) the Alstede Farm accident – will it prompt amendments to the NJ Right To Farm Act?

3) Highlands septic density model legal challenge – what is the status of the NJFB legal challenge of DEP regulations?

4) NJ Food deserts – Can the NJ Fresh and Farmland Preservation programs support food access reforms?

5)  What are NJFB member Plans for renewal of Farmland preservation program funding?

6) Are NJ’s farmers willing to play a role in reducing chemical inputs and nutrient runoff that causes serious water pollution problems throughout the state?

7) Did you read the recent Washington Post Op-Ed on the need for a national food policy? What’s your response? see:

• How a national food policy could save millions of American lives

Come on real journo’s – jump in, ask a few tough questions!!