WolfeNotes.com

DEP’s Recent Favorable Conclusions on Fenimore Landfill Are a Sham

We shall seek EPA Region 2 and EPA Inspector General review of this matter

After almost a year of foot dragging, this week DEP finally released water quality documents, originally requested in our April 25, 2014 Open Public Records Act request that DEP denied, regarding the impacts of Fenimore Landfill on nearby streams.

The DEP’s new water quality assessment directly contradicts years of prior studies, including the current legally binding 2012 “Impaired Waters List” required by the federal Clean Water Act.

Specifically, DEP just released a September 2014 “Stressor Identification of Drakes Brook’ (if the Report was final in September, why did it take 5 months to be released? Perhaps maybe because it could have had an impact on the closure of the landfill?)

The new DEP Report concludes, among other things:

Also, this study found that the Fenimore Landfill does not appear to be a major contributor to the impairment of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the downstream reaches of Drakes Brook covered by this investigation. This finding is based on the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling conducted at a station located on an unnamed tributary downstream of the landfill near Ledgewood Pond (DR-LB2) during this study which indicated a Good rating (including 30% sensitive taxa).

There are several red flag dead giveaway anomalies that jump right out of that incidental “also” conclusion, which was curiously tacked on to the Executive Summary, seemingly dangling there without a purpose, but ostensibly put in the Executive Summary so it could be readily found by the public and unknowing lay readers based on a cursory review (akin to press release rigor).

First, no other potential “major contributor” was specifically named and determined NOT to be a problem.

There are dozens of potential “major contributors”, including toxic sites, major storm water outfalls, etc. None of them are named as “not” a major contributor. Take a look at the DEP’s recent original inventory of pollution targets. Good photos of Fenimore.

Second, note the qualifier DEP stuck on that conclusion: i.e. Fenimore “does not appear” to be a “major contributor”.

[The term “major contributor” is not defined in DEP’s most current EPA approved 2012 water quality assessment methods document. The term has no meaning and is highly subjective.]

Aside from the subjective judgment required to determine what “major” means, the use of “does not appear” is a stock euphemism that is the DEP scientist’s way of saying “we lack data to support this conclusion” (implicitly which is being dictated by our hack managers for political reasons).

Third, curiously, in a study designed to identify the causes and sources of impairment, the DEP did additional sampling just below Fenimore landfill to rule out the landfill, which is the opposite of the study’s objective:

The purpose of these additional biological monitoring stations was to trace how far upstream from AN0311 the biological degradation was actually occurring, and to rule out contributing portions of the Drakes Brook sub-watershed as sources of stress to the stream biota.

Fourth, and this is the most important point and a smoking gun: when a water quality impairment is found, all major potential pollution sources, like landfills, are presumptively considered to be a contributing source. Because prior DEP field investigations verified visual observations of landfill leachate seeps at Fenimore, the only way to overcome this presumption is with conclusive sampling data from Fenimore leachate showing no pollutant levels of concern that could cause or contribute to the water quality impairment.

However, in an odd and significant departure from standard scientific and regulatory methods, the DEP did just the opposite: they concluded that Fenimore was NOT a pollution source based on NO DATA:

Nutrient and organic enrichment from the Quality Inn effluent and/or Fenimore landfill leachate: While the Quality Inn effluent and Fenimore landfill leachate were not directly sampled for this study, their effects on the benthic community at AN0311, at the time of this investigation, seem limited at best, based on results of stream nutrient and BOD sampling in the watershed. (@p. 24)

The DEP did not sample the Fenimore leachate seeps that their own prior field investigation determined were a potential source of the problem. Yet, without data, the DEP now concludes that Fenimore is NOT a problem.

Fifth, DEP tried to mask their deception.

Specifically: DEP ignored and omitted a current field investigation that identified the Fenimore Landfill as a major pollution source. While they ignore current negative findings, DEP reaches back 40 years to select very old data to create a false impression that all prior DEP concerns about Fenimore pollution are 40 years old (and thus not reliable or recent):

Additionally, this study finds that the Fenimore Landfill does not appear to be a major contributor to the impairment of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the downstream reaches of Drakes Brook covered by this investigation. This is based upon the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling conducted at a station located on an unnamed tributary upstream of Ledgewood Pond (DR-LB2) which indicated a Good rating (including 30% sensitive EPT taxa). This is contrary to previous NJDEP studies from 1975-76 which indicated significant degradation to Drakes Brook being caused by the landfill.

Last, DEP relies on and cites two studies that do not meet DEP’s own QA/QC requirements and are not germane to water quality (see studies cited in footnotes #14 and #16).

It is one thing for the DEP press office to spin information and sometimes even make embarrassing mistakes, like calling old landfill leachate seeps “natural”. The Press Office is staffed by reporters and their spin has no regulatory significance.

Similarly, it’s extremely embarrassing – but of no regulatory significance – when the political patronage hack that manages DEP’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs – Commissioner Bob Martin’s Bridgette Kelly – describes sycamores along the Delaware River in Bulls Island State Park an “invasive species”.

But, when DEP regulatory documents – funded by EPA and the basis of EPA delegated Clean Water Act programs – start spinning the data, then that is a completely different kettle of fish and is a serious problem. Follow me as I lay this all out.

• The Fenimore Saga of Deceit

On October 15, 2011, before the controversial disposal and odor problems emerged, I toured the Fenimore landfill in Roxbury NJ. The landfill drains to a stream known as Drakes Brook.

I wasn’t out on a picnic – I began my career in DEP in 1985 in the solid waste program, was part of the team that wrote the first Statewide Landfill Closure Plan in the late 1980’s, was involved in developing DEP’s Watershed Planning initiative in the early 1990’s,  and I subsequently drafted the environmental provisions of the 2004 Highlands Act. After leaving DEP in 2004, I then served as a consultant to the Highlands Coalition to lead the effort on participating in DEP’s drafting of the implementation rules.

1. Field Visit

On October 15, 2011, I walked the entire perimeter of the landfill and took a lot of pictures of many environmental problems I saw, including leachate seeps, solid waste, including old drums, in the woods and in streams, and negatively impacted streams. I posted some of those photos on October 16, 2011, under this note:

Highlands Hike – The Landfill Loop Trail

This article set me out to Roxbury for a field visit to the Fenimore Landfill for photos for a post on why the Highlands Act provided the Council with strong power to influence DEP cleanup of contaminated sites.

You find the darndest things hiking NJ trails – stuff like this:

While the issue has got zero media attention, the controversial Fenimore landfill is polluting not only the air, but nearby surface water (streams) and groundwater.

2. Sham Consultant’s Report claims “no impact”

Over 2 years after that first visit, after the Fenimore debate exploded, on April 16, 2014, I wrote a post that exposed false and misleading statements in a Roxbury Township’s consultant Report about the Fenimore landfill’s impact on the stream the landfill drains to, know as Drakes Brook. Specifically, that Report found:

Sampling of these streams as recent as March 2013 did not show any impacts from the landfill

I noted that that conclusion of ‘no impact” from the landfill was based on studies that had nothing to do with water quality and that it contradicted prior DEP conclusions that the Drakes Brook was impaired and that Fenimore landfill was a source of the problem. Read the entire post for the details and links to the documents.

Specifically, in a 2008 Ambient BioMonitoring Network Report, based upon data collected in 204, the DEP determined that Drakes Brook, at Emmans Road in Roxbury, was “moderately impaired” for the “aquatic life support” use designation.

In a subsequent intensive DEP field investigation Report to determine the causes and sources of impairment and pollution to Drakes Brook, “Stressor Indicators: In Search of a Cause”, DEP specifically identified Fenimore Landfill, including “many landfill leachate seeps” and a “leachate pond” as contributing to the impairment of Drake Brook.

Take a look at the framework of that DEP study, there are a number of maps and photographs that show Fenimore Landfill.

Based upon the DEP findings and my own visual observations, there is no way the landfill was having “no impact” on Drakes Brook as the consultant stated.

 3. DEP Denies Public Records Request for the Documents – Lies to Press about impairment

On June 11, 2014, NJ PEER issued a press release, primarily to do a national distribution of the local group REACT’s Report.

Specifically, PEER made this claim:

… what neither the residents of Roxbury nor SEP knew was that state DEP biological monitoring data showed that the two streams running around the landfill were impaired. This Stressor Indicator report is based on sampling studies from 2009-2010 showing the deleterious impacts on aquatic life in the Drakes Brook watershed from Fenimore.

In that press release, we also criticized DEP’s unusual denial of our April 25, 2014 OPRA public records request for the DEP’s own water quality studies on Drakes Brook that showed that the stream was impaired and there were negative impacts from the landfill.

The PEER press release got covered in a June 25, 2014 Engineering NEws Report story “NJ Landfill Mired in Turmoil”, in which DEP press office was quoted as follows:

Wolfe says biological monitoring data shows that two streams running around the landfill were impaired. Had that information been made public, the Fenimore never would have received a re-opening permit from the DEP, the site would not have been declared a brownfield site, and the solar project would not have gone forward, Wolfe alleges. The report that includes the biological monitoring data from 2010 “is not a draft—it is being withheld because its findings are deeply embarrassing to the Christie people,” he says.

Ragonese denies that the draft report shows anything abnormal, and adds that the final report—part of a routine watershed analysis—will be released in coming weeks. Also this summer, NJDEP plans to put out a request for proposals to cap the site, and begin work on closing the landfill before the end of the year.

I explained and documented why DEP’s denial of the OPRA request (on the basis of the deliberative privilege exemption) and Ragonese’s statements where false in a June 25, 2014 post, which included additional DEP documentation from the DEP’s EPA approved 2012 Clean Water Act Section “303(d) Impaired Waters List” (2012) that listed Drakes Brook as “impaired”.

So there it is folks.  Let’s summarize:

DEP’s political masters have pressured the DEP science an water quality assessment staffers to spin the data and absolve Fenimore landfill as a source of pollution. They reached this conclusion, which contradicted prior field investigations, based on no actual Fenimore leachate seep data – or groundwater monitoring data.

Because this is a federally funded and delegated program, we shall seek EPA Region 2 and EPA Inspector General review of this whole matter.

We will keep you posted.

 

NJ Media Has A Duty To Warn Primary Voters About Christie’s Dishonest Tactics

 

[Update: 2/21/15 – Charlie Stile at the Bergen Record upheld that duty to warn in a must read absolute killer column today, see:

Christie’s Straight shooting in N.H. is loaded with irony back in New Jersey  ~~~~ end update]

The Bergen Record ran a piece today about Gov. Christie’s political campaign tactics that just makes my blood boil, see

• Analysis: With voters, Christie stresses persona over policy

Coming from an academic source, teaching at a Catholic institution that touts its mission that “focuses on academic and ethical development“, this quote is particularly outrageous

“It’s playing to his strengths,” said Matthew Hale, a Seton Hall political science professor. “His strengths in my mind are that people can look at him and identify with him. They look at him as a person, as him being fed up and quite frankly saying what he thinks. I think Jeb Bush is taking the more imperial route to his campaign so far. He’s giving these big policy addresses that are talking about these big ideas, but how many hands is he |shaking?”

Gov. Christie’s “strengths” that the good professor Hale is touting amount to manipulation and deceit of voters.

I’m sure Seton Hall does not consider such tactics as part of the “ethical development” of their students or our politics.

The University and its Professors have professional, ethical – and in this case, moral – obligations to truth, and to speak and act based on the truth, particularly in the public arena and in educational capacities.

Professor Hale has observed Gov. Christie’s political tactics for over 5 years now.

He knows the Truth – he knows exactly how the Governor inflated his favorable ratings by opportunistic and craven – but substantively empty and misleading – self promotion, the symbol of which has become the Blue Fleece.

President Clinton had his blue dress – Gov. Christie’s Blue Fleece should be no less notorious a symbol of moral failure.

The fact that a Catholic University Professor could describe those tactics as “strengths” is appalling and a sign of the decadence and decline of our democracy.

I fired off this letter to the editor at the Bergen Record, which I doubt they will print so do so here:

Dear Editor:

Re: Analysis: With voters, Christie stresses persona over policy (2/18/15)

After covering Gov. Christie for 5 years, NJ media can play an enormously important role in the Presidential primary debates.

Journalists have a professional – if not moral – obligation to educate voters in other states about Gov. Christie’s record and his political tactics.

So, now seeing Christie deploying the same “blue fleece” BS tactics he used to dupe the people of NJ, why does your analysis quote sources that praise those manipulative and dishonest tactics?

They should be condemned as those of a demagogue.

Fool me once….

“We’re trying to find out how all this works….it doesn’t matter whether we live or die. The important thing is that the work go on”

The New York Times has a wonderful “Op-Docs” feature, a digital animation version of a traditional Op-Ed and a documentary.

Today’s Op-Doc “Pangea”really moved me – it tells the story of polar explorer and scientist Alfred Wegener

The animation and storyline have a sort of enchanting beauty and feel of the “Polar Express”, a superb book I read my young children many times. I strongly recommend you watch the whole thing here.

It is poignant in it’s depiction of a man’s brave and selfless scientific quest (see the quote above).

It managed to convey an inspiring message from another time – almost ancient in its timeless dignity, a compelling contrast with our time of immediate, crass, self-absorbed, individualism and careerism.

And it was interesting and informative on the history of the science of plate tectonics.

The screenshot above is the highlight, where, during a failed expedition, with his companions on the verge of giving up, he inspired his crew with an appeal to wonder and a timeless scientific mission:

At twilight, he said “Let’s go for a walk”

He took them out, and pointed to the ice and the sky, and said: “We’re trying to find out how all this works….it doesn’t matter whether we live or die. The important thing is that the work go on.”

He later died on that expedition. He died an outsider and unrecognized for his ideas, which were rejected by the disciplinary “experts”.

But, one of the things I found most interesting was the (unintentionally) ironic introductory advertisement by Nikon.

Nikon celebrated “Generation Image”.

Many have written about the implications of the decline of literacy and the ascendance of visual culture.

To see a celebration of “Generation Image” juxtaposed with the story of a questing scientist – reflecting values as far from a “selfie” as you could get – led me to think that the more significant “tectonic” shift was not “plate tectonics”, but the shift from a literary to a visual culture.

Something to think about.

The Greedy Green Mafia Strikes Again

Wildlife as Public Trust Resources

In the North American Model, wildlife is held in the public trust. This means that fish and wildlife are held by the public through state and federal governments. In other words, though an individual may own the land up which wildlife resides, that individual does not own said wildlife. Instead, the wildlife is owned by all citizens. With origins in Roman times and English Common law, the public trust doctrine has at its heart the 1842 Supreme Court ruling Martin V. Waddell.^{[7]  (Wiki)}

As if Gov. Christie’s recent privatization of NJ’s water resources wasn’t bad enough, they’ve gone way too far now.

And this one has the Keep It Green Coalition and/or NJ Audubon’s fingerprints all over it.

I am referring to proposed legislation (S2624), sponsored by Republican Senator Kip Bateman, that would establish a “private wildlife” management program.

Repeat: a private wildlife management program.

[*The Assembly version A3133 [1R] (Bramnick) was amended and released from Committee last fall.  I just listened to Bramnick’s testimony on 10/27/14. It is an Audubon bill. Intent is to improve suburban lawns. Bramnick brought his wife, an artist seeking “balance with nature”. She worked with Audubon on a project. She wants to bring native plants and understory to suburban lawns as “gas station stops” for migratory birds. Audubon was kind enough to help Mrs. Bramnick make her front yard a “wildlife habitat”. But the grass is too high and it violates Westfield’s grass code and she is worried about code enforcement. Intent is to avoid disarray in suburbia, but allow a group like Audubon to provide advice (for a consultation fee of course). She is working with Audubon in a park in Westfield, based on native plants & project bird sanctuary as well. A long train of environment groups were sure to be there to support the bill. Groups that are often not in Trenton and do little legislative work. But they found it important to get there to support this bill. Why is that? Mrs. Bramnick’s testimony confirms all the criticism below. And I don’t ever recall a legislator bringing in a spouse to testify on a pet project bill he wrote and all the environmental groups lining up to support it. If Audubon wants to be a landscape design consultant, well have at it. Then just put out a shingle and compete in the marketplace. But please, do not call that work “conservation” – and don’t use law and DEP as cover to promote your business.]

I say it has KIG or NJ Audubon’s fingerprints all over it because they were the groups that have:

• attempted, but thankfully failed, to establish a private “forests stewardship” certification program on public lands
• diverted public funds from DEP and State Parks programs to fund among other things, private conservation groups
• used Senator Bateman to do their bidding

These groups see State government – and public lands and special access to DEP programs in particular – as sources of funding via grants, partnerships, mitigation services, enforcement settlements, monopoly privileges and market development opportunities.

They see DEP regulatory programs as opportunities to negotiate and extract all kinds of corporate deals, from land donations, to cash donations, to consultation fees, and mitigation service contracts.

A perfect example of this “entrepreneurial approach” to conservation is Audubon’s “Corporate Stewardship” program, or the failed “forest stewardship” bill.

That bill would have used DEP programs to provide access to public lands and public funds to “certified” forest stewardship organizations, of which there was only one in NJ: NJ Audubon.

But you don’t have to take my word for it: NJ Audubon’s website openly boasts of their “Corporate Stewardship Council” program.

Even more aggressively, the “entrepreneurial conservation” model is defined and proudly laid out in excruciating detail by Mike Catania, who explains the “business model” of his creation: Conservation Resources, Inc. (see “A Ten- Year Journey: Conservation Resources’ Final Report):

We would also like to acknowledge the handful of farsighted regulators who were open to CRI’s role in matching those members of the regulated community who needed to fund a conservation project in order to satisfy a regulatory requirement with a non profit organization or local government seeking funding for an appropriate project. For their part, the regulated community and their legal advisors and consultants instinctively “got” CRI’s role and welcomed this new way to comply with New Jersey’s stringent environmental regulatory requirements. 

Is that a quid pro quo? A shakedown? Abuse of DEP access and insider knowledge and relationships?

Or is it just good old fashioned networking, opportunism, and entrepreneurialism?

So, regardless of what you think of all that, let’s take a closer look at the provisions of this “private wildlife” bill.

Because if we can’t agree that wildlife is – by definition – a public good to be managed in trust by a public agency and not a commodity or resource to be managed privately or business opportunity to extract a fee- then all is lost.

• Ignore Public Policy – Because There Is No Public Good To Be Promoted

The bill lacks any legislative findings as to what the problem is or declarations as to what the purposes, objectives, or policy is.

That’s because there is no public policy basis for the bill – it is designed to promote private interests of specific conservation groups who wrote it.

A bill devoid of findings and objectives also avoids any public scrutiny and policy debate, where nettlesome issues arise, like:

who owns wildlife? The public? Or private landowners? Who should “manage” wildlife? A public agency? Or private conservation groups? How should wildlife management be funded? How should wildlife management decisions be made? By Whom? On what basis?

I think you get my point

• Restrict Access to – or better yet – monopolize the market

At a minimum, the bill would restrict market entry and competition, and more likely grant exclusive monopoly privileges for certain well connected groups:

“Certifying entity” means a nonprofit conservation organization, a for-profit landscaping company, or any other private entity, provided that the commissioner has determined that the entity possesses the appropriate expertise, qualifications, and resources to assess whether a property satisfies the standards and criteria established for purposes of certifying a property as a “certified private wildlife habitat” pursuant to section 2 of this act.

In turn, it is then likely that these “certifying entities” – just like under the failed “first stewardship bill – would be the only game in town and the beneficiaries of regulatory leverage that Mr. Catania so clearly lays out that is the core of his “business model” excerpted above.

• Use DEP regulatory authority as leverage to lock in your market

Check this out – uses government regulatory power for private gain and makes a business opportunity sound like an environmental program:

2. a. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall establish a private wildlife habitat certification program. In establishing the program, the commissioner may consider any standards used by recognized conservation organizations for purposes of certifying properties as suitable wildlife habitat.

So, not only do you get DEP access and exclusive market privileges, the conservation groups actually write the content of the program, i.e. when  the commissioner may consider any standards used by recognized conservation organizations  of course he looks to your organization, because your organization is the only one.

• Use private certification to replace public regulation

This was a central debate on the forest stewardship bill, where supporters explicitly designed  the “stewardship” program to rely on private conservation group certification model to replace government regulation – a privatization of regulation!

3. A certifying entity shall issue to the owner of each property that applies and qualifies for certification as a “certified private wildlife habitat” a certificate of registration to be filed by the property owner with the municipality in which the property is located pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of this act, and a sign designating the property as a “certified private wildlife habitat,” which may be posted on the property by the owner.

What a racket – get government regulations to require free advertising signs for your enterprise – now we are forced to look at even more signs? (in addition to the “Private Property – No Trespassing” sign).

• Compel private landowners to rely on your services, and make sure government get a vig

Same game – corner the market, require your services – nice work if you can get it:

Prior to altering a property for purposes of establishing a “certified private wildlife habitat,” a property owner shall obtain  from a certifying entity a certificate of registration designating the property as a “certified private wildlife habitat” and file the certificate of registration with the municipal clerk of the municipality in which the property is located. The municipal clerk may charge a fee not to exceed $25 for each certificate o registration filed with the clerk.

• Protection racket: Rely on the program as insulation from enforcement

The real mob has perfected this extortion racket: a small payment provides “insurance” from things like fires or labor unrest:

A person who files and maintains an unexpired certificate of registration with a municipality in compliance with the provisions  of this act, and the rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, shall be entitled to an affirmative defense against any liability for violation of a municipal ordinance under which the “certified private wildlife habitat,” or any component thereof, is deemed, or  would be deemed, a nuisance or an otherwise unlawful condition. The person shall be entitled to this affirmative defense from the time of filing the notice of intent to alter the property, provided that certificate of registration is filed within 60 days thereafter

So, to summarize the bill:

Private Property, Private Wildlife, Private Management, Private Regulation – a monopoly created by and paid for with public funds and public legal and regulatory power (with no public participation).

Can it get any worse?

I had some doubts at the time, because I had registered for the NJ Spotlight Climate conference and seats were scarce, but after just now reading NJ Spotlight coverage of it, I am really – really-  sooo glad that I went to the Pinelands Commission meeting on Friday morning instead of trudging to Trenton.

Why is it that the so called “experts” and “leaders” and journalists feel so free to spout all kinds of bullshit while they are safely ensconced on panels and at conferences, but so rarely back that rhetoric up with commitments of resources and time in the political trenches where decisions are actually made?

The trenches, you know, like when bills are being drafted and considered by the Legislature, or when regulations are being proposed by DEP, or when funding plans are being crafted to access billions of federal dollars in Sandy recovery aid, or when Executive Order and budgets are issued by the Governor, or when plans or permits are issued, or at any public hearings, editorial board meetings, press conferences, protests, et al – you know, the public policy process.

The only time I see these “experts” and “leaders” engaged in that process is with their hands out, when they are seeking funds to run their organizations or benefit their pet projects – or to provide political cover for some politician that provides access to those resources.

Why, at the same time that they spout this lofty policy bullshit, do they so consistently go flaccid when it comes to naming names? Or speaking up WHEN AND WHERE IT MATTERS?

Try this one out, the lead quote in the NJ Spotlight story:

“It is really amazing how unprepared we have left ourselves — not just for the future, but for the present,’’ said Michael Catania, a cochair of the alliance and executive director of Duke Farms. “There is no excuse for not moving forward now.’’

What really is amazing is how craven and cowardly “we” are, particularly when such pap is projected from the well endowed and manicured lawns of the Duke Foundation.

So, I fired off these comments, which I want to preserve here, because they are likely to be taken down under NJ Spotlight’s “ad hominem” policy, a policy that seems to apply any time a person is named and criticized, regardless the nature and substance of the criticism:

I would ask: who is the “we” that Mr. Catania is referring to?

Is it too hard to say that Gov. Christie has abdicated his responsibility as Gov. and that NJ is the only vulnerable state on the Atlantic coast that lacks an adaptation plan?

That the Gov. has abdicated for political, personal ambition, and ideological reasons because climate change is a taboo in the Republican Party?

Is it too hard to say that in addition to abdication of State responsibilities, Gov. Christie and DEP Commissioner Martin have actually diverted funding and dismantled policies and programs at DEP to address climate change?

To note that many of the key people working on the climate issue at Rutgers used to work on it at DEP.

If “we” are collectively going to get something done of climate, then the people, policies, and politics accountable for the problem must be identified and held accountable.

Think of it as a Climate truth and reconciliation commission.

Finally, where has Catania and these other so called “experts” been for 5 years now? When the Christie policies were being developed and there was a chance to change them?

Leading from under their desks – or chasing state grants and contracts, that’s where.

Perhaps Ms. Baptista and other NJ Spotlight experts could come to Trenton and fight for climate adaptation money in the Open Space legislative debate?

Or the environmental justice legislative debate (which has overlapping program and policy elements with the open space debate).

I’ve been doing that and writing about it in detail here.

But for some reason, both open space and EJ bills and testimony on those topics has been completely ignored by NJ media, including NJ Spotlight.