Beauty I’ve always missed
With these eyes before
Just what the truth is
I can’t say any more
‘Cause I love you
Yes I love you
Oh how I love you ~~~ Nights in White Satin (Moody Blues, 1967)
“End Poverty In California” (EPIC) was the motto of Upton Sinclair’s 1934 campaign for Governor of California. Sinclair is far better known as a radical writer than political candidate and the Jersey Guy he was (before he moved to California).
Sinclair wrote a wonderful book about that campaign – I, Governor of California – And How I Ended Poverty – that told the story of how the media attacked him and the Democrats sabotaged him. For a current piece on the implications of that dirty campaign, see: The Traumatic Birth of the Modern Vicious Campaign.
(and if you ever want a good read on the press, who controls it, and how it operates, read Sinclair’s book “The Brass Check” – read it on line!)
For the “revolutionary” tone of Sinclair’s campaign, here’s an excerpt from his book – don’t you love this pledge: “There are going to be no lawyers and lobbyists for Big Business in my chambers”:
There are echoes of that campaign now, particularly how the Democrats derailed the Sanders campaign and the corporate media and Democrats have attacked the Jill Stein Green Party. Let’s hope the results are not similar (Google and find out how it turned out).
Here is the EPIC Platform:
A Lot of Work To Do After 7 Years of “Malfeasance”
The Senate Environment Committee released a bill (S-2468) to mandate DEP adopt the scientific recommendations of the Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) on public health based drinking water “Maximum Contaminant Levels” ( MCLs), see the NJ Spotlight story:
I’ve been writing about and working on this issue for years, so it is heartening to see the bill move, but passage is questionable and Gov. Christie’s veto is certain. An over-ride is very unlikely.
Incredibly, to give you a sense of how egregious the DEP’s neglect has been, even conservative anti-regulatory Ocean County Republican and Christie loyalist Senator Thompson voted for the bill!
(see: DEP ACCUSED OF DELAYING CHEMICAL REGULATION A YEAR AFTER SCIENTISTS ADVISED LIMIT)
Bill Wolfe, a former DEP staffer who now monitors the department’s work on water quality, called the PFNA case “just the tip of the iceberg of neglect” by the DEP that he said did not adopt the DWQI’s recommendations for MCLs on a number of other chemicals that were under consideration before a four-year hiatus in the panel’s work starting in 2010.
“The Christie DEP has abdicated the DEP’s regulatory role in protecting public health and the environment — whether via failure to adopt standards or failure to monitor and enforce them,” Wolfe said.
This shameful legacy of Gov. Chris Christie and his DEP Commissioner Bob Martin will have to wait until the next administration to repair.
To begin to get a real drinking water protection reform agenda on the radar, I sent the sponsor Senator Lesniak and Chairman Smith the following note:
Dear Senators:
Thanks for for sponsoring and moving S2468, to mandate that DEP adopt MCL’s recommended by the Drinking Water Quality Institute.
I would like to suggest 3 amendments to perfect the bill and avoid this DEP politicization of science and abuse of discretion in the future.
The first amendment would be prospective in nature, such that whenever the DWQI recommended an MCL, DEP would be required to adopt it, just like the backlogged chemicals listed in the bill.
This would permanently eliminate political considerations from delaying MCL’s, ignoring science, and abdicating the DEP’s responsibility to protect public health.
The second amendment would incorporate all existing DEP groundwater quality standards that are based on the science of human health impacts, including “interim specific groundwater quality standards” (ISGWQS).
These DEP groundwater quality standards are just as scientifically rigorous as the MCL’s recommended by the DWQI and adopted by DEP. They are often developed by the same DEP scientists who staff the DWQI. The legal and scientific bases between and GWQS and an MCL are different, but not in conflict.
A good example of this problem is the recent discovery of 1,4,-dioxane at the Ringwood Superfund site, Pompton Lakes drinking water, and numerous public water supplies in north jersey.
The DEP has adopted an ISGWQS for 1,4,-dioxane of 0.4 ug/L (parts per billion). Yet that standard is being ignored in site remediation cleanup decisions and local drinking water treatment and public disclosure requirements for MCL’s.
I wrote about that issue here, and provide links to all the regulatory documents:
- Ford Ringwood Superfund Debate on Chemical 1,4, Dioxane Illustrates Flaws In Drinking Water Standards
- Pompton Lakes Drinking Water Contaminated With Same Toxic Chemical Recently Found At Ford Ringwood Superfund Site
The third amendment – significantly broader in scope than the current bill – would require that DEP prepare a Report and hold at least 6 public hearings across the State regarding a strategy to address the more than 500 unregulated contaminants DEP has found in NJ drinking water supplies.
Developing a regulatory strategy to address the unregulated contaminant issue via a “treatment based approach” was a significant policy reform initiative of the Corzine DEP.
Here is the DEP Report that addresses those issues. The Report was prepared by DEP scientists who staff the DWQI and submitted to the DWQI back in 2010, but it was derailed by the Christie Administration, see:
I am copying DWQI Chairman Dr. Keith Cooper of Rutgers so you can solicit his scientific expertise and input.
I appreciate your timely and favorable consideration – apologies for being unable to appear to testify on these issues yesterday.
Bill Wolfe
The debate over public access to the shore and inland rivers has been re-engaged by the Christie DEP’s proposal of new rules yesterday intended to respond to an Appellate Court decision that found that DEP lacked legislative authorization to regulate public access requirements.
We have not yet reviewed the DEP proposal, but pending that review want to talk about the mistakes that got us to this point.
NJ Spotlight has a slanted story on the DEP proposal that leaves out how and why we got to this point and simply does not mention the strategic blunder made by the NY/NJ Baykeeper and Hackensack Riverkeeper in their lawsuit that forced the issue, see:
The lawsuit argued that DEP lacked legislative authority to regulate. The Court agreed.
In challenging the Christie DEP’s rollback of Corzine DEP public access rules, the environmentalists could have argued that the Christie DEP rules violated law by abdicating DEP’s public trust obligations by delegating control over public access to local governments. That would have taken the issue of State versus local power head on and been a strong defense of the public trust doctrine.
But they didn’t – instead they argued that DEP lacked legislative authority to regulate. They cowardly ducked the primary issue of local versus state power on the shore.
Did they think about the real world implications of success of that legal attack? What would happen if the Court struck down DEP’s rules for lack of legislative authority?
That legal attack and the Court’s agreement with it sent the issue to the legislature, requiring that they pass new public access legislation.
New legislation requires the signature of the Governor.
Did they think that Governor Christie would sign legislation that was broader in scope and more stringent that his own DEP’s weak regulatory initiative?
Of course Christie would veto any bill passed by the Legislature that was stronger than his own DEP’s rules.
The Democrats do not have the votes to over-ride the Governor’s veto, so the Gov. dictates the public access policy.
That’s why the legislature was duped into passing weak emergency legislation that basically codified the Christie DEP’s rules that were struck down by the Court.
As political cover for that surrender by Legislators, Senate Environment Committee Chairman Smith set up a Stakeholder group and tasked them with coming up with consensus recommendations for new public access legislation.
Of course there was no consensus reached – a consensus model gives business community and local government opponents of public access an effective veto over policy.
Those same groups on Smith’s Stakeholder group have significant political power to shape legislation and force compromise.
Which brings us back to the huge blunder that NY/NJ Baykeeper and Hackensack Riverkeeper made in their lawsuit.
Because by taking the public access issue away from DEP and regulatory power, they forced the issue into the Legislature.
By doing that, they handcuffed a future Governor and future DEP Commissioner from adopting stronger rules or simply re-adopting the Corzine DEP rules that were rolled back by the Christie DEP.
The next Governor must get a public access bill through the Legislature.
We are now witnessing the Legislative gridlock that the business community and shore local government interests can generate, effectively exercising veto power.
And even if the gridlock is ultimately broken by a Democratic majority, any bill that does pass will be a compromise (just read Smith’s Stakeholder Report to see how that compromise would be crafted. Good luck in “working out the details“.).
There is no way the legislature will pass a bill that was as broad and strong as the Corzine DEP rules.
And the Appellate Court decision and emergency legislation responding to it raise new legal questions about whether the public access requirements in thousands of existing DEP permits are enforceable. If DEP lacked legislative authority to regulate public access, as the Court found, then maybe all those permits with public access requirements are illegal too.
So, the next time the public access issue comes up, think about who is to blame – and to my environmentalist friends, think before you litigate.
The larger Trenton based NJ environmental groups who do political work (endorsements, etc) have well over 100,000 members, tons of money, significant press capabilities, experienced lobbyists, and dozens of professional staff and field campaign organizers.
There is widespread public support in NJ for strong environmental protections. There are scores of local grassroots groups and activists – from watershed organizations to pipeline and bomb train and anti-frackers!
Yet, despite these political strengths, in the age of Christie and corporate & machine dominated Democrats (like Senate President Sweeney), we not only fail to make progress, but are losing ground and suffering rollbacks to existing programs.
Governor Christie will soon be gone, so now is the time to begin planning for short term and intermediate actions to block more rollbacks in the pipeline (pun intended) and to begin to develop a strategy and united front to frame the issues agenda for the already engaged Governor’s race.
So here’s my current revised strategic advice, as the climate catastrophe escalates and direct non-violent civil disobedience actions proliferate around the country (the latest example is the Dakota Access Pipeline battle, which is coming to a place near you! – PennEast to Pinelands):
1. Form A United Front
Form a united front with progressive labor unions, with the centerpiece a green jobs agenda to phase out fossil fuels and build a statewide energy efficiency and renewable energy economy.
With the current TTF layoffs, attacks on NJEA, public employee pension sellout, and a $15 minimum wage likely to be on the ballot in 2017, the politics are engaged and aligning to make this a realistic opportunity. Environmentalists must not be left out of the progressive coalition that will win these battles. A united front would dampen your primary opposition to progress and exponentially boost your political power.
2. Focus on Climate and Green Energy Jobs
The key program demands on the agenda should be:
Here’ an example of how that would actually work on the ground, politically, programmatically, and financially. The Linden NJ victory was huge, and it represents a missed opportunity to consolidate and institutionalize the kind of change required.
3. Target Gubernatorial Candidates and Do It Now!
Begin to target prospective candidates for next Gov. and begin to take actions right now!
Guadagno is a likely Republican candidate and is from Monmouth County. There is a lot of enviro support there and post Sandy experienced shore residents are very familiar with the tremendous powers of the NJ Governor.
But people and the media are completely unaware of the power of the Gov. to block pipeline projects using effective veto powers under the federal Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act.
There is a long history of Governors – responding to grassroots pressure – bolding using executive powers, a regional moratorium now in effect, and well known recent precedent a campaign could use as an illustration.
In perhaps his only positive environmental accomplishment, Gov. Christie killed an off-shore LNG proposal using his veto power under federal law.
If we brought 100 people to Guadagno’s house on a Sunday protest, demanding that she speak out in opposition to Gov. Christie’s horrific record on climate and renewable energy and define her own vision, that would make the news.
We could make similar argument demanding that Guadagno and all prospective candidates for Gov. support a ban on new fossil infrastructure, like pipelines, and use Clean Water Act to do it (like Conn. and NY State did!).
Fulup might be willing to jump on that kind of bandwagon, if we can put the issue on the political and media radar (it would be a great contrast with Sweeney, who is in the tank for pipelines and fracked gas plants).
4. Ramp Up Tactics – Direct Action, Non-Violent Civil Disobedience
Ramp up the tactics – Begin to sign up people to pledge to take direct action.
Where is this kind of conversation and strategic planning taking place?
[End note – the odds of this happening approach zero. The current groups, to be kind, do not work well together and the corporate foundations would never fund the work. So, the thought of even a coordinated campaign, never mind a United Front, is unthinkable right now.
The only way this dysfunction changes is either for the members of these groups or their funders to demand that their professional staff change, or for an alternative bottom up new grassroots organization emerge and bypass the dysfunction.