WolfeNotes.com

Study Obscures Role Of Corporate Polluters And Big Pharma

Wm. Penn Foundation funded study produces junk science

The Pinelands Commission finally released a long delayed study on the ecological impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals, see:

• Potential health effects of contaminant mixtures from point and nonpoint sources on fish and frogs in the New Jersey Pinelands

I wrote about the delay in releasing that study last year and had recently filed an OPRA public records request to the Pinelands Commission for the data and to determine the status of the report, as well as to highlight the implications of this research, see:

• Endocrine Disruptor Study Buried At The Pinelands Commission

• USGS Study Documents High Levels of Prescription Drugs In Streams – Source is Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plants

• Manufacturing Facilities Release Pharmaceuticals to the Environment (USGS)

• More Dual Sexed Fish Documented In NJ Rivers

• Sexual mutations in fish in protected waters raise alarm (Bergen Record story on USGS Report)

• Investigations Related to a “Treatment-Based” Regulatory Approach to Address Unregulated Contaminants in Drinking Water (DEP Report)

• The NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute Is Ignoring Pharmaceuticals, Endocrine Disruptors, and Hundreds of Toxic Chemicals They KNOW Are In Your Drinking Water

Given the complex scientific, regulatory, and ethical issues, we will present this story in two parts: Part One below examines the funding of the study and the influence of the Wm. Penn Foundation.

Part Two tomorrow will critique the design, methodology, findings, and conclusions of the study.

I) Who Is The Wm. Penn Foundation And Who Do They Represent?

The study was funded by the Wm. Penn Foundation. The Foundation has allocated over $100 million to various projects in the Delaware River Watershed, including the Pinelands and non-profit groups that do advocacy work in the Pinelands, own land and operate commercial concessions in the Pinelands, and appear before the Pinelands Commission, including the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, NJ Audubon Society, and NJ Conservation Foundation.

By their own statements, the Wm. Penn Foundation’s Delaware initiative was designed as a parallel program to Clean Water Act based government planning and regulatory programs. They fund projects that work only on voluntary programs to address non-point source pollution.

They do not work on point source pollution or government planning and regulatory programs that regulate corporations or industrial chemical discharges.

They promote non-regulatory, voluntary, local, and market based initiatives: (Delaware River watershed)

The DRWI was designed and launched in the absence of any state or federally mandated watershed-wide requirement for restoration or protection of water quality. It is an NGO-led watershed protection program driven by the cumulative effort, strategic thinking, and vision of over 50 organizations…

And they openly acknowledge the top down Foundation money driven astro-turf nature of that initiative and its limited focus to non-point pollution (intentionally letting regulators and major corporate “point source” polluters off the hook) Delaware River watershed:

While the DRWI was conceived and designed in partnership with others as a William Penn Foundation grantmaking strategy, our hope is that, through the process of building and refining the Initiative with the input of dozens of participants and stakeholders, there is a framework of relationships and practice that will endure beyond our grantmaking that can methodically address nonpoint source pollution over time.

This narrow focus of Wm. Penn Foundation limits and distorts the advocacy work of the environmental and conservation groups they fund and misleads the public.

Wm. Penn Foundation has over $3.2 billion in assets and $175 million in revenue (2020). Senior managers are paid over $280,000/yr.

But before we get to the science and findings of the study, let’s start here and see who the Wm. Penn Foundation is and who they represent:

The Haas story begins, unsurprisingly, with an exceptional couple. Otto Haas came to Philadelphia from Germany in 1909 to begin expansion of his company, Rohm and Haas. The company, which started as a maker of leather tanning materials, grew to become a massive specialty chemical manufacturer, and Otto found success beyond his wildest dreams. In 1945 he used some of his wealth to start a foundation to address post-war social issues, particularly focused on helping fatherless children. This foundation eventually became the William Penn Foundation, a Philadelphia-centric institution that works on all manner of important causes, including education, conservation, and culture.

It seems reasonable to assume that the Haas family and their family Foundation have shared corporate economic and regulatory interests with their corporate polluter friends, the “massive chemical manufacturer” Dupont family corporation, founded 100 years earlier just down the road in Wilmington, Delaware. In fact, the Rohm and Haas corporation is listed as a Dupont subsidiary.

And would it be rude of me to observe that the Haas family hails from Germany – world leader in chemicals in 1909 – and that the Dupont Corporation did a lot of business with Germany, including Nazi Germany?

Do you think it is a coincidence that a Foundation, founded by a major industrial chemical manufacturer, does not fund projects that address: 1) chemical industry created toxic chemicals, 2) their permitted discharge, 3) the scientific assessment of the adverse impacts of those chemicals, or 4) the government planning, regulatory, and remedial programs to reduce and cleanup those pollutant discharges?

Dupont plays the same corrupt game in their Orwellian named “Clear Into The Future”

The world’s largest toxic corporate polluter, Dupont, also funds a Delaware Estuary program – with the Orwellian title “Clear Into The Future” – and a group mentioned in the NJ Spotlight coverage. Of course, Dupont does not fund science and regulation to hold them accountable for the toxic pollution of the river and bay.

I worked for 1 year at the Pew Charitable Trust’s fisheries management program as Mid-Atlantic Regional Manager:

“Regional fishery managers have a new opportunity and stronger legal and scientific tools to protect fish populations from overfishing,” said the Pew organization’s Bill Wolfe. “The Mid-Alantic Fishery Management Council needs to commit to improving fisheries management, end overfishing and rebuild stocks to healthy, sustainable levels.

Pew was founded by the Sun Oil Company. Senior managers there openly told me that Pew fisheries programs not only did not work on or fund, but were not allowed to even talk about off shore oil and gas development impacts on fisheries, or the effects of chemical pollution on water quality or fisheries, or Clean Water Act regulatory programs, or the government issued fish consumption advisories due to toxic chemical pollution.

So, just like Pew imposed a blackout on science and regulation that effects the corporate bottom line of the oil and gas industries, so too does the Wm. Penn Foundation with respect to the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.

II) Who Controls The Wm. Penn Foundation?

Let’s look at the extraordinary members of the Corporation and the Board of the Wm. Penn Foundation“

• Lorena E. Ahumada – corporate lawyer
• Katherine H. Christiano, Chair – puppet – Also Chair of a Foundation founded by Haas
• Andrew Haas (keeping control in the family)
• Christina Haas, Vice Chair (keeping control in the family)
• David Haas (keeping control in the family)
• Janet Haas, M.D. (keeping control in the family)
• Peter Haas, Secretary (keeping control in the family)
• Sarah Haas (keeping control in the family)
• Thomas Haas (keeping control in the family)
• Donald Kimelman – keeping it elite: former managing Director of Pew
• Marcel Pratt – Corporate lawyer and Managing Partner (token “diversity”)
• Robert Victor – Senior VP, Comcast
• Suzanne Welsh – (keeping it elite and corporate. Retired head of finance at Swarthmore

The Board of the Foundation is dominated and controlled by the Haas family, who made and make their money in chemical manufacturing.

III) Conclusions – The Corruption Is Obvious

• It is no coincidence that a corporate dominated chemical industry family founded Foundation serves corporate interests.

• It is no coincidence that the Foundation uses it’s money to fund science and watershed projects that do not impact, in any way, major corporate chemical polluters.

• It is no coincidence that a “massive” chemical industry founded Foundation does not fund scientific research or non-profit group advocacy that focuses on regulatory mandates and the devastating adverse impacts on human health and the environment caused by chemical pollution.

• It is no coincidence that a “massive” chemical industry founded Foundation focuses only on non-point source pollution (nutrients and sediment runoff) and not chemical pollution and advocates management strategies that are limited to private landowner voluntary land management and voluntary land conservation (acquisition), not regulation of point source discharges of chemicals.

• It is no coincidence that the groups who accept Wm. Penn Foundation funds are controlled by the Foundation and their advocacy work is directed and limited by the Foundation grant agreements and persuasion of money and further funding.

• As a result of the power of Foundation funding, scientists bias their research (design, methods, data, findings, and conclusions) so as not to offend the interests of their funders. This produces junk science.

• The Penn Foundation money is expanding its influence, to include funding media to provide favorable coverage. Specifically, Wm. Penn Foundation funds NJ Spotlight (they are disclosed as a “major funder”) and yet despite this blatant conflict, NJ Spotlight reports regularly on Penn Foundation funded work in a very favorable light and quotes Penn Foundation funded groups and employees as primary sources in their stories (all without disclosing these conflicts in the story). In other words, Penn Foundation not only shapes but literally buys favorable news coverage on topics and issues of their choosing (which “news” should be labelled “sponsored content”).

Here are the ethics requirements of the journal in which this research was published:

Role of the funding source

You are requested to identify who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article and to briefly describe the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement, it is recommended to state this.

This was the disclosure, which does not specifically comport with the ethics requirements:

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Cohl, M. Schreiner, A. Boetsman, L. Carper for sample collection. We also thank R. Lane, D. Tush, J. Dietze, M. Wilson for laboratory analysis and data management. Funding was provided by the William Penn Foundation through the Academy of Natural Sciences at Drexel University Delaware Watershed Research Fund and State of New Jersey Pinelands Commission.

Note how the Penn Foundation laundered their money through academic institutions.

That’s not how the Pinelands Commission originally described the focus of the research and funding.

As I wrote back in April 2016, I called out the Pinelands Commission for masking Penn Foundation funding when they wrote in a March 30, 2016 memo:

Grant Proposal Presentation Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have been linked to reproductive and developmental abnormalities in fish and amphibians. Surface-water discharge of wastewater is a major point source of EDCs to aquatic systems and on-site septic systems and chemical use associated with development and agriculture represent non-point sources of EDCs. Commission and USGS scientists propose to sample surface water, fish, and frogs at on-stream and off-stream sites with potential point and non-point sources of EDCs and compare these results to minimally impacted reference sites. All animals will be assessed histologically for measures of endocrine disruption and surface water from all sites will be analyzed for approximately one hundred known or suspected EDCs. A letter of intent was accepted and a full proposal requested for possible funding through the Delaware Watershed Research Fund. 

As I will shown in Part Two, the Penn Foundation money has now expanded to control and influence not only non-profit group advocacy, buy favorable media, and produce junk science, it also has tainted the independence and credibility of government agencies, such as the USGS and Pinelands Commission staff, who conducted the Wm. Penn funded research.

Will Dupont Wiggle Off The Hook For Millions In Damage From Toxic Pollution?

The Legislature Must Step Up And Adopt Standards To Strengthen Critical NJ Laws

The Public Must No Longer Be Shut Out Of Critical Decisions That Affect Their Lives

Recent US Supreme Court decisions to abolish a woman’s right to choose and to severely limit EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions have jolted public awareness of the Court’s power to control outcomes on critical issues, with no regard for democratic involvement.

But the anti-democratic abuse of power by the courts – which are an inherently non-democratic institution – is not limited to the right wing US Supreme Court.

NJ State and federal Courts are chipping away at and are narrowing the scope of NJ’s “Public Trust Doctrine”, “trespass” and “nuisance” laws, as well as DEP’s ability to protect groundwater and assure public compensation for and/or restoration of pollution damages to natural resources.

And just like the Democrats in Congress failed to legislatively codify Roe V. Wade and protect women’s rights or to expand and clarify EPA’s regulatory powers, so too has the Democratic controlled NJ Legislature failed to enact legislative standards that would block or limit the Court’s erosion – at the behest of corporate lawyers – of critical public interest and environmental laws.

As we’ve written, several prior Court decisions have weakened DEP’s powers and let corporate polluters off the hook for billions of dollars of pollution damages they have caused.

Now, a recent US federal District Court decision in the Murphy DEP’s lawsuit against Dupont – which I will discuss below after I mention important context – highlights these dangerous trends in legal doctrines, see:

• NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, et al. Plaintiffs, v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, et al. Defendants.

The Murphy DEP filed the Dupont lawsuit back in March 2019, seeking to re-open and correct a prior 2005 DEP sweetheart NRD deal with Dupont.

The lawsuit involves complex legal issues regarding the “public trust doctrine”, “trespass”, “nuisance”, and “natural resource damages” legal doctrines. I wrote about that Dupont lawsuit here, and, while I praised DEP for filing the lawsuit, I again predicted that DEP would lose:

• Murphy DEP Finally Re-Opens Corrupt Dupont Pompton Lakes Natural Resource Damage Settlement

The legislature and Gov. Murphy recently had an opportunity to close loopholes, clarify the law, and adopt clear legal standards to avoid these problems in recent legislation regarding the “public trust doctrine”, but they failed to do so and not only missed a critical opportunity, they even narrowed the doctrine, see:

• NJ Gov. Murphy’s Public Access Law Guts The Public Trust Doctrine

And Senator Smith’s lame attempt to establish standards for natural resource damages was killed by corporate power,

• Big Corporate Polluters Quietly Veto Natural Resource Damage Compensation Standards

And the DEP still has not adopted NRD regulations – mandated under an 2004 judicially approved settlement – that would define, economically value, and set standards and methods for the NRD program, see:

• Murphy DEP Lawsuit Exposes Huge Flaws In DEP’s Natural Resource Damage and Toxic Site Cleanup Programs

(In a parallel case, the recent DEP ExxonMobil NRD settlement, no one seemed to understand that, because NJ DEP’s toxic site cleanup program was privatized, the ExxonMobil private consultant performed an ecological risk assessment. Because DEP lacks enforceable NRD regulatory standards, the ExxonMobil private consultant was allowed to conclude: “PCB concentrations at the site do not pose a significant risk to the ecological community following removal of the PCB source material.”

Because DEP had no enforceable standards, DEP approved this self serving conclusion and attempt to evade NRD liability-  then, remarkably, later sued for NRD damages they previously said did not exist! – see paragraphs Q and R on page 4)

All those chickens (again) now are coming home to roost in the Dupont lawsuit.

The US District Court’s pre-trail decision in the Dupont lawsuit highlighted a host of legal problems:

1. The DEP filed the lawsuit in State court, but Dupont managed to have it transferred to federal Court.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in New Jersey Superior Court, D.E. 1-1, which Defendants removed to this Court, D.E. 1

Jurisdiction and venue can be resolved by the NJ legislature in a way to prevent forum shopping, which is especially important as federal courts become more right wing dominated by Federalist Society ideologues.  (The federal judge in this case, VAZQUEZ, was an Obama appointee, but Obama was a Neoliberal and had pro-corporate legal leanings so his appointees are surely not progressives. Interestingly, Vazquez successfully defended corruption charges in the NJ.  Vasquez represented Anthony R. Suarez, mayor of Ridgefield, New Jersey, during his 2010 trial on corruption charges, and won an acquittal,).

(Judges need not be corrupt – they can have ideological agendas. A huge illustration of this, which I have personal knowledge of to support, was Judge Hogan’s control over the notorious Exxon $8.9 billion NRD case, settled by the Christie Administration for $225 million, less than 3 cents on the dollar. Hogan was a right wing ideologue who served as legal Counsel to “Open For Business” Whitman DEP Commissioner Bob Shinn.)

2. Dupont is seeking to dismiss the NRD claims, among other things, based on the 2005 sweetheart deal ( “CRACO”) in which DEP provided covenants not to sue Dupont for additional groundwater NRD.

DEP is relying on very thin reeds as their basis to re-open and enforce new NRD claims by asserting that Dupont failed to comply with certain highly technical requirements of the CRACO, including esoteric things like failing to file deed restrictions for lands surrendered to the State under the CRACO deal.

Recall the Dupont donated contaminated land as part of the CRACO deal, an egregious abuse we blasted:

• Bergen Record story: Dupont deal gave state more tainted soil (12/6/10)

“Bill Wolfe of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility’s New Jersey chapter agreed. “DuPont got a sweetheart deal and DEP didn’t do their homework,” Wolfe said. “The deal must be renegotiated and DuPont forced to pay fair compensation, especially to Pompton Lakes residents who have suffered for decades.”

The contaminated land may explain why Dupont never filed the required deed notices and notice to DEP.

The Court dismissed issues regarding the CRACO at this preliminary stage. That’s a shame, because DEP attempted to submit what could be dynamite and embarrassing evidence, including emails:

Plaintiffs also attached several exhibits, including email correspondence between individuals who negotiated the CRACO. S

Those DEP/Dupont negotiation emails could expose how this dirty deal went down, but the may never come out, as a settlement is likely before trial.

3. DEP sued Dupont under the common law doctrine of “trespass”, but the law limits their enforcement power:

The State agrees that it cannot “pursue its trespass claim with respect to lands that it own[s] purely as a public trustee[, ]” but distinguishes its role of public trustee from that of parens patriae. Alternatively, Plaintiffs assert that the State is the owner of the State’s groundwater. Id. at 34. Plaintiffs further assert that N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12:5-2 grants the DEP the power to bring actions to prevent trespasses onto New Jersey’s navigable waters or riparian lands and that N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12:3-8 grants the DEP the authority to bring actions for trespass upon the State’s lands that are submerged or become submerged. 

But the Court dismissed the DEP’s arguments for parens patriae, and in doing so, highlighted important issues

The New Jersey Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue of whether the State can nevertheless proceed under a parens patriae theory if the State does not enjoy exclusive possession, or, alternately, as the owner of the State’s groundwater. When predicting how a state’s highest court will rule on an issue, a court may look to the decisions of that state’s intermediate appellate courts for persuasive authority.

In New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Hess Corporation, A-2893- 18T2, 2020 WL 1683180 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. Apr. 7, 2020), the plaintiffs, which included the DEP, brought environmental claims against the defendants, including a claim for common law trespass. Id. at *1. The trial court dismissed the trespass claim. Id. at *2. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued “that their trespass claim should be restored because the State owns the water resources for the State.” Id. The Appellate Division disagreed,…

The Court finds the Hess decision persuasive and adopts its ruling here. Plaintiffs, however, argue that “public trustee” and “parens partriae” are distinct theories. Opp’n at 33. Nevertheless, the Appellate Division has observed in dicta that there are no meaningful differences between the two doctrines.

The Court could also look to NJ statutory law to resolve these issues.

All these legal problems could be avoided in DEP the legislature enacted or DEP adopted  clear standards for the public trust doctrine, trespass, nuisance, ownership of and regulatory authority over groundwater, and NRD.

4. The Courts appear to be narrowing the State’s and DEP’s legal powers to protect groundwater:

The NJ statutes and decisions the Court relied on limited DEP’s powers:

Accordingly, the Court holds that Plaintiffs may bring trespass actions to the extent that their focus is “the lands of the State under water, or which were heretofore under water, ” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12:3-8, or “the water front of any of the navigable waters of this State or bounding thereon, or .. .the riparian lands of this State, ” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12:5-2.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their common law trespass claim except as to the waters and lands covered N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 12:5-2 and 12:3-8.

Those waters do not include groundwater.

Again, the legislature could clarify the law here to explicitly apply trespass to groundwater.

5. The legislature and the Courts seem to have narrowed the State’s and DEP’s remedies for “public nuisance” merely to “abatement”, not the full suit of costs for damages, restoration, and compensation DEP is seeking:

New Jersey law provides that a public entity may only seek abatement but may recover the costs of abatement from “the one in control of the nuisance.” In re Lead Paint Litig., 924 A.2d 484, 499 (N.J. 2007).

The parties dispute the scope of an abatement and the associated costs. Compare D. Br. at 40-41, and D. Reply at 23-25, with Opp’n at 44-46. Such an inquiry into the scope of an abatement and its costs is inappropriate at this stage in the litigation.

Again, the legislature could clarify the law here to explicitly define the scope of costs recoverable and standards that govern “public nuisance”.

As we wrote above, Senate Environment Committee Chairman Smith recently formed a Task Force and then sponsored and pass legislation on the “Public Trust” doctrine.

Smith attempted but failed to do so on legal standards for natural resources damages and DEP has failed to abide by a Court settlement that mandates that DEP adopt regulations to govern NRD.

Given that prior Legislative action on these issues, I wrote Smith regarding the issues raised by their Dupont decision and urged him to hold oversight and enact legislative reforms.

These issues are complex, but good journalism and competent environmental activism could bring out the critical importance:

Dear Senator Smith:

As you know, the Murphy AG and DEP recently filed a series of lawsuits regarding public compensation or restoration for “natural resource damages”. These lawsuits involved, among other things, PFOA and various novel legal theories of trespass, nuisance, and product law.

Given your interests and jurisdiction on NRD and groundwater issues, I am writing regarding a recent court decision that appears to narrow the scope of the public trust doctrine with respect to enforcement and recovery of damages to natural resources and the States’ ownership of and interests in groundwater, see:

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, et al. Plaintiffs, v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, et al. Defendants.

https://casetext.com/case/nj-dept-of-envtl-prot-v-ei-du-pont-de-nemours-co-4

I urge you to request that OLS staff review this decision and to reach out to DEP to get a briefing on how this opinion impacts DEP’s ability to recover compensation for natural resource injuries.

I ask that this inquiry include whether legislative amendments are necessary to clarify and strengthen enforcement of the public ownership and public interest in protecting the groundwaters of the state, whether via comprehensive statewide regulation or site specific lawsuits.

Ideally, your Committee should hold public oversight hearings on these important issues, both to hold the Administration accountable and to provide an opportunity for the public to participate in these critical legal and policy decisions.

While I do not have a copy of the DEP and Dupont CRACO analyzed in this opinion, here is a copy of the DEP’s press release announcing those Dupont NRD settlements,  which have been roundly denounced as a sweetheart deal, critics that obviously prompted the State to reopen them, see:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2005/05_0097.htm

I appreciate your favorable and timely reply.

Respectfully,

Smoke Gets In Their Eyes

I thought I’d repost this December 2019 post, given all the public and media focus on climate driven wildfires and logging (forestry management).

It also is of direct relevance to the currently ongoing deliberations of Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force, who appear poised to recommend expansion of current “prescribed burn” and “forest thinning” practices to reduce (exaggerated) wildfire risks.

Am I the only one shocked by this crap? I got zero feedback on it and it seemed to fall into a black hole.

NJ DEP & NJ Conservation Foundation Partner With Military To Burn NJ Forests – No Consideration of Climate Impacts

December 15th, 2019

Tentacles of Military Industrial Complex Extend Into Conservation Groups

Beware the REPI Man!

(This is US Military’s caption: Controlled burns help prevent wild res, which reduce visibility for air exercises. Photo credit: Dr. Walter Bien, Laboratory of Pinelands Research)

File this one under “K” for “Know Your Partners”. Curious, maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall ever reading about any of this in an NJ DEP or NJCF press release.

According to the US Department of Defense, in order to “protect the military’s mission“, the US military spent over $16 million in NJ, including the preservation of over 9,000 acres of land via the “REPI” program:

The Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) Program is a key tool used by DoD and its partners to protect the military’s ability to train, test, and operate in the state. DoD created the REPI Program in response to the development of lands and loss of habitat in the vicinity of or affecting its installations, ranges, and airspace that can lead to restrictions or costly and inadequate training and testing alternatives. Through REPI, DoD works with state and local governments, conservation organizations, and willing private landowners to address these challenges to the military mission and the viability of DoD installations and ranges. … Through FY 2018, DoD and its partners have spent over $44 million on REPI projects at 3 installations in New Jersey.

The military funding includes support for “conservation organizations”, as well as the Pinelands Commission.

REPI is a national program, operating in virtually every state. See the individual state REPI fact sheets.

The REPI program includes not only land conservation, but damaging practices like “controlled burns”, which were justified because they allegedly “help prevent wildfires, which reduce visibility for air exercises.”

But what military photo captions don’t tell you is that military training operations themselves cause fires, specifically “one fire every 14 days”.

Here is a project that NJCF partners on that admits creating fires:

One of the most heavily utilized Air National Guard training ranges in the U.S., Warren Grove Range is a key Northeast training asset for all four Services, with its remote location providing unique operational capabilities. However, its location in the New Jersey Pinelands is also one of the most flammable areas in the country. Every year training activities ignite one fire every 10-14 days, which are suppressed on-site.

When wildfires occur, the range must be totally shut down until theres are suppressed. To reduce the wildfire danger, controlled burns are necessary to manage forest undergrowth. Without buffer lands to properly address undergrowth and fire concerns, the military mission at the range is endangered. In May 2007, the range shut down entirely for more than a year.

It’s is very clear that the justification for these “controlled burns” has nothing to do with ecological science or forestry and everything to do with protecting the military mission. Period.

Imagine all that – and coming from the folks’ whose “air exercises” dropped bombs on an elementary school, see:

• Warplane Strafes a School in New Jersey

And, while we’re on the topic of “visibility”, let’s not forget this one:

• Murphy DEP Urged To Ratchet Down on Air Pollution That Impacts Haze In Brigantine Wilderness Area

The proposal is deficient in addressing [climate and] prescribed burn impacts.

Accordingly the DEP should impose a moratorium on prescribed burns until [climate and prescribed burn] impacts are assessed and regulatory control strategies in place.

The REPI program also conserves lands and prevents development, but again, the justification is grounded in the military mission, not science, land use, or conservation objectives.

Here’s another project at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst:

To ensure compatible land uses around the base, plans call for protecting a two-mile buffer that will preserve remaining open space and agricultural lands. Burlington and Ocean Counties and the state of New Jersey are helping to conserve lands that would threaten the military mission if developed, particularly within and around the Accident Potential Zones of the base’s runways.

Here are the program’s alleged “military benefits”:

• Preserves off-installation night ying capability through the buffering of high-noise areas
• Improves operational safety
• Provides for multi-Service missions and future mission growth

Of course, there is no consideration of the military’s emission of greenhouse gases during their “mission” or from conducting these “training operations”, or the GHG emissions associated with “controlled burns” and routine fires these “training operations” create, or the impact on carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation.

And oops! Looks like I buried the lede: Did I mention that the US military is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases?

Research by social scientists from Durham University and Lancaster University shows the US military is one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO₂e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries.

The majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting routinely focuses on civilian energy use and fuel consumption, not on the US military. This new study, published in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, calculates part of the US military’s impact on climate change through critical analysis of its global logistical supply chains.

So, the next time you hear about the need for a controlled burn, especially in the Pinelands, look for the REPI man behind the curtain dangling military money.

And let’s hope the REPI man stays out of Highlands Forests.

DRBC Votes To Extend Expired Permit For Gibbstown LNG Export On Delaware River

LNG Export Will Increase Fracking & Produce Huge Carbon Emissions

Murphy’s Green Sycophants Betrayed Again

The abuse of the regulatory process is so systematic, so transparent, and so unusual that it warrants both legislative oversight and criminal investigation.

Yesterday, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) voted to extend the expired permit for the massive Gibbstown NJ LNG export plant. (read the 3 year extension Resolution).

NJ Gov. Murphy, Vice-Chair of the DRBC, voted in favor of the extension (via his DEP representative).

That vote makes a mockery of Murphy’s climate policy and his personal commitment to do everything within his power to kill the project (after his DEP approved permits for it!)

“The Administration, however, remains unwavering in its commitment to continue advancing critical initiatives to protect the environment and public health for future generations. It will explore all avenues within its authority to prevent the use of this dock for LNG transport,” the statement said. Murphy did not say how he would do that.

That vote once again betrays and exposes the Gov.’s green sycophants and cheerleaders, including Ed Potosnak of NJ LCV, Doug O’Malley of Environment NJ, and NJ Clean Water Action.

That vote also confirms what we recently wrote, i.e. that DRBC Executive Director Steve Tambini was not acting unilaterally on his own when he previously extended the permit via letter:

• Despite Gov. Murphy’s Vow To Stop The Project, DRBC Extends Expired Approvals And Fortress Energy Remains “Fully Committed” To LNG Export Plant On Delaware River

There is no way DRBC Executive Director Tambini would have issued this extension on his own without consulting with Gov. Murphy’s Office, with his DEP Commissioner, or over the objection of Gov. Murphy or DEP, so the extension itself is compelling evidence that Gov. Murphy’s opposition is not genuine.

The fact that Fortress Energy remains committed to the project and continue to spend a lot of money developing the project is also compelling evidence that that have no fear of Gov. Murphy’s threat to kill the project.

That vote is not the first hypocritical and huge betrayal by Gov. Murphy of his climate commitments and is further evidence that this LNG project is completely corrupt.

In addition to Murphy DEP previously quietly issuing several questionable permit approvals and the involvement and conflicts of interest by DEP Commissioner LaTourette – who worked as a lawyer for the LNG project in securing DEP permits just 2 weeks before he was installed at DEP. I called that one of the most egregious abuses of the revolving door, ever.

There also is strong evidence suggesting political intervention in those permits and a cozy relationship (AKA “regulatory capture”) between DEP and the permit applicant.

In addition to that, recently DEP proposed regulations to promote the expansion of underground storage of natural gas, specifically at the LNG site, see:

• Murphy DEP Fossil “Cavern” Storage Rules Linked To Proposed Delaware River LNG Export Project

That LNG export site just happens to be a toxic waste site that was polluted by and owned by Dupont, and Dupont has received many regulatory breaks from DEP, particularly regarding PCB pollution and damage to natural resources – both historically and in a recent DEP PCB lawsuit, where the Dupont site is named as a source of PCB’s but Dupont is not a defendant. Dupont previously benefited from NRD lawsuit sweetheart deals (e.g. see this and this).

According to NJ Spotlight, NY Gov. Hochul abstained – a cowardly move – but at least NY sought a public hearing and mentioned greenhouse gas emissions:

New York’s representative, Ken Kosinski, proposed that the Commission should delay action on the resolution until a public hearing could be held. “New York continues to have concerns about the original docket approval, regarding its environmental impacts, in particular greenhouse gas emissions and dredging of the Delaware River that’s affected by legacy industrial activity.”

This project has received: 1) a series of highly unusual regulatory approvals; 2) a DEP proposal of special regulations; 3) the involvement of NJ DEP Commissioner LaTourette, which raises gross revolving door and ethical concerns; all of which are in direct contradiction of Gov. Murphy’s public statements and energy and climate policies. In addition to all that, Dupont has not been held accountable by DEP for “legacy industrial” PCB discharges (referenced by NY State’s comment), for a complete cleanup of the site, and for public compensation for natural resource damages.

The abuse is so systematic, so transparent, and so unusual, that it warrants both legislative oversight and criminal investigation.

Who will step up to the plate and initiate that?

Swan Creek Redux

Long time investigative journalist and columnist Bob Hennelly has a good piece today at Insider NJ, read the whole thing:

• Year After Ida Killed 30, Flood Regs Stall while Projects Advance

While he nailed the big picture story, I think he got a few important things not quite right and left some important things out, so I sent him this note:

Bob – good piece – a few comments:

1. You included this quote, which comes from a cheerleader, not a competent and objective regulatory analyst:

“It sure was monumental because it directed the NJ DEP to address all of the impacts of the climate crisis not just in the environment but the broader economy and since the NJ DEP has done their job, yet the Governor hasn’t followed up on his end”

What? This is factually false. DEP has NOT done their job. Was there a typo that left out “not”?

In addition to failure to propose new climate adaptation regulations (and it’s not just flood hazard, but stormwater, wetlands, CAFRA, WQMP, NJPDES, SDWA (infrastructure regulations), Highlands, Pinelands, forestry, chemical safety (RTK and TCPA), solid and hazardous waste management, toxic site cleanup, well construction, and septic design regulations), there are several Christie DEP regulatory rollbacks that remain in place, while LaTourette re-adopted those Christie rules without change to prevent their expiration – take a look at them all:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/readopt.html

On top of that, DEP has done very little on reducing GHG emissions. Their single CO2 emissions rule proposal – not yet adopted, 6 years into the Murphy Administration – is extremely weak (weaker than Obama’s Clean Power Plan). And RGGI allows for increases in emissions because of the cap, banking, credit generation, and other flaws.

Why do enviro’s continue to provide cover for this DEP Commissioner?

Identity politics has a lot to do with it.

Let me know if you want backup – see this for some links and watch the Sandy documentary! It also included former DEP Commissioner Mauriello and Princeton scientist (I got more air time than both!)

Years Of Talking Dangerously

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2022/08/years-of-talking-dangerously/

2. The emergency rule proposal idea is legally flawed and guaranteed to be rejected by NJ Courts.  If not Courts, then the Legislature will strike it down as “inconsistent with legislative intent”.

Exactly one day before the Builders et al wrote Gov. Murphy that letter, On June 2, I laid out the critique of why “emergency rulemaking” was legally flawed. I followed that June 2 post up with a July appeal to Enviro’s see

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2022/07/nj-environmental-groups-urged-to-abandon-support-of-deps-plan-to-propose-emergency-rules/

Emergency rulemaking was LaTourette’s idea and – best case – probably was a way to mitigate the harm from his own delay in adopting regulations and rubber stamping permits for thousands of units/millions of square feet of new developments in hazardous flood locations.

Worst case, it was a cynical ploy to create the appearance of doing something and then blaming the Builders when it failed in Court.

La Tourette is now blaming the Gov. Office for putting the brakes on his terrible emergency rule idea. The Builders letter obviously prompted a rigorous legal review.

3. The enviro’s are not even asking for the 2 most important policy elements in any climate adaptation plan:

a) strategic retreat – this will require DEP planning and mandates not only on prohibitions on new development, but on buyouts from destroyed property, a move away from the exclusively reliance on voluntary willing sellers.

Senator Smith was quoted recently in NJ Spotlight saying that the regulatory mandate approach to new development restrictions would constitute an unconstitutional “regulatory taking”. Smith is as far right ideologically on land use as the radical western wise use movement people. (Smith only sponsored the Highlands Act because Gov. McGreevey told him to, and so he could control the amendments that significantly weakened the introduced version of the bill. I know this first hand. I was in the room and represented DEP as part of the small OLS team that drafted the bill.)

b) repeal right to rebuild – NJ might be the only coastal state with a “right to rebuild” storm damaged property.

NJ CAFRA and Flood Hazard Acts both have “right to rebuild” provisions. There was a Senate bill to repeal them back in 2014 but it died, see:

• Proposed Legislation Would Restrict “Right- to-Rebuild” Storm Damaged Property Along the Coast

This is one reason why NJ is a national “leader” in FEMA repeat storm damage claims. The federal bailout gravy train is not sustainable.

Let me know if you want links to support all this.

Wolfe

End Note:

How oblivious must Gov. Murphy and his stafff be? Did he not realize how cruelly ironic a press event on flooding at Swan Creek in Lambertville is? (See above photo I took 11 years ago in wake of Irene flooding there.)

Is he not even aware of this history? Of the failure of previous Gov.’s “Flood Task Forces” and DEP?

His administration is clueless and only adept at press releases.