WolfeNotes.com

Murphy DEP Commissioner Shawn LaTourette

And you can send me dead flowers every morning
Send me dead flowers by the mail
Send me dead flowers at my wedding
And I won’t forget to put roses on your grave. ~~~ New Riders of the Purple Sage (1974)

Honey, grab the kids and a cooler. Let’s go for a hike, picnic, and birding at the local Superfund site Park! The Sierra Club and NJ Audubon say that’s a great idea, according to a DEP press release (12/22/22):

The Ciba Geigy historic settlement is great news for open space and preservation in Toms River,” said Taylor McFarland, Conservation Manager for the Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter. … we applaud NJDEP for moving forward with this historic 1,000-acre restoration project.”

“New Jersey Audubon enthusiastically supports this use of Natural Resources Damages to create forests and parks in Toms River,” said Alex Ireland, President and CEO of New Jersey Audubon. “Conversion of sites like this into safe, publicly accessible forests and parks should be the model for other similar sites throughout the state”

Murphy DEP to Corporate Chemical Giant BASF: Just put up a few bird boxes and you’re good to go!

Source: NJ DEP: A rendition of a pollinator meadow and bird-watching platform in a preserve proposed for the former Ciba-Geigy polluted site in Toms River

Nah, that’s not nearly sufficient snark to respond to what just went down.

Sometimes people do things that make you sick at heart and embarrassed to be a human being.

This one rises to that level, and it was even reported by Politico:

The DEP announced the deal Wednesday morning while some of the state’s environmental leaders were attending a memorial for Ed Lloyd, the late environmental activist and attorney who had fought pollution at the site.

Jeff Tittel, a long-time environmental activist and friend of Lloyd’s who spoke at the service, said in an interview that the settlement was an insult to Lloyd and everything he stood for.

Truly sickening.

The timing of Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette’s corrupt tactic was so low, it recalls President Lyndon Johnson’s disgraceful move to conduct an impromptu nationally televised Whitehouse statement to drive Mississippi Freedom Party civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer’s testimony off the air.

To my environmental and social justice friends, please understand that I am not equating civil rights and Fannie Lou Hamer with a BASF legal settlement! I am merely noting the similar ugliness of the corrupt media tactics used by corrupt politicians.

And Commissioner LaTourette has ethically dirty hands as well.

I was so disgusted by this move, that I just wrote to remind him of that:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <>

To: “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>, “Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov” <Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov>, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, asmmckeon <asmmckeon@njleg.org>, “asmScharfenberger@njleg.org” <asmScharfenberger@njleg.org

Cc: “Keys, Mary Ann [ETHICS]” <Maryann.Keys@ethics.nj.gov>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>

Date: 08/17/2023 7:50 AM PDT

Subject: BASF Recusal

Dear Commissioner LaTourette:

I write to express strong objection to your continuing involvement in the BASF Toms River site and the most recent NRD Settlement (see your quote in today’s NJ Spotlight story):

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2023/08/toms-river-cleanup-settlement-finalized-ciba-geigy-basf/

You previously represented BASF as a private attorney (in a case that involved NRD damages) and therefore have, at a minimum, an appearance of a conflict of interest under NJ ethics laws.

Yet, to my knowledge, after review of your ethics disclosure and review documents, you have not disclosed this prior BASF representation or recused from BASF matters.

For factual details of that, see:

Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette Represented BASF As A Private Lawyer Before Negotiating A DEP Sweetheart Deal With BASF As DEP Commissioner

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2023/04/bombshell-murphy-dep-commissioner-latourette-represented-basf-as-a-private-lawyer-before-negotiating-sweetheart-deal-with-basf-as-dep-commissioner/

On February 8, 2023, I filed a request to the State Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion on this matter, and provided written copy to you via email, see:

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2023/02/ethics-commission-asked-to-issue-advisory-opinion-on-murphy-dep-commissioner-latourettes-revolving-door-and-regulatory-capture-conflicts-as-exposed-in-basf-toms-river-settlement/

I have not been advised of the disposition of this matter by the Ethics Commission.

Regardless, please revise your DEP ethics disclosure documents and recuse from any involvement in BASF matters, as required by NJ Ethics laws and legal professional ethical standards.

Please issue an apology to the people of NJ for this ethical lapse.

Yours,

Wolfe

[End Note: NJ Spotlight sure changed their tune in less than 24 hours too! In contrast to today’s “good news” headline – more land! more money! Yipee! – and mostly favorable coverage by notorious hack Jon Hurdle, last night they included this in the story:

But not all residents were satisfied.

“The DEP needs to stop and not sign this deal,” said Britta Forsberg, who heads Save Barnegat Bay. “Not only did we lose family and friends but we lost the use of our natural resources. We will fight for a better outcome for Toms River and the surrounding community.”

DEP Makes Token Gestures And Minor Concessions To Strong Public Criticism

DEP Masks The Identity Of Public Commenters And Specific Grounds For Opposition

DEP Makes No Commitments To Reform The Flawed NRD Program

The Murphy DEP today finalized the controversial sweetheart “Natural Resource Damage” (NRD) settlement with massive corporate polluter BASF (see the typically spun DEP Press Release).

That proposed NRD settlement generated strong public opposition, particularly by the people of Toms River, who had no role in negotiating it or awareness of the deal and were blind sided by its public release by DEP.

People in Toms River were particularly outraged that the DEP allowed BASF to retain and develop about 250 acres of the toxic site.

I submitted extensive critical public comments to DEP (e.g. see:

• Ten Good Reasons Why The Murphy DEP’s BASF Toms River Superfund Site NRD Deal Is A Corporate Giveaway That Must Be Withdrawn

The DEP responded to “relevant” public criticism by minor renegotiated revisions, including:

• DEP increased their own revenue from $100,000 to $500,000 for natural resource damage assessment and project oversight costs
• an additional 50 acres were designated for conservation, environmental compliance, and public access
• BASF must provide unspecified additional funding for long-term maintenance of the restoration projects outlined in the agreement, and that maintenance period was extended from 10 years to 20 years

These are token gestures, not real substantive responses to the public’s criticisms, including my own.

(We also must note that these gestures were negotiated with BASF, not unilaterally imposed by DEP. That really tells you all you need to know about the pro-corporate, anti-regulatory Murphy DEP).

The DEP also failed to make commitments to assure that the flaws in DEP’s NRD program – which produced the BASF and other flawed NRD deals, including the notorious Christie DEP Exxon pennies on the dollar deal – are corrected. Perhaps the largest flaw stems from the fact that DEP never complied with a judicial settlement agreement to promulgate NRD regulations (e.g. standards and methods to value NRD injuries) and Senator Smith’s NRD Legislative standards Task Force was abandoned due to corporate opposition.

Additionally, DEP deviated from longstanding practices in responding to public comments in regulatory matters. DEP failed to identify the specific concerns of each individual comment, the identity of the individual commenter, and the DEP’s response. This frustrates transparency and accountability and makes it impossible for the public to know exactly who DEP is being responsive to and the full nature of the public concerns. This information is required for the public to assess if the deal is truly in the public interest, as required by law.

[Update: I filed a public records request for all public comments submitted to DEP. I’ll let you know if I find anything interesting.]

Dear Commissioner LaTourette – I am now reading the Department’s “response to public comments” document for the final BASF NRD Settlement Agreement.

As you know, I submitted extensive public comments on the initial proposed settlement.

Hence, I was deeply offended by the fact that the Department – contrary to traditional legal response to public comment practices conducted in all DEP permit and regulatory matters pursuant to the NJ Administrative Procedures Act (APA) – failed to identify the individual commenter and individual comment.

This practice violates the spirit – if not the provisions – of the NJ APA as well as good government.

There is significant value in the public’s ability to understand the specifics of the individual comment, because that facilitates accountability and oversight of the Department. It allows the public to understand the magnitude and underlying technical  basis of the public’s concerns. That transparency enables the public to understand if in fact the Department has been responsive to public concerns and whether the final agreement is in the public interest, as required by law.

Similarly, the identification of the individual commenter promotes transparency and accountability. It mutually holds the public commenter and the Department accountable to facts and law. It allows the public to understand the substantive interests of each individual commenter as well as exactly who the Department is responsive to.

Finally, I must admit that I have a certain personal interest in this matter, because it is clear that the Department took some of my specific criticisms under advisement and responded substantively to them via renegotiated revisions to the initial proposed settlement. As you know, my criticisms are frequently ignored by policymakers and DEP managers. Obviously, I resent that personally.

And from your frequently expressed economistic perspective, there is value in credibility and ability to influence DEP decisions – that’s why the corporate lawyers and lobbyists and public relations firms and experts and engineers get paid the big money.

I urge you to redraft the response to public comment document to identify the specific individual public comment and individual commenter as done in all other regulatory matters pursuant to the NJ APA.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

DEP “Source Water Assessment” Data On Pollution Threats Hidden In Plain Sight

Look Up Your Local Water System And Be Shocked To Find Multiple Pollution Threats

I just got a question from an old friend about their drinking water.

So, I thought I’d again post important information that not many people are aware of about pollution threats to their local drinking water supplies. This information is never reported by the media and DEP makes it pretty hard to find. The good information is hidden in the Appendices to individual water supply systems – you have to hit several links to find it (see below).

Shockingly, NJ environmental groups do not use this information to pressure DEP to cleanup up and better regulate pollution sources, or to require activated carbon treatment to remove known chemical contaminants, or to educate the public about these threats.

The data are old, but I’d bet the threats are even worse with more current data. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an environmental group campaign, press release or media report on this. DEP, polluters, and water purveyors are given a huge pass.

The DEP prepared detailed reports on all NJ drinking water systems – they were required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and are called “Source Water Assessments”:

The purpose of the Source Water Assessment Program is to provide for the protection and benefit of public water systems and to increase public awareness and involvement in protecting the sources of public drinking water.

Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, all states were required to establish a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). New Jersey’s SWAP Plan incorporates the following four fundamental steps:

1. Determine the source water assessment area of each ground and surface water source of public drinking water.

2. Inventory the potential contamination sources within the source water assessment area. 

3. Determine the public water system source’s susceptibility to regulated contaminants.

4. Incorporate public education and participation.

Hit this link and then input your town and county to get surprising data. First input your town/county, then hit the link to “Source Water Assessment Appendices”. Then scroll down to find the pollution source inventory and susceptibility links:

• Community Water System Source Water Assessment Reports and Summaries

Source Water Assessment Reports and Summaries identify the vulnerability of public water system sources (wells and surface water intakes) to potential contamination. All source water assessments were performed by the DEP in cooperation with the US Geological Survey. Each water source received a susceptibility rating of high, medium, or low for each of the following contaminant categories:

• Nutrients
• Pathogens
• Pesticides
• Volatile Organic Compounds
• Inorganics
• Radionuclides/Radon
• Disinfection Byproduct Precursors

The Community Water System Source Water Assessment Reports and Summaries can be obtained by entering information in the search fields provided below.

Neoliberal Anti-Government Austerians Strike Again

The following is based on official reports by the Hawaiian government. Links and excerpts provided below.

Hawaiian and federal government officials were fully aware of wildfire risks and the fact that current wildfire prevention and response programs were totally inadequate to protect public safety from increasingly frequent and severe wildfires.

Those same officials were fully aware of the science and management approach required to prevent wildfires and reduce wildfire risks, see:

Simultaneously, fires on the islands of nearby Maui and Oʻahu burned 1,043 ha (2,577 ac) and 162 ha (400 ac), respectively. Land-use characteristics and antecedent moisture conditions exacerbated fire hazard, and both fire and rain severity were influenced by the storm environment and local topographical features. … The compounding nature of the hazards produced during the Hurricane Lane event highlights the need to improve anticipation of complex feedback mechanisms among climate- and weather-related phenomena.

Officials consciously chose not to act due to political opposition to government regulatory mandates and funding.

Of course, you will not read much about these underlying and deeply negligent causes in corporate media.

[Update: The NY Times reporting even diverts to other issues.]

Specifically, see this July 2021 Report:

• COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION Report on Wildfire Prevention and Cost Recovery on Maui

(Caption: The Eagle, North Tarrytown NY, on the Hudson River)

So now I’m going back again
I got to get her somehow
All the people we used to know
They’re an illusion to me now

Some are mathematicians
Some are carpenter’s wives
Don’t know how it all got started
I don’t what they do with their lives

But me, I’m still on the road
Heading for another joint
We always did feel the same
We just saw it from a different point of view
Tangled up in blue. ~~~  Tangled Up In Blue (Bob Dylan)

READER WARNING:

Maybe one of the worst things you could possibly do is to Facebook search the “friends” you remember from high school and your old home town.

(Caption: the skoolie visits Music Hall, Main Street, Tarrytown NY)

If you do, you will be going down a dark rabbit hole that can only lead to disgust, depression, and even worse.

What the fuck became of all the young people you once knew who once seemed to have a spark of life?

My goodness, some are Jesus freaks, some are right wing assholes, and almost all are banal, careerist, empty, local, and conformists frauds.

As that notorious line went in A Clockwork Orange: Victims of the modern age!

Is it that Facebook itself is just an empty social media shell that incentivizes and encourages users to post hollow self aggrandizing bullshit?

Or do these people really believe in and have such empty consumerist, conformist, careerist, and material lives that serve absolutely no community purposes?

Just asking.