WolfeNotes.com

Exxon Deal Prompts Effort to Dedicate Settlement Revenues To Environmental Restoration

The Senate Environment Committee took testimony today on a bi-partisan legislative initiative (SCR163 – Smith (D-Middlesex) /Bateman (R-Somersett) that would constitutionally dedicate Settlement revenues collected by the state for pollution damages to restore the environment.

The Resolution would amend the Constitution to restrict the use of settlement funds solely

to repair damage to, restore, or permanently protect the State’s natural resources 

The initiative grew out of Governor Christie diversion of $190 of Passaic River pollution settlement funds to close budget holes and about the $125 million of the controversial $225 million Exxon deal.

Unlike legislation, a Concurrent Resolution does not require the signature and approval of the Governor. If passed by both Houses, it goes to the voters as a ballot question in November.

The Legislature can bypass Governor Christie’s virtually certain veto and go directly to the voters. There is little doubt that the initiative would enjoy huge public support, give the public outrage over the Exxon settlement.

The Resolution goes far beyond recently proposed legislation that would require that only 50% of settlement money go to environmental restoration and 50% to budget deficit reduction.

The only question in my mind at this point is whether the Democrats are serious or merely using this symbolically as another political attack on the Gov.’s Exxon deal.

You can listen to the testimony – click on to this and then hit “listen to live proceedings” than “Senate Environment”.

In response to concerns raised by Deb Mans of NY/NJ Baykeeper and myself, the Committee agreed to amend the Resolution to eliminate the use of funds for repayment of environmental bonds.

Avoiding another Open Space DEP staff funding debacle, Chairman Smith agreed to delete the prohibition on use of funds for DEP staff support.

Instead, Chairman Smith agreed with my testimony that the prohibition be deleted and a 5% cap on administrative costs be a more reasonable approach.

It’s a shame that I have to fight the DEP battles – another example of total abdication by the Christie DEP management team that they failed to even show up to testify and defend the DEP’s own Office of Natural Resource Restoration.

The amended Resolution will be heard again on June 8.

Before then, get your cards and letters in to the Chairman Smith, Committee members and Senate President Sweeney.

More to follow on the details, including a blow by blow account of my testimony, in which I blasted the conservation “model” created by Mike Catania of Conservation Resources Inc.

That testimony prompted  a virtually unprecedented interruption and objection from the audience by Deb Mans of NY/NJ.Baykeeper.

Mans objected to me talking publicly about this $1 million sweetheart deal she benefitted from:

CRI administered $1 million in funding for an oyster restoration project in the Raritan Bay which was provided under a civil settlement with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. and the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety. The settlement arose from a February 2006 oil spill in the Arthur Kill, the strait separating Staten Island from New Jersey.

From 2007 – 2014, this funding was used on NY/NJ Baykeeper’s Oyster Restoration in the Raritan Estuary Initiative. It funded the first stages of restoring oysters to the Raritan Bay including research and experiments that have shown that oysters can be restored to this area. Through their work in New York City and New Jersey, Baykeeper is showing that oysters can play a fundamental role helping filter pollutants and restore ecosystem function to the Raritan Bay and Hudson River Estuary.

These types of civil settlements are quite common at the Federal level. Realizing this, CRI met with the US Attorney’s office in 2007 after they announced a big settlement in New Jersey that was to be awarded to NFWF, which, in-turn, was going to grant it to other non-profit conservation organizations in New Jersey. We met with the US Attorney in order to determine whether or not a local non-profit could play the role that NFWF typically plays in administering these funds. The US Attorney’s office could not provide an answer to us and it still remains unclear whether NFWF has a monopoly on this type of federal funding.