WolfeNotes.com

Will Murphy DEP Have Continuity or Contrast With Christie DEP?

Once again, the Murphy Administration DEP has missed an opportunity to contrast their policy vision with the Christie Administration and is following the same public relations oriented spin that the Christie DEP abused, this time, on the Watershed Ambassadors Program, see:

DEP MARKS AMERICORPS WATERSHED AMBASSADORS WEEK WITH EVENTS
HIGHLIGHTING WATER QUALITY STEWARDSHIP

That spin includes more scientifically and factually unsupported misleading statements about alleged improvements in water quality. DEP wrote:

“AmeriCorps Week is an opportunity to highlight the work done by Watershed Ambassadors to improve water quality,” said Acting Assistant Commissioner for Water Resources Management Michele Putnam. “Through educational programming and partnerships, AmeriCorps helps all of us become better stewards of natural resources.”

There is no evidence I am aware of that the Ambassadors have improved water quality. This is the second time DEP has spun and misled the public about water quality.

There is no evidence of the performance of the “educational programming and partnerships” that DEP touts. And I don’t think there is even an attempt to monitor and evaluate actual performance in terms of water quality impact.

Voluntary programs like this are great for promoting youth involvement, but from a water quality perspective they don’t work.

Again, we are getting fact free spin and misleading claims from DEP – all while ignoring real regulatory programs that do work and real science and data that show that serious water quality problems remain unaddressed.

That has to stop.

That spin extends to working with the same organizations that collaborated and partnered with and provided cover for the Christie DEP:

Ambassadors will also hold a multi-regional tree-planting project known as “Green the Scene,” a partnership with The Nature Conservancy, during April and May. Ambassadors will restore floodplains, riparian buffer zones, and provide stability to New Jersey streams by working with volunteer stewards to plant 2,500 trees statewide. Event information can be found on the New Jersey Watershed Ambassadors Facebook page at www.facebook.com/NJWAP

Planting 2,500 trees statewide is a microscopic small bore program and not a serious effort.

Worse, that small bore feel good measure comes at a time when NJ needs major urban forestry and reforestation programs that are orders of magnitude bigger to begin even an attempt to adapt to climate change and begin to sequester carbon DEP recommended in the Global Warming Response Act implementation plan.

The Nature Conservancy actively undermines stringent regulation and routinely does land deals that are corrupt of provide cover. The Christie DEP enjoyed TNC’s non-threatening friendly collaboration.

Is McCabe this naive about the implications of all this for the kind of work required for the heavy lifting she needs to do to fix DEP?

Is she ducking before confirmation?

Or is there a woman thing going on with “soft” initiatives from the likes of longtime DEP manger Michele Putnam?

Does the Murphy Administration want “continuity” with Christie DEP Policy?

Acting DEP Commissioner McCabe missed another opportunity to contrast the Murphy Administration’s policy reform agenda with Governor Christie’s DEP policies, this time regarding private concessions in State Parks, see:

DEP INVITES EXPERIENCED VENDORS TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO OPERATE
CONCESSIONS AT NINE STATE PARKS AND FORESTS

It seems obvious that McCabe either: 1) doesn’t know the controversial history of the DEP’s leases and concessions program (e.g. that it was subject to several negative State audits and targeted by Legislation to mandate market based leases & concessions) or 2) she got duped again by Christie holdovers in Parks management and the press office (for background on those issues, see:

• DEP Park Funding “Plan” Can Start By Collecting the Rent
• NEW JERSEY FORFEITS MILLIONS ON PARK LEASES AND CONCESSIONS
• Christie Parks Funding Policy: Oil & Gas Pipelines and Electric Transmission Lines Get Cheap Leases, While River Tubers, Kayakers, and Boaters Pay New Fees

Does McCabe know that the Legislature mandated that DEP adopt market based lease and concessions? (see: Fair Market Value Leases for Energy Infrastructure Could Fund Park System):

DEP has failed to collect fair market value for energy infrastructure easements across state lands as required by 2008 legislation that specifically mandated the DEP submit a plan by July 1, 2009.

That law mandated that DEP:

“conduct a re-appraisal of the rents and fees charged for all residences and other buildings and structures, and for utility easements and right-of-ways, located on State park or forest lands to ensure they reflect current fair market values and will continue to do so;”

Does McCabe know that Gov. Christie had a revenue and privatization driven State parks policy (see: “Sustainable Parks Funding Strategy”).

Dos McCabe agree with all that?

Does McCabe know that the allocation of lease and concession revenue to State Parks was a huge problem with the recent Green Acres ballot question? (was it ever fully resolved in the implementing legislation?) (i.e. see the Bergen Record story: Budget Cuts Doom State Parks to Disrepair)

If McCabe did understand these policy controversies, she would have used the opportunity to include statements in that press release to distance herself from the Christie – Martin policy and make the point very clear that the Murphy Administration disagrees with those policies and does not view State parks are revenue mills and privatization opportunities.

Is McCabe being duped?

Is she just lazy?

Or does the Murphy Administration want “continuity”?

Liberal Engagement and Liberal Denial

The Epitome of The Death Of The Liberal Class 

I spent the weekend at a surprisingly wonderful event: the Tucson Festival of Books. Don’t you just love that Coyote logo? (ignore the pink background!)

There was a huge turnout at the University of Arizona campus, with many good writers, great panel topics, and even national outlets like NPR and CSPAN book TV.

They did a great job of attracting serious writers, many readers, panelist pundits, and science exhibits, with plenty of food, dance, music and fun interactive stuff for the kids. Bravo!

But, aside from the fact that there were only a handful of people at the panels I attended that were under 60 years old, at an intellectual level, all was not so well (and I won’t even get into the discussion during the panel “Art, Resistance, and Survival” – I left after the acceptance of the need for “trigger warnings”.)

I went to the first panel discussion, Saturday morning at 10 am in a place called Science City, titled, “Storm & Stress: Our Changing Climate and the Human Ecology

Authors and panelists spoke about the implications of climate change, Colorado basin water resources, and immigration issues.

I’ve been experiencing all of these issue daily and writing EXACTLY about them here recently, including

• They Policed Paradise and Put Up An AeroStat 
• Bear Canyon, Coronado National Forest – Miller Peak Wilderness

At that first panel, I enjoyed and had similar experiences and perspectives as author Franciso Cantu’s wonderful presentation of his first book “The Line Becomes a River” (highly recommended).

But, I found more established fellow panelist David Owen’s work weak and derivative:  “Where the Water Goes: Life and Death along the Colorado River“.

Owen did not even come close to the story.

The real story emerged clearly in my mind after re-reading the 1986 classic on the Colorado river and western water, “Cadillac Desert. After reading that book, and “Water and the West” by Norris Hundley Jr. back in May 2017, I wrote this (see: Rio Grande – Off The Wall):

Also, I am reading and writing less. Just finished re-reading Roderick Nash’s classic “Wilderness and the American Mind”. Visited an excellent local bookstore here in Flagstaff and picked up a copy of another classic I never read: “Water and the West” by Norris Hundley Jr. about the history of the Colorado River Compact. I’m only on Chapter 4, but there are echoes and huge ironic historic parallels between early 20th century advocacy for an “All American Canal” and the current debate over Trump’s Wall.

So, I was not impressed with Owens’ tepid effort to rewrite the classics – which were far more analytically sophisticated and policy savvy – and his failure to mention the Colorado compact and its history.

After listening to that and another panel, on my walk back for lunch, I was asked take part an NPR interview, where they asked me about my favorite book and how it related to the Tucson festival and my daily life.

I had just left a panel on “The future of western liberalism”. There was an excellent discussion of the threats to liberal democracy, rule of law, and science, but I came away frustrated by the lack of any criticism of Democratic and liberal betrayals and little focus on corporate power, capitalism and the US’s gross and increasing wealth/income/power disparity.

After that talk, I was unable to engage a conversation with panelist and writer John Nichols, who was too busy responding to elderly sycophants. During his presentation, he seemed unwilling to link finance capitalism to globalization and the Democrats’ (starting with Bill Clinton) embrace of the Wall Street finance, global capitalist Neoliberal project. Surely these play a role in the current xenophobic reaction, bordering on a rise of Fascism.

[I would have loved to ask him to respond to Hedges’ arguments about the role of the liberals to serve as a “reform” relieve valve from pressure created below from Communist, Socialist, and organized labor – and the betrayals by the liberal class, democrats and institutions Hedges savages. The entire panel’s self-righteous discussion was the epitome of that. Nichols did make one good point though, that Trump’s cabinet was not stupid and had accomplished more of a right wing agenda than other Republicans.]

So, after that shutout by Nichols, in response to the NPR interview question, I said my favorite was Chris Hedges’  book “Death of the Liberal Class”. (I wonder if the local NPR affiliate will broadcast it? They made me sign a release form allowing them to do so).

I related Hedges to some of the political resentments driving the rise of the reactionary “populist right” mentioned at the panel as a threat to democratic institutions and science, rationality, rule of law, Constitutional democracy, and the cosmopolitan liberal tradition.

The interview went well.

During the Festival, there were a few similarly focused panel, e.g. see this excellent presentation: Backlash against Immigration and the Fate of Western Democracy.

After that presentation (I highly recommend the book!), I managed to ask the author the first audience questions (see the author’s CSPAN interview). I asked:

1) I want to follow up on your comments about “electoral success” in Europe. Steve Bannon has been in Europe, both before and after the recent elections. That is not random.  Are you familiar with Josh Green’s book where he provides in depth material about Bannon’s work in the US with billionaire Robert Mercer and the electoral tactics, Big Data algorithms, and the social media propaganda campaign they deployed in the 2016 election? Has something similar been done in Europe?

2) How much of the European reaction and xenophobia is organic and how much is manufactured by the likes of Bannon et al? Is there evidence of a European Bannon propaganda machine? (I failed to mention he US media’s obsession with the Russian electoral manipulation scandal. What Bannon and the billionaire Mercer pulled off in 2016 in swing states was far more sophisticated, had far more resources, and was very likely far more effective than the Russian campaign.)

I wanted to mention, but was unable to weave it into my question these points: a) the US media is obsessed with Russian meddling in the 2016 election via social media. In contrast, they have completely failed to report the Bannon-Mercer very similar project to manipulate US public opinion and elections. b) the media has failed to report on the key disclosure in the Steele Dossier: that Putin’s strategic objective was “Putin desires a return to 19th C. “Great Power” politics anchored on countries’ interests rather than the ideals based International order established after WW2″. 

That Putin goal is totally consistent with – and could help explain – the rise of European xenophobic nationalism, Brexit, and fractures in NATO and the western liberal alliance.

I didn’t get a satisfactory answer. But the author was family with Bannon’s work – but not the billionaire Mercer’s and social media PR campaign – manipulation of of public opinion and electoral tactics.

There were other panels on climate, as I noted above, the first was on Colorado river water policy, and border wall stuff – all of which I am experiencing and thinking about daily.

Finally, being the obnoxious asshole that I am, I managed to engage more than 4 debates among the literati who had set up tents at the Festival:

1. I came upon the the folks in the “western literature” tent and said that I had just read a Wallace Stegner essay in “The Sound of Mountain Water“, regretting that there was no western literary tradition, and that it was all nostalgia and myth. Their reply? They never heard of Stegner!

2. At closing I came across “C-SPAN book TV”. I complimented host Peter Slen and praised their courage to give Chris Hedges a platform. The producer, standing by side, replied: “how about our broadcast of Milo Yanopolis (Nazi). Slen then interjected: “Do you think he should be treated differently than Hedges?”. I told them – being a supporter of ANTIFA’s “No platform” –  that it was their responsibility to establish a context and to warn viewers of the different moral universes of Hedges and Yanoplis. An extended debate followed, with CSPAN host Slen dismissing me to “Go to CNN for that”. Unreal. No senses of intellectual responsibility. None. Would they have given Hitler a platform in 1930?

3. I came across a tent for The Nature Conservancy.

So I took the opportunity to blast their conservation model. Huge debate ensued.

4. I visited a “Tucson Historic Preservation” tent (hit their link and wait for the “magic Carpet” page, its the second one).

Seeing an Art Deco book about historic Arizona billboard displays, I asked them if they had any photos of billboard remnants that had been cut down by Ed Abbey and his monkeywrenching crew.

Contrary to the western literature tent, at least they knew what I was driving at – but they did not appreciate the humor!

Can’t make this stuff up.

It’s a beautiful day here in the deserts of Arizona (80 degrees and sunny) and I’m dying to get outside this Starbucks (WiFi), so I will be very brief with this note.

Jim O’Neill of the Bergen Record (is it still called that?) wrote a story today on the Natural Resource Damage issues associated with Dupont Pompton Lakes.

I’m reluctant to provide a link and drive traffic there, but I must do so to make my point, so see:

 Feds seeking payout for impact of DuPont pollution on wildlife in Pompton Lakes

I broke this story and have written about it several times, including detailed analyses – using US FWS documents – which show major failures by Dupont, EPA, DEP and the Bergen Record coverage, mostly by Mr. O’Neill. I’ll dig up all those links later – in the interim, readers should feel free to use the word search function in the upper right corner of this page. (or check out my Twitter feed, where I tweeted links to most of that stuff in response to prior “Toxic Secrets” coverage).

For now, I will note the following to summarize the major issues that were ignored, what  I call a “whitewash”.

O’Neill failed to mention that:

1. USFWS was severely critical of Dupont’s science (that EPA signed off on) and

2. USFWS criticized the EPA approved cleanup plan because it left significant amounts of mercury in the lake and likely downriver.

3. Despite a written pledge by EPA Region 2 Administrator Enck in a letter to me, EPA violated RCRA regulations because those regulations require that EPA consult with US FWS BEFORE approving the cleanup plan.

EPA failed to do that and only consulted with US FWS AFTER they approved Dupont’s flawed plan.

4. Although O’Neill mentions the prior DEP NRD dirty deal (which residents and local Councilpersons Lisa Riggiola and Ed Meakem broke with my help), and notes that it could be re-opened by DEP (a quote I made years ago in O’Neill’s the Record’s original story I think by Alex Nussbaum), he fails to provide the corrupt context for that deal.

That context was a STATEWIDE deal with Dupont executed by former DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell.

These are very serious factual omissions in the story.

These facts are omitted because they:

1) destroy the Record’s narrative as conducting brave investigative journalism – with O’Neill and Fallon speaking truth to power (NOT! gag me!)

2) because they undermine the Record’s praise of EPA Administrator Enck,

3) because they would expose the fact that the Record MISSED or DOWNPLAYED these issues when it mattered;

4) because it would prove that they IGNORED MY WORK BREAKING THE STORY AND EXPOSING THESE ISSUES.

5) because they show that the Record (O’Neill & Fallon) were either lazy, stupid, arrogant, lap dog, risk averse, or flat out intimidated by Dupont, EPA, DEP and local officials to write the story correctly the first time, and therefore disrespected their readers and gave those responsible a huge pass by not criticizing them when it matter (like I did)

One of these days I’ll write a critique of their entire “Toxic Secrets” series on Dupont, when I get the time.

In the interim, take my word for it –

they are so full of shit in blowing their own horn on a story they missed for many years, that they downplayed, and that they were intimidated by Dupont and gave EPA and DEP and local officials a huge accountability pass.

They should go back and read Dusty MacNichol and Kelly Richmond’s award winning “Open For Business” series – and consider that those real investigative reporters were brave enough to expose the corruption of Gov. Whitman’s core policy, at a time she was hugely popular.

They didn’t write some after the fact, self promoting, whitewash.

Will Murphy Serve Privilege and Power or Justice and Truth?

Personnel Is Policy

As we previously wrote, NJ Senate President Sweeney is blocking the Senate confirmation of NJ Gov. Murphy’s nominee for DEP Commissioner, Catherine McCabe. McCabe has yet to name her management team at DEP or purge Gov. Christie and Commissioner Bob Martin’s partisan hacks.*

[* Note: our sources tell us that Murphy and McCabe are listening to the Beltway national groups, e.g. NRDC & corporate market driven EDF – Murphy’s wife Tammy is on NRDC Board – and have ignored and dissed key NJ groups. This is a formula for failure. McCabe might want to call former DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell and ask him how his reliance on NRDC’s “Big Map” initiative worked out. It put him, as the NY Times wrote, “under siege”, and destroyed his credibility and legacy. In contrast to that NRDC failure, the McGreevey Administration’s legacy accomplishments – the Highlands Act, the C1 stream buffer program, and termination of the EDF backed “Open Market Emissions Trading” (OMET) program – were the product of NJ “radicals” – myself, Jeff Tittel and Curtis Fisher. See update below for detail on the history of OMET. ~~~ end Note]

In an effort to pressure Sweeney to relent and frame policy issues for that eventual confirmation hearing, we laid out 40 policy questions.

While we were successful in forcing the resignation of former Gov. Christie’s BPU President Richard Mroz, thus far, we have had no discernible impact on pressuring Sweeney to remove his confirmation block or prompting the Murphy administration to begin the necessary public process of laying out a detailed policy reform agenda to restore NJ leadership on environment and climate.

In fact, our Trenton sources tell us that Sweeney is now blocking Gov. Murphy’s replacement of Christie installed BPU Commissioner Mroz, who recently resigned.

So today, we expand on the key policy issues to recommend personnel. People are often policy.

Given that Murphy and McCabe have little history in NJ environmental circles, we suggest a set of longtime NJ environmental leaders for appointments in the Murphy Administration.

If the Gov. and DEP Commissioner are serious and have the leadership to back their reform rhetoric, here are the people that they should put in policy positions.

Murphy leaders

Governor’s Environmental Policy Aide – Rick Engler

Environmental Prosecutor – Dante DePirro

BPU Commissioner – Curtis Fisher

Pinelands Commission

• Rich Bizub, Executive Director
• Jeff Tittel Commissioner
• Carleton Montgomery Commissioner

Highlands Council

• Tracy Carlucchio, Executive Director
• Scott Olson Commissioner (or Director of Planning)
• Dave Peifer – Commissioner
• Robin O’Hearne – Commissioner
• Note: Maybe Tom Borden will come back from his Rhode Island gig as ED?

Department of Environmental Protection

• Assistant Comm Enforcement – Maya VanRossum
• Assistant Comm Environmental Regulation – Dena Mottola
• Assistant Comm Communications and Legislative Affairs – Kate Millsaps
• Press Office – Kirk Moore
• Assistant Comm Site Remediation – Bob Speigel
• Assistant Comm Natural Resources – Emile DeVito, PhD
• Director Parks and Forestry – Sam Pesin
• Office of People’s Parks – Mary Penney
• Director of Fish and Game – Benson Chiles
• Director of Local Government Coordination – MaryLou Ferrara
• State Hydrogeologist – Matt Mulhall
• Assistant Comm for Climate, Policy, Science & Regulatory Affairs – Bill Wolfe
• Director of Science and Research – Mike Kennish
• Director Office of Env. Health – Steve Fenichel, MD
• Director Office of Urban Affairs  – Nicky Sheets
• Director Office of Environmental Justice – Roy Jones
• Director Office of Environmental Rights – Olga Palmar
• Director Office of Land Use Planning – Bill Neil
• Director Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Involvement – Margo Pellegrino
• Director Office of Climate Change – Mike Aucott, PhD
• Director of Citizen Engagement – Doug O’Malley
• DEP Ombudsman – Lisa Riggiola (North), Georgina Shanley (South)
• Director Division of Coastal Management, Planning and Engineering– John Miller
• Director Division of Watershed Management – Bill Kibbler
• Director Office of Materials Management, Source Reduction and Recycling  – Marty Riesinger
• Director of Office of Pollution Prevention – Zoe Kelman
• Director of Legal Affairs – Bill Potter
• Director of Renewable Energy – Lyle Rawlings
• Director of OPRA – Theresa Lettman

External Advisory Bodies to review and solicit candidates for fresh blood

• Clean Water Council
• Clean Air Council
• Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Water Supply Advisory Council
• D&R Canal Commission
• Solid Waste Advisory Council

GO TO PUBLIC SOLICITATION FOR NEW BLOOD – Make subject to State level FACA process

Terminate funding for the following organizations and do not hire people from the following organizations or those that received funding from Dodge Foundation, William Penn Foundation, or Duke Foundation:

• NJ Audubon
• NJ Future
• Sustainable NJ
• Rethink Energy NJ
• Barnegat Bay Partnership
• Clean Ocean Action
• American Littoral Society
• Wildlife NJ
• Local Watershed Groups
• NJ LCV
• Trust for Public land
• Mike Catania – Duke Foundation
• EDF
• NRDC
• Citizens Campaign
• Passaic River Coalition
  NY NJ Baykeeper
• Delaware Bay Partnership
• NJ Env Federation –Clean Water Action
• Jeanne Herb and Marjorie Kaplan.

Institutions To Create

• Delaware Bayshore Commission
• Coastal Commission

Institutions and and policy initiatives to Abolish

• Science Advisory Board
• Office of Economic review
• Office of Dispute resolution
• Office of Permit coordination
• Culture change – transformation plan
• Administrative Orders
• Executive Orders #1, #2, #3 #4 and Privatization (EO#17?)
• Delaware Bay, Barnegat Bay, and NY NJ Harbor Estuary programs

Commissioner’s Driver Team – Jim Benton, Sarah Blum, NJBA, NJBIA, Chamber of Commerce, and Farm Bureau

DEP Building Maintenance – Senator Oroho

[Update on OMET’s demise:

Outrageously, my former employer PEER scrubbed my name from their OMET press releases and inserted Jeff Tittel’s name (that is OK, because I was working at DEP at the time of the second press release. But it is not OK  because I was not at DEP when the first PEER press release was issued or when the OMET analysis was done and comments were submitted to EPA.

PEER also removed my name from the EPA comments and letters I wrote, so to get the facts, and confirm my role, please read an Environmental Law Reporter review article on OMET’s demise. 

My quote in the Bergen Record article excerpted below is additional supporting evidence. No way the Record or Jeff Tittel would let me get the quote if he had done anything on the OMET issue (and it sure is beyond curious to be named in a law review article while my name was excised from PEER’s press releases and EPA letters. In fact, as I recall, Jeff Ruch of DC PEER simply put his name on the EPA Tinsley letter I wrote, which was based on the prior comments I submitted to EPA Region 2. Unreal. Down the memory hole again.) Per the ELR article linked above:

50. Bill Wolfe, Comments to EPA Region2 on the Proposed Approval of  New Jersey’s Open Market Emissions Trading State Implementation Plan Revision, N.J. State Chapter of the Sierra Club, Trenton, N.J. (Mar. 11, 2001).

66. Letter from Jeff Ruch, Executive Director, PEER, and Bill Wolfe, Policy Director, New Jersey Sierra Club, to Nikki Tinsley, IG, U.S. EPA (2001) (on file with EPA). ~~~ end Note]

After more than 5 years of behind the scenes bureaucratic warfare with US EPA, on Feb., 2002, Alex Nussbaum then with the Bergen Record wrote:

The federal Environmental Protection Agency gave preliminary approval to the plan last year, but it has yet to make the decision final a move that could clear the way for the New Jersey plan to be replicated elsewhere in the country. Now, the approval could be held up by the review of the EPA’s inspector general, an independent watchdog within the agency.

A bad report could be a rebuke for EPA chief Christie Whitman, New Jersey’s governor until she joined the Bush administration. She ushered in the trading program while in Trenton and has said she wants to use similar market-based efforts in other environmental areas.

Environmentalists, though, say the Open Market Emissions Trading plan could be a blueprint for avoiding controls on pollutants linked to smog, cancer, ***and global warming. The program relies on companies to report their own reductions, but it has no serious mechanisms to prove that the reports are accurate, the critics say. …

Critics who requested the audit last year welcomed the scrutiny.

“I think we raised significant and valid concerns about how the program originated and some of the flaws, and how New Jersey companies illegally used credits to violate the Clean Air Act,” said Bill Wolfe, policy director for the state Sierra Club.

**** If the public understood this and environmental groups had any vision or integrity, they would have understood and used this huge win – the McGreevey Administration termination of a market based tool – and blocked the passage of RGGI, which is a flawed market based trading scheme similar to OMET. ~~~ end update]