WolfeNotes.com

Failure to cover issue compounds false ad

It’s called lying by material omission

[Update – NJ Spotlight reply below]

NJ Spotlight is running the ad above today by the PennEast pipeline. (view it online)

The ad is false and highly misleading. PennEast has not been “approved”.

If that ad were presented in certain forums, it would trigger enforcement sanctions (e.g. for misleading investors – SEC) – or be evidence of fraud:

The elements of a cause of action for fraud are: (1) that a material representation was made; (2) the representation was false; (3) when the representation was made, the speaker knew it was false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion; (4) the speaker made the representation with the intent that the other party should act upon it; (5) the party acted in reliance on the representation; and (6) the party thereby suffered injury.

PennEast has not received the most critical approval it must secure – a regulatory approval that has been used by the States of New York and Connecticut to kill pipelines just like PennEast.

That approval is the federal Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certificate (401 WQC), which must be issued by NJ DEP.

A 2006 US Supreme Court decision, S. D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, upheld and stressed the power of State’s under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The Court found Section 401 part of an “essential scheme” to protect State interests (emphases mine):

State certifications under §401 are essential in the scheme to preserve state authority to address the broad range of pollution, as Senator Muskie explained on the floor when what is now §401 was first proposed:

“No polluter will be able to hide behind a Federal license or permit as an excuse for a violation of water quality standard[s]. No polluter will be able to make major investments in facilities under a Federal license or permit without providing assurance that the facility will comply with water quality standards. No State water pollution control agency will be confronted with a fait accompli by an industry that has built a plant without consideration of water quality requirements.” 116 Cong. Rec. 8984 (1970).

These are the very reasons that Congress provided the States with power to enforce “any other appropriate requirement of State law,” 33 U. S. C. §1341(d), by imposing conditions on federal licenses for activities that may result in a discharge, ibid.

That 401 WQC State regulatory review is currently ongoing at NJ DEP, which makes the PennEast false “approved” ad even more troubling.

Curiously, despite numerous posts on the 401 WQC here and several emails to NJ Spotlight environmental reporters Jon Hurdle and Tom Johnson, I have been unable to convince Spotlight to cover the issue.

The very little coverage Spotlight has provided related to the 401 WQC has not been accurate, and I have emailed them to explain the errors.

I just emailed Spotlight editor Lee Keough to advise her that false advertising compounds their failure to cover the 401 WQC issue, which I find deeply disturbing.

I will send Lee this post with a request that she take the ad down.

NJ Spotlight should be covering critical issues in the public interest, based on facts and law, not accepting false advertising from private corporate entities like PennEast that it is covering.

[End note: let’s briefly explore those legal elements of fraud:

1. the ad’s term “approved” and the implications of regulatory “approval” clearly are a “material representation”;

2.  the material representation is clearly false by omission; NJ DEP has not issued approvals;

3. the PennEast representative that wrote and paid for the false ad “knew it was false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion” – that is obvious from the facts of the PennEast NJ DEP review process ad the public opposition to same.

4. proving intent by PennEast that Spotlight readers of the false ad would act on it is more complex. But clearly, if the public thinks that PennEast has been “approved” they would be far less likely to continue opposition to a “done deal” or fait accompli.

5. Some members of the public are likely to act in reliance on the false ad and abandon opposition to the pipeline. Less public opposition makes government approvals more likely.

6. The public would suffer if the opposition wanes and the pipeline is approved.

The elements of fraud are either obvious or very likely to be found in PennEast’s own corporate documents. Legal discovery process would open that can of worms.  ~~~ end note.]

[Update: Here is NJ Spotlight editor Lee Keough’s response – can she possibly be that naive?

Bill:

It has been approved by FERC and if you click on the ad, that’s what they say. We’ve written multiple times that it still needs final approval DRBC and the state.  Lee

Failure by PennEast to disclose material facts while using identical terms that imply material falsehoods (i.e. using the term “approved”) is clearly a dishonest tactic intended to deceive readers. PennEast has significant interests in creating a false public impression that they have received all necessary approvals, if only to deflate and divert the opponents.

Similarly, NJ Spotlight’s claim that they’ve “written multiple times” about the 401 WQC issue is flat out false.

Yes, they have written about the pipeline “still needs final DRBC approval and the state” several times, but that coverage was as vague, uniformed, and unhelpful as Lee’s use of language in her reply to me above.

What does “the state” mean? Who at the state? what approval? what are the NJ science, legal, and policy issues? What have other state’s done? What does the US Supreme Court say? How would that law apply to NJ Surface Water Quality Standards and all the C1 streams that would be crossed by the pipeline?

NJ Spotlight’s editor can’t be precise?

Lee Keogh is following the same flawed approach used by Rethink Energy NJ – ambiguous use of language to dodge the issues. Weasel words politicians love.

Spotlight wrote about the WQC issue once, and the story was not well done. They had multiple opportunities to write about the issue and never did – not once. ~~~ end update]

[Update #2 – an astute reader notes: “It’s false Even under FERC it is only a conditional approval ,they do not have  final approval.” ~~~ end update]

Acting DEP Commissioner McCabe Sandbagged by Christie Holdovers

Unable to appoint management team & begin policy reforms

Sweeney holds McCabe hostage – is he seeking policy concessions?

[Update: Here is DEP website for McCabe DEP’s “organizational chart”

[Update in text below]

Senate President Sweeney is blocking the confirmation of, among others, Gov. Murphy’s nominee for DEP Commissioner, Catherine McCabe.

It is almost March, and the Senate Judiciary Committee still has not set a date for McCabe’s confirmation hearing and Sweeney has not scheduled a full Senate confirmation vote.

The inability of McCabe to secure Senate confirmation has a series of negative consequences.

Historically in deference to the Constitutional power of Senate oversight via the confirmation process, the Acting DEP Commissioner will not exercise bold leadership or initiate major policy changes until confirmed.

First of all, as a result, McCabe has been unable to appoint her senior management team and initiate the arduous process of reversing 8 full years of Gov. Christie’s policy and regulatory rollbacks (i.e see: Forty Policy Questions For Gov. Murphy’s DEP Commissioner’s Senate Confirmation Hearing.

McCabe also has been unable to appoint her own management team and purge Gov. Christie and Bob Martin’s installation of incompetent corporate hacks in senior management positions. And there was a lot of collaboration with the Martin regime’s “cultural change” program by DEP middle managers that will need to be purged as well, perhaps down to at least the Division Director level, lower in some individual cases.

The DEP is a huge and complex regulatory institution, so it will take considerable leadership and persistent efforts to turn the ship of state around.

In addition, McCabe can expect strong pushback from powerful economic forces, as well as the leadership of her own party, as she seeks to “claw back” the Christie giveaways (e.g. see: Sweeney and Christie-Crats Throw Pinelands Legacy Under the Bus)

Already there are signs that Christie holdovers have sandbagged Acting Commissioner McCabe.

For example, the very first press release McCabe issued upon taking office was an ill advised move to double down on a terrible trifecta: Gov. Christie’s climate denying shore engineering, dredged material disposal, and luxury boat subsidy policies (see: DEP LAUNCHES PROJECT TO REPAIR BEACHES ON LONG BEACH ISLAND USING MATERIALS DREDGED TO MAKE LITTLE EGG INLET CHANNEL SAFE (not to mention the personnel issues involved).

Even worse, McCabe apparently relied on Christie holdovers in the discredited DEP press office to spin the release of the DEP’s annual fish consumption advisories, transforming the historic public health focus of those advisories into a sham effort to claim reductions in toxic chemicals and improvements in “ecological conditions” (see: NJ Gov. Murphy’s DEP Commissioner – A Woman – Downplays Health Risks To Women and Children From Eating Toxic Fish.

[Note: Or, McCabe, in downplaying toxic fish risks, could have been trying to avoid pissing off Sweeney, whose (oil soaked) District sits on the banks of the Delaware River (where advisories were “eased”) and includes Sweeney’s polluter and fossil friends, particularly Dupont, the largest toxic polluter to the river, who owns billions of dollars in cleanup and NRD liability that DEP could pull the trigger on. ~~~ end note]

The lack of Senate confirmation also has political – as well as policy implications.

That political intimidation by Sweeney could explain the timid and ill-advised selection of Deputy Commissioner Debbie Mans (see: Murphy DEP Commissioner McCabe Makes Her First Move – A Mis-Step)

In that sense, Sweeney – who is no friend of the Gov’s Murphy’s energy or environmental  policies (especially on wind) and a supporter of many of Gov. Christie’s “regulatory relief” policies – is holding the sword of confirmation over McCabe’s head and likely seeking political commitments or policy moderation from McCabe behind the scenes. He has a dirty history.

Sweeney needs to be told by progressive and pro-environmental Democrats to back off and schedule McCabe’s confirmation hearing and Senate vote and get behind Gov. Murphy’s energy and environmental policies.

[Update: a reader and longtime Trenton activist just sent me a note that laid out the political games being played by Gov. Murphy’s Office on the nuke bailout bill. Basically, as I suspected, the Gov. Office has frozen out the progressives and is using corporate tools NRDC, EDF, NJ LCV and Rethink Energy NJ for cover for a sellout to PSEG. Murphy is listening to National groups and dissing the local NJ state groups.

The Gov.’s Office and Acting DEP Commissioner McCabe might want to consult former Commissioner Brad Campbell, who relied on NRDC for his disastrous “Big Map” initiative, which was his Waterloo. See NY Times story (6/26/05) for all that “These Days, A Commissioner Is Under Siege” ~~~ end update]

Maybe Democrats can get around to doing that after they end the Sweeney madness on the nuclear subsidies and poison pill for renewable energy he is trying to ram through the legislature, see: IN SIXTH ITERATION, NUCLEAR SUBSIDY BILL CLEARS COMMITTEE

Sweeney is sabotaging Gov. Murphy’s energy, environmental and even tax policies, remarkably in a partnership with NJ’s ALEC Chairman,  right wing Republican Senator Oroho.

Enough is enough. Get in his face!

Women and Children First?

Rosy DEP Press Release Claims Have No Scientific Basis

The Christie Administration’s DEP press office was notorious for spinning and, at times, flat out false statements. After 8 years, their credibility was at an all time low in all quarters.

Yesterday, the Murphy DEP press office – still staffed by Gov. Christie’s holdovers – issued a highly misleading press release headlining the “good news” – check out the headline:

NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE EASE CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES FOR
CERTAIN FISH CAUGHT IN LOWER DELAWARE RIVER AND DELAWARE BAY
REVISIONS REFLECT DECLINE IN PERSISTENT CONTAMINANTS SUCH AS PCBS AND PESTICIDES IN THE WATERBODIES

The public’s takeaway from this press release can only mean 2 things (both false and/or not supported by science and data):

1) the fact that the DEP is “easing” consumption advisories must mean that fish are less dangerous to eat

2) there has been a “decline in persistent contaminants” in NJ waterbodies

But the misleading nature of the DEP press release is not limited to the headline.

The DEP makes this claim in the opening paragraph:

The Department of Environmental Protection has eased consumption advisories on certain fish species caught in the lower Delaware River and Delaware Bay, an indication of improving ecological conditions as levels of contaminants decline, Acting Commissioner Catherine R. McCabe announced today.

… “These changes reflect an ongoing trend in which contaminants from past pollution such as PCBs and pesticides continues to decline,” Acting Commissioner McCabe said.

I call bullshit on that.

For some USGS, NJ DEP and other science that refutes McCabe’s DEP’s spin, see: More Dual Sexed Fish Documented In NJ Rivers. If you read only one thing in that post, make sure you read this letter from there NJ Chemistry Council to NJ DEP, thanking them for abandoning proposed strict surface water quality standards for persistent toxic  chemicals, known as “wildlife criteria” (READ LETTER!)

The basis for the DEP press release claims are scientifically ludicrous. The DEP did not even attempt to support those press release claims with data or science, either in thee press release or the body of the advisory document.

The DEP “eased” consumption advisories based on short term and slight changes in [unpublished and likely not peer reviewed] limited fish tissue sampling data for a very limited set of chemical contaminants and fish species (some of which migrate beyond NJ waters) in a very limited geographic range. This is not statistically significant or methodologically representative data.

It is ABSURD and a lie to use that kind of sparse data to make a broad statement about trends in water quality and “ecological conditions” (which are defined to include all species of plants and animals (i.e. “biota”), sediments, and water quality for all chemicals of concern.)

Historically, the annual DEP fish consumption advisories have been limited in focus to public health. Here is the text from the DEP 2017 advisory document -not the spun press release -as an example of that:

According to the DEP Advisory document, striped bass, American eel, bluefish, lobster – statewide – are “DO NOT EAT” for sensitive populations, defined as:

Those kind of warnings should have been the headline and opening for DEP’s press release, not lies about “easing” advisories and “improving ecological conditions”.

So much for Gov. Murphy’s policy priority of “putting women first”.

Historically, the DEP fish consumption advisories have not been designed or  intended to make science based statements about the “ecological conditions” of NJ waters or trends in state water water quality.

The proper scientific forum for those issues is the DEP’s Clean Water Act’s Section 305 Water Quality Report (or DRBC toxics criteria or TMDL documents).

Commissioner McCabe is a lawyer and experienced regulator, and must know this.

McCabe is actually spinning and misleading the public worse than her predecessor, Bob Martin, a man with no legal, scientific, or environmental training or experience.

We’re deeply disappointed that a female DEP Commissioner would downplay health risks to women and children, while spinning the science to mislead the public.

Thankfully, veteran reporter Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight did not get spun and wrote a good story, despite DEP’s misleading release, see:  NEW JERSEY, DELAWARE EASE ADVISORIES ON CERTAIN FISH –  Action indicates drop in contamination, but some shellfish and other fish should be avoided, especially by women of childbearing age

But why on earth is Jeff Tittel essentially pulling his punches and supporting DEP’s spin?

“For the first time, we are seeing where some fish advisories are being eased,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, “however, we have a long way to go. There is still some fish that we cannot eat.”

If the Christie/Martin DEP press office pulled this kind of stunt he would have blasted it as spin.

[Update below]

A wonderful essay by my friend Bill Neil, formerly Director of Conservation at NJ Audubon (before NJA became a corporate consulting firm and partner with Donald Trump) on proposed Maryland legislation to protect forests and their role in climate change prompted me to post this brief note (see  Maryland’s 1991 Forest Conservation Act, as contained in the bills HB 766 and SB 610.)

Relatedly, in response to a current proposed NJ Audubon plan to log Sparta Mountain in NJ’s Highlands Preservation Area, 2 years ago I wrote: Christie DEP Highlands Logging Plans Would Reduce The Forest’s Carbon Storage Capacity and Worsen Climate Change

That post was ignored by activists and NJ media.

Since then, Eric Stiles of NJ Audubon –  who spent the last 8 years seeking private foundation, billionaire, Christie DEP and corporate funding for logging schemes in the Highlands under the false scientific justification of creating “young forest habitat” – has dodged all that accountability and is now apparently the sole media “green” spokesperson at NJ Spotlight for forests and climate change risks.

The reason? Stiles sees money for that: in the current spin cycle to get behind NJ Gov. Murphy, Stiles sees money because forest carbon sequestration funds are coming as a result of NJ rejoining RGGI. [See Update below for specific details]

NJ Spotlight recently reported:

“In the Christie era, climate science was a four-letter word,’’ argued Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey. Christie pulled New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a multistate effort to reduce pollution from power plants. New Jersey will rejoin the program, according to Murphy.

“Climate change is really the overarching issue,’’ said Eric Stiles, president and CEO of New Jersey Audubon. “When you look at the top-tier threat to humans, wildlife, and habitat of New Jersey, it’s climate change.’’

WTF?

NJ Audubon not only ignored climate change in their logging schemes, they made the problem worse. As I wrote: 

It is well known that the Christie Administration is irresponsibly outright hostile to any plans or programs to address climate change, and instead has actively promoted new fossil fueled gas plants and pipelines across the state, while suing to block the Obama EPA Clean Power Plan climate initiative.

But here’s an aspect of that climate negligence that has gotten no attention: reducing the ability of NJ’s forests to store carbon.

The controversial proposed DEP logging plan for Sparta Mountain is not NJ Audubon’s or DEP’s first logging operation.

Highlands forests are under assault from the State agency directed by the Highlands Act to preserve them.

Getting virtually no attention are the facts that NJ Audubon also logs Newark watershed lands (see page 43) and DEP has proposed logging not only at Sparta Mountain but in Weldon Brook WMA and Mahlon Dickerson Reservation.

Some think that Hamburg Mountain is next in line for logging.

The cumulative effects of these logging operations – on forest health, water resources, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, recreation, or climate change – have not been considered by the DEP. Not at all. No consideration. (read the complete post)

Accountability, where the hell is it?

Stiles is now a media source and a hero – why is that?

[Update – 2/19/18 – Apologies to readers for a serious omission. The reality is actually worse than my original post above would suggest.

Specifically, when the RGGI legislation was undergoing legislative deliberation, most of the environmental community was working hard and very publicly to make RGGI as strong as possible and to prevent the bill from being hijacked by Senator Sweeney on behalf of big oil (which it ultimately was, resulting in editorial boards and most NJ environmental groups to OPPOSE the final version of RGGI, see: Lame Global Warming Bill Goes to Governor.)

But two groups, NJ Audubon and American Littoral Society were working quietly behind the scenes NOT on strengthening the RGGI bill, but on seeking special amendments to essentially earmark RGGI revenues to their organizations and pet projects. 

Specifically, NJA and ALS met quietly with NJ DEP Director of Policy & Planning Jeanne Herb to secure earmarks of RGGI funds for carbon sequestration.

DEP supported these amendments and deceptively conveyed them to the Legislature as DEP amendments – thus disguising the special interests NJA and ALS behind them and essentially laundering special interest earmarks.

Here they are: (see Section 7.b.(4))

 

While I don’t know if the Senate Judiciary Committee has set a date yet, Gov. Murphy’s nominee for DEP Commissioner, Catherine McCabe, soon will face a Senate confirmation hearing.

In an effort to educate Committee members and inform the public debate, today I post this open letter as a list of suggested questions.

In fairness, I just gave a heads up to Ms. McCabe via email:

Dear Commissioner McCabe – We have not met, but I thought you might appreciate a heads up on some questions I suggested for your confirmation hearing. See the list below.

FYI, when Brad Campbell took the DEP reins, he hired me and tasked me with preparing what he called an “honest baseline” Report. The objective of that effort was to get all the skeletons out. He directed each Assistant Commissioner to prepare a “vulnerability assessment” of their programs that I was to use as the basis for the Report. (e.g. look at this “vulnerability assessment” on the toxic site cleanup program provided by former Assistant Commissioner Susan Boyle.]

You might want to consider a similar initiative.

Respectfully,

Dear Members of the Judiciary Committee:

I write to you as a longtime environmental professional and former 13 year DEP veteran in order to suggest focused policy questions you may wish to pose to Acting DEP Commissioner McCabe during confirmation hearings.

Acting Commissioner McCabe faces huge challenges after 8 years of rollbacks and DEP institutional erosion under the Christie administration’s “regulatory relief” and “red tape” policies. I was faced with addressing very similar issues in my capacity as policy advisor to former DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell, after 8 years of Gov. Whitman’s “Open For Business” policies and DEP budget cuts.

I urge your consideration of the following questions:

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2018/01/nj-gov-murphy-faces-a-huge-challenge-reversing-christie-environmental-dismantling/

1. In May 2010, the NJ DEP issued a Report that found over 500 unregulated chemicals in NJ water supply & that granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment was cost effective. I wrote:

DEP scientists presented a Report to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute on May 7, 2010.

The Report, entitled “Investigations Related to a ‘Treatment-Based’ Regulatory Approach to Address Unregulated Contaminants in Drinking Water“  found over 500 unregulated chemicals are present in NJ drinking water.

It recommended that public water supply systems install treatment to reduce the health risks of these chemicals.

DEP has known about these risks since 1997 – but has failed to act to protect public health.

We are petitioning DEP to develop regulations that require public water supply systems to install treatment systems, monitor for these chemicals, and disclose these risks to consumers.

The DEP denied our petition.

So, will the Murphy DEP continue the ineffective chemical specific risk assessment approach to developing drinking water MCL’s or shift to a Treatment Based Approach, as recommended by DEP scientists almost a decade ago?

[Note: supporting data and technical basis can be found in NJ DEP science and NJ DEP’s “Source Water Assessment Program”,  which provides “susceptibility” and “vulnerability assessments” and pollution threats to drinking water sources for every municipality in NJ. Hit the link and look up your town’s threats. You would be shocked by what you find hidden in plain sight and ignored by DEP regulators.]

2. Will the Murphy DEP adopt regulations to quantify and enforce Natural Resource Damage (NRD) injuries in order to fix legal and technical defects found by NJ Court decisions and vulnerabilities that Gov. Christie’s AG found weakened the State’s litigation hand and used as a rationale to settle not further litigate (i.e. Exxon et al)?

3. Will the Murphy DEP repeal Christie DEP rollbacks of stream encroachment (C1 protections), CAFRA (and not just the public access provisions), WQMP, & Highlands regulatory protections?

[Update: apology for the oversight, but one of the last terrible regulations Bob Martin adopted on the way out was the “Forest Stewardship” rules. Will Murphy DEP repeal and repropose rules that protect forest ecosystems, water quality, and incorporate climate change?~~~ end update]

4. Will the Murphy DEP rescind, strengthen, and replace the Christie DEP Water Supply Plan(after holding public hearings throughout the state)?

5. Will the Murphy DEP reverse Christie DEP Clean Water Act TMDL policy for Barnegat Bay & trigger a mandatory watershed-wide TMDL for the entire Bay? (DEP’s water quality monitoring, assessment, and TMDL programs need major overhauls after 8 years of Martin’s neglect and politicization of science).

6. Will the Murphy DEP mandate the statistical 500 year event in all DEP water resource & infrastructure programs to reflect climate change impacts?

7. Will the Murphy DEP act on DEP scientists’ recommendations in a DEP Report to upgrade several streams to Category One status & otherwise expand the C1 program that was stalled by the Christie DEP?

8. Will the Murphy DEP rescind and replace the Christie DEP “Nutrient Criteria Enhancement Plan” & enforce nutrient criteria Surface Water Quality Standards in land use permitting and mandate nutrient removal treatment in NJPDES POTW permits? (POTW = sewage treatment plants)

9. Will the Murphy administration develop a regional land use regulatory planning scheme to protect water resources of the ecologically exceptional, highly vulnerable, and badly neglected Delaware Bayshore? (along the lines of Pinelands and Highlands)

10. Will Gov. Murphy repeal Gov. Christie’s Executive Orders #2 (regulatory relief, federal consistency, pre-proposal review) and Executive Order #3 (Red Tape)?

11. Will Gov. Murphy & DEP incorporate climate change reviews, backed by enforceable standards, retrofit requirements, and offsets, to meet the emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act in all land use, infrastructure, air quality, and water resource permits?

12. Will Gov. Murphy – like NY Gov. Cuomo – direct DEP to deny all fossil infrastructure permits based on Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality certification?

13. Will Gov. Murphy reverse Gov. Christie’s water resource infrastructure, State lands, & State Parks privatization policies and rescind Christie privatization Executive Orders (see EO17)?

14. Will the Murphy DEP reverse the Christie DEP State Public Lands logging policies and plans (i.e. Sparta Mountain WMA “Forest Management Plan”, stop privatizing planning for management of state lands and parks by so called conservation groups like NJ Audubon and NJ Future, and revise all similar “Stewardship” initiatives”, et al))

15. Will the Murphy DEP repeal current policy to rely on “BMP’s” and instead enforce NJ Surface Water Quality Standards on forestry, agricultural practices and in freshwater wetlands and land use permits?

16. Will Gov. Murphy issue Executive Orders to expand public involvement in DEP regulatory & permit decisions and develop  Urban environmental quality and environmental justice policies, including mandatory Environmental Justice reviews in designated EJ communities?

17. Will the Murphy DEP close many loopholes and gaps in DEP’s site remediation program to protect groundwater resources & water supplies?

18. Will the Murphy DEP abolish the Science Advisory Board, which has gross conflicts of interest and has become a vehicle for undue industry access, politicization of science, and attacks on regulatory public health and environmental protections?

19. Will the Murphy DEP stop issuing new and revoke hundreds of existing DEP approved “Classification Exception Areas” that waive compliance with groundwater quality standards and instead mandate permanent cleanup of groundwater at high risk contaminated sites?

20. Will the Murphy DEP adopt long overdue NJ DEP derived “eco-flow goals” in water allocation regulations, backed by enforceable numeric standards?

21. Will the Murphy DEP begin to enforce exceedences of current water allocation permit limits?

22. Will the Murphy DEP revoke and strengthen DEP’s “Vapor Intrusion Guidance” to eliminate the “phased approach” and instead take a precautionary approach to protect people in their homes from toxic pollution vapors? (e.g. sample indoor air early on).

23. Will the Murphy DEP revive and adopt drinking water MCL for perchlorate proposed by the Corzine DEP and killed by the Christie DEP, as well as 14 other hazardous drinking water contaminants previously recommended by the Drinking Water Quality Institute?

24. Will the Murphy DEP begin to collect market based lease and easement revenues for private use of state lands and natural resources?

25. Will Gov. Murphy support, work with Senator Smith, and sign legislation to eliminate the current$50 million cap on liability for spills?

26. Will Gov. Murphy support and work with Senator Smith to enact water user and development or impervious surface impact fees to fund the multi-billion dollar water infrastructure deficit?

27. Will the Murphy DEP end current DEP policy to rely on “shelter in place” responses to chemical spills and catastrophic releases and begin to develop protective policies for those who live in mapped “off site consequence” areas under NJ State TCPP and federal Clean Air Act ARP programs? (Paulsboro train derailment et al).

28. Will Gov. Murphy use his powers to block “bomb trains” and other unsafe toxic rail and truck shipments through NJ to protect vulnerable communities? How will the administration address these unacceptable risks?

29. What will the Gov. and the Murphy DEP do to promulgate enforceable requirements for reducing risks identified in NJ’s federally mandated Hazard Mitigation Plan?

30. Will the Murphy DEP revoke and reissue the Christie DEP stormwater and CSO permits to include enforceable timetables and technical requirements?

31. Will the Murphy DEP adopt new rules to mandate risk assessment – based on cumulative risk to the most vulnerable populations – and more stringent “advances in the art” (NJ’s legal standard) air pollution controls for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)

32. Will Gov. Murphy support and work with the legislature to ban importation and disposal of fracking wastewater? Will the DEP use all regulatory tools to restrict such practices?

33. Will the Murphy DEP restore the Commissioner’s Office that conducts department-wide policy, planning, and regulation, while applying DEP’s scientists recommendations? This Office was abolished by the Christie DEP.

34. Will the Murphy DEP eliminate Christie DEP initiatives, programs, and Offices designed to serve corporate interests over protection of public health and the environment, including “culture change”, “customer service”, economic development, dispute resolution, sustainable towns and business, et al?

35. Will the Murphy DEP re-open Bulls Island State Park?

36. Will the Murphy DEP sever all relationships, State funding, and pending projects with NJ Audubon Society?

37. Will the Murphy Administration terminate funding and support of “Sustainable NJ” and stop outsourcing of climate adaptation policies to private groups and deluging responsibility to local governments (without the resources or legal power under NJ Municipal Land Use Law to act)?

38. Will Murphy terminate Christie plans to develop and/or privatize Liberty State Park and terminate all State funding and support for NJ Future, who worked with the Christie DEP in secret?

39. What are the Murphy Administration’s specific plans to get the Pinelands Commission and Highlands Council back on track?

40. Given NJ’s experience with Superstorm Sandy and Gov. Christie’s “Rebuild Madness”, will Gov. Murphy support and sign legislation to:

a) establish a Coastal Commission to conduct regional climate adaptation and land use planning and environmental management?

b) repeal the “right to rebuild” storm damaged properties in CAFRA and the Flood Hazard Control Act?

c) rescind Administrative Order #2012-13, which exempted Sandy rebuild activities from DEP permitting.

[Also see: “A PATH FORWARD FOR THE SHORE”]

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Wolfe