WolfeNotes.com

Possible EPA misleading reports on Dupont environmental indicators

Please bear with me as I bury the lede – it is necessary in order to tell the story.

Last night in Pompton Lakes, about 35 residents turned out for the kickoff of the “real” “Community Advisory Group” (RCAG) to oversee the EPA/DEP supervised cleanup of the Dupont site.

The new group formed when a local faction on the original EPA sponsored CAG mounted an ugly personal attack and moved to kick Lisa Riggiola off the CAG.

Riggiola, a former Councilwoman, essentially is the Lois Gibbs of the Dupont site.

She’s been working to inform and organize her “plume” community for years, is an effective activist, and is the person most responsible for recent progress at the site, including several EPA recent commitments and – ironically – the formation of the CAG.

But no good deed goes unpunished – EPA stood by and let Riggiola get attacked. EPA looked the other way despite the fact that the CAG is a formal element of the EPA’s Superfund program, it was formed by EPA, is facilitated by EPA, and personal attacks are prohibited by the EPA’s own CAG bylaws.

In response, Riggiola resigned and Dana Patterson of Edison Wetlands resigned in solidarity. Both then moved to form the new RCAG.

To their credit – and probably only out of EPA Region 2 Administrator Judy Enck’s personal repect for Lisa Riggiola – EPA at least showed up last night. But DEP, the local government, and the original CAG members stayed away.

I heard the same valid litany of criticism of Dupont, EPA, DEP and the CAG last night. We’ve written about that several times here (see this and this).

But the real news last night was not the formation of the new RCAG.

Instead, the news was that Edison Wetlands Assc. distributed a DEP document that presented a chronology of major milestones in the EPA and DEP regulatory review of the Dupont site.

We have asked several questions and pointed to major problems with respect to the chronology on the Vapor Intrusion (VI) issue, but have gotten little response from EPA and none from DEP (see this and this).

EWA obtained this “confidential” document while doing an OPRA file review at DEP.

As we’ve observed countless times, the most significant information is in DEP/EPA files, and not gleaned from bullshit “stakeholder” or CAG processes, which only seek to co-opt and divert communities and activists. Time spent on OPRA file reviews is far more productive and effective than those shams.

The DEP assembled chronology appears to be dated 5/28/08. It is labeled a “Confidential Document” in large font boldface and it is not on DEP letterhead. I’ve never seen this label before.

Typically, when DEP seeks to keep a document confidential and exempt from OPRA disclosure, they label it “deliberative“. These kind of OPRA exempt documents are purged from the file after an OPRA request is filed and before a person can conduct the OPRA file review.

So, I can’t vouch for its authenticity, but the content seems totally legit. Which raises the question of why it was not purged from the file, who labeled it, and why the document was labeled “confidential”.

Aside from these anomalies, the chronology is full of smoking guns – but I want to focus only on the vapor intrusion (VI) related issue here today.

The chronology notes that on 3/30/01 (no typo, over 10 years ago!) “Regulatory agencies tell Dupont that the VI pathway must be addressed.”

But, not until  2008 – more than 7 years later – did anyone at EPA or DEP advise – or warn – Pompton Lakes residents that VI was a concern.

During that 7+ year period, Dupont, EPA, and DEP quietly “negotiated” how to handle the VI issue.

A full five years after first “telling” Dupont in 2001 that the VI pathway must be addressed, on 1/27/06, Dupont finally submitted a “VI Investigation and Remedial Action Worklan“.

But, not surprisingly, Dupont employed a classic dual strategy of:

1) manufacturing uncertainty to delay and weaken any regulatory requirements; and

2) a race to the bottom to seek the weakest standards as a cost minimization move. This was done in this case by Dupont seeking to use NJ DEP’s less stringent VI screening values, rather than US EPA’s lower values.

Accordng to the DEP chronology, EPA’s lower (more costly) screening values were based on a cancer risk of 1×10(-5). But DEP is legally required to regulate cancer risks at a 1×10(-6) risk level (ten times MORE protective), so it is unclear why DEP’s VI screening values were an order of magnitude HIGHER (10 times LESS protective) than EPA’s.

After another year went by, on 1/31/07, DEP, EPA, and Dupont met quietly in Trenton to discuss the “VI technical approach”.

Imagine that, six YEARS after “telling” Dupont that they must address the VI pathway, they finally get around to a meeting to discuss the “technical approach“.

At this meeting, Dupont again used manufactured uncertainty to delay and weaken any VI compliance obligations and response.

According to the DEP document, “no laboratory was certified at that time to achieve the low US EPA screening levels“.

This excuse was used to let more than ANOTHER year go by.

Which brings us to 3/5/08 when “DEP notified Dupont that a laboratory has recevied certification in the new Low-Level EPA TO-15 air analytical method and therefore Dupont can now achieve the USEPA screening level“.

The claims in this chronology can be confirmed, but pending that research, at first blush it reads like a concocted joint Dupont – DEP excuse for unconscionable delays in regulatory enforcement and failure to notify and warn Pompton Lakes residents. I read a similar DEP CYA chronology in the notorious Kiddie Kollege case.

It is plausible that this DEP chronology was prepared in 2008 as a bureaucratic ass covering exercise as the shit was hitting the fan after the initial public release of the vapor concerns. Just like in the high profile Kiddie Kollege fiasco, I’m sure DEP’s top management asked questions and wanted a briefing to learn how this all could have happened.

It is equally plausible that the Dupont file subsequently was “seeded” just so EWA, PEER, or the media would “discover” it under OPRA.

During this seven year period, a number of significant and totally unacceptable things happened:

• residents – including pregnant women and young children – of homes above the “plume” were needlessly exposed to unsafe levels of cancer causing chemicals.
• EPA Region 2 submitted multiple management reports and RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator Reports to the public and Congress that stated that the Dupont groundwater plume was “under control” and that provided no status on “human exposure”, despite known vapor intrusion exposure concerns. Perhaps in an attempt to cover this trail of deception, the human exposure indicator recently has been revised.
• Residents who sued Dupont were unaware or vapor intrusion exposures and health risks. Lacking this critically relevant information, they signed liability releases. Those releases subsequently were used to bar them from lawsuits and absolve Dupont for vapor intrusion damages. 

As I advised EPA R2 press officer last night, when EPA was found submitting misleading reports to EPA managers and Congress on the ecological health and water quality of Chesapeake Bay, it was page one news in the Washington Post. The resulting scandal and GAO investigation prompted an Executive Order by President Obama.

The strong possibility of similar EPA misleading RCRA reporting on Dupont environmental indicators needs to be investigated, as does the chronology in toto.

[Update 2 – 5/16/11 – Is NJ media finally willing to write about Christie’s right wing ideology? Christie looks bad in this Sunday Star Ledger story: Taking a stance on topics like evolution, illegal immigration could carry political risk for Christie

For the larger context, i.e. the historical revisionist Christian Nationalist movement that Christie was pandering to, see this and this for right wing “education reform”.

Important update below]

On April 28, 2011, in a post criticizing global warming deniers, I wrote:

The media – for far too long - have given legitimacy to falsehoods by reporting the false claims of ideologues as “he said/she said” stories, ranging from the birthers, to global warming deniers, and intelligent design religious fundamentalists who reject Darwinian evolution as fraud.

I was aware of our science challenged Governor’s right wing pandering views on global warming.

But even I thought the Governor had taken high school biology (i.e. Darwinian evolution) and civics (i.e. Constitutional restrictions on establishment of religion).

Guess not.

Christie thought that teaching creationism in public schools was a “tricky” isssue. [Note: that is the Star Ledger’s word. I originally meant to quote Christie’s “new one” claim.]

Going even further, Christie’s Department of Education spokesman said “of course” creationism could be taught in science class.

Read the full story and weep in today’s Star Ledger Auditor column.

Update: My friend Scott Olson takes me to task for taking the Governor and Education Department comments out of context. Olson wrote (comment in its entirety, so there can be no questions about context. Emphasis mine):

Although the legal and scientific issues are obvious to me, I tend to assume a lot of knowledge or research curiosity on the part of my readers. So, in response to Scott’s concern, let’s break this down and take one point at at time.

The issue of creationism is an even easier one than the science and law of so called “intelligent design (ID) (please read that link!! to the Dover Pa decision: 

In Edwards … the Supreme Court held that a requirement that public schools teach “creation science” along with evolution violated the Establishment Clause. The import of Edwards is that the Supreme Court turned the proscription against teaching creation science in the public school system into a national prohibition. 

ID is the more recent religious argument to attack Darwinian evolution, given the illegality of creationism.

Creationism has long been discredited, both legally and scientifically.

1. Why Governor Christie’s comments were so outrageously offensive and incorrect

Since I have been accused of taking quotes out of context, here is the full Christie quote (I linked to it on the original post. Sorry, I don’t know exactly what the question was that he responded to)

While charming a town hall audience in Manalapan Wednesday, Gov. Chris Christie called on a woman who had an unusual question for him. She asked what he thought about creationism being taught in schools along with evolution.

The governor paused and took a sip of water, quipping, “That’s a new one.”

It was also a tricky one for the governor of a moderate state whose conservative credentials help make him a GOP star.

“I probably have little business getting myself involved in these kinds of questions,” Christie said, adding that local school boards “should be making those decisions about what curriculum is being taught in your schools.”

“I think it’s really a dangerous area for a governor who stands up from the top of the state to say you should teach this, you shouldn’t teach that,” Christie said.

First of all, the Governor is a lawyer and officer of the Court, so it reasonably can be assumed that he is knowledgeable of the law. Accordingly, we can expect that he is obligated to act (speak) in accordance with the law. 

Second of all, he swore an oath to uphold the constitution. That oath was sworn on the Bible, but not to the Bible (a big difference, and the reason for my original photo caption).

With those premises in mind, in direct contradiction to the Governor’s statement, the issue of whether creationism can legally be taught in public schools is not a “new one”.  It was decided by the US Supreme Court almost 25 years ago.

And in addition to setting binding curriculum standards with which all local school districts must comply, the state is obligated to tell teachers that there are some things that they may not teach. Christie has to know this – if not he is incompetent.

Aside from the texbook history that high school kids learn, and the plain meaning and Supreme Court interpretation of the text of the “establishment clause” of the First amendment, the specific issue of whether Creationism could be taught in public schools was settled by by the US Supreme Court in 1987, in a case known as  Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that  a Louisiana law requiring that “creation science” be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. 

Teaching Creationism is flat out illegal in the public schools and has been for a long time, since 1987 – period. 

Christie obviously must have learned this in law school and read this case.

Local school boards do NOT have unfettered discretion on curriculum on this issue.

Christie was obligated to say this, as a licensed lawyer, officer of the Court, and Governor who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

That fact that he didn’t respond to the question in accordance with the  longstanding law of the land and instead chose to pander is disgusting.(suppose he got a question about whether Mexicans could be excluded from public schools, or whether women, gays, blacks, or Jews should be restricted? Would that too be a “new one“?)

It is absolutely shameful that Christie responded the way he did. And all people of good faith should call him out on it.

2. Why the Department of Education’s comments were wrong and blatently illegal

Here is the full excerpt of the Department of Education statement – again, I do not know the question asked:

As it turns out, the state does have a set of core curriculum standards that require what, at minimum, should be taught in New Jersey schools. Evolution is on the list for science classes; creationism isn’t.

“No, the state would not permit the teaching of creationism in place of evolution,” said Department of Education spokesman Alan Guenther. “Could teachers discuss creationism either in science or history classes? Of course. As long as they also teach the required material.”

That statement parrots the religious fundamentalists’ line to “teach all the evidence” and to “teach the controversy” (as if there is a legitimate scientific debate about creationism).

By use of the “in place of evolution”, he statement falsely implies that creationism legally may be taught alongside Darwinian evolution, or in history class. That is just flat out wrong (as a matter of science) and illegal (as a matter of law).

It is embarrasing that I even have to write this post to try to explain that. 

Teachers may not teach creationism – in history, or in a science class – either as a stand alone topic or alongside Darwinian evolution. Period.

Here’s what the Supreme Court concluded about teaching creationism in the 1987 decision cited above (emphases mine):

The Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools. Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable, and their attendance is involuntary. See, e.g., Grand Rapids School Dist. v. Ball, 473 U. S. 373, 473 U. S. 383 (1985); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 472 U. S. 60, n. 51 (1985); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U. S. 349, 421 U. S. 369 (1975); Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 374 U. S. 252-253 (1963) (BRENNAN, J., concurring). The State exerts great authority and coercive power through mandatory attendance requirements, and because of the students’ emulation of teachers as role models and the children’s susceptibility to peer pressure. [Footnote 5] See Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, supra, at 478 U. S. 683; Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, at 472 U. S. 81 (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment). Furthermore, “[t]he public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the State is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools. . . .” Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, 333 U. S. 231 (1948) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.). Consequently, the Court has been required often to invalidate statutes which advance religion in public elementary and secondary schools. See, e.g., Grand Rapids School Dist. v. Ball, supra, (school district’s use of religious school teachers in public schools); Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, (Alabama statute authorizing moment of silence for school prayer); @ 449 U. S. 430 (1962) (recitation of “denominationally neutral” prayer).

Therefore, in employing the three-pronged Lemon test, we must do so mindful of the particular concerns that arise in the context of public elementary and secondary schools. We now turn to the evaluation of the Act under the Lemon test.

The US Supreme Court concluded that creationism may not be taught in public schools because it violates the first amendment’s “establishment clause”:

These same historic and contemporaneous antagonisms between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution are present in this case. The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind. [Footnote 11] The term “creation science” was defined as embracing this particular religious doctrine by those responsible for the passage of the Creationism Act. Senator Keith’s leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified at the legislative hearings that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator. See 1 App. E-421 – E-422 (noting that “creation scientists” point to high probability that life was “created by an intelligent mind”). [Footnote 12] Senator Keith also cited testimony from other experts to support the creation science view that “a creator [was] responsible for the universe and everything in it.” [Footnote 13] 2 App. E-497. The legislative history therefore reveals that the term “creation science,” as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.

Furthermore, it is not happenstance that the legislature required the teaching of a theory that coincided with this religious view. The legislative history documents that the Act’s primary purpose was to change the science curriculum of public schools in order to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. The sponsor of the Creationism Act, Senator Keith, explained during the legislative hearings that his disdain for the theory of evolution resulted from the support that evolution supplied to views contrary to his own religious beliefs. According to Senator Keith, the theory of evolution was consonant with the “cardinal principle[s] of religious humanism, secular humanism, theological liberalism, aetheistism [sic].” 1 App. E-312 – E-313; see also 2 App. E-499 – E-500. The state senator repeatedly stated that scientific evidence supporting his religious views should be included in the public school curriculum to redress the fact that the theory of evolution incidentally coincided with what he characterized as religious beliefs antithetical to his own. [Footnote 14] 

The legislation therefore sought to alter the science curriculum to reflect endorsement of a religious view that is antagonistic to the theory of evolution.

In this case, the purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint. Out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects. As in Epperson, the legislature passed the Act to give preference to those religious groups which have as one of their tenets the creation of humankind by a divine creator. The “overriding fact” that confronted the Court in Epperson was “that Arkansas’ law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with . . . a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.” Similarly, the Creationism Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught. The Establishment Clause, however, “forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma.” Id. at 393 U. S. 106-107 (emphasis added). Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.

3. Why Scott Olson missed the point

Scott claims I took ” TWO words and ben[t] the crap out of them out of context “.

Scott is talking about the Department of Education’s statement that:

“No, the state would not permit the teaching of creationism in place of evolution,” said Department of Education spokesman Alan Guenther. “Could teachers discuss creationism either in science or history classes? Of course

It appears that Scott mistakenly believes either that:

a) it is OK to teach creationism in science class as long as you teach evolution. That is just flat out wrong, because creationism is not science and teaching it is illegal (see above Supreme Court decision). Creationism is not science because it presumes certain supernatural causes in the absence of evidence, which is antiethical to science; or

b) it is OK to teach creationism in history class. This too is not legal for the same reasons set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Contrary to Scott’s claim, I didn’t leave out any context that mattered -  in fact, the facts and the legal and scientific context overwhelmingly destroy both Christie and the Department of Education’s embarrrasing comments.

According to DEP’s own data, 38% of residential drinking water wells in Hammonton Township (Atlantic County) exceed radioactive drinking water standards (from 2002 -2007). That is one of the highest exceedence rates in the State.

The radiological standard in question (5 picocuries per liter) is based on US EPA’s 1 in 10,000 cancer risk level, a far laxer standard which is 100 TIMES less protective than NJ’s Safe Drinking Water Act’s legally mandated risk level of 1 in a million.

The magnitude and widespread extent of these risks in the Coastal plain led DEP to issue a warning back in 2004 to residents of not only Hammonton, but all of South Jersey (see: “A South Jersey Homeowners Guide to Radioactivity in Drinking Water).

Yet, how many Hammonton residents and local officials still are not aware of the data and the 2004 DEP Guidance?

And after all this time, why is DEP – doing their best Claude Raines act – now spinning the Atlantic City Press by implying that radioactive drinking water in Hammonton is some new discovery?

Yesterday (Friday), the AC Press wrote a story: Department of Environmental Protection investigating elevated amounts of radium in Hammonton water supply

HAMMONTON – The Department of Environmental Protection is investigating excessive levels of a radioactive element found in the public drinking-water supply for more than a year.

The DEP launched an investigation several weeks ago after it found concentrations of radium above state and federal standards for safety at a municipal treatment plant. …

But it is not yet clear why the state did not know about the levels of radium until recently, and whether Hammonton knew about the contamination and should have notified residents.

After reading this story yesterday, I reached out to the reporter to brief him on the long known about data in Hammonton and the many flaws we have written about in DEP drinking water program that are illustrated by this Hammonton experience – particularly failure to warn and protect the public.

We warned exactly about this just last July:

RADIOACTIVE WELLS POSE BIGGER RISKS IN NEW JERSEY – Hundreds of Thousands Exposed Daily to Rad Levels Many Times over Safety Limits

Trenton – Radioactivity levels in state drinking water wells are much higher than previously known and at-risk wells cover a bigger slice of the Garden State, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Despite significant adverse public health implications of the findings, the state has not taken steps to alert or protect affected populations.

Naturally occurring radiation has long been a known presence in New Jersey’s well water. But, according to new scientific findings presented at the May 7, 2010 meeting of the state Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI), the extent and depth of radioactivity levels are grounds for renewed concern:

• Official Private Well Testing Act data show that 10.7% of wells in the coastal plain violate the drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for gross alpha (i.e., radiological contaminants). Levels in excess of 30 times the MCL have been reported;

The reporter told me he was writing a followup story today.

But, the story today ignored all of the information I provided and instead of writing a followup story, the reporter merely updated his Friday story.

The update basically rewrites the entire original story in significant ways. This “update” stuff is a non-transparent – borderline Orwellian – and questionable journalistic practice.

Readers can compare the Friday story with the Saturday update and see for themselves.

Today’s update not only ignores the data and analysis I provided, but it includes lots of new information that tends to downplay the risks and absolve both local officials and DEP from fully warranted criticism.

Even the story headline was changed to emphasize a misleading claim that current levels are “safe”. To the contrary: 1) there is no “safe” exposure to radiation; 2) there is no radioactive exposure threshold for cancer; and 3) the standard is set at an unacceptably high cancer risk level.

For example, the update parrots DEP spin. The radiological risks are now described as “an infinitesimal measure of radioactivity” and compared to risk of smoking a cigarette or getting a suntan (that sham comparison reminds me of the famous Ronald Reagan quip that trees cause air pollution).

The reporter ran that risk comparison by me on the phone. I specifially warned him that those kind of comparisons were misleading and not appropriate, if only because smoking and suntans are voluntarily assumed risks.

But drinking water is essential and risk are imposed, not voluntarily assumed, because consumers are unaware of radioactive risks.

The Hammonton situation raises significant issues of statewide importance. We have written about the them and the failures of DEP drinking water standards, monitoring and enforcement of those standards, and failure to warn the public about known risks and to provide guidance on how to take steps to reduce risks and install treatment systems.

Back in August 2008, we reviewed DEP Private Well Testing Act data and wrote Drink at your own risk, which found:

• There is no requirement to fix pollution problems discovered
• Neighbors of polluted wells are not required to be warned
• The program is voluntary: DEP can not enforce the Private Well Testing Act
• The data are unreliable
• The failure rates are artificially low because they do NOT include TOXIC LEAD PROBLEMS

In addition to the radioactive issues, the entire NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute and DEP standards program are in disarray (see: JERSEY NIXES FILTRATION PLAN FOR DRINKING WATER – State Wants EPA to Act on Rising Chemical Contamination of Water Supplies

We’re hoping that the Atlantic City Press does a followup story that provides this information to readers, instead of the spin by negligent DEP and local officials.

Yesterday’s Assembly Budget Committee hearing on the FY’12 DEP budget was consistent with the tradition of Legislators – on a bipartisan basis – to use this hearing as an opportunity to bash DEP and advocate for special interests.

Ed Rodgersof NJN captured a perfect illustration, during an important exchange on the DEP’s water quality management planning rules (watch it here).

Assemblyman Coutino (D-Essex) was carrying the builders water in attacking DEP’s WQMP rules.

Coutino spouted a big lie, implying that DEP WQMP rules were impeding economic redevelopment, when we all know that Wall Street and the real estate bubble are the cause.

DEP Commisisoner Martin went right along with that attack, going even further to suggest legislation to rollback current DEP rules.

But that was no surprise to us – for the Martin record and links to documents, see: Bob Martin Rolls Back Clean Water Rules – Holds Sham “Stakeholder” Meeting To Provide Cover)

Anyone interested on the history of the political assault on these rules, see: Builders Gone Wild  and Legal Corruption – Senator Sarlo Shills for Builders

Update 5/16/11 – Here’s Pringle shamelessly diverting attention from real issues and putting out cover for Christie again: Higher fees, more amenities considered for state parks – end update]

“This is the fourth audit in a row highlighting these same problems,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, a former DEP analyst. “The state is in dire fiscal straits; is it too much to ask DEP to simply collect the rent?”

I thought that last year’s Tennesse gas pipeline debacle would not be forgotten (see: Christie Cuts Sweetheart Deal with Gas Industry).

The Tennessee sham finally shown a spotlight on a longtime failure at DEP (see: NEW JERSEY PARKS LOSE MILLIONS IN UNCOLLECTED LEASE PAYMENTS  – Park Closures Could Be Averted by Reaping Concessionaire and Easement Revenue

But I was wrong – the Budget Committee gave DEP Commissioner Martin a pass yesterday on the parks funding question.

And even veteran reporter Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight missed the story and instead focused on Martin’s scandalously incompetent evasion (see: Administration Hints at Plan to Put State Parks in the Black – DEP Commissioner Bob Martin says sustainable financing would avoid annual threat of shutdowns

Martin gets recognized for a “hint at a plan” after OLS audits and legislative mandates have been ignored for years? Are you kidding me?

I also assumed that the so called “budget crisis” would prompt efforts to find revenue, especially from muti-billion dollar oil and gas corporations that are swimmming in record profits.

Again, I was wrong – see links to documents and details below from our friends at PEER: