Earth Day 2024 Message: Murphy Administration Illustrates The Deregulatory Ratchet
Republican Rollbacks Never Restored
Over Time, The Policy Of Continuity Goes In One Deregulatory Direction
On this Earth Day, instead of issuing the standard warning to get the hip boots on because the bullshit will be deep, I thought I’d reflect on a disturbing trend in the historical direction of environmental policy.
Let’s call it the “deregulatory ratchet” (TM).
In politics and media, there is a similar dynamic called the Overton Window. Over time, the corporate right have shifted the Overton Window sharply to the right, such that what was unthinkable just a few years ago is now considered a viable and reasonable policy agenda (which we have called fascism, see:
The deregulatory ratchet operates in a similar fashion, to wit: Republican administrations roll back regulatory protections and the succeeding Democratic administrations never restore them and just move on to other issues.
The deregulatory ratchet has multiple policy features: deregulation, privatization, budget cuts, revolving doors, corporate capture, and co-optation of environmental groups are the primary mechanisms.
Some call this “Neoliberalism”, but we prefer our term “deregulatory ratchet” because that term is historical, dynamic, and provides a framework to drill down on the concrete substantive policy and program agenda that constitutes the “deregulatory ratchet”.
This term can promote transparency, media coverage, and accountability. In contrast, the term “Neoliberalism” is far too theoretical, abstract, and inaccessible. To some, the term even sounds good, i.e. a form of “liberalism”.
There are several factors that promote or enable the deregulatory ratchet to operate with impunity and without accountability.
These factors include a depleted media that lacks institutional memory, co-opted environmental groups led by mediocrities or incompetents (that’s you Doug O’Malley, Ed Potosnak, and Anjuli Ramos), and public officials who have corporate backgrounds and are increasingly willing to gaslight, manipulate, and even lie to the press and public (that’s you, Shawn LaTourette).
The Murphy administration and DEP Commissioner LaTourette provide a case study that perfectly illustrates the deregulatory ratchet. They have yet to restore Republican rollbacks going back 30 years to the Whitman administration and more recently 8 years of the Christie administration.
As a result, regulatory protections continue to erode; DEP budget, staff and science are increasingly inadequate to respond effectively; environmental groups are totally co-opted sycophants and cheerleaders; and as a result environmental quality and public health protections worsen across the board while corporate power increases.
So, with those thoughts in mind, here is my letter to DEP Commissioner LaTourette that provides the evidence to support my “deregulatory ratchet” theory. I think the current term for this letter is “the receipts”:
———- Original Message ———-
From: Bill WOLFE <b>
To: “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>, “Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov” <Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov>
Cc: “keith.cooper@rutgers.edu” <keith.cooper@rutgers.edu>, “O’Neill, James” <ONeillJ@northjersey.com>, “tmoran@starledger.com” <tmoran@starledger.com>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, “ferencem@njspotlightnews.org” <ferencem@njspotlightnews.org>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, Robert Hennelly <rhennelly55@gmail.com>, “david@njglobe.com” <david@njglobe.com>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, “Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club” <taylor.mcfarland@sierraclub.org>, “zoe.kelman@gmail.com” <zoe.kelman@gmail.com>
Date: 04/20/2024 6:36 AM EDT
Subject: NJ Leadership & Voluntary compliance – chromium in drinking water
Dear Commissioner LaTourette:
California and NJ have long been national leaders in the adoption of science based stringent standards to protect public health and the environment for air, water, toxic site cleanup, chemical safety, energy, and climate.
In the nation’s most densely populated State with a legacy of industrial pollution, under federal and New Jersey State laws, NJ DEP has long adopted environmental standards that were broader in scope and more stringent than federal minimums. This reflects the federalism framework under federal environmental law, which allows States to adopt more stringent standards, based on local conditions and policy priorities.
However, NJ’s national leadership and policy of adoption of more stringent State standards were reversed by Governor Whitman’s 1994 Executive Order #27, as part of her “Open For Business” policy initiative.That Executive Order was never revoked.
Making things worse, on his first day in Office in 2010, Gov. Christie issued a package of “regulatory relief” Executive Orders: Executive Orders #1 (regulatory moratorium) Executive Order # 2 (regulatory relief), Executive Order #3 (Red Tape review), and Executive Order #4 (abdication of State role to local government).
As you know, those Christie Orders were revoked by Gov. Murphy’s EO #63, but that Order did not restore the policy of State leadership and more stringent State DEP standards that existed prior to the Whitman Order #27.
While there have been exceptions, since the Whitman administration, DEP has relied primarily on federal EPA standards. Whitman and Christie era regulations have been readopted without change. In fact, the Murphy DEP has readopted 51 regulations without change (see the DEP Rule Re-adoption Without Change page.)
With this context in mind, I am writing to followup on my recent email that requested the status of the DEP’s consideration of a State drinking water MCL for hexavalent chromium.
The State of California just adopted the first drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium.
The NJ DEP does not have a drinking water standards for hexavalent chromium.
As you know, in September 2010, DEP scientists assigned to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute recommended a health based MCL for hexavalent chromium of 0.07 parts per billion: (see the Drinking Water Quality Institute’s meeting minutes for September 10, 2010:
3. Subcommittee Summaries—Subcommittee Chairpersons Health Effects—L. McGeorge: She noted first that the Subcommittee had adjusted its workplan, delaying action on radium and tertiary butyl alcohol to the first quarter of 2011; they would consider adding nitrates to their workload at a future meeting. Second, after A. Stern’s presentation at the previous Health Effects Subcommittee (HE) meeting on the slope factor developed by the NJDEP Chromium Workgroup for oral exposure to hexavalent chromium, the HE had accepted this slope factor as the basis for a Health-based MCL recommendation for hexavalent chromium at its September meeting. L. McGeorge distributed copies of a memorandum to the Testing and Treatment Subcommittees, recommending a health-based maximum contaminant level (HBMCL) of 0.07 μg/L for hexavalent chromium based on this slope factor.
Thus, hexavalent chromium is an unregulated chemical similar to the regulatory status of the family of “forever chemicals PFAS prior to recent DEP regulation.
Upon adoption of drinking water standards for PFAS in 2020, the DEP issued a press release that touted national leadership – and also made a statement that even without that State regulatory standard, that there was “voluntary” compliance upon “detection” (DEP Press Release):
“Safe drinking water is a top priority for the Murphy Administration,” said Commissioner Catherine R. McCabe. “With the adoption of these standards, New Jersey continues to lead the nation in protecting public health and the environment from these chemicals, which have been detected at varying levels across the state. New Jersey’s water systems have worked voluntarily and productively with us over the years, taking steps to protect the public when these chemicals have been detected. By adopting formal standards, we are putting in place a clear regulatory framework that will ensure consistency in monitoring, public notification and treatment across the state.”
https://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2020/20_0025.htm
Has there been similar voluntary protections for hexavalent chromium, i.e.”New Jersey’s water systems have worked voluntarily and productively with us over the years, taking steps to protect the public when these chemicals have been detected.”
Have NJ water systems sampled for, detected, and treated hexavalent chromium to at least 0.07 ppb?
Accordingly, I strongly urge you to adopt the drinking water standards of 0.07 ppb recommended by DEP scientists back in 2010.
Thank you:
Bill Wolfe