DEP Science Board Must Be Restricted From Any Role In Regulation And Policy
4. The issues upon which the Board deliberates shall be those that the Commissioner requests the Board, through the Department’s Office of Science, to consider, which issues shall be limited to specific scientific and technical issues, not policy or regulatory matters. ~~~ Administrative Order 2009-05, Acting DEP Commissioner Mauriello
On numerous occasions, Murphy DEP Commissioner McCabe has emphasized the key role of science in DEP decisions. These decisions include: DEP priorities, budget and staff resource allocations, policies, programs, plans, regulations and permits. (DEP press release)
“I am excited to join the DEP and its thousands of expert professionals to help continue the Garden State’s leadership on the issues of climate change and renewable energy, sustainability with economic growth, and environmental protection based on strong science and facts.”
However, McCabe – in addition to mis-stating DEP’s mission to include a role in “economic growth” – is continuing the abuse of science at DEP, as practiced by the Christie DEP Science Advisory Board (SAB).
The DEP SAB was created by Corzine administration DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson.
I am a longtime critic of the DEP SAB, particularly with respect to the membership, which includes industry representative and consultants who have clear conflicts of interests and scientific bias. I’ve objected to the SAB’s role, lack of ethical standards, lack of scientific integrity, and lack of transparency and accountability. Some of those criticisms have led to reforms, others have not.
When Corzine Commissioner Jackson left DEP to assume a role as Gov. Corzine’s Chief of Staff, she was replaced by Mark Mauriello, who served on an Acting basis.
Mauriello issued Administrative Order #2009-5 on May 28, 2009 regarding the mission, role, ethics, and composition of the SAB.
Importantly, Mauriello’s Order specifically restricted the SAB from any role in DEP “policy and regulations” (see paragraph #4).
But Christie DEP Commissioner Martin ignored that restriction and directed the SAB to attack DEP regulations.
Most notoriously, the Christie DEP SAB attack on DEP’s Highlands Nitrate Model – the basis for the Septic Density regulations – led to extreme controversy and a legislative veto of DEP regulatory rollbacks that were based in part on that SAB “science”.
Curiously, Gov. Murphy’s DEP Commissioner McCabe – who touts the importance of science – is repeating that abuse of the SAB.
I lay out and document the argument in the below letter to Senate Environment Committee Chairman Smith, seeking legislative oversight and reforms. I urge support of readers on this important issue:
Dear Chairman Smith and Senators Bateman and Greenstein:
I just reviewed Gov. Murphy’s proposed FY’20 DEP budget in light of NJ Spotlight’s report on a decade of deep budget cuts. In case you missed the important Spotlight story, see:
Funding for State Pollution Control Dropped 12% in Decade to 2018, Study Says
At any rate, aside from these critical funding issues, in reviewing the proposed DEP budget, I noted troubling language regarding the DEP Science Advisory Board (SAB).
As you may know, I have been a longtime critic of the SAB and some of my criticisms have been addressed by DEP reforms, particularly regarding conflicts of interest, ethical standards, and scientific bias. But others have not.
As you may recall, the SAB was created by former DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson. Unfortunately, DEP’s SAB website does not include a link to the Jackson AO (see:
https://www.state.nj.us/dep/sab/
However, it does include a link to the subsequent Administrative Order 2009-05 of Acting DEP Commissioner Mauriello, who replaced Jackson when she went to Gov. Corzine’s Office See:
https://www.nj.gov/dep/sab/sab-ao.pdf
I specifically call your attention to paragraph #4 of that Order, which has not been repealed or superseded and remains in effect, which provides (emphasis mine):
“4. The issues upon which the Board deliberates shall be those that the Commissioner requests the Board, through the Department’s Office of Science, to consider, which issues shall be limited to specific scientific and technical issues, not policy or regulatory matters”
I now call your attention to Gov. Murphy’s proposed FY’20 DEP budget, which on page D-123, directly contradicts paragraph #4 of Administrative Order 2009-05 regarding SAB involvement in regulatory and policy matters:
“The Science Advisory Board (SAB) … reviews the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used or proposed as the basis for Department regulations.”
https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/20budget/pdf/FY20GBM.pdf
Clearly, the SAB was NOT an is NOT authorized to review “the basis of Department regulations” as stated in the proposed FY’20 DEP budget.
Commissioner Mauriello’s AO# 2009-05 clearly restricts the role of the SAB with respect to any role in “policy and regulatory matters”.
Instead, the SAB’s mission, as AO #2009-05 clearly states in paragraph #1, is to:
“is to provide independent peer review and advice to the Commissioner, as requested by the Commissioner, on scientific and technical issues relevant to the Department’s mission (emphasis mine).
In contrast to offices such as the State Geologist, State Forester, and the State Climatologist, the DEP SAB was not established by legislation and has no legislative basis or authorization. It was a creature of Administrative Order.
Because the issue of scientific integrity is central to the protection of public health and the environment and the role of DEP regulations is to implement and enforce responsibilities delegated by the Legislature, I strongly urge you to enforce the DEP AO #2009-05 to limit the role of the SAB to restrict their involvement in regulatory and policy matters.
To do so would require, at a minimum, that the DEP FY’20 budget language cited above be stricken.
Preferably, legislation – or budget language – should establish legislative authorization and define the mission, role, ethical standards, transparency, accountability, and composition of the DEP SAB. I would be glad to work with you on that.
Sincerely, Bill Wolfe
Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » Corporate Members Of Murphy DEP Science Advisory Board Must Be Replaced