WolfeNotes.com

A Blizzard Of EPA Press Releases On Federal Grants

In the last year or so, I’ve been hit with a blizzard of EPA Region 2 press releases touting EPA distribution of grant funds from various federal infrastructure laws.

They all follow the same script:

• they all make claims of “historic” and “transformational” change;
• they all tout the leadership of President Biden (which has recently shifted to President Biden – Vice President Harris);
• they all include political quotes, but only from Democratic officials: Congress, Gov.; State legislators and local officials, creating a highly partisan impression;
• they all lack basic background information on the particular environmental issues presented and funded and explain how the grant money will make change or improve the status quo; and
• most all of them generate favorable media coverage (and support from environmental groups), based exclusively on the EPA press release (i.e. they illustrate stenography and cheerleading)

I got another one just now titled:

• EPA $1 Million Brownfields Cleanup Grant to Revitalize Contaminated Sites in Woodbine

It’s not much money, and Cape May County is Trump country, so my curiosity was piqued. So I decided to ask some basic question – lets see how (and if) EPA press contact responds to these basic questions:

Hi Stephen – I’m a retired DEP policy planner and write about NJ and national environmental policy issues. A few questions on this press release:

1) Google maps shows the former Hat Company site at 608 Dehirsh Avenue as adjacent to the local MUA and what looks like a water tower, as well as residential structures. Is there groundwater contamination at this site? If so, where is the source water well field? If GW contamination, has vapor intrusion potential been documented and remediated? What is the status of contamination and remediation at this site?

2) Same questions for the old Woodbine School at 808 Franklin Street. What was the source of contamination at the school? Was contamination present when school was occupied?

3) Does the municipal landfill have a DEP approved closure plan? Is there a methane recovery system and/or groundwater pump/treat system installed?  Has a CERCLA HRS been performed at the site? If so, what was the score? What is the status of contamination and remediation at this site?

It would help if EPA provided a link to site specific background information on contamination and remediation.

4) Can you send a link to the program priority criteria for selecting sites and allocating available funds?

5) Woodbine is 1 of only 3 Cape May County municipalities that voted Democratic Party (Clinton/Biden) in 2016 and 2020 Presidential elections, see:

https://nj.gov/state/elections/assets/pdf/election-results/2016/2016-gen-elect-presidential-results-cape-may.pdf

https://www.nj.gov/state/elections/assets/pdf/election-results/2020/2020-official-general-results-president-capemay.pdf

How do you respond to those who question the role of partisan politics in EPA administration of available funds? Is this a legitimate concern? Frankly, I’ve been troubled by the partisan nature of EPA press releases of late.

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Bill Wolfe

Burden For Identifying Lead Water Lines Shifted From Water Utility To Individual

Get Out Your Reading Glasses And Flashlights And Get Down In The Basement!

“Privatization” Mentality Run Amok

The Murphy DEP issued a curious press release last week, warning people not to throw out as “junk mail” important notices from their water utilities about lead service lines (boldface in original):

The public is strongly advised to be aware of and read the official notifications from their water system and to not throw them out or confuse them with private solicitations for water service line protection programs.

Instead of treating these notices as the typical marketing junk mail, DEP advised people to read and follow the directions:

Property owners who receive an Unknown Service Line notice are encouraged to read the letter from their water system and follow enclosed directions on how to proceed.

What the hell! I’ve never seen anything quite like that!

As I read the DEP press release, I realized what was really going on here.

I wrote about this problem about lack of information on lead service lines when the Newark lead crisis story finally got the attention of the media and discussions focused on “Asset Management Plans” for water utilities, see:

• Murphy Administration Spins Regulatory Failure In Drinking Water Crisis Into A Pathway For Privatization

recent DEP testimony to the legislature that admitted a lack of data on the number and location of lead service lines. … see page 10, question 8, paragraph 3 of the exchange between DEP & the Office of Legislative Services (OLS).

Since then, as I warned, the burden for identifying lead service lines was shifted from the water company to the individual homeowner. The Murphy DEP makes that clear – reading between the lines, of course – in the opening paragraph of their curious press release (emphasis mine, and particularly note the DEP’s use of the passive voice):

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is advising residential and business owners across the state to respond to letters that they may receive in the mail in the coming weeks indicating that their water system has not been able to determine the materials used in service lines to their properties.

If the water system – increasingly run by highly profitable private corporations like NJ American Water – somehow is “unable to determine the materials used in service lines” (i.e. whether they contain toxic lead that is putting you and your family at risk of some pretty devastating health impacts), then YOU, the individual homeowner must do so!

What the hell? (note also the use of the vague term “materials”, instead of “contains toxic lead”).

The homeowner pays monthly water bills to a water utility (often a private profit making corporation), a major portion of which is supposed to be allocated to maintenance of the water system, including the water distribution network.

The water utility has experts and maintenance crews with the knowledge, information, and resources to identify which water lines in their water system contain lead materials.

The identification of whether a service line to an individual home contains lead is the water utility’s responsibility and obligation. If necessary, the water utility should send inspectors to individual homes to conduct this work, not make the homeowner – who lacks the knowledge and skills – do so.

The cost of this work should be born solely by the water utility shareholders, not the consumer.

We warned folks to look out for exactly these kinds of abuses, see:

• Upcoming Lead In Drinking Water Report – Issues To Watch Out For

• Elite Foundations and Private Water Companies Hijack Lead In Drinking Water Issue

But, welcome to NJ! (and privatization of public utility water services) – and here we are:

• “A” Is For Abdication – “L” Is For Loophole – “D” Is For DEP Discretion And Delegation – “P” Is For Privatization

The burden is on you! Haha!

And the Murphy DEP just told you to read and follow the directions and like it.

As my grandfather used to say: How do you like ‘dem apples?

Growing Public Opposition To Warehouse Developments On Rural Farmland

[Update below]

In a terse public notice, the NJ Highlands Council cancelled the scheduled September monthly meeting allegedly due to “quorum issues”. This cancellation follows a similar cancellation of the August monthly meting:

NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION – NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COUNCIL

Please be advised that the meeting of the New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council scheduled for Thursday, September 19, 2024 at 4:00 pm has been cancelled due to quorum issues. Our next scheduled meeting is Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 4:00 pm.

The Council is facing strong public opposition to proposed massive warehouse developments (for details on these developments, see:

• Pending Warehouse “Redevelopment” Approval Makes A Mockery Of The Highlands Act And The Highlands Council’s New “Warehouse Policy”

Local opponents of the project in Phillipsburg, Pohatcong, and Lopatcong are organizing and they submitted numerous public comments opposing the “redevelopment plan”, so the Council is now fully aware of just how bad this proposal is.

A vote on a staff recommended approval was on the agenda for both meetings that were cancelled.

Prior to the consecutive meeting cancellations, the public comment period on the proposed warehouse development plan was extended. That’s another indicator of backpedaling.

So, at this point it seems pretty obvious that any “quorum issues” are cover for the Council’s avoidance of facing the public opponents and openly deliberating and voting on this “redevelopment plan” that makes a sham of the Highlands Master Plan.

The opponents aren’t going away and the opposition is building. The Council mistakenly may think that delays dampen public opposition, but delays only allow opposition to build.

The Highlands Council will have to face the music at some point in time, and we urge them to step up to the plate and defend the credibility and integrity of the Highlands RMP by denying this sham.

[Update 9/16/24: I wrote to ask Highlands Council Executive Director Ben Spinelli “Am I right”?

His terse reply:

No, you’re not.

I interpret that to mean that he’s getting no pushback (heat) from the Governor’s Office or DEP for his embarrassing approval of the staff Report that recommended approval with conditions. So, Ben is feeling no “heat” that matters (to him), the public sentiment now just become white noise (or what political theorist Sheldon Wolin called an essential feature of “managed Democracy”.).

Andrew Thomas Schwartz (1867 – 1942)

DEP Blocked Public Scientific Presentations On Fracking & Drinking Water

Lawsuit Alleges That DEP Managers Retaliated Against Expert

A “Stellar Career Took A Nosedive” 

Alan Dillon, a 30 veteran DEP drinking water expert, is suing the Department and several DEP managers for allegedly improperly retaliating and discriminating against him after he refused to comply with his managers’ orders to delete scientific information on fracking and open air reservoirs from his public presentations to academic and regulatory bodies.

The lawsuit names former Christie DEP Assistant Commissioner Dan Kennedy and Commissioner Martin’s Chief Of Staff Magdalena Padilla and several DEP middle managers.

The Appellate Division heard Dillon’s lawsuit on Monday – you can read the briefs and DEP’s response here. 

The lawsuit involves age discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. The legal briefs reveal an embarrassing and totally unprofessional work environment, as well as exposes exactly how DEP suppresses and manipulates science on controversial issues and retaliates against staffers who stick by their guns and refuse to suppress the science.

The briefs and DEP’s response reveal that DEP managers ordered Dillon to delete scientific information from presentations to Rutgers and a drinking water industry conference.

DEP managers claimed that public presentations on fracking and “open air reservoirs” – which were pending highly controversial issues at the time – were too “sensitive” and “political” for Dillon to discuss publicly.

At the time DEP managers sought to suppress Mr. Dillon’s public presentations, both issues were timely, relevant, and highly controversial. The Delaware River Basin Commission was considering a permanent moratorium on fracking and the DEP had recently entered into a controversial agreement with the Passaic Valley Water Commission to drain a reservoir and build costly concrete tanks. see NJ Spotlight’s coverage:

• Residents Oppose Passaic Valley Water Commission Open Air Reservoir Plans

On Garret Mountain in Passaic Valley, residents are fighting a $135 million plan to drain three open-air reservoirs and implant concrete tanks — the tab to be picked up by customers.

Mr. Dillon served at DEP for 30 years and recently retired as a Section Chief in the DEP drinking water program. Mr. Dillon’s brief outlines his professional career at DEP.

Mr. Dillon’s brief claims DEP managers sought to delete scientific information fro two of his professional presentations on drinking water:

The DEP’s reply brief attempts to smear Mr. Dillon and divert attention from the real issue, but it explicitly admits and defends this scientific suppression he resisted. DEP argues:

And after Mr. Dillon refused to delete information on fracking and open air reservoirs from these presentations, his managers drafted “replacement topics” – a transparent attempt to suppress science and change the subject:

Mr. Dillon refused to go along with political intervention by his DEP managers – and for that his “stellar career took a nosedive” and he was smeared and personally attacked.

I know and have worked with almost all the people involved in this tawdry affair and share a very similar experience of retaliation for defending science and informing the public.

There are literally scores of additional issues where the DEP managers suppress science and fail to inform the public about what they call “sensitive issues”.

This is totally unacceptable.

And you will hear nothing about any of it from the lame NJ press corps and the sycophantic DEP cheerleaders who pose as “environmental leaders”.

[End Note – read the DEP brief and see how DEP openly admits and defends suppression of science and political control by managers. Consider this next time DEP makes any public statements about any issues – they’ve all been filtered by the DEP press Office and DEP political appointees: