WolfeNotes.com

EPA Bypassing Legacy Media And Feeding Right Wing Media Propaganda Outlets

“The U.S. DOGE Service, billionaire Elon Musk’s initiative to slash the size of the federal government, also commended Zeldin on X for an ‘awesome job’ on saving taxpayer money.”

‘The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over.’”  (EPA Administrator Zeldin)

The Trump EPA is beginning to get some negative press coverage and political pushback, particularly in response to EPA Administrator Zeldin’s recommendation to repeal the “Endangerment finding”. That finding was mandated by the US Supreme Court opinion in 2007 and serves as the legal and scientific basis for EPA regulation of greenhouses gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

But what the press has NOT been reporting could be even worse.

First, a minor diversion for some relevant history.

People forget that Bush EPA Administrator Christie Whitman’s EPA reversed the Clinton EPA’s legal analysis on whether CO2 was a pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act.

That is essentially the same thing as Trump EPA Administrator Zeldin just did with respect to the Endangerment finding. For the links and receipts on all that, see:

• Setting the Record Straight on Christie Whitman and Global Warming

The Supreme Court cited Whitman’s EPA General Counsel – a lawyer Whitman brought to EPA from her NJ Governor’s Office – Robert Fabricant’s opinion in the text of the 2007 opinion, (@ p.8) citing EPA Federal Register notice 68 Fed. Reg. 52924 – . 52925–52929 (2003 ):

On September 8, 2003, EPA entered an order denying the rulemaking petition. 68 Fed. Reg. 52922. The agency gave two reasons for its decision: (1) that contrary to the opinions of its former general counsels, the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, see id., at 52925–52929; and (2) that even if the agency had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would be unwise to do so at this time, id., at 52929–52931.

But not even Whitman tried to do anything remotely as corrupt as Zeldin.

Getting back to our current focus, for a good summary overview of the EPA rollbacks thus far, see:

• The EPA Under Lee Zeldin

For the wonks, this review is what you should read:

• First Month of the Trump Administration: Environmental Summaries and Insights

Second, every move EPA Administrator Zeldin has made was at the specific direction of prior Trump Executive Orders.

There are many more disastrous rollbacks in the pipeline as mandated by Trump EPA and DOI and Energy Executive Orders that have not been reported or covered superficially so people are unable to understand what’s going on or how it would impact their lives (other than by Trump slogans, like “Drill, Baby Drill” or “Terminating The Green New Scam”).

As Trump himself has bragged, this is only the beginning (of the horrors).

Third, as this could be the most twisted EPA action of all, EPA’s Press Office has created an alternative reality, echo chamber, and media landscape.

EPA is overtly feeding Trump MAGA propaganda outlets.

I’ve never seen anything like this. EPA has joined the “alternative reality” universe and destroyed any shred that remained of their credibility.

Check out this EPA press release on the “dumping gold bars off the titanic” scam that laid the foundation for the DOGE/OMB clawback of $20 billion in Biden Infrastructure funding.

Keep in mind that this illegal scam trigged the resignation of Justice Department lawyers.  The Trump attack dog FBI intervened and issued some kind of extraordinary and likely illegal Order to a US bank to freeze billions of dollars.

In their rollout of this scam, look at the media outlets that EPA quotes in the body of the press release! (they left out Project Veritas who fabricated the scam):

• New York Post EXCLUSIVE
• Blaze Media
• Breitbart
• Daily Caller
• Daily Mail
• Daily Wire News
• Fox News
• Newsmax
• PJ Media
• RealClear Politics
• Washington Examiner
• WAPO
• Washington Times

Flood the zone and feed the maggots.

Given the climate emergency, vague long term goals that lack implementation requirements are no longer acceptable.

[Update: 3/10/25 – the recently reintroduced proposed federal Polluter Pays Climate Fund is similarly focused on adaptation, but it has broader uses of the funds, which include projects that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including energy efficiency, distributed energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and public health. Why isn’t the NJ bill at LEAST as broad as the federal bill? ~~~ end update.]

The Assembly Environment, Natural Resources, and Solid Waste Committee has a big agenda for tomorrow’s hearing (see the bills to be considered).

Climate, EJ, environmental lobbyists, and any media coverage are very likely to focus on the flawed Climate Superfund Act.

Of course it is important to hold Big Oil responsible for the costs of the damage caused by their greed and criminal negligence, but the bill would do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the funds generated would be limited to adaptation, not emissions reduction.

By focusing activist resource so heavily on money related issues, we are falling further behind in the battle over the need for steep and rapid emissions reductions.

This is a huge strategic error for NJ climate activists, given the upcoming Gubernatorial election. Activists and the Trenton groups who do endorsements should be pressuring candidates to make clear and rock solid commitments to support a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure and direct DEP to implement mandatory GHG emissions reductions, along the lines of recent NY State legislation.

Activists also must highlight the fact that – while the NJ Global Warming Response Act is toothless – DEP has this authority under existing law but is not using it. Instead, they have given DEP Commissioner LaTourette a pass and become DEP cheerleaders.

When I recently shared that analysis and strategic recommendations with a leader of one of the climate groups supporting the bill, I got strong pushback and falsely criticized. So, I shared the text of the bill and the prime sponsors own words.

During the Senate hearing, when the bill was introduced, Senator McKeon emphasized the narrow scope:

“This is a cost recovery act – solely that” (listen at time 50:00)

The prime sponsor (Senator McKeon) has repeatedly emphasized that the Climate Superfund Act: 1) is NOT intended to address and is NOT applicable to emissions reductions; and 2) the money is to be used for adaptation, not emissions mitigation. (see text of section 5.(a)5. regarding use of the revenues):

“(5) disperse funds to implement climate change adaptation projects”

During the Senate hearing, McKeon practically ridiculed industry critics who falsely claimed that the bill would end the use of fossil fuels. He noted that Exxon earned over $100 billion in profits and that bill would recover only a small fraction of those annual profits.

McKeon said that on the record in this Associated Press story:

“This is simply a cost recovery tool,” said the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. John McKeon. “This is about who pays for the damage: either the taxpayer pays, or the polluter pays.”

“This money will be used by mom and pop who need to elevate their house because of flooding, or to build a sea wall,” McKeon said.”

Senator, we don’t need any more seawalls or reconstruction of multiple flood damaged properties in hazardous locations!

I wrote about all those flaws last December, when the bill was heard in the Senate, see:

• NJ Senate Hears Climate Superfund Act – The Bill Would Do Nothing To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

But in addition to the Climate Superfund Act, there is an important and controversial bill up on Monday regarding DEP regulation of warehouses, A4679

Requires certain high-traffic facilities to obtain permit from DEP and annually implement measures to reduce air pollution caused by facility.

I reached out to the sponsors to flag serious flaws and request amendments, see:

Dear Senator McKeon –

Tomorrow the Assembly Env & NR Committee will hear A4679, the Assembly version of your warehouse bill, S3546.

I’d like to suggest a minor technical amendment to correct an inconsistency in the bill, and some broader policy related amendments for your consideration. I ask that you convey this request to the Assembly sponsors and OLS aides, as I lack their email contact information.

1. No Deadline for DEP rulemaking

Section 3 of the bill mandates that DEP establish an indirect source review program within 12 months of enactment. Any such program would require regulations to implement. But Section 9 of the bill, which authorizes and mandates adoption of DEP regulations, does not include a 12 month deadline.

Given the history of extensive delays in DEP rulemaking and the fact that the program can not be implemented in the absence of regulations, Section 9 needs to be amended to include the Section 3 12 month deadline.

2. No mandatory permit consistency or numerical crosswalk (or implementation schedule) between the 2050 zero emission program goal and the DEP point system.

As drafted, the bill does not require that DEP permits issued shall be consistent with the 2050 zero emission goal of the Act. This flaw makes it virtually impossible for DEP to deny a permit or impose mandatory emission reduction requirements.

The bill does not require that the DEP point system – or mitigation measures and permit conditions – be based on data that supports attainment of the 2050 zero emission goal. This flaw makes the point system vulnerable to technical and legal challenge, as their is no nexus between the points and emissions reductions or the 2050 zero emission goal of the Act.

The bill does not establish a schedule to attain the zero emission goal. This would allow DEP to defer emissions reductions to future long term goals.

The Legislature and DEP have failed to design and implement programs that meet long term goals (e.g. the Global Warming Response Act). A significant flaw driving these failures in a lack of quantitative integration of goals, timetables, and program requirements.

Accordingly, as drafted, the bill is unworkable and will not meet the stated 2050 zero emission goal, unless specific permit consistency, quantitative point system, linkages between goal and program requirements, and a phased timetable are included.

3. Exemption of greenhouse gas emissions from permit fees

Section 6.a. explicitly exempts greenhouse gas emissions from DEP permit fees.

Given NJ’s failure to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals under the Global Warming Response Act, what is the basis for that?

Greenhouse gases are explicitly regulated as “air contaminants” (pollutants) under the NJ Air Pollution Control Act. The DEP has failed to apply this regulatory authority to regulate GHG emissions under various air pollution permits. The DEP also has failed to include GHG emissions in current mandatory emissions fees for certain air pollutants.

The bill would perpetuate these major flaws.

4. No Land Use planning and regulation components

With the exception of including an indirect allusion in DEP’s annual reporting on “contribution to flooding risks” in Section 7, bill lacks consideration of NJ’s Municipal Land Use Law, the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, the Highlands Act, the Pinelands Act, and DEP’s land use planning and regulatory programs.

As such, it will do nothing to prevent unacceptable land use impacts from new warehouse development.

I understand that the intent of the legislation is focused on air pollution impacts, but it does include many other broader issues. Failure to consider land use planning and regulation is a major flaw.

5. No Consideration of Water Resources and Flood Impacts

Same flaw as #4 above.

I suggest you consider a broader and more workable bill. Given the climate emergency, vague long term goals that lack implementation requirements are no longer acceptable.

Bill Wolfe

Jersey Boy Alito Wrote An Awful Opinion

Amazingly, Dissent Was Written By Fellow Right Winger Coney-Barrett

A Case Of Be Careful What You Ask For

The right wing anti-regulatory US Supreme Court just issued a decision that appears to have gutted core provisions of the Clean Water Act, see:

• City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, United States Supreme Court, Case No. 23-753.

The victorious plaintiffs from San Francisco issued a press release, bragging:

Large cities and jurisdictions across the country like Boston, New York, and Washington D.C. shared San Francisco’s concerns and submitted amicus briefs supporting the City’s position. The City was joined by more than 60 amici, including the 400 cities represented by the California League of Cities, the 2,800 members of the National League of Cities, the over 2,300 members of the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies.

The decision is being reported in the media as a major rollback of the Clean Water Act, which would allow “raw sewage to be discharged to drinking water supplies”:

• US supreme court weakens rules on discharge of raw sewage into water supplies

That take is clearly over the top, as the case involved an ocean outfall.

But on the legal and practical implications, I say, not so fast.

This could be a case of “be careful what you ask for“. Let me explain.

For my entire career, I’ve heard NJBIA (previously Jim Sinclair, now Ray Cantor), NJCIC (previously Hal Bozarth, now Dennis Hart. Ironically,Dennis used to manage the DEP’s NJPDES water permitting program) and the Chamber of Commerce lobbyists howl about EPA and DEP issuing “prescriptive regulatory mandates” in permits.

They’ve demanded “flexibility” and “performance based” permits.

EPA conceded to those critics and gave them what they asked for.

For decades, EPA has been playing a game by writing vague NPDES permits with broad narrative permit conditions, like: “thou shall not pollute and violate water quality standards” and pursued a policy that “installation of Best Management Practices” (BMPs) meets water quality standards.

This approach got EPA off the hook for having to do all the work to review and write site specific detailed permits with real data and science about potential impacts on water quality and whether the permit conditions would actually meet water quality standards.

In turn, the polluters (permittees) could avoid having to do a lot of technical work in submitting a permit application. The permittee then could rely on this vague permit language under the “permit shield” concept to avoid EPA enforcement and lawsuits by environmental groups. It was very difficult prove a permit violation.

Under the Court’s ruling, it looks like EPA and DEP will now have to write detailed NPDES permits with specific technical and numeric conditions that can be measured and enforced.

Hahaha! No more hiding behind BMPs to protect water quality!

But I think Justice Alito got it badly wrong on the “water quality based effluent limits” (WQBELs) provisions of the Clean Water Act.

As EPA notes, Section 303 of the CWA mandates:

Permit writers must consider the potential impact of every proposed surface water discharge on the quality of the receiving water. If TBELs are not sufficient to meet the water quality standards in the receiving water, the CWA (section 303(b)(1)(c)) and NPDES regulations (40 CFR 122.44(d)) require that the permit writer develop more stringent, water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs). 

How could Alito completely ignore this?

So if the Court’s decision is interpreted to be broader than the EPA Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) program, then the entire national (and NJ) clean water program is in fact gutted.

In order to air this complex debate and explore the implications of the Court’s decision, I wrote the following to Legislative leaders and DEP Commissioner LaTourette:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, senmckeon@njleg.org, senzwicker@njleg.org, Hansen, Eric, shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov

Cc: wparry@ap.org, fkummer@inquirer.com, srodas@njadvancemedia.com, O’Neill, James, warrenm@njspotlightnews.org, ferencem@njspotlightnews.org, jonhurdle@gmail.com, Maya K van Rossum <maya@forthegenerations.org>, tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org, agoldsmith@cleanwater.org, dpringle1988@gmail.com, Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, Richard Isaac <risaacx@aol.com>, emile@njconservation.org, Matthew Smith <msmith@fwwatch.org>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>

Date: 03/08/2025 12:21 PM EST

Subject: US Supreme Court Clean Water Act decision

Dear Senators and DEP Commissioner LaTourette:

On Friday, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding the Clean Water Act and water quality based effluent limits, see:

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, United States Supreme Court, Case No. 23-753

The case involved a challenge by the City of San Francisco to an EPA combined sewer overflow (CSO) permit.

As I read the decision, the Court made serious errors in interpreting the Clean Water Act.

The decision now jeopardizes not only the NJ DEP’s CSO permits, but all other permit limits and “water quality based” (WQBEL) effluent limits, including the entire “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) program for impaired waters.

I urge you to conduct oversight hearings and take public testimony on the implications of this decision and whether new State legislation is required to avoid legal challenges to NJ DEP clean water permits and programs.

Bill Wolfe

Preventing And Regulating Junkyard Fires Is Not A Local Issue

NJ Spotlight Coverage Goes From Bad To Worse

We Expose A Corrupt Co-Optation Project

NJ Spotlight did another story today – their third – about the most recent junkyard fire in Camden at the DEP regulated EMR scrap recycling facility, see:

• Camden residents slam EMR after large fire at scrapyard

In terms of getting to the source of the problem and holding government accountable for their longstanding and repeated failures to enforce environmental laws and protect the community, the coverage is getting worse, not better.

I blasted Spotlight’s prior coverage and the pathetic DEP’s $7,600 enforcement fine and explained the weakness in current DEP regulations and lax DEP oversight.

I explained how this facility – located in perhaps the worst environmental justice community in the country – was NOT regulated by the NJ Environmental Justice law and DEP environmental justice regulations.

Most importantly, I specifically highlighted both the toxicity of the materials stored and processed at the EMR junkyard and the extreme hazards from exposure to the smoke from burning that material, which Spotlight mislead readers by describing it innocuously as “fluff”.  It is known as toxic “Auto Shredder Residue“:

B. CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The chemical characteristics of ASR are typified by the presence of a very small amount of residual metals, such as lead, cadmium, copper and zinc, as well as various petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., lubricating oils and other residual automotive fluids) and PCBs. Concentrations of certain residual metals in untreated ASR can approach or exceed California TTLCs and STLCs. For example, untreated ASR often contains total lead in excess of 1,000 mg/kg and WET extractable lead in excess of 5 mg/l.

I recommended:

DEP Must Revoke Permits, Pursue Criminal Enforcement, And Shut Down EMR Scrap Metal Recycler For Repeat And Knowing Major Violations.

As usual, I sent this information to NJ Spotlight reporters and editors. So, one would expect that followup coverage would at least report SOME of these critical issues – but instead, they all were ignored and the coverage got WORSE.

DEP regulation of EMR facility was not even mentioned. Worse, the sub headline of the story created a false impression that DEP took strict enforcement action. Check this out:

Company’s waterfront scrapyard previously caught fire in 2022, been fined by the DEP multiple times

Did EMR or DEP write that?

Fined. Multiple. Times? Wow. Sounds like DEP is really kicking ass, right?

But next we learn:

[EMR] employs more than 100 locals, but between EMR and the scrapyard’s previous owner, it has been fined multiple times by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, including $24,000 worth of fines in 2007 alone.

EMR USA is a large corporation with over $500 million in annual revenues. 

A $24,000 fine – “alone”! – is not even lunch money. And it’s 18 YEARS OLD, and was issued by the notoriously anti-DEP regulatory Christie administration. And that fine was issued BEFORE enactment of the NJ environmental justice law, which is supposed to be about remedying the impacts from prior lax regulation in environmental justice communities.

Notably, that paltry Christie DEP fine is LARGER than the pathetic $7,600 fine issued more recently by the Murphy DEP. That ought to tell you something.

Do the people and local officials in Camden even KNOW that DEP is the primary agency responsible for the safety and environmental impacts of the EMR facility?

The people interviewed in the Spotlight story never mentioned DEP.

Spotlight’s coverage framed the issue from a local fire department investigation angle.

What could explain the lax DEP regulation and enforcement AND the lame press coverage by NJ Spotlight?

First, let’s start by noting that EMR is a UK based global corporation. The Camden facility is part of the EMR US affiliate, with over  $500 million in annual revenues in 2023 – (other reports say far more, $1 – $5 billion).

Second, we note that EMR is legally represented by Michael Gross, one of NJ’s most powerful and politically connected corporate lawyers (see DEP air permit hearing transcript). Mr. Gross not only knows the law, he knows how to pull strings and play the DEP political game too and has been playing it for decades.

Third, of course, we must note that this is Camden, a notoriously politically corrupt city and connected to the NJ Democratic Party that runs the DEP.

Fourth, Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette is a former corporate lawyer with close ties to South Jersey Democrats.

Fifth, LaTourette has proven extremely adept at co-opting environmental groups and silencing their criticism, typically with DEP grant funding. So the local Camden’s Center for Environmental Transformation might just be taking DEP money. We note that they are part of a DEP funded project called the Camden Collaborative Initiative. 

That Camden initiative stresses “collaboration”, so criticism of DEP is bad form and DEP gets the protection it pays for:

The Camden Collaborative Initiative (CCI) is a solutions-oriented partnership between governmental, non-profit, private, and community-based agencies formed to plan and implement innovative strategies to improve the environment and the quality of life of Camden’s residents.

When does a “partnership” become co-optation and sellout? I think we’re there.

So, given all these facts, it’s pretty obvious what kind of corruption is going on here.

But what explains NJ Spotlight’s journalistic malpractice? Could Mr. Gross or someone at EMR be pulling strings at PBS?

[End Note: I’m just now reading the transcript of a public meeting on the DEP air permit, and noted this highly misleading statement by ERM: (@ page 34)

MR. DAVID STEINBERG: Okay. Are you aware of any pollutants, hazardous fumes that would be harmful to health that are being released due to the fires?

MR. JOE BALZANO: We have not found any during the monitoring. There was nothing that was recorded that was dangerous to the public.

That’s a flat out lie or the monitoring that was conducted was seriously flawed.

More Shoes Drop In The Assault On Government Regulation

Accelerating Into The “Void” – What Could Go Wrong?

(caption: sinkhole collapse on River Road, Montague, NJ during gas pipeline construction (7/9/13 – Bill Wolfe)

We are now witnessing the effects of decades of privatization and deregulation, as Boeing planes crash, toxic bomb trains derail and burn, oil and gas wells blowout, and cargo ships take out bridges.

The coming years are likely to add various building failures to that list. ~~~ Wolfenotes.

A section of Interstate 80 in New Jersey has been closed since February 10 as a result of the roadway collapsing into a sinkhole.

The sinkhole was caused by an abandoned mine.

Fourteen years ago, we warned about abandoned mines:

During the investigation and repair of the February 10 sinkhole collapse, another road closure was caused by what NJ Spotlight called a “void”:

A sinkhole and a newly-discovered void along I-80 in Morris County has led to the closure of parts of the highway for a month, snarling traffic and enraging drivers. 

Drivers are getting pissed off by the delays.

But this is only the beginning, as the shoes continue to drop on the last 40 years of attack on government planning and regulation and disinvestment in public infrastructure.

There’s a very big story here. The dots must be connected.

But instead of connecting these dots, in a textbook case of “burying the lede” – literally buried in the closing sentence – NJ Spotlight casually suggested today that there’s a much larger problem lurking:

New Jersey has about 600 abandoned mines statewide. While many abandoned mineshafts are located in fields and forests, some are located directly underneath buildings and highways.

They left out the pipelines, as we warned 12 years ago:

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Drilling Causes Sinkhole Road Collapse – Pipeline Route and Drilling Hit Known Vulnerable Limestone Geology

How Many Other Places Along Pipeline Are Prone to Collapse?

(caption: sinkhole collapse on River Road, Montague, NJ (7/9/13)

The sinkhole collapse is part of a pattern of seriously negligent, reckless, and illegal pipeline construction practices that have caused tremendous environmental damage in NJ (for warnings and photos of pipeline violations we’ve previously published, see this and this and this).

The latest sinkhole collapse raises important questions of how this could have been allowed to happen and whether there are other places along the pipeline route where sinkholes could cause the catastrophic collapse and rupture of the gas pipeline – there could be numerous literally ticking time bombs.

The collapse also raises questions about the adequacy of the environmental review,  permitting, and construction compliance monitoring of the project by federal and state regulators, and whether the proposal to route the pipeline under the *Monksville Reservoir should be abandoned.

The limestone and karst geology in the northwestern portion of NJ and the risks of sinkholes have long been known to federal, state and local officials – and in exactly the location site where the sinkhole emerged.

How did Tennessee engineers and government regulators apparently miss that?

We urge the following immediate actions:

• We urge federal and state officials to issue an immediate stop work order and conduct an investigation along the entire pipeline route where there are risks from sinkhole collapse.

• We urge federal and state regulators to take aggressive enforcement action against Tennessee Gas Pipeline for this negligence and major violation of drilling permits, including penalties to assure that all damage is restored.

• In light of these kind of risks – created by known and unknown geological conditions – to reconsider and reject pipeline routing under the *Monksville Reservoir.

• We urge state and federal regulations to beef up inspection and enforcement oversight of this pipeline construction to prevent any more accidents and damage.

All those recommendations were ignored.

And NJ Spotlight story today also left out the risks caused by illegal disposal of construction debris at development sites. These disposal operations often cause sinkholes and land subsidence. DEP has know about this for decades and done little or nothing.

And they left out new construction in hazardous locations.

Despite these serious risks revealed back during that pipeline sinkhole, NJ State legislators and regulators simply ignored all that and did NOTHING to strengthen land use planning laws and regulations to assess and avoid these problems and mitigate the risks and impacts.

In fact, they’ve done just the opposite: major new development (warehouses, housing, pipelines, etc) are still being built over high risk geology.

Worse, existing NJ laws and regulations and inspection practices are being weakened.

For example, last year, we criticized Gov. Murphy for signing a privatization bill into law. We wrote:

• Murphy Administration Just Privatized Construction Inspections – What Could Go Wrong?

NJ’s construction industry has a long history of corruption and dangerous practices – from shoddy construction, to sinkholes caused by burying construction debris on site, to illegal disposal of toxic fill (AKA “dirty dirt”), to building schools on hazardous waste sites – to name just a notorious few off the top of my head.

Now, builders and developers can hire their own private inspection crews to cover all that up.

We are now witnessing the effects of decades of privatization and deregulation, as Boeing planes crash, toxic bomb trains derail and burn, oil and gas wells blowout, and cargo ships take out bridges.

The coming years are likely to add various building failures to that list.

Add to that list: along interstate highways too.