The Bergen Record today unequivocally proclaimed:
Polluters rewriting rules for site cleanup.
The headline is followed by these three paragraphs:
Key committees writing rules for New Jersey's new program to clean up contaminated sites are made up entirely of the polluting companies and their contractors.
The 16 committees, which have been putting together rule and guidance documents, include no one from environmental or resident advocacy groups, no health specialists, and no outside experts who aren't affiliated with the cleanup industry.
"It's a who's who of corporate polluters and their hired consultants," said the New Jersey Sierra Club's Jeff Tittel. "These oversight rules will be written so loosely there will be nothing to enforce later."
Misleading? Youbetcha.
After the incendiary headline and the first three paragraphs of self-serving charges by environmental organizations, the Record offers the following three paragraphs as ballast:
Officials with the Department of Environmental Protection counter that an overarching steering committee has four environmentalists among 25 members and that environmentalists were offered a chance to join the committees, but failed to do so.
David Sweeney, the DEP's assistant commissioner for site remediation, said the DEP e-mailed an invitation to a listserv of potential stakeholders in January 2010. He said the names on the list included prominent environmentalists, including Tittel and David Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation.
Sweeney said Pringle and Tittel attended several of the early steering committee meetings but did not attend after that.
Whoa. So, after the damage is done and New Jersey environmental consultants and companies have been maligned as polluters (with the NJDEP a co-conspirator), the writer informs us that, yes, the enviros did have a chance to participate and passed on the offer.
Kinda blows the alarmist headline and lead, doesn't it?
If only such bias were the exception. Sadly, this approach is commonplace among New Jersey journalist who accept the word of environmental organizations as gospel and fail to apply to these 'advocacy' groups the same (I'm skeptical, prove it to me) standards they apply to others.
Just one case in point. How did every business in New Jersey automatically become a polluter?
Because the Sierra Club and the NJ Environmental Federation use the term every time they refer to business, that's how. You tell the big lie often enough and eventually it stands unchallenged.
But aren't journalist supposed to challenge everything they're told by business, by government, by the clergy and, yes, by environmental organizations, too?
We used to think so and, following that logic, the lead of this story could just as easily have been:
"Environmental groups have found a new way to challenge rules and regulations that they don't agree with. They're boycotting the public participation process and then claiming that the resulting rules are unfairly biased in favor of those who offered their time and opinions to help create them. "It all depends on the writer's slant. And with few exceptions, [Tom Johnson of NJ Spotlight is one] New Jersey journalists are alarmingly predisposed to pumping up the enviros' side of the issue--no matter how patently suspect their claims may be.
Are we off base? Read the entire story--Polluters rewriting rules for site cleanup--and tell us what you think.
Use the opinion box below. If one is not visible, click on the tiny 'comments' line. We appreciate signed comments but will use those from you, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Anonymous. We will not publish comments that resort to personal attacks or employ intemperate language.
Our most recent blog posts:
Gov: NJ's pulling out of climate-change compact, RGGI
Gov: NJ's pulling out of climate-change compact, RGGI
NJ concerned as solar energy industry flares out in PA
Final two hearings on NJDEP public-access rules
Rutgers profs try to warm Christie up on climate change
Final two hearings on NJDEP public-access rules
Rutgers profs try to warm Christie up on climate change
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You'll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics
Given the dismal track record of many NJ industries and businesses -- the widespread contamination of land, water and air in the state is clear evidence -- that are only cleaning up their act because they are forced to and not out of a sense of altruism, the burden of proof continues to be on them to eliminate the characterization as polluters. Granted some are becoming more efficient and less polluting because it saves money, but this is a recent trend. The majority are seeking to avoid liability and criminal sanctions; it's clearly cheaper to pollute than control. To believe that these businesses will assume a socially protective position and encourage rules that place greater responsibilities and consequences on themselves is naive and disingenuous. They fight practically every perceive restriction on their operations despite the public interest at stake.
ReplyDeleteAs for the enviros' lack of participation -- it's been noted many times before they do not have the same financial and human resources as the business interests they're watchdogging and therefor cannot commit a balanced level of involvement. It's certainly not due to disinterest and to suggest otherwise is simply a different biased spin.
You obviously have not attended any of these "stakeholder" meetings that are currently being held by the NJDEP on a multitude of important issues. Basically, NJDEP has been holding so many of these "invite only" meetings (sometimes there are 3 in one day for several days in a row) that the enviro groups are stretched thin. We do not have large staffs of paid consultants that can spend weeks at a time in Trenton. Most of the enviro groups are very small staffed and cover a large number of issues throughout the state. We just don't have the resources to be at all of them. We have had numerous conversations and meetings with the NJDEP about this process and how disfunctional it is, but with very little response. The concept is good, but in practice, it has resulted in several closed door, industry only meetings about very important environmental issues in NJ. Even more important, it has been obvious in all of the meetings we have attended, that the issues and concerns of the enviro groups are not being considered or included in the draft rules/guidelines. So if you do attend, the NJDEP makes the statement that enviro groups are on board with all of the results (despite our unheard arguments) and if we don't, we are accused of being poor sports that cry foul after not playing. As you can see this is quite a difficult and unfair position for the enviro groups. So before you accuse us of boycotting, you should do your own unbiased reporting and find out what you are even talking about!
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt that business interests will argue for remedies that are the least restrictive, cumbersome and expensive. That does not mean those remedies can't protect or enhance the environment.
ReplyDeleteThe lamentable fact is that tens of thousands of contaminated sites were being ignored for decades in New Jersey.
The LSRP program, which won overwhelming support in the state Legislature, is a progressive way of addressing the problem. The environmental community, which opposed the LSRP legislation and continues to fight against it's implementation, never offered a credible alternative solution. To think that DEP was somehow going to solve the problem flies in the face of budgetary reality.
What do you mean "were" being ignored for decades in New Jersey?
ReplyDeleteI'm a journo w/o a horse in this race. I was prepared to agree with you based on the pieces of the story you highlighted for your blog.
ReplyDeleteBut, having read it all, I disagree that there's bias in the reporting. If there were sincere effort to have equitable contribution from all stakeholders, the state would make the industries pony up funds to pay environmental groups to pay experts to do so. The state's excuses are too lame to accept, and it didn't present any industry reps that are not notorious polluters to support refuting that the vast majority of the panel is made up of polluters.
That said, I had the same thought you stated in your last post that we shouldn't automatically assume the industries aren't offering good ideas for solutions to the reality that cleanup hasn't been getting done as it is. In large part, I wonder, could that likely be primarily because of industry litigation? It's not a benefit of the doubt I would give without making the state and these industries substantiate their claims of just trying to do a good deed for the public's resources.
The reporter didn't ask either side to fully document claims, a common problem we have in these days of corporate newspapers cutting staff to stenographers instead of reporters. It's not "investigative" to ask sources to document their claims before publishing their quotes. At least, it wasn't in the heyday of American journalism.
I want to expand on what Ms. Sampson said, because she raised an important point that might give you some tips for future use.
ReplyDeleteI have a closer perspective with a couple of other state advisory boards unrelated to environment. They are extremely driven by partisan politics, and this administration is prone to closed-door meetings in what I am pretty sure violates the Open Public Meetings and Open Public Records laws. I say this administration because in the examples I know, it's contrary to the previous administrations, both D and R. Starky contrary ...
These "advisory" panels are making final, nontransparent decisions that affect the average citizens' daily lives in quite magnificent ways without accountability or even public report of who the votes were from.
This point, I think, is very important. It's too bad we can't rely on news companies to watchdog any more, because these panels are where the real news is, imho.
Ms. Samson, sorry. Once I got typing, I couldn't scroll back to check my spelling on your name.
ReplyDeleteThis is quite a difficult and unfair position for everyone not only the enviro groups. I am not part of the "enviro groups" - I work for a small environmental consulting firm. Regardless, if you attend any of those "stakeholder" meetings that are being held by the NJDEP, you will note that so many of those "invite only" stack holders are from a select group of consultant firms - mostly large firms. Sometimes the subject meetings discussions are continued weekly for several months without resolving any issues. So unless you work for a large consultant firm, most small firms like us are very limited on how many meetings they can attend - we just don't have the resources to attend all of them.
ReplyDeleteEven though the stack holder concept is good - but in practice, Essentially those meetings are closed door only meetings. Because after conversations during those numerous meetings with the NJDEP - which often end without resolving issues , the result is very little change. The LSRP and the SRRA REFORM process will continue to be dysfunctional just as the current/previous "NJDEP oversight" process has been in the last decade or two.
Despite speaking out at those meeting, which are important, it has been obvious to all who have attended, that the issues and concerns of the small firms/groups are not being considered or included in the draft rules/guidelines. So if you do attend or if you don't, the NJDEP will continue to make the statement that everyone is on board with all of the policies (despite of unheard comments or not making changes in response to valid comments presented). After attending a few meeting, you stop going because you quickly realize that it is going to be the business "as usual" after May 2012 - except more complex and costly - as it has been over last 20 years or so since I have been working as an environmental consultant in NJ.
Wow! This topic has generated a lot of intelligent and thought-provoking commentary. I'm learning from it and appreciate the time everyone has taken to express their thoughts. It would be nice to hear from the business side, too. How about some of you 'notorious polluters'? Easy now, I'm just kidding. But I'll bet you have some thoughts on the matter. What say you?
ReplyDeleteWhat would you expect to hear from "the business side"? It looks like you have heard from some businesses -- a smaller cleanup company or two.
ReplyDeleteI guess you're asking to hear from members of Big Oil and Big Chemical, like DuPont, to refute that the quantified pollution these giants are well documented to have caused all over the US and the world (Bhopal) is just a figment of the non-big-business imagination?
How do these companies put that genie back in the bottle in the reality-based community and claim not to be "notorius"?
I know you're mostly kidding about that, but with all their flaks, it's a good bet the polluters aren't going to post anything here, and if they did, it would be hollow rhetoric.
Maybe you could play devil's advocate and expand on your pitch that they're trying to streamline cleanup to get it done. It is a nice dream.
How, exactly, are the new policies they are creating for themselves going to make the cleanup more thorough and accountable, not just faster to sweep the whole pollution thing under the rug and call it done?
And, if what these corporate stakeholders' are offering is so great for the public, why do they need to do it behind closed doors, without even fully accounting for what companies are in these meetings and doing what? Shouldn't they want to help cleanup companies, conservationists and property owners who they caused loss of value and use of land get to the big-people's table so all the stakeholders can see how great the Big Biz plan is?
If they get away with streamlining the documenting and accounting process for the pollution and cleanup, how will anyone know if the cleanup really happened? It seems like an abra-cadabra move, the kind of thing we all enjoy at a magic show but not so much when it's carcinogens seeping onto OUR property and into our drinking and irrigation wells.
What did you think of the idea of the state making the polluters put in some cash to pay for the penniless stakeholders to get to the table in an equitable fashion? It could go a long way -- well, some way -- toward convincing people they regret the pollution they caused and wouldn't do it again if they had the chance.
From what I've been told, the folks who have qualified to operate as Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs)and the site remediation staff at the NJDEP are working diligently on a program that should result in the remediation of a large number of polluted sites across the state. Many of these will be returned to productive--and taxable--uses.
ReplyDeleteThey are working through some very complicated issues but share a common purpose--getting it right. Many current skeptics (at least the open-minded ones) are likely to be pleased with the results.
Hey, LSRP-ers, this would be a good opportunity to explain some of the challenges you're working through.
Frank - there are so many fact errors and distortions here I hardly know where to begin. Let me start with your claim that ENGO's never offered alternatives to the SRRA. That is flat out false and you know it. On June 1, 2006 I provided exactly that in testimony to joint Legisltative cmte - see this: http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/06_1_6_peer_testimony.pdf I had sevral meetings with legislators on it. ANd Lisa Jacson's October 26, 2006 testimony even had positive elements in it that never got into SRRA (recall Jackson's "pave adn wave" characterizaion of caps?). For readers that would like an alternative knowledgeable view, please see:
ReplyDeleteSome “Common Sense” for Governor Christie
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2011/06/some-common-sense-for-governor-christie/
Second, virtually all EPA audits and DEP analyses of the DEP SRP program concluded that the primary causes of long cleanup delays and failure to cleanup sites was NOT DEP staff, but a combination of recalcitrant RP's, technically deficient document submissions, and DEP's failure to take any enforcement action to stop these abuses. RP's simply didn't want to spend teh gib money required for permanent cleanup. That is just a fact. This diagnosis of the problem was ignored by legislators for political reasons, which allowed polluters to hijack the reform effort, in turn which led to SRRA. Please don't delve in historical revisions here.
The Stakeholder shams are a figment of Bob martin's authoritarian mind adn Ray Cantor's political cunning and Irene Kropp's lust for power. Every enviro I've spoken to - even the most moderate - has expressed disgust with them. And I won't share the views I've heard from DEP employees.
Frank, if you want to be a unbiased journalist, go for it. But please don't pretend to be here. I make no bones about my advocay adn no pretense to professional journalism in my criticism of it. Your blog in geenral and this post in particular are business advocacy - to be expected, as you play to a paid subscription audience, right?
I hope this posts - I made take this on over at my place.
Wolfe
Frank - trace the Staekholder problem to its source. DEP is just following Christie's Executive Order #2, whose prime imperative was to provide "regulatory relief". Specifically, the stakeholder processes implement this (but DEP forgot about those pesky academics!):
ReplyDeletea. Engage in the “advance notice of rules” by
soliciting the advice and views of knowledgeable persons from outside of New Jersey State government, including the private
sector and academia, in advance of any rulemaking to provide valuable insights on the proposed rules, and to prevent
unworkable, overly-proscriptive or ill-advised rules from being adopted."
http://www.nj.gov/infobank/circular/eocc2.pdf
Bill - I think I'm missing your point. Is there something wrong with commonsense regulation and encouraging opinions from affected parties in creating it?
ReplyDeleteHow can we tell if "commonsense regulation" is on the table if the process is unbalanced toward the view of the polluters and is nontransparent?
ReplyDeleteIn my humble journo opinion, the few contractors who can profit from the cleanup and the DEP reps directed by a hyperpartisan political administration are not in any way the "other side" from the polluters. At best, they are the middle. Really, both have their own beneficial motives in the game that are contrary to victims and environmentalists.
No one is talking about the victims of the polluters. That tells me the media, old and new, have failed on this.
Returning property to taxable purpose isn't always the ultimate reasonable goal. Watersheds, for example, need to be protected from nonnatural uses so nonwatershed properties maintain their unpolluted value.
Personally, and I know this is simplistic, if I were on the board I'd suggest the KISS approach of giving a polluter 30 days to start significant cleanup and submit a plan for speedy completion, or else the state will attach liens against the polluter's assets and do the cleanup itself, fully documented on public record, billing the polluters or seizing the properties until they pay up.
That seems like commonsense to me. Would you advocate fast-tracking that and tell the polluters to simmer down, because now we have an easy way to "git 'er done"?
I think you're right that it doesn't need to be so hard to get progress, but there may be improved answers from environmentalists' and victims' points of view that apparently aren't being heard.