Dear Editor:
As a resident of Jersey City and recently appointed Environmental Commissioner, I am deeply concerned about Spectra Energy’s proposal to transport 800 million cubic feet of natural gas per day through Jersey City. I believe it is dangerous and irresponsible to route this gas pipeline through one of New Jersey’s most densely populated cities due to the potential risk of catastrophic failure.
Every day we are reminded of the environmental devastation caused by the Deepwater Horizon accident and BP’s historic disregard for safety. At the same time, some companies are contaminating drinking water in their reckless search for natural gas. In Pennsylvania, water wells have been so contaminated with chemicals that the water is bubbling, fizzing and flammable. Many residents were not even aware of the contamination until Norma Fiorentino’s water well exploded on Jan. 1, 2009.
These are just two examples of the negative environmental impacts caused by the recklessness of an industry that is motivated by profit with little interest in implementing costly safety measures. They also illustrate the inability of our regulatory agencies to protect human health and the environment. In this context, it is hard to understand the logic behind routing this pipeline through a major metropolitan area where the potential for a disaster is so great, unless it is simply the least expensive alternative.
In addition to the obvious risk, there is the question of Environmental Justice. The proposed pipeline will run adjacent to areas of low-income and minority populations. Historically, areas with minority and low-income populations have been exposed to a disproportionately high level of environmental contamination and the resulting health effects. As a result, President Clinton enacted Executive Order 12898, which requires the fair treatment of all people. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.
In this case, the less fortunate who live adjacent to the proposed route will bear the risk of a potential gas leak or explosion, while the residents of Manhattan are supplied with natural gas. In my opinion, this does not meet the definition of fair treatment.
In addition, the cost of ensuring the safety of Jersey City residents in the event of a failure would be passed along to the tax payers of Jersey City placing a disproportionate share of the cost and health risks on Jersey City while Spectra, Con Edison and others would profit.
An alternative route that places safety and fairness above profitability should be selected.
Thomas M. Gibbons, PMP
Commissioner