Environmental activists, state legislators, and city officials have decried the reported state of New Jersey settlement with Exxon-Mobil Corporation regarding years of contamination at sites in Bayonne and Linden.
The alleged settlement was first reported by The New York Times on Feb. 27, and since that time a cascade of criticism has followed the agreement by the state to accept $225 million from the petroleum giant – instead of a possible $8.9 billion that might have come from a judge’s ruling. The figure was originally reported by The Times as $250 million.
The legal fight over the cleanup of the two former industrial sites has been going on for more than a decade.
The battle to wrestle $8.9 billion in damages from Exxon Mobil for the pollution and loss of use of more than 1,500 acres of wetlands, marshes, meadows, and waters in those two cities was quietly settled.
The reported settlement has raised the ire of New Jersey state politicians, and at least one has pledged to take action to reverse the agreement.
State Sen. Raymond Lesniak, D-Union, has mounted a petition drive in an attempt to undo the negotiated settlement.
Capt. Bill Sheehan, founder of the Hackensack Riverkeeper, is shocked and dismayed at the recent occurrences regarding the environmental suits.
“I never thought I’d live to see the day in my life that $250 million was chicken feed. It’s like a fire sale,” Sheehan said. “This is not about fixing things. It’s about stealing New Jersey natural resources.”
Sheehan is upset not only by what he perceives as Exxon refusing to pay the correct amount of restitution, but what he said is taking the public’s right to use what is rightfully theirs.
“There’s nothing aesthetic about an oil-drained shoreline,” he said, adding that that’s where some of the petroleum product wound up. “Those natural resources were destroyed. They killed natural fisheries.”
Sheehan is also upset that state groups like his were not factored into the settlement talks.
“They didn’t talk to any of us,” he said. “None of the environmental groups in New Jersey were aware that this mockery was going to take place.”
Bayonne comment
On March 5, Bayonne Mayor James Davis issued a statement taking issue with being left out of the negotiation process.
“The affected area is literally right in our backyard, so I would have liked to have had some kind of input into this,” Davis said. “Unfortunately I just haven’t been made aware of the details of the pending agreement, or, more importantly, how this will affect Bayonne.”
“I never thought I’d live to see the day in my life that $250 million was chicken feed. It’s like a fire sale.” – Capt. Bill Sheehan
____________
Davis said that since the $2.6 billion, or approximately 30 percent, of the $8.9 billion originally sought by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection was slated for remediation and site restoration that the settlement money, if approved, would not account for even 10 percent of site restoration costs.
“The number reported seems very low, but the court will decide the merits of the settlement and the process will need to run its course,” Davis said. “I’ve instructed my administration to follow this process, comment when possible, and pay close attention to further developments.”
Longtime Bayonne resident Leonard Kantor, a cofounder of the Bayonne Citizens for Clean Air, is disappointed in the settlement, claiming there are millions of gallons of oil underground on Hook Road in the city.
Kantor said the area began to be polluted in 1870, when the Exxon property, then Standard Oil, was farmland.
“The tanks had no flooring; just dirt and sides around them and the top,” he said. “Later on they
had to put metal on the bottoms.”
Alleging that there are thousands of holding tanks down at the Hook that would need cleanup, he said the settlement figure is a paltry sum.
“With the suit down to $250 million, they can’t clean up a quarter of it for that amount of money. It’s a joke,” Kantor said. “And it doesn’t say how much Bayonne or Linden would get. How about all the court costs, and for the lawyers?”
Baykeeper concern
On its website, the New York/New Jersey Baykeeper demanded that the Exxon settlement proposal be rejected, not only because the group thinks it is bad for the environment, but because it said only the first $50 million from the settlement would go toward site restoration because of appropriation language Gov. Chris Christie’s administration inserted in the fiscal year 2014-15 budget.
“Monies exceeding the initial $50 million would go into New Jersey’s general fund to be used for any purpose,” said the Baykeeper statement. “Additionally, with Governor Christie’s eye on the presidency, it’s important to note that in 2014, Exxon donated $751,200 to the Republican Governors Association.”
On March 9, Gov. Christie broke his silence in a published report, blasting The Times for not highlighting that Exxon agreed to pay for the full cleanup. He told NJ.com that Exxon was “going to have to clean up everything no matter what it costs, and we’re going to get the $225 million on top of it. … If you read The New York Times you’d never know this.”
He went on, “They have to fix everything that they polluted to state standards and there is no cap on what they have to pay.”
Settlement details
The lawsuits, filed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 11 years ago, had been pursued by four New Jersey administrations. The litigation eventually advanced to trial last year. How much Exxon was liable for was no longer the issue; how much it would pay in damages was, according to The Times.
One month ago, a State Superior Court judge was believed to be close to a decision on damages, but the administration twice petitioned the court to wait on a ruling because settlement talks were under way, The Times reported on Feb. 27. On Feb. 20, the state is said to have informed the judge that an agreement had been reached.
The two sides had not announced the settlement publicly when The Times article was published, and the deal must still be approved by the judge. The paperwork referencing the pact had not been filed publicly, and was obtained by The Times.
The damage to the Bayonne and Linden “Bayway” sites dates back decades, and possibly into the early 1900s in Linden and the 1870s in Bayonne, according to the story.
Calls made to Exxon-Mobile Corporation, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection seeking comment on the proposed settlement were not returned.
Joseph Passantino may be reached at JoePass@hudsonreporter.com.To comment on this story online visit www.hudsonreporter.com.