Environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers are concerned that recent legal settlements between the Christie administration and polluters for almost $200 million could be diverted by the governor for his recently unveiled opioid program instead of being used to restore polluted areas.

The timing of the three settlements with gasoline companies is suspicious, critics say.

They were reached in August and September, shortly after Christie deleted language in the state budget that had ensured that millions of dollars from these kind of cases would go to environmental purposes.

The settlements also came a few months before voters decide in a statewide referendum on Nov. 7 whether to block any governor from diverting environmental settlement money to the general fund.

N.J. NEWS:Police, fire salaries could rise if pay cap is not extended, say Christie supporters

ENVIRONMENT:Trump administration picks new EPA chief for N.J. and N.Y.

Critics also point to Christie's announcement last week of a plan to address New Jersey's opioid crisis that is estimated to cost $160 million to $240 million. Christie was vague as to where the money would come from during a news conference last week.

"The governor has stated repeatedly to reporters that we are not getting into line-item debates and full-blown speculation like this," said Brian Murray, a Christie spokesman. "It’s silly."

Christie has already diverted hundreds of millions in environmental settlements to other purposes over his eight years in office, leading to concerns that he will do that same with the recent settlements.

"I can't argue against the opioid program, since we're dealing with an epidemic," said Assemblyman John McKeon, D-Essex, a longtime environment advocate. "But to possibly dip into funds that are earmarked for environmental purposes is not the way to go. These funds are supposed to help communities affected by contamination. That's where they should go."

OPIOID PANEL:Pharmaceutical executives bring concerns to Christie-led panel

INVESTIGATION:N.J. investigating Mahwah over parks ban

But a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection said the money would not likely be transferred to New Jersey's coffers until after Christie's term expires in January and a new administration takes over.

The settlements are still open to public comment and need to be approved by a judge, said Larry Hajna, a DEP spokesman.

"These procedural requirements take many months and will mean the settlements will not be finalized until sometime next year — after the next administration takes office and after the voters consider the constitutional amendment," Hajna said. "It will be up to the next administration to figure out what to do with the money."

Sunoco, BP and Shell

The settlements resolve a portion of a decade-old case. The Corzine administration sued 50 companies in 2007 alleging they were responsible for contaminating more than 6,000 sites with the gasoline additive MTBE.

Under the recent settlements, Sunoco and BP each agreed to pay $64 million. Shell will pay $68.5 million.

MTBE can cause gastrointestinal irritation, liver and kidney damage, and nervous system damage. Although it is not considered a carcinogen, tests have shown that high doses of the chemical causes kidney and liver cancer in mice.

When these proposed settlements are finalized, Hajna said, the DEP will have obtained about $350 million in the MTBE litigation.

Budget moves

Environmental groups and lawmakers are still wary, considering that Christie already diverted almost $300 million from Passaic River pollution settlements to the general fund and wants to do the same with a $225 million settlement with Exxon that is in a holding pattern due to an appeal.

After a tense budget impasse that saw the state government shut down for three days in July, Christie used his line-item veto to strike language that dedicated half of environmental settlements to "remediation, restoration, and clean up."

Only $50 million would go to a state fund used to restore land and water that have been affected by hazardous waste, under the budget that was signed by Christie.

"Based on his track record, I don't put anything past Christie," said David Pringle, campaign director for the advocacy group Clean Water Action. "Until we have a new governor, until we have the constitutional amendment passed, I’m looking at the state's bank account."

The Christie administration had already assumed using $225 million from the Exxon settlement to balance the budget when he introduced his spending plan earlier this year.

But the settlement is being challenged by environmental groups and state Sen. Ray Lesniak, D-Union, who claim it's too low for the damage incurred at the company's former Linden and Bayonne plants.

A three-judge panel has yet to rule on the appeal.

In an effort to stop the diversions, lawmakers placed a public question on the Nov. 7 ballot that, if approved by voters, would amend the state constitution to dedicate settlement funds "to repair, restore, replace, or preserve the State’s natural resources."

If approved, it would go into effect when the election is certified on or before a Dec. 5 deadline.

Although the 2018 budget is already signed into law, Christie said last week that he is authorized to move money around as he sees fit, thanks to his executive order earlier this year declaring the opioid crisis a public health emergency.

Christie said the money for the opioid program would come primarily from eight departments and that there would be no "significant" cuts to programs or tax increases.

"No one should fear that we're going to rob from Peter to pay Paul," he said at a news conference last week.

."