Bayway-refinery-aerael.jpg

The price for 140 years of contamination around the Bayway Refinery is cheaper than New Jerseyans believed.

(Frank Conlon/Star-Ledger)

As a skilled politician, Gov. Christie knows where his bread is slathered: He raised $18 million from fossil fuel interests in 2014 for the Republican Governors Association as its chairman, including a tidy $751,000 from ExxonMobil.

So it's easy to see why many regard the New Jersey's chintzy settlement of an 11-year lawsuit over the oil company's contamination of 1,500 acres in Bayonne and Linden as just another big, sloppy kiss for his oleaginous chums.

You arrive at this conclusion through simple arithmetic, which the governor has yet to even acknowledge since Friday's disclosure in the New York Times.

Start with this number: He was in charge of $8.9 billion suit against the petrochemical and oil refinery plant that filled our wetlands with 9 million cubic yards of tar, so Christie's reported agreement to settle for $250 million is a travesty for environmental protection and law enforcement.

That alone demands public disclosure, and if there isn't a suitable explanation other than this governor's kleptomaniacal impulse to grab whatever environmental funds are within reach, the judge should reject the settlement.

Timing, indeed, was a factor in this: Christie put a provision in this year's budget that allows him to divert huge sums from settlement of environmental cases into the general fund, to help him balance his books. That provision expires at the end of June, so Christie may be settling on the cheap to get this done fast.

The jaw-dropping aspect to this settlement, however, is that the court had already applied retroactive liability for damages under the Spill Act. The only thing to determine was price: The state determined it would take $2.6 billion to clean the sites, and requested another $6.3 billion in compensatory costs.

Consider the argument again: In November briefs, the state justified the cost by calling the damage "staggering" and "unprecedented." In February, it settles for three cents on the dollar?

The governor will likely justify it by saying it is a risk to await Judge Michael Hogan's ruling. But if it was a risk, he should explain why it was taken to trial in the first place.

Typically, you root for a settlement - that's how 97 percent of cases end - but not after a decade of litigation. Especially against Exxon, because environmental lawyers say this is typical of its recalcitrance: While other Fortune 100s such as Honeywell, Dupont and Chevron resolve their liabilities, Exxon is famous for digging in with both heels, even as the state wins each round of litigation.

Liability, however, was established this time. The chance of a judge coming back with a three-percent reward was remote. And there were grounds for appeal.

But it never got to that, for reasons that baffle. Until they are shared, the people will interpret this as just another messy political agenda, another case of an underserved state being left with a huge cleaning bill.



Follow The Star-Ledger on Twitter @StarLedger and find us on Facebook.

