5 early environmental tests for Phil Murphy that will affect NJ families

Gov. Phil Murphy rode into office this year with endorsements from major environmental groups amid promises to reverse what many consider the anti-environmental policies of his predecessor, Chris Christie.

His decisions will have far-ranging effects on New Jersey families from the quality of the air they breathe to how well their parks are tended to.

Already, within his first few weeks, Murphy announced an ambitious Clean Energy plan, publicly supported a ban on hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Basin and moved to return New Jersey to a regional pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Since then, his environmental credentials have taken a hit.

His 2019 budget proposed to cut more than $6.4 million in the state Department of Environmental Protection's operations budget.

And he will continue an unpopular Christie practice by diverting about $140 million from the Clean Energy Fund to balance the budget, moving the bulk of the money to NJ Transit and a fund that pays the utility bills for state buildings.

Over the next few months, Murphy is expected to be tested on a number of environmental matters that will likely reach his desk. Here are five of them:

A controversial cleanup plan?

Murphy has directed both his attorney general and environmental commissioner to investigate DuPont's decades-old pollution in Pompton Lakes after a series in The Record showing the company refused for years to test homes while residents were being exposed to toxic fumes.

But before the series, state environmental regulators were evaluating a proposed pilot study by DuPont's spinoff company, Chemours, to pump clean water beneath a neighborhood of 400 homes to act as a potential barrier they hope would stop cancer-causing solvents from vaporizing into homes.

Many residents want a comprehensive cleanup that would rid the groundwater of the solvents TCE and PCE. They worry that the plan, called hydraulic surcharging, could cause their basements to flood with contaminated water. They have argued that Chemours should provide flood insurance in case the pilot study goes awry. Chemours has said it won't do that.

Larry Hajna, a DEP spokesman, said this week that there was no timetable for a decision, even though officials took public input on the plan six months ago.

Will a golf club expand at Liberty State Park?

Murphy inherited from the Christie administration a proposal to allow the ultra-exclusive Liberty National Golf Club to build three new holes on a largely undeveloped plot of Liberty State Park that abuts New York Harbor and is used by hundreds of children a year to learn about the local ecology.

No lease has been signed. And while a legislative commission would have the final say, the proposal would first need to be vetted by the Department of Enivronmental Protection, which Murphy controls.

The proposal is being pushed by billionaire Paul Fireman, owner of the golf course, whose family and financial company have given tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to local and state officials. The expansion would allow a nonprofit group to use three holes at its current course to teach children how to golf.

But park advocates say building three holes on the 21-acre plot would damage marshlands and a sandy beach where 500 to 600 students each year capture and release fish, crabs, seahorses and other marine life found in local waters.

Murphy has not commented on the golf course, although he has said he "supports the preservation of Liberty State Park" when asked about another Christie-era proposal to build a marina on the park's south side.

Will DuPont process contaminated wastewater?

Murphy may soon end up with a bill on his desk that would allow a DuPont spinoff company to resume processing contaminated wastewater at its South Jersey chemical plant without an environmental review.

Environmentalists have opposed the measure, saying it would bring scores of trucks hauling tanks of toxic waste onto New Jersey roads. They also worry that the treated water could damage the Delaware River, where it is discharged after being processed at the facility in Salem County.

The bill is sponsored by Senate President Steve Sweeney, the state's most powerful legislator, whose district covers the DuPont plant. The Senate unanimously approved the measure last month. Environmentalists expect the Assembly to approve the measure soon, after an environmental committee voted unanimously in favor of it last month.

Lawmakers say the bill is a procedural move that has little environmental consequence since DuPont treated water at its plant for years. Supporters say it will help the South Jersey economy. Critics say it may open up New Jersey to accepting wastewater from natural gas fracking in Pennsylvania, which can contain heavy metals, radioactive material and hydrocarbons.

Will PSEG charge more to keep nuclear power plants running?

One of the biggest legislative marathons of recent memory has been a bill to allow PSEG to collect up to $300 million a year from ratepayers that the company says is needed to keep its Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants operating.

The bill has been withdrawn and reshaped several times over at least four months in an attempt presumably to make it more palatable for Murphy.

Environmentalists say it would stall renewable energy efforts like solar and wind power by essentially giving a handout to a $42.7 billion company.

Supporters including Sweeney have tried adding components to the bill to boost clean energy, in an effort to generate more support. PSEG CEO Ralph Izzo said he would close the two plants by 2020 if the subsidy is not granted.

Will Murphy seek more than $225 million from the controversial Exxon settlement?

The Murphy administration has to decide before the end of March whether it will challenge an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court by advocacy groups and former state Sen. Ray Lesniak, who seek to block a controversial $225 million environmental settlement by the state with Exxon Mobil.

An appeals panel already struck down an effort by the groups in February after they argued that the settlement was far too low given the environmental damage caused by the oil company to 1,800 acres of wetlands near refineries in Linden and Bayonne.

The settlement, made by the Christie administration, was a fraction of the $9 billion the state sought in its original lawsuit more than a decade ago.

The groups appealed to the Supreme Court this month. The state Department of Environmental Protection has until Wednesday to respond.

Murphy did not include the $225 million as revenue in his recent budget proposal for next fiscal year, suggesting the matter was still up in the air.