Sierra Club cries foul on Exxon settlement A.G.'s office defends state's action.

The New Jersey Sierra Club has accused the state of trying to bar its amicus brief in the ongoing court battle against Governor Chris Christie's settlement with Exxon Mobil over contaminated land.

Environmental and political leaders reacted with scorn when the state announced the $225 million settlement in February, more than a decade after it sued Exxon for $8.9 billion over the contamination of more than 1,000 acres in Bayonne and Linden, where the company had refineries. They accused Christie of giving a sweetheart deal to the oil industry.


State Senator Ray Lesniak, the New Jersey Sierra Club and other green groups filed petitions to become parties to a court case that will ultimately approve or reject the settlement, but Superior Court Judge Michael Hogan, sitting in Burlington County, rejected those petitions.

That left the groups only to file amicus, or friend of the court, briefs. Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel said the state is now asking the judge to reject them as well.

"The judge hasn't decided to give us an amicus, so they filed a brief in opposition to our amicus," Tittel said by phone. "What they're saying to the judge is that basically, 'Their amicus doesn't represent the public.'"

The state attorney general's office said it was not trying to prevent anyone from filing.

“There has been no attempt to bar the Sierra Club, or any other group, from being heard with respect to the proposed ExxonMobil settlement," said A.G. spokesman Leland Moore by email. "On Friday, consistent with the Court’s scheduling, we filed the State’s reply brief in response to the amicus briefs that had been filed. The State’s reply brief in no way asks the Court to block participation by the amicus parties. It simply presents the State’s arguments in response to points raised in the amicus briefs, which is the function of a reply brief.”

While the state did encourage parties to file amicus briefs, they never said they wouldn't argue against them. The A.G.'s office filed a 39-page reply to briefs filed by Lesniak, the Sierra Club and others, essentially arguing that the settlement was fair, in the interest of the public, and was negotiated in good faith.

"The settlement reflects a record natural resource damage recovery for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection," the state argued. "Over eight years of on-again, off-again discussions overseen by two administrations, the State negotiated for a settlement in this range, believing it to be a fair and desirable outcome."

In a statement issued Monday, the Sierra Club said the deal was "outrageous."

"The Exxon settlement is a dirty deal, and D.E.P. cannot be trusted to represent the people of New Jersey. This is why we need to be an Amicus in the case," the group said. "We expected Exxon to deny our motion to file as a ‘friend of the court’ because they are getting a great deal, but not DEP. DEP is clearly more concerned about protecting Exxon than the people of New Jersey.”