The man whose legislation created the Pinelands Reserve - the first of its kind in the U.S. - is helping lead the fight to protect it from a 22-mile pipeline. Watch video
The Pinelands Pipeline debate has taken a long and tortured path through courtrooms and public hearings, and last month it landed like a dagger in Jim Florio's heart.
The former governor established the Pine Barrens National Ecological Reserve as a second-term congressman in 1978, shortly before Brendan Byrne signed the Pinelands Protection Act, and with former governors Tom Kean and Christine Whitman there has been an extraordinary accord for the preservation of this ecological jewel.
But Florio was thunderstruck by the Feb. 24 vote from the Pinelands Commission to ram a natural gas tube through 22 miles of the reserve - 10 miles through the sensitive forest area - so that a redundant power plant can remain open in Cape May County. More grating to him is that 9-5 vote was born of duplicity: The pipeline proposed by South Jersey Gas was voted down in 2014, before Gov. Christie stacked the commission.
Now the integrity of the reserve and its 18-trillion gallon aquifer could be in jeopardy. So Florio, whose legacy also includes Superfund legislation, Highlands preservation and the Clean Water Enforcement Act, is in one of the toughest environmental fights of his career, which we discussed last week:
Let's take it back: In Congress, you wrote the legislation that created the Pinelands National Reserve. Was that challenging?
"It was contentious: There was talk about South Jersey seceding from the North, and much of the argument was about water and Pinelands preservation. I remember real estate people weren't keen on the regulations for this very fragile area - remember, this is 20 percent of New Jersey, sitting on top of a 3,000-square-mile aquifer - and I still shudder to think what would have happened had it not been protected from development."
What projects were proposed for the Pinelands when you were in the Assembly and in Congress in the '70s?
"It covered the gamut - off-shore drilling, pipelines. There was an airport proposal. So many developers and banks wanted to finance projects there, giving little thought to the area's uniqueness. And they didn't seem to grasp that the porous soil on top of the aquifer doesn't lend itself to development."
So what was your response to the Commission's vote two weeks ago?
"To say I'm outraged doesn't cover it. And if the people of the state saw what's really at work here, they would likewise be enraged. This has been a clear violation of the language in the Pinelands' Comprehensive Management Plan, and it's offensive that manipulative political activity led to it. It strikes at the heart of democratic government: The proposal was rejected, the governor got rid of the commissioners who were opposed and replaced them with members who did his bidding. That's stuff that takes place in the Kremlin."
Pipeline advocates would argue that they are compelled to convert the power plant from coal to gas, and meet the demands of the energy economy.
"An easy rebuttal: It's not needed, period. PJM is the regional entity that manages flow of energy for 13 states - it runs the grid from New Jersey to Illinois. They authorized the deactivation of the BL England generating facility - the alleged need for this pipeline - and PJM found that there is no adverse impact in closing this plant. Any energy needs can be resolved by prior-approved projects. So this pipeline is completely unnecessary."
Have the political pressures changed since that 2013 rejection?
"I think it's the same debate we've had since the 70s about economic development and environmental sensitivity. We ultimately convinced people that it was a bogus debate: Development cannot take place in New Jersey unless you have adequate water supply for the pharmaceutical industry and the food processing industry. Or consider tourism: Where would the Jersey Shore be today if we didn't use our heads then? So it's a fallacious argument."
As Governor, did you ever appoint a commissioner who didn't put the interests of the Pinelands first?
"No governor ever has - until now. That unanimity was reflected by four of us signing a letter asking the commission to reject it in 2013. When two governors from each party intervene in a court proceeding, it's safe to call it a mainstream position supported by the vast majority. But some people aren't interested in following the law."
Gov. Christie staked a lot of political capital to influence this project. You must wonder why he was so focused on it.
"I can only point to his record, which speaks for itself. He's transferred billions in clean energy revenue into the general budget. Off-shore wind authorization was signed into law five or six years ago, and in all that time the law hasn't been enforced. So there's a flaw in the value system of this administration, as far as environmental insensitivity goes."
But South Jersey Democrats also pushed for it. What at stake for them?
"There are some who persist that environmental sensitivity somehow inhibits economic growth - that's not the case. Imagine the economic impact of a break in a pipeline running over a massive fresh-water aquifer. The Pinelands is an ecological masterpiece, yet some people want to have motorcycle trails through the reserve. That's just bizarre to me."
Do you feel you're losing the jobs-versus-environment debate?
"I think the pendulum can swing back if we convey the need for environmental sensitivity. I noticed some pushback after Congress allowed for mining waste to be dumped in streams to benefit the coal industry. That mentality has reached the point of irrationality, and I think the American people are starting to recognize it."
Do you ever wonder whether you can ever remove politics from environmental issues?
"It's going to take a lot of discussion about short-term and long-term concerns, and weighing private interests against public interests. You can't fix a problem if you don't give it context. So what we need are leaders who can frame the issue, and give the long-term perspective."
This has been called "Bridgegate in the Pines." Is that overstating it?
"I think the manipulation of the process should be troubling to everyone. You can have a legitimate argument as to why it's the wrong decision, but playing with the process is reprehensible, regardless of the outcome."
Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.