NJBIA has filed an amicus brief in the Appellate Division of Superior Court in support of appeals seeking to invalidate the Department of Environmental Protection’s environmental justice rulemaking, arguing it has caused chaos and creates more problems than it cures.
The brief was filed June 17 on behalf of NJBIA by attorneys Angelo Genova and Kenneth Sheehan, of the Genova Burns law firm, in support of businesses and labor groups that are appealing the DEP’s implementation of the law, which allows permits to be denied for facilities located in what the DEP deems to be overburdened communities.
“The Rule, crafted by DEP, will likely cause chaos and is virtually certain to create uncertainty and a multitude of issues for the business community,” the brief states.
DEP adopted the environmental justice (EJ) rule in April without any of the substantive changes recommended by the business community. The result is regulatory overreach that does not serve the interests of the communities it seeks to protect.
Instead, it will lead to fewer economic opportunities for residents, a loss of business and development opportunities, an increase in abandoned properties and only minimal, if any, environmental and health benefits, the brief argues.
NJBIA is not seeking to prevent implementation of the law but is asking the court to “carefully review the deep flaws in this proposal and, having done so, reject the rule not for all time, but as presently written.”
For example, the EJ law explicitly applies only to permits for facilities located, “in whole or in part, in an overburdened community.” The EJ law then defines an OBC as a census block group with a specified percentage of certain populations.
“Despite this clear and unambiguous legislative language, DEP expanded the statutory definition of ‘overburdened community’ to include all unpopulated census block groups adjacent to an OBC; that is to say, census block groups that have absolutely nobody living in them. This is both conceptionally unnecessary and legislatively unfounded,” the brief notes.
To read the entire amicus brief, go here.
