A proposal to build a liquefied natural gas plant in Gloucester County has sparked a massive legal battle between New Jersey and Delaware, generating briefs that rival in length the huge tankers the BP petroleum company wants to sail up the Delaware River to dock in Logan.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the border dispute.
Overshadowed by the battle over jurisdiction, however, has been the difference between the two states in their approach to the LNG proposal itself.
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection has rejected the project outright, deeming it inconsistent with its coastal management plan.
New Jersey has been more welcoming.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has not weighed in on the LNG plant and will not do so, a spokesman for the department said, until it has a formal application before it.
"It's really an issue for the attorney general now," said Larry Hajna, referring to the interstate legal battle launched when Delaware said "no."
But New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports the plant, citing the need to spur economic development in South Jersey.
And under acting Gov. Richard Codey, Corzine's predecessor, the state went so far as to begin negotiating a deal under which the state would itself construct the wharf in Logan, then lease it to BP.
That deal has been put on hold pending the outcome of the litigation now before the Supreme Court, said Erin Gold, a spokeswoman for the state's Economic Development Administration.
"Delaware has been very proactive in protecting sensitive ecosystems on its coast," said Maya van Rossum, the head of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, a nonprofit group that monitors the river, the bay and its tributaries. "New Jersey has been a lot less protective."
Assemblyman John Burzichelli, D-Paulsboro, advocates development along the riverfront in his Gloucester and Salem County district.
"My district has the lowest collective income in the state," said Burzichelli, who is also mayor of Paulsboro. "Economic development is welcome."
But as for the LNG plant, he insists that, like the state DEP, he has not drawn any conclusions.
"That project will rise or fall on its own merits," he said.
And to suggest that New Jersey has "lesser standards" when it comes to protecting its environment "is just nonsense," Burzichelli said. "Our DEP's standards are as tough as anyone's."
"There will be no drop-off" when the LNG proposal gets to New Jersey's DEP, he said.
The proposal from BP is to build a $600 million terminal, complete with a 2,000-foot wharf to handle the two to three tankers a week that would bring in natural gas in its chilled, liquid form.
There should be enough gas, converted to its vaporous form, to heat five million homes.
Supporters say the project will mean hundreds of jobs, millions of dollars in taxes and a ready source of clean energy that will make further development attractive.
Opponents say the risk of accident or terrorist attack is too great and point to the additional development as a minus, not a plus.
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources rejected the LNG plant proposal on the grounds that it constitutes an "offshore bulk product transfer facility" and "heavy industry," both of which it prohibits in its coastal zone.
Attorneys for Delaware charge that New Jersey has received substantial help from BP in the preparation of its case against its neighbor.
Attorneys for BP and New Jersey say that any cooperation stems from a common interest in seeing New Jersey prevail in the jurisdictional dispute: BP in advancing its LNG plant proposal beyond Delaware's rejection, and New Jersey in establishing jurisdiction over its own shoreline not just for the Logan LNG plant but for future proposals.
"We don't want to have to go to Dover to get permission to do something on our own shore," Burzichelli said. "You would never draw a border like this today."
Delaware contends that, beginning with a Colonial-era agreement and reaffirmed by a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court decision, it has control of the Delaware River up to the low-water mark in New Jersey for a stretch of about 20 miles.
New Jersey claims that a 1905 compact between the two states gives it exclusive control over its shoreline.
A special master appointed by the high court heard arguments in the case last week.
The special master, Ralph Lancaster, declined to say when he will make his recommendation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reach Richard Pearsall at (856) 486-2465 or rpearsall@courierpost online.com
soure news : courierpostonline.com
ADS SPACE HERE
KODE PPC ANDA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments
Post a Comment