New Jersey is quietly moving to settle an $8.9 billion lawsuit with Exxon Mobil over the pollution at two industrial sites in Union and Hudson counties, according to a report Friday in The New York Times.
A spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office would not provide a copy of a reported agreement of the suit -- which had been filed in 2004 and ligated by four administrations -- or confirm any settlement figure on Friday.
"We do not have a final document," said the spokesman, Paul Loriquet. "It has not been signed by the parties and has not been submitted to the court."
But The Times, citing two anonymous sources familiar with the agreement, stated that the company had agreed to pay $250 million to clean up the contamination -- a mere fraction of what the state had contended it would take to make 1,500 acres of petroleum-contaminated marshes and forestland whole again.
The disclosure of the settlement infuriated environmentalists and a state lawmaker, after experts determined that it would cost billions to clean up the properties in northern New Jersey.
"Every step of the way, New Jersey was winning the case," complained Jeff Tittel, head of the New Jersey Sierra Club.
The lawsuit concerns two facilities, known as the Bayonne and Bayway sites, where petroleum refining and chemical production date back more than a hundred years. Those decades of activity saw countless spills and leakages and left behind "sludge lagoons" of industrial waste in vital wetland habitat, according to court papers.
A report compiled for the state by Stratus Consulting of Colorado determined that it would take $2.5 billion to clean the site up, and an additional $6.4 billion to restore enough wetland and forestland "to compensate for the decades of harm at the two facilities."
The cost of removing just the contaminated soil and sediment alone would cost more than $1 billion, according to court documents reviewed by NJ Advance Media filed as recently as November.
"I think it's almost criminal to settle so low," Debbie Mans, head of NY/NJ Baykeeper, said of the reported agreement. "This settlement won't even touch the cost of cleaning it up, let alone compensating the public for the loss of natural resources and the restoration."
A spokesman for Gov. Chris Christie referred all inquiries to the Attorney General's Office.
An Exxon spokesman could not be reached for comment.
Assemblywoman Annette Quijano, (D-Union) whose district includes portions of the Bayway site in Elizabeth and Linden, questioned how the state could walk back from the cost it has been estimated to clean up the the properties.
"It's confounding as to why the state would settle for such a low figure after all the time and resources spent litigating this case," Quijano said.
A trial to determine damages was begun in January 2014 and concluded in the fall. Superior Court Judge Michael Hogan was in the process of drafting his decision, according to court documents.
But The Times reported that Deputy State Attorney General Richard Engel e-mailed the judge in January asking him to delay the decision, and again this month informing him that the parties had reached an agreement.
In addition to holding the company responsible for cleaning up at the facilities, the state was also seeking additional natural resource damages claims, essentially reimbursing taxpayers for the years of lost use -- the same way a victim of a car accident can seek lost employment wages from a responsible driver.
"It's about compensating the public for all of the years of lost use of this natural resource," Mans said.
She also questioned donations made by Exxon to the Republican Governor's Association during Christie's term as chairman of the organization.
The Exxon Mobil Corporation contributed more than $500,000 to the association in 2014 during Christie's tenure, and $200,000 in 2013, shortly before he took over as chairman, according to public records.
An Exxon spokesman told The Times on Friday that Chrisitie's role as head of the association had no effect on the amount of the contribution but was based on the number of gubernatorial elections.
Tittel said the settlement invites scrutiny as to how the money will be spent. Under language in the current state budget, the Christie administration diverted $130 million of a $190 million settlement with a Passaic River polluter to the state's general fund.He said the governor might be seeking a short-term infusion of cash to balance the budget.
"Why would you settle it for so little money unless you wanted to grab that money for the budget to fill a hole?" he asked.