Why You Should Care About the DEP’s NRD Settlement with BASF
Two years ago, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced its intention to resolve the extensive harm caused by the notorious and still-polluted Ciba-Geigy Superfund site in Toms River through a Natural Resource Damage (NRD) settlement. This deal, negotiated with BASF, the world’s largest chemical company and current owner of the site, was meant to address decades of pollution and its lingering impacts on Ocean County’s natural resources. However, the agreement raises significant concerns about transparency, equity, and environmental justice.
A Deal Made Behind Closed Doors
This “deal” was constructed without input from the towns most affected by Ciba-Geigy’s 70-year legacy of pollution. Despite being legally entitled to participate in the settlement’s formulation, these communities were excluded from meaningful engagement. The agreement allows BASF to retain and redevelop the cleanest 200 acres of the site while donating the remaining polluted land back to the county.
Furthermore, the DEP failed to account for offsite damages—pollution that extended beyond the facility’s boundaries to impact local waterways, ecosystems, and communities. The DEP also withheld critical safety data and damage assessments, even as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated the site won’t be considered clean for at least 30 years. This lack of transparency undermines public trust and leaves the community grappling with unanswered questions about the settlement’s true benefits.
The Purpose of NRD Settlements
NRD settlements are designed to hold polluters accountable for the environmental damage they’ve caused. The funds from such settlements are intended to restore and compensate for injuries to the state’s natural resources—land, air, and water. Local stakeholders, especially those in affected areas, should have a voice in determining restoration projects to ensure they address the specific needs of their communities. The DEP’s handling of this settlement falls far short of these objectives.
What’s in the DEP and BASF Settlement?
Announced on December 5, 2022, the settlement includes:
- A 1,000-acre conservation easement on the site to support groundwater recharge, while BASF retains control of 200 acres for redevelopment.
- Nine ecological uplift projects spanning 375 acres within the easement area.
- A release of liability for BASF after 20 years, regardless of whether remediation goals are met.
Public participation was initially limited to a 30-day comment period, with feedback exclusively accepted by mail. While the DEP eventually extended the deadline, the handling of the public comments was troubled at best. This severely restricted meaningful input from affected communities.
Why the Settlement Falls Short
These restoration efforts are narrowly focused and fail to return the site to its pre-discharge conditions—a vision that includes parks, bridges, pollinator gardens, and an ecocenter. True restoration should prioritize the land’s natural recovery rather than superficial “cosmetic” projects that mimic progress without delivering meaningful outcomes. Save Barnegat Bay (SBB) believes the entire site should be dedicated to an area for a state run wildlife management area (WMA), allowing nature to heal itself.
Furthermore, the projects are limited to a small section of the site and disregard the movement of contaminants offsite, particularly the plume’s migration and the damages to critical downstream ecosystems, including the Toms River, Barnegat Bay, and the Atlantic Ocean—which affected swimming beaches and other vital resources. As a Superfund site, remedial efforts are legally required to address the nexus of injury comprehensively, yet this proposal neglects essential responsibilities.
SBB contends that the DEP and BASF had multiple opportunities to partner with local communities and implement impactful solutions that could help to restore water quality, such as:
- Restoring freshwater and tidal wetlands downstream of the Ciba-Geigy site for the benefit of ecologically sensitive species of plants and wildlife as well as flood mitigation for the Township of Toms River.
- Investing in stormwater infrastructure to mitigate nutrient loading and improve water quality in the Toms River through things like storm drain filtration and green infrastructure.
- Acquiring Heritage Minerals or other natural spaces for conservation, preserving some of Ocean County’s last remaining large tracts of open space.
- Funding sewer infrastructure in Pine Lake Park, Manchester Township, to reduce pollution.
- Enhancing ocean habitat by funding artificial reefs for marine life or supporting The Marine Mammal Stranding Center—the only nonprofit in New Jersey addressing marine mammal mortality directly.
These projects represent just a fraction of the potential actions that could provide genuine relief to communities affected by decades of environmental degradation and resource loss. While the DEP acknowledges that extensive harm was conducted by Ciba, the current proposal is glaringly insufficient, falling far too short of addressing the significant areas of injury. Instead of using their power and resources to implement meaningful change, the DEP and BASF seem more concerned with the appearance of justice rather than actual investment in the long-overdue restoration and protection of these damaged lands.
Why the Settlement Falls Short
On October 28, 2024, SBB filed a brief supporting a motion to include critical, previously overlooked documents in the case. These documents, largely from state and federal records, demonstrate extensive offsite damages that were ignored in the DEP’s valuation. Despite the DEP and BASF’s objections, SBB remains committed to holding them accountable for a fair and just settlement.
The DEP’s claim of “robust public engagement” is misleading. Public meetings were held only after significant public outcry, and responses to public comments were published the same day the settlement was finalized, leaving no opportunity for review or revision.
What You Can Do
Stay informed and share the story of Ciba-Geigy’s pollution and the ongoing fight for justice. SBB’s efforts to expose the inadequacies of this settlement aim to ensure that no evidence is ignored and no voice is silenced. By demanding accountability, we can push for meaningful restoration and protection of our community’s natural resources.
Read more:
Key Terminology
- BASF: The world’s largest chemical producer, responsible for the Ciba-Geigy Superfund site.
- Ciba-Geigy Corp.: A chemical company whose hazardous waste contamination led to significant environmental and public health impacts.
- NRD: Natural Resource Damages incurred when contaminants harm the environment.
- Superfund Site: A federally designated toxic site requiring EPA-led cleanup.
- Plume: Contaminated groundwater spreading from a pollution source.
Together, we can ensure that justice is served for our community and environment. The DEP may settle, but we won’t settle for less than what’s right.
