Editorials at   TonyNovak.com

editorials, reflections, half-developed ideas, comments and other uncategorized content

 

 

Editorial Policy

This Web log is presented for  entertainment use only.  These pages are not meant to provide advice or to be relied upon for any other purpose. 

 

For free public professional advice columns, see the AskTony forum.

 

Your comments and feedback are welcome.   Please indicate the topic you are commenting on in the subject field.


 

The Nature Conservancy

posted on:  11/7/2006    revised: 3/10/2010

 

The Nature Conservancy is reported to be the richest environmental group in the world with over $3 billion in land and financial assets.  The non-profit organization grew by pledging to save precious places. Many people donated land in remote locations to the organization for preservation; I even considered donating a property through my will.  But lately the Nature Conservancy seems to be acting more like a large for-profit corporation and The Washington Post reports that the Nature Conservancy has aligned closely with corporations to pursue drilling, logging and development.

My own recent experience with The Nature Conservancy is equally disturbing. In 2003, I reported to local Nature Conservancy employees that chemical spills from a commercial boat yard on an environmentally sensitive island at Money Island, New Jersey had contaminated the soil. Rutgers University lab reported levels of arsenic, a chemical formerly common in boat paint.  It seems that boat owners have been renting space on the boatyard for years, and the accumulated pollution was taking its toll on the soil and ground water.  I was concerned because my drinking water comes from a well only yards away from the boat yard.

Since then, the U.S. Department of Environmental Protection investigated at least two reports of chemical dumping by boat owners on this lot, yet the investigators never even contacted The Nature Conservancy who owned the boat yard.  The commercial boatyard continued to operate without penalty or modification. EPA official George H. Zachos wrote in response to the latest investigation "In general, under the laws, both the federal government and the states have to be notified of any oil or hazardous material releases." Yet there is no indication that any action resulted from either state or federal agency.

Last year a group of neighbors organized to offer to clean up the lot by removing the boats and the most contaminated soil and then placing a rustic roadside post and rail fence to prevent further  contamination by the parked boats. The labor and materials would have been donated and the local sate police offered to assist in the necessary relocation of the commercial boats parked on the lot.  All that was missing was permission from The Nature Conservancy who owned the land. Not only did The Nature Conservancy fail to allow the clean-up project; they denied ownership of the land even though local government maps and two private land surveys had confirmed the ownership.

Most recently the local township officials of Downe Township commissioned a land survey to resolve the land ownership stalemate. Again the land survey indicated that the Nature Conservancy owned the contaminated boatyard.  Yet the Nature Conservancy sticks to its position and has not responded to any of the more recent communications from its Money Island neighbors. Jay Laubengeyer, Director of Conservation at The Nature Conservancy, says that their own survey supports the conclusion that The Nature Conservancy is not responsible for the boat yard problems.

I believe that prevailing corporate culture tends to permeate the entire organizations from top to bottom. The obvious suggestion here is that The Nature Conservancy is acting like a for-profit corporation protecting its bottom line rather than an organization committed to land preservation. It is possible that my own experience is an isolated event or a misunderstanding, but I don't think so. I think this is another red flag that The Nature Conservancy is not what what the public believes.

 

Editorial note: The Nature Conservancy has much improved its public image in the years after this initial publication at least partly by avoiding publicity connected to controversial topics and news stories. Vague published sources indicate this is part of a deliberate effort of TNC to change its public profile. It seems to be working. To my knowledge, none of the people mentioned have had further contact with TNC since the original date of this publication with regard to the issues discussed.

 

keywords:   The Nature Conservancy, pollution, Money Island, Downe Township, New Jersey, misuse of property, non-profit, commercial

 

related topics:

 

 

 

 

 


Copyright 2010 by Tony Novak. Originally produced and published for the "AskTony" column syndication prior to 2007. Edited and independently republished by the author in March 2010. All rights reserved.