>> From NJ PBS studios, this is NJ Spotlight News with Brianna Vannozzi.

>> Hello and thanks for joining us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gaggis.

>> Good morning.

I'm Joanna Gaggis.

Coming up in the broadcast, the partial government shutdown makes history as the longest on record at 44 days today.

We get the latest from Washington as lawmakers are out on spring break.

Plus, how safe is your drinking water?

A new study looks at the levels of toxic forever chemicals in New Jersey's water, and there's some positive developments.

And later, we talked to a local journalist being sued by a South Jersey school district over his public records requests.

We'll tell you why.

But first, protesters took to the streets across the state as part of a national No Kings Day rally on Saturday.

They were held in several major cities and towns, not just here in New Jersey, but also across the country.

Reportedly, the largest single-day protest in terms of geographic reach that the U.S.

has seen in the last 50 years.

The No Kings Coalition says more than 8 million people participated at more than 3,300 locations across all 50 states.

Here in New Jersey, the protests were organized by left-leaning groups like the ACLU in opposition to what they see as President Trump's authoritarian rule, his military expansion, and his immigration policies.

Governor Mikey Sherrill participated in the Princeton No Kings Day protest.

The Morristown event saw more than 6,000 people turn out, carrying signs that read "Ice out of New Jersey" and "Stop Trump's War."

In Tom's River, folks lined up along the stretch of Route 70, also holding signs, some wearing King costumes.

Other events were held in Newark, Atlantic City, Newton, Hoboken, and Jersey City.

Trump supporters also showed up to several of the events, some wearing Proud Boys t-shirts, others holding flags in support of ICE.

There were no major incidents to report throughout the day.

Governor Sherrill addressed the crowd in Princeton, reaffirming her opposition to many of the policies coming from the Trump administration.

We believe in the rule of law.

We believe in the people.

And I have to tell you, I for one have pledged to fight for the people of New Jersey.

I know that's why you're all here and I'm going to keep up that fight and I'm getting sick of having to fight tooth and nail against the President of the United States for working people across our country.

Coming up, the latest from Washington as the partial government shutdown drags on and Congress members are out on their two-week recess.

That's next.

Funding for NJ Spotlight News, provided by the members of the New Jersey Education Association.

Making public schools great for every child.

And RWJBarnabas Health.

Let's be healthy together.

TSA workers have finally started receiving paychecks after going more than 40 days without compensation.

But it's not because Congress came to an agreement to fund DHS.

They didn't.

But they've headed out on spring break, even as the partial government shutdown continues.

On Friday, President Trump issued an executive order instructing the Department of Homeland Security to pay its TSA workers.

So where's the money coming from?

And what does it mean for the continued chaos at the airports?

Our Washington, D.C.

correspondent Ben Hulak joins us now to talk about it.

Ben, great to talk to you.

So we have an executive order instructing DHS to pay its workers and yet no funding overall for DHS in Congress.

Where where are these two bills.

The House passed a bill.

The Senate passed a bill.

How far apart are they right now.

They are pretty far apart.

The Senate in the wee hours of Friday morning passed a bill under unanimous consent meaning no senator objected and it went through and the House chewed on that for a few hours spat it out and said we don't like this very much.

We're actually going to pass our own short term bill that funds all of DHS including ICE and Border Patrol.

That was a demand from hard right members in the House.

There's a big gulf between them.

And as you said up top the president moved unilaterally to fund TSA.

But the legality of what he did there is sort of hazy.

Congress folks should remember at home is in charge of the federal budget.

So to an extent agencies can move money around and reprogram it.

That's that's sort of the congressional term the Hill term.

But this is this is ultimately something that will have to be funded by Congress.

What is the dollar amount that we know right now that DHS owes to its TSA workers.

That that is figure I don't know.

And it certainly will grow as the shutdown continues.

There they are really the they've taken center stage in this in the political fight over this shutdown.

But there are other agencies within DHS that have not been funded like the Coast Guard.

Congressman Jeff Andrew has a Coast Guard training base in his district.

And he put out a statement Friday saying these folks have gone long enough about a paycheck.

Let's pay them.

But again there's no clear path to making that happen.

We should note this is now even though it's a partial government shutdown the longest government shutdown we've seen.

Right.

That's right.

And it covers just a fraction of the overall federal workforce.

That's the word partial.

But it also comes on the back of another government shutdown a massive government shutdown in the fall.

That was the longest in U.S.

history.

So federal workers have really just been financially bludgeoned in these past few months.

Yeah.

Not able to make payments not able to to have any predictability when it comes to their finances.

We do still see ice at airports although from what we're seeing and hearing reported on the ground it's not necessarily doing much to speed up lines.

People are missing flights.

They're just lines that are hours long.

What do we know in terms of how long ice is expected to remain in our airports.

We don't know.

I put this question to an ice spokesperson who covers New Jersey who represents and fields questions from New Jersey reporters like me.

And they said essentially really nothing of substance and that they actually refused to say whether ice was at Newark or Philadelphia or other airports in the New Jersey region citing safety for personnel.

So there this is not only hazy for the public it's hazy.

It's like Tom Homan did say though that he does intend to keep his agents there at least through this period of time where TSA workers are getting back back into work.

But I want to switch gears a little bit because you've done some other really great reporting and I want to talk about some changes at the federal level that are being considered by NOAA.

That's an acronym that could impact the speed at which boats and ships can pass through our waters on the ocean.

Can you tell us about the rule that they're considering.

Right.

There's there's a federal rule that's been on the books for about a decade.

It was finalized in 2008 that requires boats to over a certain size to travel basically to slow down when they're in the territory of the North Atlantic right whale.

And earlier this month early March, Noah the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which covers fisheries, and a lot of ocean topics, put out a statement saying, we're going to look at undoing that role or at least revising it in some way.

This is a desire, long sought objective from Republicans in Congress and a lot of boating and fishing interests.

People like charter boat captains have bristled at this role saying, we'd like to go faster essentially, and we can protect North Atlantic right whales, which are a highly endangered species without this rule.

Let's remember the number one, number two, the two, I should say, two most deadly risks for North Atlantic right whales are vessel collisions.

So that's has to do with boat speed, which is all about this rule and fishing gear entanglements, both human factors.

It's not offshore wind as some people might think.

It's those two.

And this was a rule that's been on the books for about two decades, as I said, directly designed to protect these whales.

And of course, they haven't moved on that yet, but they are considering it.

And then one other story that you reported on that we've reported on continuously is this Ringwood Mines Superfund site where the excuse me, the Ramapo Lenape Turtle Clan lives.

They've lost a large percentage of their clan over the years, they say, because of contamination of the land and the soil.

There's a new settlement agreement.

When it comes to the lawsuits they've filed over contamination brought on by Ford Motor Company, what can you tell us?

Under federal law to clean up these sites like this, Superfund sites, as they're known, there are a whole lot of parties that need to be involved.

The USDOJ, the Environmental Protection Agency, those are the main two federal agencies involved in discussions like this.

And then the state, plus environmental regulators in the state.

So the gist is that Ford will pay for the remaining cleanup.

This site has had some cleanup done on it, but not all, for about $3 million, $3.5 million.

in turn, they will get some legal liability waived.

This is a public deal, as should be known, and it is not final, so the public can weigh in on this.

But it's a bit of an obscure deal.

I don't think it's gotten a lot of attention, and the public will have about 50 days or so.

That's a rough guess.

Ben Lundin, just a few seconds left, but I want to ask you, the EPA just recently said that that site was clean, that no more work needed to be done.

So is this a win for that Klan?

I think almost certainly not.

The EPA, yes, in the fall said this is safe, but not so long after that.

Medical researchers at NYU had studied the site and said this is not safe.

It is still dangerous to humans and animals.

And rushing to judgment and giving this site a clean bill of health is just misleading and dangerous.

All right.

We've got to leave it there.

Ben Hulak, our Washington, D.C., correspondent for us.

Thank you.

My pleasure.

Well, some good news.

Levels of toxic forever chemicals known as PFAS in our drinking water have been cut in half.

That's according to a new study from Rutgers Health researchers who analyzed years of data from dozens of water systems across the state.

They credit a 2018 law passed in New Jersey that regulates PFAS levels in our water.

One of those researchers is here with us now to talk about the study and its findings.

He's Dr.

Hari Iyer, a lead author of the study and a cancer epidemiologist at the Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

Dr.

Iyer, thanks so much for being with us today.

Thanks for having me.

Really appreciate it.

Can you first just remind us what PFAS are?

Sure.

PFAS are called forever chemicals and they're found in a number of household goods and consumer goods.

One thing that many of your audience will likely be familiar with are takeout packages.

So we like these packages because they keep our food warm and they keep the soups from leaking out of the package.

It's those same properties that prepare food and keep it so nice for transport that actually lead them to be very persistent in our bodies and in the environment.

You've studied the last 19 years of water quality in the state when it comes to PFAS.

What did you find in terms of the levels and the reductions that we've seen?

So the story really starts in 2006 when really concerningly high levels of water were found in Brick Township near an industrial, in water nearby an industrial contamination site.

Over that 20-year period, we found that these levels started to drop pretty dramatically by almost half for two of the most, the most, the chemicals that are most strongly linked to adverse health outcomes.

And so we see that as a real success of New Jersey's regulations and a number of officials and advocacy groups around the state who had been identifying these areas of contamination, reporting them to the government.

So I think it's very, it's a good story, frankly.

You mentioned adverse health outcomes.

What are some of the adverse health outcomes associated with PFAS?

Sure.

So there's several areas that are sort of ongoing right now.

The most important ones for people to be familiar with are immune response.

So when we get sick, our ability to recover, it turns out that people with high levels of these chemicals may struggle to respond after illness.

So that's one.

Another area is liver function and kidney function.

So PFAS, people who are exposed to high levels of these chemicals may have may struggle to recover with those illnesses as well.

This is where the final area.

Go ahead, please.

Well, this is where New Jersey, you know, it gets a little bit wonky in terms of the law, but there are actually high federal standards for the amount of the limited amount of PFAS that can be in our water.

But New Jersey was the first state to pass enforceable laws.

Can you help us understand what that means and how New Jersey's regulation has actually started to move the needle here?

Absolutely.

I think that New Jersey was one of the first states to really take all this evidence from the scientific literature in humans, in toxicology studies in animals and cells, and combine that with a really robust monitoring across the state.

And so I think that it's really a great model for other states that are concerned about this to follow, combining scientific evidence on these health impacts with a surveillance system that is allowing the state to monitor changes in these levels over time.

Because that is the way that we, in this study, we were able to demonstrate that the policy is having the intended effect.

So really this is water filtration systems that have been enforced throughout the state, yes?

Yeah, so what was very interesting in our study is that we found that a lot of the water systems were taking action prior to the formal enactment of these laws.

They wanted to make sure that they were able to be ahead of this because obviously it costs a lot to install granulated activated carbon mechanisms to sequester these PFAS from water.

Other water systems wells that actually had very high levels of contaminants and were able to pull these offline.

And so I think that sometimes even anticipation of the law allows allows businesses and water systems to take action.

Well interesting because you did look at large water systems in the state.

You just mentioned wells.

I'm curious does this law enforce the same requirements for smaller water systems for wells that maybe are privately owned.

So I I unfortunately I'm not necessarily the expert on the policy side.

I will say for our study a limitation was we did not conduct the study in wells.

And so about 10 percent of the New Jersey population that is served by wells.

There are some concerns that because those wells aren't tested as often there may in fact some of these benefits and these declines that we saw may not hold in some of those areas.

You said that we are down 50 percent.

What does that mean still in terms of the level of contaminant that is in our drinking water at any given time.

So it's a great question.

And I think my group at the Rutgers Cancer Institute and many other colleagues across the U.S.

and the world are really trying to pin down what are these safe levels and what are the specific health impacts that we need to notify people and make people aware of.

So while it's a great story to see this reduction I think what you'll see over the next coming years is more understanding of what's what other cancers for example or some of these other outcomes that we've been talking about.

We really need to be thinking about and maybe the levels that we have today you may see them start to change in coming years.

Yeah I was going to ask you you know we're down to 50 percent.

Is it possible to get down by 100 percent.

Is it possible to eliminate PFAS from our drinking water.

So I think that I think in public health it's important for us to not let perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think we are really interested in trying to identify what are these health risks and what are the safe levels.

Sometimes perfect zero, the cost of being able to do that, because as I said, right, we don't want to be carrying around paper bags of soup from our takeout places.

These chemicals do have beneficial properties to us in our adult lives.

And so I think finding that balance is a real challenge and something that we need to work as scientists.

We need to be working with community organizations.

We need to be working with other community members in the state to really understand those issues.

And just really quickly, is there anything that consumers can do on the front end to prevent those PFAS from getting into our water?

Yeah, that's a great question.

And there are a number of filtration systems that one can purchase at their homes.

So you could add one of these filtration systems to your tap.

And so before you're drinking the water, this will strip out a lot of them.

The New Jersey State Government has resources that I would be happy to share with you.

So if your listeners and your viewers are interested, they can learn more about those.

All right.

Dr.

Hari Iyer, Assistant Professor and Cancer Epidemiologist at the Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

- Well, thank you so much for all this insight today.

- Thanks very much for having me.

- Local journalism often uncovers the stories that major networks don't have the capacity to report on.

One local news site in South Jersey called Shore Investigates covers stories in Cherry Hill, from police to community issues and education.

Well, recently the Cherry Hill Public School District sued the journalist behind the site, Ben Shore, for filing too many OPR requests.

According to the district, Schor has a quote, "long, demonstrable history of filing numerous, cumbersome, vexatious, and at times invalid OPR requests with the board."

Well, Ben Schor is here with us now to talk about his actions and the lawsuit he's now faced with.

with us on the show.

Before we get into the lawsuit, just help us understand the kind of reporting that you do and why you filed several OPR requests with the Cherry Hill School District.

Absolutely, and thank you so much for taking the time to discuss this very important issue.

I filed a couple of requests, on average about one a month, and the district is suing me because my newsroom filed a total of 14 requests in 13 months, so about one request per month.

The type of things that we request include things like, from the school district, included things like public records requests, so we can analyze the district's compliance and look at how the district is doing public records, as well as also seeing who is bidding with our government, so we can kind of get a little bit of an inside look at who is trying to bid and do business with our government, whether it's local organizations that are working with our school districts, or whether it is people from out of state, to just try to really analyze it.

And we take that information and we publish that.

And go ahead.

- Well, I just want to understand, you're looking at contracts that the school district has entered into?

- Yes, we look for things like contracts and public records requests that will help us see that type of information.

- And then you publish that on your website.

I apologize for the interruption.

Cherry Hill claims, the school district claims, that these OPR requests are duplicative, onerous, and meant to harass the board, they also say that your website has created confusion because you've allowed a space where folks, residents, can go on and easily file OPR requests.

They say it creates confusion because they have a space on their own site where that can happen.

Explain how you've set up your website and your response to their claim.

Absolutely.

So in regards to the claim of duplicative requests, let's get something clear.

If you have a budget in July, it is not going to be the same budget in June.

So if you file a request for a budget in June and then you file it for the July budget, they now are claiming that that is too much information, that it's duplicative.

And if they do believe there is a request that is duplicative, they can simply deny it.

But let's not forget, these are public records that belong to the people.

These are our public records, and we should see what the government's doing.

On to your second question regarding the Cherry Hill OPRA portal that I created to help residents and community members get informed about the Public Records Act and also request information from Cherry Hill Public Schools.

I created that website for free.

I generate no money My sole purpose is to help individuals get access to the public records they need, whether they want to know about special education spending or find out situations within the school.

I make that easy and very possible with just a minute, and often can be completed in under a minute.

And it gets sent to the school, and the school fulfills it, just like the school for years has been fulfilling requests through the New Jersey OPRA machine.

And there's never been a problem with it, and now they kind of take issue with it.

And in regards option.

If you would like to do the district's request, you can, that's fine.

You can go to their website and file a request.

It takes significantly more time to do it on their site.

I've streamlined the process, made it easy for people to do and ensure the delivery of it.

And let me ask you this, Ben, just by contrast, you filed a similar amount of OPR requests, perhaps more even with the township itself in Cherry Hill.

How have they handled it differently than the board?

Absolutely.

So I have a great relationship with Patty at Cherry Hill Township.

She does a fantastic job, reaches out for clarification as needed.

We're able to talk things through to really get those records.

Completely different story with the Cherry Hill District.

The school district has no interest in talking things through.

Instead, they'll either deny it, they'll delay it, or they'll hit you with the technicality.

I've even gone as long as waited six months just to get a reply to a public records request.

No other agency has done that to me.

And now, Ben, let me just jump in here because I want to get to this.

There's a lawsuit.

I want to ask you, do you believe that this is what's known as a SLAPP lawsuit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation, which for a little history here, when New Jersey lawmakers passed changes to the OPR request that limited access and limited how OPR requests would be handled, they said that that was okay because New Jersey has very strong anti-SLAPP law, a very strong anti-SLAPP law in place.

All that context, do you believe that this lawsuit that you're now faced with is a SLAPP lawsuit?

Oh, absolutely.

It's a strategic lawsuit that they filed against me to prevent my participation in government, to prevent my website that I use to help inform people, to tell people about the records they can request.

They don't want people to be able to submit public records with them or for me to make the process easier.

And they're basically trying to prevent public engagement.

And I'm very confident in New Jersey's strong anti-slap suits and in the representation of CJ Griffin that we will prevail in this matter.

And I am just very hopeful that New Jersey's strong anti-slap laws will work because my brother filed one single request and he's getting sued too.

One request is all he filed.

I imagine there's a cost involved for you in terms of representing yourself in court.

And as you've said, you've hired an attorney.

I just want to ask what impact you believe this has on journalism, especially local journalism.

>> So our newsroom has not followed a single open request with the school since the incident.

We have not been able to cover stories that we wanted to cover.

There was a recent settlement agreement that came out that I believe the public should see, but we are not willing to make a records request out of fear that we are going to get sued, we brought into court because we requested a single public record that belongs to the public.

So the effect is real and it's impacted our newsroom.

And if this suit is allowed and continues, then any journalist, any member of the media, even if you make one single request, you may have to come to court and be banned from making a public records request.

All right.

I appreciate all that insight.

Ben Shor, independent journalist with Shor Investigates.

Thanks for coming on the show.

Thank you for having me.

I appreciate your time.

All right.

That's going to do it for us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gagas for the entire team here at NJ Spotlight News.

Thanks for being with us.

We'll see you right back here tomorrow.

NJM Insurance Group, serving the insurance needs of residents and businesses for more than 100 years.

NJM Insurance Group has been serving New Jersey businesses for over a century.

As part of the Garden State, we help companies keep their vehicles on the road, employees on the job, and projects on track.

Working to protect employees from illness and injury, to keep goods and services moving across the state, we're proud to be part of New Jersey.

We've got New Jersey covered.

[music playing]