SWFWMD Matters

Legislature Mauling Florida's Environment - Pam McVety

2012-02-29T09:05:00.002-05:00

Pam McVety, weaving public policy out of Tallahassee while I fought in the “trenches” of water resource management and public supply, crossed professional paths with me from time to time. Over our decades in the business, I learned to greatly respect her measured and always intelligent insight as we, working with many, many others, put into place a water management system in Florida that has been internationally lauded. I assure you she is not one to rant or say things without validity or sincerity. Here she speaks out in a way I’ve never heard from her: forceful, heartfelt, a touch of humor, but with a disconcerting apprehension about Florida’s future that should concern us all. -Sandspur

Pam McVety

By Permission of the author, Pam McVety.

(Also published in today’s Tampa Bay Times. Here’s the LINK to the original article.)

February 29, 2012

Let's take a minute to assess how the Legislature would like to maul the environment.

So far this session bills have been proposed to: steal public lands and waters; drill for oil and gas on public lands; put advertising signs on greenways and trails; eliminate septic tank inspections; eliminate concurrency for schools and transportation for new development; support water quality rules that will allow continued nutrient degradation of our water; move control of water management funding to Tallahassee; and stop registering greenhouse gas emitters. Also, funding has been withheld for Florida Forever environmental land acquisition and Everglades restoration, two programs that have been the hallmark of Florida's environmental programs for decades.

Every company, business or landowner in the state of Florida, represented by high-paid lobbyists, who wants something that otherwise would not be legal or acceptable has come out from under a rock with a bill written to get what he wants at the expense of the public. It is insane.

Legislators are acting like the boys in Lord of the Flies. They need adult supervision. Hypocrisy is rampant. The Climate Protection Act doesn't protect us from our changing climate. It undoes more of what Gov. Charlie Crist got passed to make Florida a leader in responding to climate change. Environmental Resource Permitting makes it easier to get a permit and does not advance the protection of our natural resources as the name might imply.

The sad thing is that the public understands very little about what is happening. But what is going on is bad for Florida. It is bad for you, and over time the cost of doing business in this state will increase because of the decisions made by this Legislature.

Your waters will continue to deteriorate. Do you like beach closures Memorial Day weekend or on July Fourth because of high bacterial counts or slimy green algae? North Florida's waters will end up in South Florida. Hope you don't mind paying for water supply for Polk County. Your taxes will go up as you are asked to cover the cost and impacts of development that developers will no longer pay. Oil and gas wells will appear on public lands and the associated pollution will make it very unpleasant and unhealthy to visit these sites, not to mention that an oil well will never look or smell like a tree.

Advertisers will place sponsorship signs at trail heads and you will be reminded to eat your Twinkie. And, to heck with a zen experience in state parks. There will be no more public land acquisition, and paving will gradually stretch from coast to coast and north to south and with all the paving will come increasing electric bills. You think all this is an exaggeration? I wouldn't bet against these predictions.

Here is the real rub. Florida has some serious environmental problems that need to be fixed, but our Legislature is busy undoing the past 40 years of environmental safeguards that have served us well. This anti-environmental agenda is bad for Florida's economy. It is bad for jobs. It is bad for our children. In the future as things worsen in this state, as they will with these kinds of bills, businesses will not want to locate here. Where is Gov. Rick Scott in all this? Oh that's right: He hasn't read the bills yet.

“Pam McVety worked for the state of Florida for 30 years and retired from the Department of Environmental Protection in 2003. She has a master's degree in zoology from the University of South Florida. She is a member of the Florida Conservation Coalition, a biologist and native Floridian,” Tampa Bay Times.

Former SWFWMD Director Kuhl Weighs In On SB 1986 - Kill It!

2012-02-26T14:03:00.001-05:00

I am a Florida native and I am an environmental engineer. I have worked much of my career at the Southwest Florida Water Management District and I am a member of the Florida Conservation Coalition. I have also been a county administrator in two Florida counties and the public works director in two Florida counties. I represented Hillsborough County in the major environmental permitting phases of both the desalination plant and the very large fresh water, public supply reservoir near Brandon. These experiences qualify me by some observers to be a “tree hugger” and a whole list of things my Mother would not want to hear! But I thought I had seen it all----until these last two sessions of the Florida Legislature.

What is remarkable to me is that one or two people in the Florida Senate seem to be dead set to destroy many of the few remaining assets our great State of Florida still enjoys. I am just not clear on the motives other than plain ego, greed and power.

Certainly many of these changes being “ram-rodded” through the legislature in the name of efficiency, jobs and that often used term “the benefits of privatization,” will just plain be terrible for Florida. These couple of Senators, Haridopolos and Alexander, along with our governor, are able, in their “leadership roles”, to herd most of the rest of the Senate (thank goodness for Dean, Fasano, Latvala and Dockery), into following a course headed for disaster. Check out what has occurred in education, privatization of state prisons, re-districting, funding for USF, “Sunshine” government (no public review of developing contracts, exemptions from the Sunshine Law), AND WATER AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

Not enough has been said lately about the dismemberment of water management in Florida and-----the complete abolishment of growth management in a state that grows and uses resources like few others during “good economic times”. SB 7092 (now SB 1986), in Senator Alexander’s Budget and Finance Committee, carefully stowed away in committee to avoid debate and public scrutiny, will move water management funding and major project approval into the hands of the legislature. This removes the long standing, generally positive regional water management system in place for decades. Why? Because it gives those in power in the legislature complete authority over the money and projects currently in the hands of regionally governed water management districts.

If we as responsible Florida citizens have any concerns about the direction the 2012 Florida Legislature is headed regarding our water resources, we had better do something-----quick! "Doing something" amounts to either e-mailing or calling Senators and Representatives and urging them to kill this bill.

And, in future elections, we all need to VOTE for the candidates that will take responsible action to manage this State's exceptional water and environmental resources!

Gary Kuhl

02.26.12

Senate moving to make water districts into state agencies - FCC call to action

2012-02-20T09:36:00.003-05:00

Below is an alert distributed by the Florida Conservation Coalition. If you have concerns about the legislature’s ongoing attempt to transform water management districts into state agencies to be controlled by Tallahassee instead of by board members from your own regional community, please read it.

Yes, I worked in water management for many years but this is not about me or any biases I might harbor. It’s about control of our property taxes and control of the water resources in our area. If this bill passes, we – you and I – will lose that control which is today provided by the five regional water management districts around the state.

Please read this alert and consider copying and pasting the proposed email message that follows and sending it to Governor Scott, Speaker Cannon, Senate President Haridopolos, Representative Grimsley, Representative Trudi Williams. Their email addresses are also provided which can be copied and pasted into to the “to” line of your email.

SPB 7092, the legislative takeover of water management districts, passed the Senate Budget Committee last week. This is the reincarnated bill that essentially transfers control of the state’s five water management districts to Tallahassee and transforms them into state agencies. It had been pulled from the Senate Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee earlier, because it likely would not have passed the substantive committee. This is clearly a very high priority of the Senate Leadership.

SPB 7092 has now been renumbered SB 1986 (a stand-alone budget conforming bill.) So, it is now in its third incarnation of the session, making it next to impossible for a normal citizen to follow. It is on second reading in the Senate, can be amended on the Senate floor (not likely), but it is unlikely that the House will pass this bill as it is, and the Senate recognizes this. What this means is that the fate of regional water management will probably be decided in fairly smoky rooms during conference, within one week or so. Therefore, one of the most important public policy questions to all Floridians is going to be decided behind closed doors, outside the democratic process.

Please write the Governor, Speaker of the House, the Senate President and the Chairman and Subcommittee Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, as well as your local House and Senate members. It is very, very important to include your members at this stage.

Below is a message along with the email addresses of the Governor, the Speaker, the Senate President and the House Appropriations Chair and Subcommittee Chair, please simply add your own elected officials to the addressees and modify your message to suit your views.

rick.scott@eog.myflorida.com;

haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov;

dean.cannon@myfloridahouse.gov;

denise.grimsley@myfloridahouse.gov;

trudi.williams@myfloridahouse.gov

Dear Governor Scott, Speaker Cannon, Senate President Haridopolos, Representative Grimsley, Representative Trudi Williams

We do not want legislators from Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Orlando or Miami deciding the fate of our local water resources or how and where our local property tax dollars will be spent. Further, we do not want legislators to decide how regulatory activity should be conducted, nor what projects are paramount to us. Local and regional government is best for protecting the Water Resources of the State.

Please retain Regional Water Resource Management for Florida!

Currently in its third iteration, SB1986 - now a budget conforming bill - awaits full Senate action. It is just as unacceptable as it was two bill numbers ago. The water management districts are regional entities funded by local and regional property taxes, and the Governor has general supervisory authority over them. This is the way it should be, just as it was before 2010.

Please say no to SB1986

Respectfully,

JD Alexander sticks it ... just like he did to the WMD’s

2012-02-14T22:38:00.007-05:00

It is common practice in the legislature to do something dastardly behind the public’s back and cleverly conceal it beneath an opaque cloak of esoteric procedural maneuvering. It’s become so common, in fact, that everyone knows, no matter what happens during the regular session, if the so-called “leadership” wants it, it’ll get done in the last hour, sometimes in the session’s last minutes, public interests be damned.

Just before the clerk drops the hankie and says sine die signaling that the insanity of another session is mercifully over, language is surreptitiously added or deleted and the lap dogs of the legislature, elected to represent the people’s interest, do as they’re told by the “alpha,” and the damage, the political favor, or the secret payoff gets done. They do so because, in reality, if they don’t kowtow to the mighty and kiss the boot, they know they will suffer devastating political retribution on a very personal level. This is the way of unrestrained political muscle that the Tallahassee system has learned to nurture and sustain session after session.

Why do we, the people, allow this madness to so fully infect those we send to the hallowed halls of our representative democracy? We send these people there to provide us with reasoned governance and wise structure for our heavily interrelated lives. Why is it that when we see our system being manipulated to serve the personal interests of a few, or even one, and not the public’s, we find ourselves paralyzed to do anything about it? It is only later that we will learn what took place and with great disdain and disbelief we will rant with great editorial indignation only to allow it again next year.

This is the ugly backside of greed and self aggrandizement at its absolute worst. During this session and last, there has been no other human personification of gross political power gone amuck as JD Alexander; a guy who inherited both money and power from one of the most influential agricultural families in Florida’s history; a guy who’s only legacy will be that he became the epitome of what we should never again allow to be elected to political office at any level.

You’ve heard what he is trying to do to the University of South Florida. He’s trying to choke them into submission for resisting his personal desire to sever USF’s brand new USF Polytechnic University completely from USF. He disingenuously denies that cutting the USF funding by over $100,000,000, far more than any of the other state funded universities, will do long lasting damage to the school’s academic standing and its ability to deliver a quality education.

If you haven’t already read in disbelief what this guy is doing, see the Tampa Bay Times front page article and its main editorial about it published this morning (2.14.12). Find the article HERE and the editorial HERE.

Some Quotes from the editorial”

“… his proposed state budget would starve to death the university, an unmistakable threat to anyone who dares to oppose his theft of the branch campus.”

“This is the sort of political interference that gives Florida's universities a bad name.”

“…the focus is on one powerful senator's obsession to create a new university and how far he will go to get his way.”

Daniel Ruth of the Times had much to say as well. Here’s an excerpt:

It is axiomatic that not much happens in Tallahassee until toward the end of the legislative session when the final deals are cooked, the last minute conspiracies are hatched and, of course, the annual rite of back-stabbing begins in earnest.

This isn't democracy in action. It's a good old boy junta, taking names, settling scores and extracting revenge. Think of this as the reign of the Borgias, only without the sense of whimsy.

So it's a fair question: Why even bother with the charade of legislating? Why not dispense with filing bills, holding committee hearings and voting on stuff and put Senate Budget Committee Chairman JD Alexander in charge of everything, since it certainly appears the Big Daddy of Lake Wales is firmly in charge of establishing Florida as the Dogpatch of the nation?

Find Ruth's complete column published by the Tampa Bay Times, “Droppings from the lamest of lame ducks,” HERE.

So … because all the above is so much more sexy than water management, it’s a pretty good bet you don’t know that Alexander is doing the very same thing to the water management districts of this state, but you should. And you should be no less outraged.

Today, the e-news publication, the Florida Current, reported that the Florida Conservation Coalition has come out in strong opposition to Alexander’s Proposed Committee Bill 7092. It is common knowledge that Alexander would likely try to slip something like the earlier SB 1834 through the process and under the public radar, and sure enough that’s exactly what PCP 7092 will accomplish if approved.

This is the same maneuver he used against USF.

PCB 7092 if passed will take away the governor’s traditional budgetary oversight of the water management districts and leave him only to review and report findings to the legislature where the real control will be shifted.

So complete will its control be that many, lawyers included, are saying it patently violates the Florida constitutional prohibition against the state levying an ad valorem property tax for state purposes.

But for you and me, that’s not the issue. Not really sexy enough. The issue is that water management will become completely politicized at the state level. This is where it will hit your backyard first. Want a water use permit in Citrus County that will impact Rainbow Springs, or Weeki Wachee Springs in Hernando, or as it is happening right now in the Suwannee River district, a permit in the St. John River District that will impact the springs in the Suwannee District? Just call your local powerful committee chairman in Tallahassee, give some money to his PAC, and you’ve got your permit.

To be specific, the SJRWMD is issuing a permit to the Jacksonville Electric Authority for huge quantities being pumped from the groundwater basin of the Suwannee River and its related multitude of springs. The SJRWMD says it will have a significant impact. SJRWMD now run by political hacks appointed by the governor are whistling Dixie and saying it isn’t so.

The executive director of the Suwannee District at the direction of his governing board filed an objection to the permit on behalf of the resource they are by law compelled to protect. He also filed it on behalf of folks who don’t want the water they need for their own purposes and their future being sucked off to Jacksonville to cool electric turbines.

Here’s the point. Now that Tallahassee is gaining control of districts’ budgets, the folks who continue to work there will have no choice but to do the political bidding of the Tallahassee powerful or be fired.

David Still the courageous executive director of the Suwannee district who filed the lawsuit, for example, was “let go” today (02.15.12).

This is the kind of political chicanery the state is in for. JD Alexander will be gone from the legislature after this session. But make no mistake. His devil’s work will not go with him and Florida’s vast and unique natural resources are at grave risk.

But Wait! There's more. There is also the fraud perpetrated upon you, the property owners within all the counties of SWFWMD, who, because of his scheming will now be paying for a fully half of a $330,000,000 water supply project for Polk County. But that’s a story I’ve already told you. And, will tell again and again and again.

Still sitting quietly believing someone else will take care of the problem? In the words of Dr. Phil, “How’s that working for you?”

Do what the Florida Conservation Coalition strongly suggests:

Write or call Senate President Haridopolos,

President-elect Gaetz,

Speaker of the House Cannon,

Speaker-designate Weatherford

Chair, Senate Budget Committee, Senator JD Alexander (R),

Vice Chair: Senator Joe Negron (R),

Chair: Senate Budget Sub-Committee on General Government Appropriations, Senator Alan Hays (R),

Vice Chair: Senator Lizbeth Benacquisto (R),

and members: Senator Oscar Braynon, II (D), Senator Larcenia J. Bullard (D), Senator Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (R), Senator Audrey Gibson (D), Senator Dennis L. Jones D.C. (R), and Senator Jack Latvala (R),

and your local representative and senator.

Urge them to (1) remove the current revenue caps and restore maximum millage rates; (2) restore oversight of district budgets exclusively to the Governor’s Office; and (3) avoid legislative involvement in the "core missions", regulatory functions, administration outreach and management of the water management districts. In other words, kill this bill, kill it dead, but then restore the districts to their earlier status when they worked for the resource and the locals who depend upon it.
________________________

Yesterday, I saw a where Paula Dockery posted this on her Facebook page :

“It's official, I'm not really in the Florida Senate, I'm in the twilight zone.”

You can believe it, Paula.

Bone Headed Idea Being Pushed by Tampa's Lowery Park Zoo

2012-02-12T11:25:00.002-05:00

Rep. Shawn Harrison
Proposes Exotic Animals On State Environmentsl Lands
(WTF)

In case you haven’t heard, there are two bills being pushed by Tampa’s Lowery Park Zoo that, at first blush, may sound reasonable because most of us are simply ignorant.

Slender Horned Gazelle

For example, what could be wrong with using our state lands - that were purchased for environmental preservation and restoration - to provide new homeland for poor animals that are close to extinction in other parts of the world like Wildebeests, Asian Buffalo, the Wild African Ass, Hooked-Lipped Rhinoceros, Slender Horned Gazelle, Western Giant Eland, Bactrian Camel, Bairds Tapir, etc., etc.?

African Wild Ass

This is what HB 1117 and SB 1456 would allow if Rep. Shawn Harrison of Tampa (who sponsored the bill in the House) and the Lowery Park Zoo get their way.

Turns out there are a lot of things wrong with this idea and scientists are rattled.

Given all the problems this state already has with invasions of all sorts of exotic plants and animals that threaten our own delicate ecosystems, the idea is plain dumb if we listen to those who know.

Hooked-Nose Rhinocerous

The fear is that a legislature that is not exactly known for doing the right thing about dumb issues, even when educated, will do something really dumb here.

So, in the interest of giving you something to sink your teeth into, here’s an exchange between the zoo’s public response person and well respected scientist, Mary Barnwell, a former employee of SWFWMD where she pioneered many land management concepts that are today considered the “how to” by land managers around the state.

As email goes, you need to start at the bottom and read up if you want to see the full exchange. But if you only want to learn what such a proposal could bring, just read Mary’s final response immediate hereafter. Then you might be motivated to email your friendly, always available, and interested-only-in-your-opinions local legislator and tell him or her – in case they’re vacillating - what a truly boneheaded idea this is.

2/9/2012; 7:29:42 P.M.

To: Rachel.Nelson@LowryParkZoo.com

From: Mary Barnwell

Dear Ms. Nelson,

Thank you for responding so quickly. My understanding of the bill and the intent is not flawed. Many people that are not directly involved in management of public land believe that there are "marginal" conservation lands, such as improved or semi-improved pasture, that are not important for either Florida wildlife or natural vegetation. I can assure you - with less than 1/2 of the needed habitat in the state preserved, and many of the areas that are protected under direct siege from organizations such as your own and other special interests, every square inch of our public lands is needed for wildlife, plants and ecosystem services.

Bactrian Camel

As a public land manager for 17 years, I can assure you that those semi-improved and improved pasture lands are utilized as primary habitat by Florida wildlife, including federal and state protected species. In addition to being a land manager, I am also a restorationist who has restored hundreds of acres of improved pasture back to functional native habitats. Species that occur in pasture include gopher tortoise and its commendams (Florida mouse, gopher frog). We have now found sand skinks, a federally imperiled species, are found in pasture more than they are found in their intact habitat.

In Lake County, FL - FLorida scrub jays and sand skinks occur in these altered areas more than in natural areas of scrub and sandhill. Burrowing owls use pasture almost exclusively, and a suite of rapidly declining sparrows also use pasture. So do Florida sandhill cranes, which seem to prefer to nest in wetlands embedded in pasture, and SE American kestrels, as long as snags are kept standing. In fact, the ability for African wildlife to alter the strature of vegetation is a key concern.

In some pastures, for example, on land I managed in Marion County, scrub oaks that resprouted from land formerly logged and cleared for pasture became habitat for one of the most robust scrub-jay populations in the state. Snags are also a key concern, since shortage of open habitat and sufficient cavities are reasons for declines of many cavity nesting birds.

Another point is that exotic wildlife may potentially reduce groundcover vegetation - even if it is exotic turf grasses - sufficiently to reduce fire intensities and fire spread in pasture habitat. Fire is essential in Florida ecosystems (and in altered areas with native wildlife), and anything that potentially alters fire patterns is an issue.

Next I would like to address exotic vegetation. We have no idea how exotic vegetation will respond to being fed on or dispersed by exotic wildlife. A read of Invasion Ecology may instill in you an understanding of the complex ecosystem interactions between soils, plants and animals. Since millions of dollars are spent in Florida trying to control exotic vegetation, introducing species that may even have co-evolutionary histories with some exotic plants that occur on our preserves could cause severe repercussions.

Another concern is the potential for exotic species to introduce exotic disease and parasites into the population. Please spare me a lecture about quarantines and veterinarian care, since I do know that these measures are not always sufficient to prevent contagion and epidemics.

Finally the mere presence of African wildlife in Florida may have additional, more indirect consequences for native species that we are as of yet unaware. Land managers are already battling a huge number of invasive plants and animals and we do not need any more problems or diversions. Instead of worrying about another set of species, and how to monitor the impacts and decipher what is going on at all community levels, land managers needs to focus their scarce resources on what they are hired to do - protect and manage Florida's few scraps of natural habitat remaining.

Also, even if pasture is not important for native species or holistic management of our conservation lands, these altered areas are where other uses that are mandated by legislation and vital to the people of Florida can occur. For instance, recreation-based uses such as trailheads, camping sites and picnic facilities, and equestrians staging facilities are placed. Will the use of this land, such as at WRB in Green Swamp West, mean the area cannot be utilized by the public for other uses? I have to assume that is the case, since how safe could it be for hikers and horseback riders to enjoy their activity on the same land utilized by large ungulates.

Finally, even on areas where cattle are grazed, this is not the best use of conservation lands. In fact, cattle have been associated with colonization & spread of exotic vegetation, and also seem to be closely affiliated with imported red fire ants (another species that may respond favorably to African savannah animals). Cows collapse tortoise burrows, destroy wetland vegetation, cause damage to river banks and wetland edges. In fact, the removal of cattle on private mitigation banks has actually resulted in an elevation of "lift" and is acceptable for additional mitigation credit. The only reason it is not given the same status on public lands is because of the financial gain being had by county sheriffs', water management district board members, politician’s families, etc.

If Lowry Park Zoo is concerned about doing the right thing instead of just looking after how to promote their own agendas and research projects, perhaps you should open your eyes and see whose company you are in.

Florida's public conservation lands are under siege and I as well as many of my colleagues and peers will not tolerate this anymore. If Lowry Park Zoo staff and its supporting financiers are truly concerned about the wildlife in Florida, they will immediately withdraw this poorly thought out bill. I would be happy to meet with backers of this proposal to educate them about the short-comings and unsuitability of our public lands for the purposes being proposed. Otherwise I and people of like mind are prepared to mobilize and to target the accreditation entity to petition for revocation of Lowry Park Zoo's accreditation.

After the Lex Salisbury incident, do you think that this kind of publicity is wise? I hope you will spare us all this battle and do the right thing - withdraw your support for this bill, and convince any other partnering zoos to do the same.

Sincerely,
Mary Barnwell

_________________________________________________

Subject: RE: Contact Us Form Submission
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:34:15 -0500
From: Rachel.Nelson@LowryParkZoo.com
To: Mary Barnwell

Ms. Barnwell,

Thank you for your recent correspondence to Tampa’s Lowry Park Zoo. Please know that we welcome all comments, and have shared yours with the most appropriate staff. We appreciate the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding you may have from news accounts of HB 1117 and SB 1456. The phrase “opening public lands to herds of African wildlife” makes for a sensational headline, but is not the intention of this bill. The intention is not to open Florida’s wilderness, which in the opinion of so many who work at accredited zoos, aquariums, and other conservation organizations, should indeed be preserved in perpetuity. The intention is to allow for space in existing pasture -- tracts already being grazed by domesticated livestock not at risk of extinction -- for other ungulate species that are at risk of extinction. Accredited zoos and aquariums are committed to doing what we can to ensure species survival locally and internationally, and to promote conservation of the natural habitats on which we all depend.

Best,

Rachel F. Nelson
Office of Public Affairs
Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo

________________________________________

To: Lowery Park Zoo

tlpzcontactform@gmail.com
Subject: Contact Us Form Submission

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 21:43:38

I am incredulous and dismayed at a pending request by Mr. Killmar, representing Lowry PArk Zoo, to the Florida legislature to allow exotic zoo animals to be released onto our precious public lands for research purposes. Unless this request is immediately withdrawn, we will ensure that zoo visitors are made aware of the hypocrisy of your conservation agenda, and we will seek a boycott of the zoo. We will also petition the American Zoological Accreditation entity to censure this action and review the zoo's accreditation. Finally we will appeal to the City of Tampa for penalties.

Again, we request immediate withdrawal of the legislation, and suspension of all future plans to use public conservation lands, intended to preserve FLORIDA'S DWINDLING WILDLIFE, for introduction/research on exotic species of any kind.

Thank you.

Mary Barnwell, M.S. Natural Resource Management

Goodson Doesn't Understand His Own Bill; Opposition to HB 1103 Grows

2012-02-07T10:08:00.004-05:00

The following is an open letter to state Rep. Tom Goodson, R-Rockledge, by Al Grubman, President of TOOFAR, Inc. -Sandspur

TOO FAR against HB 1103

Al Grubman,

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 12:00 am

When the TOO FAR board voted to oppose HB 1103 (Ordinary High Water Line or OHWL), I was proud to announce the results: “At our last meeting Thursday evening, the TOO FAR board of directors voted unanimously to stand against this legislation.” Al Grubman, president.

I was pleasantly surprised to receive a response from you, the sponsor of the bill. I took your comments very seriously. I not only read every word of HB 1103 but I also read the staff analysis (both the Summary Analysis and the Full Analysis). I listened to every word of the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Subcommittee discussion on the subject. I set aside your conclusions about the opponents — “In all fairness, HB 1103 has been misunderstood…” and “Unfortunately there are certain groups resorting to scare tactics when it comes to this very clear and simple piece of legislation.” I question your accusations and prefer to hear and read statements directly.

It was difficult to ignore my prejudices, such as respect for established environmental groups and others, but I believe I was objective. Since I have no prior familiarity with you, I was objective.

I considered statements and positions from many sources including Florida Conservation Coalition, Audubon, Sierra, Florida Wildlife Federation, EARTHJUSTICE, Florida Airboat Association, United Waterfowlers of Florida, Florida Sportsman, 1000 Friends of Florida and Florida Cattlemen’s Association. Only the Cattlemen supported the bill and they appear to be a beneficiary.

Friends, blogs and associates, most with substantial experience and technical backgrounds, are unanimously against the bill. Numerous newspapers have spoken up against the bill and I have found none supporting the bill.

The bill, as I read it, clearly would move property lines downhill to the advantage of property owners and to the detriment of the public and the state of Florida. Knowing Florida topography, the estimated loss of hundreds of thousands of acres of public land seems to be a reasonable expectation.

Having researched the basis of the TOO FAR board decision and examined even more information, I continue to support and am proud of the board’s decision.

TOO FAR is an environmental and water activist organization of only about 1,000 members, but we stand with the many thousands of others who are opposing this legislation.

Subsequent statements reported to be by you and the subcommittee chairman indicate that the bill “…. it’s not going anywhere” and “is most likely dead.” We hope this is not a big disappointment for you and that maybe it is like getting an ugly monkey off your back.

Al Grubman is president of TOO FAR Inc.

This letter was also published in the Citrus County Chronicle this morning. Here's the direct link.

Public Lands Headed for Degradation and Defacement

2012-02-05T15:24:00.002-05:00

The Florida Conservation Coalition published a Legislative Alert this afternoon saying the legislature is considering proposals that would allow oil and gas drilling on any onshore state land without regard for its environmental value. Could lead to advertisements and commercial messages where only natural Florida habitat is now preserved.

Estus Whitfield of the FCC, author of the alert, says, “Signs or displays for advertising and public relations may be placed at trailheads, trail intersections, directional or distance markers, interpretative exhibits and parking areas. One has to ask – will this bill enhance my outdoor, nature experience?”

Estus Whitfield was the primary environmental advisor for four governors of both parties: Graham, Martinez, Chiles, and Bush.

In Sandspur’s view, this is just more of CEO Scott’s uninformed disdain for what has been carefully and in some cases painfully established for Floridians and its visitors over the last 40 years, hopefully to protect and preserve a little bit of nature for our children and theirs. These bills reflect no understanding of and no appreciation for natural Florida. They are foolishness.

While Scott didn’t introduce the legislation, he is probably behind the maneuver. He has proposed such nonsense before through his henchman, Herschel Vinyard in the past. Vinyard’s last attack on state parks was a proposal to construct a campground at Honeymoon Island that would accommodate huge campers and rolling motorhomes. He has defended his decision to push for campgrounds at Honeymoon Island and 55 other state parks as a way to raise revenue for the state.

After a number of very vocal crowds showed up at public hearings to oppose the move at Honeymoon Island, however, Scott backed off and sent out a news release saying, “After seeing the public's reaction, it is clear that this is not the right time to expand camping at Honeymoon Island State Park. . . These natural treasures belong to all the tax-paying citizens of this state and it would be unfair to proceed with a plan that so many Floridians are so adamantly opposed to."

Apparently, the CEO Governor is beginning to "get" the significance of numbers, especially as re-election time gets closer.

Time for Florida’s Environmental Conscience to get vocal once again and show it is “adamantly opposed.” Your emails and calls do have an impact. Believe it.

Read FCC’s Alert in your browser HERE, or in full blow … and ACT;

Florida Conservation Coalition

Legislative Alert February 5, 2012,

by Estus Whitfield

DEGRADING PUBLIC LANDS

HB 695 (SB 1158) and CS/HB 181 (SB 268)If you believe that our public state lands –state parks, preserves, forests, wildlife management areas, and greenways and trails- should be protected against degradation and defacement, then you should take notice and pay careful attention to these bills.

CS/HB 695 (Ford and Smith) and it Senate companion SB 1185 (Evers) would allow the state to authorize exploration, development, and production of oil and gas on any onshore state land regardless of whether it is a park preserve, or forest, or environmentally valuable and sensitive. This is presented as a potential state revenue producer.

CS/HB 695 is now in the Appropriations Committee and has another referral to the State Affairs Committee. SB 1185 has referrals to the Communications, Energy and Public Utilities Committee, Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee, and Budget Committee.

CS/HB 181 (Slosberg) and its Senate companion CS/CS/ SB 268 (Wise) would allow the DEP to enter concession agreements with a private business or a not-for-profit for naming rights of state greenway and trail facilities or property, or for commercial sponsorship to be displayed on the facilities or property. Signs or displays for advertising and public relations may be placed at trailheads, trail intersections, directional or distance markers, interpretative exhibits and parking areas. One has to ask – will this bill enhance my outdoor, nature experience? Will it even bolster the sale of walking shoes? The bill, if it passes, will be known as the “John Anthony Wilson Bicycle Safety Act”.

CS/HB 181 is now in the Appropriations Committee and has a referral to the State Affairs Committee. CS/CS/ SB 268 is ON THE AGENDA of the Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee for Feb. 6, 3:00 P.M. (This is the last committee.)

Please contact the following senators: CS/CS/SB 268 Sponsor:

Senator Steven Wise (R), Committee Chair:

Senator Charles S. "Charlie" Dean, Sr. (R), Vice Chair:

Members:

Senator Steve Oelrich (R),

Senator Nancy C. Detert (R),

Senator Dennis L. Jones, D.C. (R),

Senator Jack Latvala (R),

Senator Nan H. Rich (D),

Senator Eleanor Sobel (D).

Florida’s Environmental Conscience Stirring

2012-02-03T18:03:00.005-05:00

An Ignominious End

In the late sixties and early seventies songs often hinted of “something in the wind,” “something happening” and “something coming” referring to growing discontent and rejection of the Vietnam War by the American public. It was a time when the political “norm” was arrogantly moving more and more out of sync with the hearts and minds of America. It was a time of growing distrust toward authority and officialdom gone awry.

Eventually, those in power caved, excuses were found and a terrible national mistake was brought to an ignominious end.

CEO governor Rick Scott

Last year the governor of this state in complicity with the Florida legislature made a number of terrible statewide mistakes that will have implications lasting decades or longer if not halted and reversed.

In a Jacksonville address this week, former Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection, Vicki Tschinkel, called what happened, a “travesty.”

Tschinkel is the current chair of 1000 Friends of Florida and has been a primary figure, along with former Florida Governor Bob Graham, in establishing the new bipartisan group, Florida Conservation Coalition which is focused on re-energizing Florida’s environmental conscience.

Noting that the environmental community was caught napping last session, she said, “We are fully awake and we are starting to have an effect.”

Jacksonville blogger, Ron Littlepage, published his report, reprinted here, of Tschinkel’s presentation. It is worth the read because she enumerates all the things that have happened and the fact that people are not buying the ruse that rules to protect Florida’s fragile natural environment are the cause of Florida’s historic economic woes.

Former Florida Governor
and U. S. Senator
Bob Graham

Citing a poll conducted for the Everglades Foundation last year, Tschinkel said 81 percent of respondents asked agreed Florida should manage growth to protect its sensitive rivers, lakes and other waters.

Floridians know that regulations haven’t been the blame for the state’s high unemployment and housing decline despites Scott’s repetitive references to “job-killing regulations.” She pointed out that there are 1.5 million vacant houses in Florida, 1 million houses under construction and 3 billion square feet of vacant commercial space, the equivalent of 300 malls.

Clearly, there has been no environmental regulation powerful enough to stop this excess and making laws weaker or repealing them isn’t going to make it go away.

See the article below:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400601/ron-littlepage/2012-02-03/watchdogs-environment-neutered

Watchdogs for environment neutered

Submitted by Ron Littlepage

February 3, 2012 - 4:07am

Ron Littlepage's Blog

Floridians who care about clean water and healthy natural resources had better start kicking behinds and taking names.

Those behinds are the ones sitting in the governor’s office and the Florida Legislature, busily dismantling four decades of solid water and growth management policies.

What Gov. Rick Scott and the Legislature did during last year’s legislative session was a “travesty.”

That was the description used by Victoria Tschinkel, the chair of 1000 Friends of Florida and a former secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, when she talked to an overflow crowd at the Garden Club this week.

If you’ve forgotten the list of horribles, here’s a reminder of some:

The Department of Community Affairs and the state’s growth management laws were gutted.

Scott called the DCA a “job killer” that stymied development, but as Tschinkel said, there are 1.5 million vacant houses in Florida, 1 million houses under construction and 3 billion square feet of vacant commercial space, the equivalent of 300 malls.

“There was no evidence DCA was a job killer,” Tschinkel said.

The truth, she said, was a couple of powerful special interests who didn’t like the head of the agency got Scott’s ear.

With the DCA done, the state’s water management districts were neutered, their budgets cut by $700 million.

The public relations ploy was that was a tax break for Florida’s citizens.

“For most households the annual cost of the water management districts is two to three pizzas,” Tschinkel said.

And to get those pizzas, the districts lost hundreds of experienced employees, with the ax falling disproportionately on scientists, legal staff and regulators.

And the Legislature made it more difficult for citizens to challenge developments that could harm the environment.

More mischief is on the way as water wars break out over who gets the dwindling resource needed to fuel growth.

“The people in the know behind the scenes are slowly gathering the political forces they need to get the water they are going to need when development starts up again,” Tschinkel said.

Tschinkel and others, including former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, woke up to what was happening in Tallahassee and formed the Florida Conservation Coalition.

The coalition’s goal: “Florida’s natural resources are a treasure to be conserved for the people of Florida and must be managed judiciously, not squandered.”

You would think from all the talk out of Tallahassee that Floridians are fed up with regulations. They aren’t.

A poll conducted for the Everglades Foundation last year found that when asked if the state should manage growth to protect rivers, lakes and other waters, 81 percent of respondents agreed.

The coalition, designed, Tschinkel said, “to help articulate what people need to know and to get active again,” is an army that is growing.

“We are fully awake,” she said. “And we are starting to have an effect.”

Florida’s environment is at stake.

ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4284

Forces Find Compromise; HB 639 Moves Closer to Becoming Law

2012-02-01T15:51:00.002-05:00

According to a “Friendly Alert” sent out today (02-01-12), Vicki Tschinkel of the Florida Conservation Coalition announced that a compromise had been reached on HB 639, the bill that would have removed reclaimed wastewater from the statutory definition of “waters in the state” and create a first step toward privatizing water in the State of Florida. Here’s the alert:

HB 639 by Dana Young and the City of Tampa

If you look at previous alerts, you will remember that this is the bill which took treated domestic wastewater out of the definition of Waters in the State, a very bad precedent as every other type of discharger would want to be taken out of the definition. It would also have made it unlikely that the State and Water Management would involve the generators of this resource in water use planning. But we do support reuse.

A very large and persistent contingent of lobbyists for the conservation groups (including all the FCC Charter organizations), coupled by the strong support from all of you and your emails helped us get Representative Dana Young's personal attention. So did the Editorials and news articles. As she listened to the specific concerns, she asked for another set of amendments. These were produced, and carefully vetted with all the conservation groups involved. We are grateful to Representative Young for accepting these and for getting this done.

Section 1 of the bill, which removed domestic wastewater from the definition of Waters of the State, our biggest concern, was deleted from the bill, entirely.

The bill now clearly states that those who are involved in reuse are to be part of all the water management districts planning and water supply plans. This includes the District Water Management Plan which encompasses water supply and environmental issues.

Currently the districts do not require permits for the use of reclaimed water, this codifies that into law. We don't love that, of course, but we felt that it might enhance the use of reclaimed water as the proponents felt, and that the specific inclusion of this resource in the District plans was a pretty good way to go. The bill passed out of committee today with our amendments.

This could not have been accomplished without your strong efforts and constant willingness to take action and get involved. We are much stronger when we all take action together and focus on the important issues!

Compromise is the way it’s supposed to work, of course, but if I’m asked, I’d suggest it could have been done without all the fuming and grousing. It does, however, make for good political theater.

The districts should have been more understanding of the collective concerns of the utilities from the beginning and the City of Tampa through Rep. Dana Young should have been more responsible than to arrogantly threaten a fundamental underpinning of Florida Water Law. With such a pervasive lack of knowledge and appreciation in Tallahassee today for the importance of a rational water management framework for Florida, it was dangerous move.

Nevertheless, stay tuned. One victory in compromise does not mean a war won. The session is far from over and, as they say, until “sine die” no man women or child, much less our natural environment, will be safe on the streets of Florida from the ill winds that blow from T-Town.

02.01.12

Tampa Bay Times and Florida Sportsman: Oppose Public Land Giveaway!

2012-01-29T14:16:00.004-05:00

The Tampa Bay Times published an excellent editorial this morning urging the Florida legislature to stop the environmental land giveaway that will happen if HB 1103 and SB 1362 are passed and become law. Please follow the original story link HERE to see the article as published by the Times if you have the capability, or you can read it in full below.

Proponents of these identical bills include the Florida Cattlemen’s Association and other large land owners who stand to gain ownership of hundreds of thousands of acres of water front property. This is land now held in public trust for you, the camper, fisherman, kayaker and hunter as well any resident or tourist who wants to enjoy Florida’s vast flowing waterways and lakes. (See Sandspur’s earlier post on this HERE or at http://swfwmdmatters.blogspot.com/2012/01/hb1103-sb1362-public-ripoff-in.html.)

If these bills are passed and become law, hundreds of thousands of acres will be permanently and unalterably taken from you and given to adjacent landowners who will have a legal right to bar you from these lands and charge you with trespass if you should find yourself upon them. If you are a hunter and trespass with a weapon, you can be charged with felony armed trespass and imprisoned.

The bills are sponsored by Rep. Tom Goodson, R-Titusville) (tom.goodson@myfloridahouse.gov) and Sen. Alan Hays (hays.alan.web@flsenate.gov).

Rep. Ray Pilon
Why are you supporting HB 1103?

Email them and tell them how you dislike what they’re trying to do.

At the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Subcommittee which met on January 17 in Tallahassee, here is who voted for and against the bill:

Voting FOR:

(Email these people and express your displeasure at their support of this offensive bill. Ask them why they voted for it!)

Ray Pilon (ray.pilon@myfloridahouse.gov)

Rich Glorioso (rich.glorioso@myfloridahouse.gov),

Jim Boyd (jim.boyd@myfloridahouse.gov),

Steve Perman (steve.perman@myfloridahouse.gov)

Matt Caldwell (matt.caldwell@myfloridahouse.gov),

Steve Crisafulli (steve.crisafulli@myfloridahouse.gov),

Tom Goodson (tom.goodson@myfloridahouse.gov)

Shawn Harrison (shawnharrison@myfloridahouse.gov)

Jimmie Smith (jimmie.smith@myfloridahouse.gov)

Elizabeth Porter (elizabeth.porter@myfloridahouse.gov)

Voting AGAINST:

(Send these folks an email thanking them for opposing this offensive bill)

Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda (Tap HERE to send a email)

Franklin Sands, (franklin.sands@myfloridahouse.gov)

Dwight Bullard (dwight.bullard@myfloridahouse.gov)

Original story link: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1212738.ece

A Tampa Bay Times Editorial

Stop Legislature's land grab

Sunday, January 29, 2012

It would be foolish to deny the public access to hundreds of thousands of acres of waterfront property in a misguided attempt to clarify where state waterways end and private property begins. But that would happen under bills working their way through the Legislature. More civic-minded lawmakers should halt this land grab that could cut off access for hunting, fishing, swimming and other public activities.

HB 1103 and SB 1362 would change the definition of the "ordinary" high mark that acts as the dividing line in Florida between navigable waters held by the state in public trust and upland property that belongs to private owners. Florida assumed title to lands under the navigable waters upon becoming a state in 1845, and the state has a duty to preserve them for navigation, swimming, fishing and other legal public uses.

Under existing law, the water line is the "ordinary or normal reach" of water during the high-water season. The proposed bills would change that definition so the public property would no longer include areas where the water rises along the shoreline due to the rain. The dry season — not the wet — would determine the boundary between public and private property. That could privatize between 100,000 and 500,000 acres of shoreline now being used by hunters, canoeists, campers and others. And it would allow anyone interested in developing the property for use as a marina or other for-profit venture to avoid paying the state for a submerged lands lease.

The courts have established that the high water mark can be established by several measures, such as a physical marker that clearly shows the end of a water line and the upland shore. The proponents say the bill would help "clarify" the line between public and private property. There is nothing wrong with steps that increase the accuracy of surveys of the state's rivers, lakes and streams. But this bill does far more — whittling back the public water line to the dry-season boundary. The legislation could turn outdoor enthusiasts into trespassers and undermine efforts to protect natural habitat critical for controlling floods and preserving the state's drinking water supply. Lawmakers should shelve this bill. Generating more consistency in the titling process for private landowners should not be cover for taking away long-established public lands.

The website of the The Florida Sportsman, “Bill Could Turn Public Water Access Private” has this to say about the bills

The bill(s) would:

•Change the boundary of lakes, rivers and streams from the ordinary high water line to the low water line

•Be a giveaway of 500,000 acres of shores and littoral marshes from state ownership to big landowners

•Thwart Everglades restoration as marshes on rivers and lakes filter out fertilizer and other pollutants that are destroying the River of Grass

•Allow the shore of all rivers and lakes to become private property

If all rivers and lakes became private property, boaters could be arrested for getting out of their vessel and stepping on the shore, for standing on the shore fishing, for picnicking on the shore, or for camping on the shore. Fishermen could get arrested for taking their boats past the low water line during the high water season. Even hunters could get arrested for hunting in marshes that are dry in the low water season.

House Bill 1103 would validate bogus swamp deeds from the 1800s that Supreme Court decisions for the past 100 years have held do not affect state-owned water bottoms. Once the bill gives the land away to big landowners, it would not be possible to get it back without buying it for billions of dollars. Every governor in the past 50 years has stopped these efforts to give away state water bottoms.

Florida Sportsman members have been asked to email representatives and explain why they oppose the bill.

The bills are also strongly opposed by the Florida Conservation Coalition and Florida Audubon.

Will JD Alexander Sink Tampa Mayor Buckhorn’s Parochial Water Grab?

2012-01-27T20:56:00.002-05:00

It doesn’t appear that Mayor Bob Buckhorn of Tampa realizes he’s being led toward a deep dark place where no intention of dubious purpose can survive … without the permission of J. D. Alexander, the budget Czar of the Florida Senate.

More particularly, one does not push a bill that will not serve the best interests of Imperial Polk County, the back yard and playground of Alexander, without the risk of political retribution.

Rep. Dana Young

If Representative Dana Young’s HB 639 makes it out of the House, there is every indication it will run straight into the that dark morass of personal interests known as the Florida Senate where his imminence reigns supreme and all powerful, and suffer an inglorious death.

HB 639, you’ll recall, is the bill that will allow the City of Tampa to claim ownership and absolute control of Hillsborough River water that the city diverts and pushes through its pipes to gather the considerable volume of liquid refuse and bathroom wastes of the city’s residents and businesses.

Even though the water comes from one of the most pristine watersheds in the state, it is needed by the city to gather up its sewage and transport it to the city’s advanced wastewater treatment facility at Hooker’s Point. This is necessary because the water becomes so fouled after doing its job that it is too dangerous for humans to be exposed to it. The city claims that it costs a lot of money to get all that “stuff” out of the river water and make it clean enough to discharge it back into Tampa Bay so why shouldn’t the city own it?

The city’s concern about ownership was triggered a few years ago by SWFWMD which suggested, apparently without a whole lot of political finesse, that instead of the city dumping 50 million gallons of this highly treated wastewater into the Bay everyday as it had been doing for the past 30 years, it might be just a teeny bit smarter if it were to be used to help the region meet its future water supply needs.

Suddenly, the city realized the huge volume of reclaimed water it was producing was at risk of being commandeered away to other cities or counties if it continued to be uncommitted by the city to some beneficial use.

The city’s reaction was predictable. It paid to clean it up. It should not be forced to send it off to another city or county. It’s the city’s and no one should be able to tell the city what it can do with it. If the city wants to reserve it for its residents to water their yards instead of sending it to Polk County which will be running out of water in a matter of years, this should be its prerogative.

Here’s what actually happened. SWFWMD determined in its statutorily-required Regional Master Water Supply Plan that Polk County would need more water within the next 30 years than it has available. New alternative sources would be necessary to support the county’s anticipated population and related economic growth. So the district proposed that some of the reclaimed water Tampa was pouring to waste into Tampa Bay could be piped to Polk County. The district even said it had a program intended for just such situations and would help pay the cost of getting it there.

Actually the district and the city had been getting along fairly well with the district cooperatively funding a number of projects with the city to develop uses for reclaimed water.

Nevertheless, that’s when, rumor has it, the City convulsed into spasms, called Rep. Young in a panic, shared with her the city’s indignation and, together, launched a scheme to prevent “its” water from being arbitrarily commandeered by some third party. All that was needed was a simple change in Florida water law that could be achieved by rewording the statutory definition of water. This would give the city complete control under specified circumstances and the district would have no opportunity to wreak the havoc it threatened.

Thus, Rep. Dana Young rose to the city’s aid and vowed to prevent this theoretical injustice by introducing HB 639. It doesn’t matter that if passed, the bill will fundamentally change Florida Water Law although the city claims it will do no such thing. Under the city’s proposal, reclaimed water will no longer be considered a public resource, which now includes virtually every other form of H20 found in Florida including the Hillsborough River, as long as it remains contained and separated from “waters in the state.” Therefore, until it is discharged, the city can do anything it wishes with this “product” that it now by definition “owns,” including selling it to others at a price that could include more than the cost of piping and pumping, i.e., a profit.

Sen. J. D. Alexander

It is this potential that is worrisome and should cause Czar Alexander sleepless nights. Controlling reclaimed water and reserving it for the highest bidder could create a market and a price for reclaimed water that would be driven by demand. The greater the demand, the higher the price the city could charge.

But of more direct concern to Polk County should be, what happens if Polk’s future water supply equation includes some quantity of reclaimed water that only the City of Tampa can provide? And what if the city won’t sell it to Polk County at cost? What if the city of Tampa decides it can add a premium to the cost so other expenses of the city could be paid by the residents of Polk County instead of Tampa because Polk County might have no other choice?

If HB 639 is passed and becomes law, such scenarios become plausible.

But what’s worse, this bill is not limited to just the City of Tampa. Its wording and impact will be universal. What if other entities like power companies, mining operations and corporate agricultural operations that use water more than once could, and most likely would, demand that their “reclaimed” water also be exempt from being a public resource and want to sell it? If the city of Tampa can do it, why shouldn’t they?

This is why for once it may be good that Sir Alexander is in the ball game.

J. D. Alexander, who will not hesitate to drop an unpinned grenade upon any unfortunate soul so misguided as to challenge his interests and those of Polk County – which at times appear indistinguishable – is in the perfect position to stop this scheme in its tracks, and should.

J. D. appears to have already made one huge strategic blunder that undermines the ability of the county to “get its water right.” When he and CEO governor Scott conspired to cut SWFWMD’s budget without concern for the consequences, the district’s taxing authority was so reduced that property taxpayers cannot now be taxed enough to pay for the district’s half of Polk’s $300,000,000 water supply project as planned. Even with the illegal dismantling of the basin boards and usurpation of their ad valorem taxing authority by the district’s governing board, it will not be possible to raise the $150,000,000 needed by the county to build the project which is so crucial to the county’s economic future. So, ironically, Alexander now wants to up the district’s taxing capacity with a new bill, SB 1834.

But, J. D. is also now facing Mayor Buckhorn’s bill which if passed would put the city in absolute control of how much reclaimed water Polk County would get from the city and what price it would have to pay. It would be an even greater blunder for Alexander to allow this bill to succeed.

For example, how important is this water to Polk’s future? Consider that if Polk’s groundwater resources are at their maximum output (which, according to SWFWMD, they are), much of that water is high quality, potable groundwater being used for agricultural irrigation, power plant cooling or phosphate mining. These are uses that could be more sensibly met with the reclaimed water now being dumped into the Bay which would free up the potable water for higher and better uses such as new homes and businesses for Polk County.

How realistic is this scenario? Realistic enough that Mayor Buckhorn referred to this possibility in his Tampa Bay Times editorial of January 16, 2012:

“…the Southwest Florida Water Management District told the city that since it wasn't distributing all of its reclaimed water, it wanted the city to send its reclaimed water to a use outside of the city, even though Tampa citizens had paid to produce it.”

(City of Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, Tampa Bay Times, January 16, 2012)

So … will the He-Possum of Polk County torpedo the City of Tampa’s totally parochial ambitions in order to keep his county’s future water supply options open and not be held hostage by a city hungering for a non-tax revenue stream paid by non-city residents?

Sarah Palin

I would guess that, in the iconic words of Sarah Palin when asked if she wanted to be John McCain’s presidential running mate, his answer would be, “You betcha!”

Too many questions unanswered about HB 1103 & SB 1362

2012-01-22T20:42:00.010-05:00

It's turning out my earlier post regarding HB 1103 was just part of a growing controversy over where public land adjacent to a freshwater body ends and private property begins. Lots of folks are weighing in on both sides.

The position of the bill’s sponsor, Representative Tom Goodson, is simply that the bill does not change anything. It only clarifies and codifies what has always been the law.

In carefully watching the video of the House Agriculture and Natural resources Subcommittee which met recently, the positions boil down to this:

The environmental community believes the wording of the bill will move the line waterward thus reducing the area adjacent to non-tidal waters that have been held in the public trust for over a hundred years.

PRIVATE PROPERTY!
All kayakers, hunters and fishermen ...
NO TRESPASSING!! KEEP OUT!
The farming community, primarily the Cattlemen’s Association, believes the bill will not change anything but will clarify where the line will fall when the bill’s definition is applied.
Both groups believe there has been confusion in the courts over the years as to where the line will fall using existing statutory language and clarification would be beneficial. On the one hand, the ongoing confusion exposes such users of public lands as airboat operators and hunters to a legal liability because if they accidentally find themselves on property that is privately owned, they can be charged with armed trespass, a felony, and imprisoned.On the other hand, private property owners need to know the extent of their ownership. They need to know how far they can extend their farming or ranching operations onto lands adjacent to a river or lake without fear of regulatory consequences. They also need to know where their ownership ends in order to protect it from unwanted trespassers.
In the middle, are the legislators who have the responsibility to wrest the plain truth from all the rhetoric and devise a solution that is reasonable for all. This is not a simple task. The definition that has always existed is not like the legal descriptions used by most of us for our properties. It’s a definition that depends upon where water rests either some of the time or most of the time but not during abnormal floods or abnormal droughts. Given Florida’s constantly changing weather patterns which are always trending one way or the other and are never static, this is like trying to hook a jellyfish.

Jack Malloy, former executive director of the South Florida Water management District back in the 1970’s and 80’s once said, the difference between drought and flood in Florida is 24 hours.

What is at risk is significant for both sides. The state manages 1,800,000 acres of freshwater submerged lands and some 12,000 river miles of shoreline.

Interestingly, it has not been stated that the bill could result in moving the line landward thereby increasing public and decreasing private ownership. There is no issue there. The debate is whether it decreases public ownership and increases private ownership.

Sam Ard
Paid Tallahassee Lobbyist
for Cattlemen's Association

For Sam Ard, a paid lobbyist and advocate for the Florida Cattlemen’s Association, there is no confusion. He’s pushing hard to get the bill passed. At the subcommittee hearing, he stated emphatically that, “We think this bill does not change the law.” He said the bill is needed because landowners are simply unable to determine with certainty what lands they own. And that’s pretty much the position of the bill’s primary proponents.

But in a recent response to a concerned Florida voter who expressed alarm to Representative Goodson about the potential impact upon the public’s rights to these lands, he responded in an email dated January 19:

In all candor, HB 1103 has been misconstrued to be a bill that would define the "Ordinary High Water Line" as a line that is not consistent with current case law. In point of fact, that is false; the cases determined by the Florida Supreme Court of Tilden and Martin affirm the criteria for determining the location of the Ordinary High Water Line that has historically been the standard. This bill clearly states its intentions in defining that line - that is, the Ordinary High Water Line is neither the highest reach during the wet season nor the lowest reach during the dry season, but rather, the highest reach of a water-body as it normally stands throughout the year. All HB 1103 seeks to do is to codify those findings into law.

The highlighted sentence provides one reason why the bill’s opponents believe the bill will, in fact, move the line waterward and reduce public ownership. It reveals the intentions of the bill which is to take the current definition of the Ordinary High Water Line, the normal reach of water in the high water season, and “clarify” that it is to be redefined as the level reached when the water body is in an “ordinary” condition.

According to the Florida Conservation Coalition, Florida Wildlife Federation, Florida Airboaters Association and others, “’Ordinary condition’ is not high water; it is the ordinary reach of water in the high water season, not the highest reach,” and, therein, lies the crux of the debate.

Here’s what the Florida Conservation Coalition says:

What do proposed House Bill 1103 and Senate Bill 1362 do?

Two legislators have proposed bills that deal with the definition of the Ordinary High Water line for non-tidal, freshwater rivers and lakes. This is the line that separates public lands (known as sovereignty submerged lands) and private adjacent lands. The public has the right to fish, boat, hunt, camp, hike or otherwise enjoy the lands and waters below the Ordinary High Water line.

The water level of rivers and lakes changes throughout the year. Florida law now states that sovereignty submerged lands go up to the Ordinary High Water line. This is defined as the normal reach of water in the high water season (in Florida “ordinary” is used to distinguish this high water level from “flood” level). Unfortunately, the two bills in issue would change this definition and lower this boundary. This will happen because the bill’s new definition places the “high water mark” at the water level when the water body is in an “ordinary” condition. “Ordinary condition” is not high water; it is the ordinary reach of water in the high water season, not the highest reach. It is a lower level that exists the rest of the year. Additionally, the bills also seem to allow the creation of private land from sovereign submerged lands if a person can grow a radish patch or other crops on it when the water is low.

Passage of these bills would mean the potential massive loss of sovereignty submerged lands and thereby the diminishment of public lands and waters that are presently used by Florida’s millions of resident anglers and boaters and by job-creating tourists, to the benefit of the relative few people with lands adjacent to public waters. Private adjacent owners would be able to post “their” property and keep out anglers and family picnickers from using what was once a public shoreline. Hunters and others would be especially at risk because possession of a firearm while trespassing on private property is a felony.

This position is not just the opinion of environmentalists although it is certainly one that reflects important concern for Florida’s natural environment. It’s also the position of a number of respected lawyers and at least one former staff attorney of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Monica Reimer, who gave testimony at the committee hearing. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the same as the Governor and Cabinet, serves as the proprietor of State-owned lands and determines how the public's interests may best be served. Here’s a video clip of her testimony followed by the testimony of Preston Robertson of the Florida Wildlife Federation.

Monica Reimer

Earth Justice

Preston Robertson

Florida Wildlife federation

Unfortunately, a majority of the committee members chose to ignore the testimony of these well-respected opponents and voted to pass the bill anyway. To the credit of several of the committee members, a few voted against the bill, and at least two who voted in favor said they were doing so to keep the bill moving but wanted further clarification that the bill will, in actuality, not change where the line would be found today.

Now, read the second paragraph of Goodson’s email in defense of the bill which provides further reason why the opponents of the bill remain skeptical:

It is truly unfortunate that certain groups are resorting to scare tactics when it comes to this very clear and simple piece of legislation. HB 1103 does not permit the development of environmentally sensitive lands as some of these groups claim, nor does it alter the public's right to use navigable waters and sovereignty submerged lands for public trust purposes up to the Ordinary High-Water Mark. Should HB 1103 pass, environmentally sensitive lands would still be protected under zoning and land development laws. This bill also does not affect the ownership, by the public, of sovereignty submerged lands lying below the mark as defined in the bill.

First, it is quite unbelievable that anyone who has lived in Florida for any length of time could think that environmentally sensitive lands would “still be protected under zoning and land development laws.” Were it not for national and state laws, as well as this state’s globally recognized environmental land buying programs, Florida would have already been dredged and filled until no natural systems remained. It is the body of environmental and land use laws that have been passed by both Republicans and Democrats over the last 30 years that have prevented the rampant destruction of Florida, certainly not zoning and land development laws which for years, if anything, accomplished the exact opposite.

Perhaps it should be noted at this point that these laws which have supported responsible growth and minimized destruction of Florida’s natural ecology have, nevertheless, recently come under attack by both the governor and the legislature. Further reason to suggest the above statement is without basis.

Second, the last statement is something out of Alice in Wonderland. Of course the bill “would not affect the public ownership of sovereignty submerged lands lying below the mark as defined by this bill,” because, as defined by the bill, the ordinary “high” water mark has always reflected the lower elevation and therefore defining it as such does not change its impact.

However, the case is strong that the current definition in the law results in a demarcation that is higher than that which would result from passage of the bill. Simply saying the bill changes nothing doesn’t change the probability that it would if it is passed.

Consequently, House Bill 1103 could result in a huge land transfer to private ownership of irreversible proportions that will do great harm to the public’s current right to use land now considered to be held in trust for the public.

It could cause hunters serious problems and subject them to imprisonment if they should mistakenly wander onto lands that would become private under the bill but which were clearly public before.

PRIVATE PROPERTY
NO CAMPING ALLOWED!

The bill could create private ownership where none now exists and thus a land value would be transferred to private owners that currently belongs to the public. This amount could be substantial because it could be creating developable water front property where it might not have been possible before.

Should this bill pass, smart landowners will likely have their land surveyed and the newly determined boundaries officially recorded just in case the legislature tries to change its mind later. One could expect these newly acquired lands would be recorded all over the state making it virtually impossible to reverse because to regain title the state would have to buy them back. The cost would make it virtually prohibitive.

The bill could also make it so expensive to protect natural floodways and floodplains that are invaluable in terms of the benefits they provide for wildlife, water storage and water quality that doing so on a statewide level would be impossible. Think in terms of the river of money flowing to private landowners now for “restoration” lands associated with the restoration of The Everglades. Federal dollars in the hundreds of millions are currently being paid to land owners to store water and other public purposes. The similarity is that these privately held lands needed for a public purpose today at a tremendous cost were at one time doing the same thing naturally at no cost to the public. Thus, an unwise shift of the boundary between public and private ownership waterward could drive the cost of water management higher.

Creating new boundaries would create an overwhelming demand upon the limited ability of the state to make final determinations of where the new line actually rests upon the ground. The Department of Environmental Protection simply would have neither the money nor the personnel to do it, according to the testimony of John Steverson of DEP at the subcommittee hearing.

Finally, speaking of DEP, where are the views of the regulators who have had to deal with this issue for years? DEP says it hasn’t formed an opinion on the consequences of the bill which could be substantial even though it is the DEP staff that will have to deal with them. If there has been any discussion with the department, it has been behind closed doors. Why? Why aren’t we hearing from its attorneys, surveyors, and other experts about the language of this bill? Same thing with the water management districts. Where have they been in this discussion? Would the staffs of DEP and the districts be saying the same thing as the legislative staff given free reign? Have they been muzzled?

And speaking of SWFWMD which, like all the districts, is in the process of setting minimum Flows and Levels on a number of major rivers. Will the Ordinary High Water Line by any definition be the one that might have existed before an MFL is established, or will it be the result of the lowered level allowed by an MFL that is lower than the actual water level today, as is the case on the Chassahowitzka River?

In light of these issues and the fact that its impacts are less than clear and could be substantial, the bill should be rejected as proposed.

There are just too many questions ... too many questions.

Please oppose this bill, HB 1103, as well as its companion in the Senate, SB 1362.

Contact:

Governor Rick Scott, The Capitol, 400 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001, (850) 488-7146

Senate President Mike Haridopolos, 409 Capitol, 404 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001, haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov, (850) 487-5628

Sen. Alan Hays, hays.alan.web@flsenate.gov, (850) 487-5014 (sponsor of SB 1362)

Speaker Dean Cannon, 420 Capitol, 402 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 488-2742

HB1103 / SB1362 - Public Ripoff ... In Perpetuity

2012-01-15T12:24:00.004-05:00

Ever heard of the phrase “Ordinary High Water Line?”

Senator Alan Hayes
R - Umatilla

If not, you need to find out about it because it’s very important to you and it’s about to change. If state representative Tom Goodson (R – Rockledge) and senator Alan Hayes (R - Umatilla ) have their way, your rights of access and opportunity to enjoy Florida’s vast lakes, rivers and wetlands will be dramatically changed, and not in a good way. Goodson has sponsored House Bill 1103 and the companion Senate Bill 1362 with the same language is being sponsored by Hayes.

Rep. Tom Goodson
R - Rockledge

The “ordinary high water line” is a line defined by law that declares the extent to which private property owners can claim ownership to certain lands adjacent to a water body vs. that which is held in trust for and by the public. The concept of this line goes back over a century to when the federal government first gave land to the newly-established State of Florida to drain, clear, populate and eventually develop an economic base for its inhabitants. Open navigation of the state’s waterways, at the time, was largely the only way to move people and goods and thus critical to the state’s ability to grow economically.

The definition of the line has been the focus of major legal battles because, depending on how it is worded, large land owners, corporate and otherwise, would have much to gain or lose by where the courts set the line, and, conversely, of course, the public would also have much to lose or gain.

As a result of these legal fights, the definition of the “line” and how the physical demarcation it represents is subsequently identified on the ground has been refined over the years by court precedent and clarifying laws. Today, the definition and, thus, where the line can be legally determined to exist physically, is as clear as it has ever been.

Here’s how it is defined by a modern surveyor (Geometrics):

The Ordinary High Water Boundary

The boundary between publicly owned navigable waters and adjacent privately owned uplands is the ordinary high water boundary. Two seventy-two year-old Florida Supreme Court decisions definitively addressed how the ordinary high water boundary is located in Florida. The first case states that the ordinary high water boundary represents just what the words suggest: the ordinary reach of high water during the year. Thus, the boundary is, in general, the normal or average reach of water during the high water season.(16) The term "ordinary" excludes floods and other unusual high water events but includes the average high water of each year.(17) In determining the location of the boundary, Florida Supreme Court cases recognize the state's unique topography and differentiate between steep-banked and flat-banked water bodies. On steep-banked water bodies, the boundary is located where the presence and action of water has wrested the bank of vegetation and left a visible mark. However, on low, flat-banked water bodies - most lakes and streams south of Orlando - there is no well-defined mark, and the boundary is located where the presence of the water prevents the cultivation of ordinary agricultural crops. In 1927, the Florida Supreme Court also ruled that where the shore of a water body is low, flat, and vegetated, ordinary high water can be determined by locating water marks on local objects such as dock pilings and trees.

Now comes Senator Alan Hayes from Umatilla and Representative Tom Goodson from Rockledge, both of whom have parts of their district covering Lake County, who are proposing to change this definition. The impact upon the rights of the public to continue to enjoy Florida’s lakes and waterways will be dramatic and historic.

The Florida Conservation Coalition has this to say about it:

“The effect of this legislation would be a lowering of the elevation of the Ordinary high Water Line, thus moving the ownership boundary of private lands further towards or into the water and shrinkage of acreage currently in public ownership. This would result in huge transfers of publicly owned land along the State's rivers, lakes and streams into private ownership and amount to the loss of thousands of acres of land that now belong to all the people of Florida.

These bills are not in the best interest of ordinary Floridians or visitors to our State. If you are a sport fisherman, hunter, birdwatcher, kayaker or airboat enthusiast, it would mean that someday soon when headed to your favorite place you may encounter a barbed wire fence and "No Trespassing" sign blocking your way. Your ability to travel on our rivers and lakes in Florida may be limited to the main channel of the river or the most open water part of the lake. In the future you may see roof tops, strip malls and parking lots where deer, ducks and wading birds used to live.”

“This is privatization of Florida's public lands, rivers and lakes, pure and simple. If these bills win passage, you lose part of Florida.”

Think about this:

Aramus guarauna (Limpkin)
Lake Tsala Apopka
(Vergara)

Florida has spent billions of dollars acquiring millions of acres of floodplains and wetlands that even under the current definition were in jeopardy These lands serve as irreplaceable “kidneys” which cleanse and sanitize our natural water bodies through nutrient uptake and natural filtration. We can thank the wisdom of former leaders as Republican Governors Bob Martinez, Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist and Democrat Governors as Bob Graham and Lawton Chiles who supported funding for these programs and made them viable, programs that were approved by more than one referendum of Florida voters.

Think about why these lands, which are so critical to Florida being the great natural state it is, had to be placed in public ownership in the first place where their titles would be officially recorded in courthouses and the public’s rights would be thus detailed, specific and preserved. Why spend the money?

Because this is how easy it is for a couple of legislators, clearly either ignorant of or intentionally ignoring the ramifications of their stupidity, can propose a law that would allow lands not in public ownership but being held in public trust by the state’s constitution and body of related laws to be so lightly and egregiously given away to special interests. It is a stunning example of how, without title, the public’s interest in public lands can be forfeited to private interests by simply changing the definition of “ordinary high water line.” It is more than a compelling example of how shortsighted the current governor’s efforts are to stop acquisition of environmentally valuable land and the cessation of funding for the voter-approved and popular land acquisition program, Florida Forever.

And think about this. If this bill is passed, and all the thousands of acres in question become legally owned by private individuals, it will be forever. If a future legislature should change its mind and change the separation between public and private lands back to where it is now, the state will have to ante up hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions because government cannot take private lands without just compensation. Wouldn’t that be a brilliant move by large land owners and a cosmically stupid one by the legislature who’s supposed to be working for us, the people?

It is my understanding that Sam Ard, lobbyist for the Cattlemen’s Association (and many others), is leading the charge to get the bill passed (If I'm wrong, Sam, let me know.). Which, experience tells me, the Florida Chamber, the Florida Land Council and others involving large landowners may also rally behind it because it’s the largest landowners who will benefit the most from this bill becoming law. These groups wield huge influence in Tallahassee. It will also be more than casually interesting to see what position J. D. Alexander takes. He and his family are certainly large landowners by any definition and, as such, could be huge beneficiaries of the bill becoming law. He's presently chairman of the senate budget committee and one of the legislature's most powerful senators.

In concert with the Florida Conservation Coalition, you are urged to phone and/or email your district legislators as well as Rep. Goodson and Sen. Hayes and let them know how much you oppose these bills.

Hayes: Email - hays.alan.web@flsenate.gov

Tele - (850) 487-5014

Tallahassee Office:

324 Senate Office Building

404 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100

Goodson: Email tom.goodson@myfloridahouse.gov

Telephone 850-488-3006

Tallahassee Office;

1101 The Capitol

402 South Monroe

Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1300

Republican Dockery Speaks Out ... Bravely

2012-01-12T18:36:00.000-05:00

It is rare that a dedicated party member speaks out when what they have to say isn't exactly the party line. It is also a repugnant sign of our times when a good person and a talented political leader as Paula Dockery has to wait until her last legislative session of her last year in the Senate to be able to speak her mind.

Our legislative system is so fraught with power mongering egoists and silent rivers of money that flood the coffers of those who kiss the boot, that he or she who dares to speak out of turn is certain to be ostracized and assigned the dreaded basement office where the only light is incandescent and there is no Wifi.

In a recent piece published by the new-media internet news service, “Florida Voices”, Paula Dockery speaks out about how the State’s water resource management system and the critical policies that have guided it successfully for decades have been under siege. She speaks about how policies and institutions have been decimated and that Florida’s future is in danger, but is coy about who is responsible probably because she still has the 2012 legislative session fully ahead of her and isn’t ready to flame the bridge just yet.

Perhaps sending a mixed message, maybe a last salute to errant party leaders who have designated her persona non-grata, she suggests, after listing much of the damage over the last year, maybe not all is lost. She points to recent pronouncements by the CEO-governor that hint there is hope, that maybe he is changing his ways, wising up, as it were.

She does not mention the historic low approval ratings of the governor and his need to do something, anything, different from what he’s been doing, lest he find himself booted from office after only one term. So, I am not convinced that we will see anything substantially new from the myopic and narrow minded state CEO than we’ve seen already. Any words of his at this point are pure political pabulum unless there are significant, clear actions that will quickly follow his words.

No, I am not convinced. I don’t believe he is capable.

Here’s what the good Senator had to say:

http://www.floridavoices.com/columns/paula-dockery/after-body-blows-water-policy-some-encouraging-words

Florida Voices

After Body Blows to Water Policy, Some Encouraging Words

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 — Paula Dockery

Water is our most vital natural resource and should not be a partisan issue. But after a decade of beneficial policies to protect Florida's water supply, partisan politics is rearing its ugly head and threatening our quality of life.

With 18 million residents, 80 million annual tourists and the demands of agriculture, development and industry, Florida is a thirsty state, yet faces drought conditions most of the year. If we don’t do something to protect our water supply, we threaten our quality of life and our ability to grow businesses. Remember, businesses consistently list “quality of life” as a deciding factor in relocations or expansions.

But in Tallahassee, the move for less regulation has mostly meant cuts to environmental protections. Budget shortfalls have hit environmental programs disproportionately hard. Some legislators are even trying to micro-manage the state’s five water-management districts to help powerful special interests.

Since 2007, funding to assure a safe and adequate water supply has faced withering attacks. In 2009, lawmakers went so far as to eliminate funds for Florida Forever, the lands-acquisition program that preserved unique natural resources; Water Sustainability, which helped fund alternative water supplies; and Everglades restoration, a project that traditional Republicans have long supported.

Decision-makers seem to ignore that actions have consequences: over-pumping can lead to sinkholes, dry lakes, ruined springs and saltwater intrusion. The discharge of treated sewage has an impact on our estuaries. The lack of regulation leads to polluted water bodies.

So far, unfortunately, Gov. Rick Scott has not been kind to the environment and our water resources. And those of us who have toiled for decades to improve Florida’s quality of life anguish over his decisions to dismantle growth-management laws, abolish the Department of Community Affairs and zero-fund premiere environmental programs.

Perhaps the water-management districts had become bloated, but the governor’s recent cuts didn’t simply target administrative costs, they jeopardized the much-needed water-supply projects these agencies fund.

Still, recent comments by the governor offer a glimmer of hope. In November, he said: “As governor, I understand a healthy economy is dependent upon a healthy environment. Florida's residents and businesses rely on clean water, clean air and open spaces for tourism, commerce, agriculture and recreation."

He finished by saying, “Our state's natural resources are unparalleled. It's why people choose to live here, vacation here and bring their businesses here. In Florida, we don't have to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. The two are inextricably linked, and as governor, I am working to ensure our resources are dedicated to the improvement of both.”

Florida is fortunate to have had governors from both parties who have left strong environmental legacies. Gov. Bob Graham is known as the leader of growth management and comprehensive planning. Gov. Bob Martinez is the father of the environmental land-acquisition program Preservation 2000. And Gov. Jeb Bush helped craft Florida Forever, fund growth-management protections and promote the Water Sustainability Act.

Gov. Scott should help take the politics out of water management. For starters, he should quash the move to form a statewide water board. Water should be managed on a regional basis, keeping in place the long-standing policy of “local sources first,” which discourages water pipelines. And when it convenes in two weeks, the legislature should first do no further harm. Then, reverse the detrimental direction of the past few years.

It's not too late for the governor to undo what will otherwise become his lasting legacy -- a return of the water wars, where no one wins, but Florida is the clear loser.

Fitch Downgrades South Florida Water Management District COPs to 'AA-'

2012-01-11T20:21:00.001-05:00

This is not for the casual reader. It’s for the record. Someday, all the detrimental and disastrous actions of a misguided governor and a legislature more focused on re-election and party interests than that of the public’s will come home to roost. It has already begun.

The web link below will take dedicated professional financial wonks to the site of the Wall Street Journal’s “Market Watch” page and a press release published 01.10.12 entitled, “Fitch Downgrades South Florida Water Management District COPs to 'AA-'; Outlook Stable.” It will make them pant.

(Here’s the link to the story: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fitch-downgrades-south-florida-water-management-district-cops-to-aa-outlook-stable-2012-01-10)

The article is actually a detailed report about the fact that Fitch has downgraded the COP (Certificates of Participation) bonds of the district and the reasons it did so. Fitch is taking this very significant action because of the weakened financial condition and political liabilities that the governor and legislature have heaped upon the district over the last year, and Fitch makes this extraordinarily clear.

If you’re interested in the restoration of The Everglades and how the district is financing its part in it, this will make for a fascinating read. The report is detailed, easy to follow, comprehensive, obviously credible and even breathtaking when one realizes its significance.

I don't pretend to fully understand all the ramifications and consequences of this action, but I am smart enough to know that the restoration of the globally unique and signature characteristic of Florida, The Everglades, just got a lot more expensive.

This, thanks to the unrelenting arrogance of CEO Rick Scott, Czar JD Alexander and a stable of legislator sheep who have lost their ability to think for themselves and do the right thing instead of self-serving political posturing.

City of Tampa – What’s your scheme?

2011-12-30T16:03:00.002-05:00

By now you’ve heard that there’s a bill being pushed through the bowels of the legislature that will allow the City of Tampa to “own” the wastewater it reclaims. No? Well, there is such a bill, and it stinks.

Why? I’ll try to explain.

The bill, HB 639 sponsored by Representative Dana D. Young (R) Tampa, does a number of things to change how the state views the ownership of wastewater throughout the state which has been treated and declared reclaimed by the Florida department of Environmental Regulation. (The bill is co-sponsored by James W. “J.W.” Grant (R) Hillsborough , Ray Pilon, (R) Sarasota, and Janet Cruz, (D) Hillsborough.

To be clear, this would be the same water taken primarily from the Hillsborough River, in Tampa’s case, and used to flush all the human and other unthinkable wastes the city’s residents produce from their bathrooms and industrial discharges and carry it via pumps and pipes for “treatment” to the city’s Howard F. Curren Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant at Hooker’s Point.

Each day, the city produces 55 - 60 million gallons per day of this highly treated former Hillsborough River water and each day it dumps it all back into the river and thus into Tampa Bay. It can’t do anything else with it right now because under Florida Law it continues to be considered “waters in the state,” a public resource, thus requiring a permit from the ~~Southwest Florida Water Management District~~ Florida Department of Environmental Protection to dispose of it any other way. And, this is the way it needs to stay.

It’s not that the city can’t do anything else with it. It’s just that the city can’t do it without a permit from ~~SWFWMD~~ DEP.

The legislative staff analysis of the bill (p.1) states:

Under current Florida law, reclaimed water is an alternative water source that is included in the statutory definition of “water” or “waters in the state.” Thus, reclaimed water is currently considered a public resource. Florida law recognizes only a right to the “beneficial use” of waters in the state, including reclaimed water, subject to statutory and administrative permitting requirements. As such, reclaimed water is not legally considered the property of or exclusively controlled by an entity that produces it.

This, says the city, is too constraining and controlling. Why shouldn’t the city be able to actually own and do what it wants with this water which costs so much to treat to state standards?

A reasonable question.

Fortunately, there’s not too much concern about most of HB 639. With the exception of that one certain provision pertaining to what I believe is virtually equivalent to "ownership," it is generally supported by many special interests including environmentalists. The concern here is about what the City of Tampa, and only the City of Tampa, wants added to the more acceptable provisions of the bill. This is where those who understand the nuances and vagaries of Florida Law say the bill can do real damage to how the state assures reclaimed wastewater remains a critical part of Florida’s comprehensive water resource management equation.

Again, the legislative staff analysis (p.1):

This bill removes reclaimed water from the current statutory definition of “water” and “waters in the state” until the reclaimed water has been discharged back into state “waters.” That is, once a wastewater treatment plant converts wastewater into reclaimed water, it is no longer considered “waters in the state” until it has been discharged into state waters such as the aquifer, rivers, or estuaries. According to DEP, this definitional change removes the use of reclaimed water from regulation by the WMDs under the CUP permit program. From a legal perspective, the change shifts control over the use of reclaimed water from the State to the producers of reclaimed water. (emphasis added)

And this is the bogeyman in the bill.

According to the staff analysis (p.4):

Reclaimed water is an important alternative water supply source in Florida in light of mounting pressures on the State’s fresh water resources, principally surface water and groundwater. Among its noteworthy benefits, the use of reclaimed water saves water that would otherwise need to be withdrawn from surface water and groundwater sources to meet non-potable supply needs such as agricultural or residential irrigation, power generation, or recreation (e.g., golf courses or waterparks). Additionally, reclaiming waste water reduces reliance on traditional wastewater disposal methods such as surface water discharges, ocean outfall, or deep injection wells. DEP asserts that “Florida is leading the nation – reusing 660 million gallons of reclaimed water each day to conserve freshwater supplies and replenish our rivers, streams, lakes and the aquifer.” (emphasis added)

SWFWMD’s Master Water Plan Executive Summary states further:

Guiding Principles (p. 17)

An emphasis on reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is an important resource that can help meet future demands in all use sectors. (emphasis added)

Obviously, we’re not talking about a tiny rivulet of water that the city wants itself and hundreds of communities to control here. We’re talking over 660 million gallons per day statewide, and that’s just for now. With the growing need to reuse all water being consumptively and permanently removed from lakes, rivers, springs, wetlands, and aquifers, we’re talking about turning over to hundreds of counties, cities, and small communities control of probably close to a BILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE!

If state leaders truly want efficient, comprehensive management of the state’s waters, so critical to its future, this is certainly not the road to redemption.

As Estus Whitfield (Environmental Advisor to Florida Governor's Graham, Martinez, Chiles, and Bush) has said, “It is Florida's environment and natural resources that define this state - its society and economy,” … to which I would add, and it’s Florida’s water that defines Florida’s environment and natural resources. It would simply be disastrous to slice this part of Florida’s future from the comprehensive management that the water districts provide and hand it over to the politics and disparate interests of hundreds of independent governmental bodies.

There is another circumstance that makes this proposal smell.

The fact that all reclaimed water originates from “waters in the state” at some point in its existence and, as mentioned earlier, is used to transport Florida’s societal wastes to a treatment facility where it can be rendered again safe for further reuse provides no rational basis for it to then become so controlled that it can also be defined as “owned.”

So the question arises, just why does the City of Tampa want to “own” its reuse water? Presumably, because the city wants to make money by selling it. The city is conveniently not talking about this, however, or how it would apply to hundreds of other communities who would take ownership and be able to create revenue from the sale of their reclaimed water.

Sounds sort of reasonable until one considers that many of the governments that own these facilities were recipients of state and water district revenues granted to them expressly so they could afford the upgrade costs associated with waste water reclamation. According to the same legislative staff analysis (p. 6):

Between fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2007-2008, the Legislature authorized the allocation of over $217 million among the five WMDs to develop alternative water supply projects. Reclaimed water development projects made up the bulk of project types that were funded over these four years, comprising 202 of the 324 funded projects.

Additionally, and far beyond this substantial amount, the water management district’s provided more grant funds derived from local property taxes. For example, since 1987 SWFWMD alone has provided $343 million, mostly through its now defunct local basin boards, to help fund 308 reclaimed water projects within its boundaries. Most of this was for 297 miles of pipeline.

The quantity of reclaimed water thus produced is about 160 mgd which equates to 160 mgd of new water for economic growth and sustainment of natural systems. (data provided by personal communication with district staff).

If counties and cities were to be given control of all reclaimed water now being produced as HB 639 currently proposes, and those communities were to be able to choose who they were going to sell it to and how the water would be used, any assurance the state now has that its future water needs will be met in adequate quantities would be reduced to unsubstantiated guesswork.

Which brings another point.

It isn’t just cities and counties that will gain "ownership" of their reclaimed water. Billions of gallons of water that originally came from aquifers, rivers and lakes and which are being now used and treated for reuse by hundreds of industries would be included. As long as they kept the reclaimed water within their containers, whether a pipe, reservoir or tank, and as long as it wasn’t being discharged into “waters in the state” it would be theirs to sell and trade to others.

There are many farms and other businesses that now use reclaimed water provided by these many facilities which were funded with state and local property tax dollars. If these farmers and businesses had to compete with others who could also use reclaimed water, many would likely not be able to afford the higher price and would have to close their gates and doors.

On the other hand, mining companies, paper companies, breweries and power companies use huge quantities of water. Today, the water districts require this water to be reclaimed and reused. If the districts were to be now removed from the regulatory equation and the water becomes “owned” by these companies, what’s to prevent the reclaimed water from being sent across district boundaries as proposed by the Committee of 100 a few years ago and sold to a faraway community willing to pay the best price? Growth opportunities for one area would become sacrificed for those of another, and the real water wars will be on.

If the legislature is so unwise as to pass this bill with this provision, it will be creating a very slippery slope that could very easily move the state toward a major shift in Florida water law and the privatization (private ownership) of water. Though this is being denied by the bill’s proponents, true good faith denial is impossible. The bill is in serious need of further review, particularly this provision which needs to be permanently flushed and not reclaimed in any respect.

Shades of Nancy Argenziano and Local Sources First. May she live to rise again.

You CAN make a difference. Here's your chance.

2011-12-24T12:03:00.005-05:00

In a matter of a few days last spring, the Florida Legislature, lead by a pack of aggressive, high-paid lobbyists intent on taking advantage of a very inexperienced and misguided new governor and a vindictive legislature, changed Florida’s future from one of responsible growth management and environmental preservation to one where its future is now for sale to the richest PAC.

Great Egret
Orange County, Florida
Vergara Photo Art

Land use and environmental protection laws were too onerous and too obstructive for businesses to make a profit, the developers said, so let there be no constraints because we need jobs now. Doesn’t matter that the businesses that flourish now will contribute to the decline of a world famous style of living in a state with warm sun, clean water and a healthy and inviting natural ecology of wildlife, forests, wetlands and vast open waters. “Not our problem,” seems to be the mantra. “Kick the can down the road.” “Let somebody else fix the problems. We need jobs now!”

Simple desirable concepts that were tossed aside included making sure fly-by-night developers could not create sprawl just anywhere and leave local taxpayers to pay the inevitable costs for the roads, security, education, water and sewer services that would be needed. Also, local governments were left with little or no effective way to assure large projects that have multi-county impacts could be coordinated between them. The statute that provided the means to assure the decisions of one county will not have unacceptable impacts on the next was eviscerated. Rules that were designed to prevent the construction of a community of hundreds or thousands of roof tops without an adequate road system or new schools to serve newly arriving school children were rendered ineffective or repealed.

These are decisions best left to local government, the legislature said, and then cynically left them without any effective way to do it on their own.

Water management districts which, over the last 30 years, had become the state’s first line of defense against rampant destruction of its unique natural systems, despoliation of its world-class springs, rivers and lakes, and stalwart proponents for assuring there will be ample public supplies for the future, were ruthlessly attacked. Revenues were shut off and thousands of years of institutional knowledge held by some of the most respected water scientists in the world were put on the street.

Common sense growth-management and environmental conservation laws for one of the country’s fastest growing states were unwisely repealed or purposely reduced to ineffectiveness all under the guise of needing jobs.

With this as backdrop, a group of former political, agency and community leaders from both parties, most in or near retirement, but all with the same feelings of shock and concern over what had happened, came together last month and declared such ill-advised actions that so jeopardize the state’s future cannot be allowed to continue lest the damage require generations of recovery, if it will be able to recover at all.

Thus, the Florida Conservation Coalition was born. Lead by former Florida Governor and United States Senator, Bob Graham, its first priorities would be focused on Florida’s delicate state of water:

Restoring reasonable funding for Florida’s regional water management districts to provide for water quality protection, adequate water supplies, flood protection, and natural resources protection.
Funding Florida Forever including acquiring land for water resource protection.
Reaffirming Florida’s commitment to restore the Everglades, upon which South Florida’s water supply and quality of life depends.
Managing Florida’s water resources at the regional, not state level.
Ensuring that growth management laws and policies support sustainable use of water.
Promoting efficient use and conservation of water.
Opposing efforts to privatize Florida’s water.

The Florida Conservation Coalition’s website can be found HERE (http://floridaconservationcoalition.org/).

Yesterday (12-23-11), the FCC published a letter by Senator Graham.

It is an important letter offered here with the FCC’s permission.

Fellow conservationists and friends,

Bob Graham
Former Governor of Florida and United States Senator

Conservation and other organizations and hundreds of dedicated citizens of all walks of life from throughout Florida have joined together to voice their concerns about the way the State’s environment and natural resources are being mistreated. In 2011 the Governor and Legislature placed our state’s natural heritage in jeopardy. The Florida Conservation Coalition with your help is dedicated to stopping and reversing this ill-conceived and reckless trend.

The issues that face us are described in the attached Coalition position papers. In order to focus our efforts for the forthcoming year, we have placed heavy emphasis on water. I encourage you to read these papers to get a better sense of the situation facing Florida. Go to floridaconservationcoalition . org .

To summarize, Florida’s nationally acclaimed growth management program was abolished, and the most notable conservation land acquisition program in the Country was not funded. Important environmental laws were drastically weakened and citizens’ ability to appeal environmental permits was all but eliminated. The Legislature took over control of the regional water management districts budgets and reduced them to dangerously lower levels. The Governor supported these legislative actions.

Our immediate job is to convince the Legislature that it went too far and must correct and reverse its misguided actions of 2011. One of the most effective ways of influencing the Legislature is by one-on-one personal contact with individual legislators in their home territory. While the conservation organizations will be doing their best at convincing legislators in Tallahassee, so will an army of scores of privately paid lobbyists who do not share our points of view and will be working in the opposite direction.

If you are acquainted with a legislator(s), go visit him or her; develop a friendly relationship if you don’t already have one. The best place for the visit is likely to be in his or her district office either before the legislative session starts on January 10, or during the weekend in early January when the legislator has returned home. In Tallahassee, circumstances are frequently hectic and the legislator’s time and attention are constrained.

Great Blue Heron
Crystal River, Florida
Vergara Photo Art

You may wish to show the legislator the Florida Conservation Coalition’s position papers. The Coalition is particularly interested in knowing the legislator’s attitude toward our concerns (opposed, non-committal, supportive); is the legislator willing to consider revisions to some of the changes made in 2011, and if so which changes?; did the legislator have questions or requests for further information, and if so, what were they? Also, please secure the name of the legislative aide.

Report back the results of your meeting. If you use Facebook, we have a special place on our Facebook page where you can report on your efforts. If you do not use Facebook, please report to the Florida Conservation Coalition via email: connect@floridaconservationcoalition.org

I do not believe that letters are nearly as effective as personal contact, but if you cannot visit, please do write or email. On request we can provide you with legislator contact information.

As an alternative, if you know someone who shares our concerns and has a personal or political relationship with a legislator, please provide us with his or her name and contact information, and we will follow up.

While every legislator is important and needs attention, some need extra attention. Attached is a list of some of the key legislators (following this letter) who merit special attention.

In three short months of 2011, the Governor and Legislature set Florida’s once proud conservation laws and programs back four decades. In so doing they have handed us a very heavy lift. But what choices do we have? We surrender, or we fight back.

I am privileged to be to working with you, the members of the Florida Conservation Coalition - people who love and care for the natural treasures of Our State.

Best wishes to you, your family and our blessed Florida for the Holiday Season and the New Year,

Bob Graham

KEY LEGISLATORS

SENATE:

Don Gaetz (R), Next President, Niceville/Destin, Dist.# 850-897-5747, Tallah # 850-487-5009, Budget and rules committees; District address: 3400 Legendary Dr. Suite 230, Destin

Jack Latvala (R, St. Pete, Dist. # 727-3600, Tallah # 850-487-5075, Budget and Env. Preservation and Conserv. Committees; District address: 12425 28^th St. N., Suite 102, St. Petersburg

John Thrasher (R), Jacksonville, Dist. # 904-727-3600, Tallah # 850-487-5368, Budget committee, Rules) committee (chair); District address: 9485 Regency Sq. Blvd., Jacksonville

J. D. Alexander (R), Lake Wales, Dist. # 863-679-4851, Tallah # 850-487-5044, Budget committee (chair), Rules committee (vice chair); District address: 201 Central Ave. W, City Hall Complex, Rm. 115, Lake Wales

Thad Altman (R), Melbourne, Dist # 321-752-3138, Tallah # 850-487-5053; District address: 6767 N. Wickham Rd., Suite 211, Melbourne

Charles "Charlie" Dean (R), Inverness, Dist. # 352- 860-5175 (Inverness), 352-873-6513 (Ocala), Tallah # 850-487-5017, Env. Pres. and Conserv. Committee (chair); District address: 405 Tompkin St., Inverness

Andy Gardiner (R), Orlando, Majority leader, Dist. # 407-428-5800, Tallah # 850-487-5047, Budget and Rules committees; District address: 1013 E. Michigan St., Orlando

Nan Rich (D), Minority leader, Sunrise, Dist. # 954-747-7933, Tallah # 850-487-5103, Budget and Env. Pres. and Conserv. Committees; District address: 777 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy., Sunrise

HOUSE:

Dean Cannon (R), Speaker, Winter Park, Dist. # 407-623-5740, Tallah # 850-488-2742; District address: 1992 Mizell Ave., Winter Park

Will Weatherford (R), Next Speaker, Wesley Chapel, Dist. # 813-558-5115; 28963 SR-54, Suite A, Wesley Chapel

Steve Crisafulli (R), Merritt Is., Dist. # 321-449-5111, Tallah # 850-488-4669. Ag. and N.R. S/C (chair) and Ag. and N.R Approp S/C (chair); District address: 2460 N. Courtenay Pkwy., Suite 108, Merritt Island

Gayle Harrell (R), Port St. Lucie, Dist. # 772-398-2786, Tallah # 850-488-8749, Approp. s/c; District address: 2212 SE Veterans Memorial Pkwy., Port St. Lucie

Trudi Williams (R), Ft. Myers, Dist. # 239-433-6775, Tallah # 850-488-2047. Select Committee on Water Policy (chair) and Ag. and N.R. Approp s/c (chair); District address: 12811 Kenwood Lane, Suite 212, Ft. Myers

Ray Pilon (R), Sarasota, Dist. # 941-955-8077, Tallah # 850-488-7754, Sel. Comm. on Water Policy, Ag. and N.R. s/c, Ag. and NR Approp. s/c; District address: 1600 Ringling Blvd., Suite 310-311, Sarasota

Dana Young (R), Tampa, Dist. # 813-835-2270, Tallah. # 950-488-2770; District address: 2909 W. Bay to Bay Blvd., Suite 202, Tampa

Debbie Mayfield (R), Vero Bch. Dist. # 772-778-5077, Tallah # 850-488-0952; District address: 1053 20^th Place, Vero Beach

Franklin Sands (D), Sunrise, Dist. # 954-44-6800, Tallah # 850-488-0590, Sel. Comm. on Water Policy, Ag.and N.R. Comm., Approp. Comm.; District address: 777 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy, Sunrise

Ron Saunders (D) Minority leader, Key West, Dist. # 305-853-1947, Tallah # 950-488-9965. Appropriations committee; District address: Suite A – 90311 Overseas Hwy., Tavernier

Steve Perman (D), Boca Raton, Dist. # 561-470-6596, Tallah @ 850-488-5588, Sel. Comm. on Water Policy, Ag. and N.R s/c, Ag. and N.R Approp. s/c; District address: The Shoppes at Boca Greens, 19635 S. SR-7, Unite 43, Boca Raton

Denise Grimsley (R), Sebring, Dist. # 863-675-5267, Tallah # 850-488-3457, Approp. Comm. (Chair), Joint Legis. Budget Comm. (Chair); District address: 205 S. Commerce Ave., Suite B, Sebring

Do your County Commissioners know what SWFWMD has taken from them?

2011-12-20T18:55:00.007-05:00

How many times have you thrown something away only to realize a week later that what you thought you no longer wanted is exactly what you now need? How many times have you groaned over how much more you’ll have to pay to replace it than its original cost? And -- be honest now -- how many times have you denied (to yourself and others) how stupid, shortsighted, myopic, and unthinking you felt for doing something you later realized was just plain wrong?

If you say, never, speaking truthfully is probably not one of your stronger suits … but, hey, join the crowd. It’s the political season.

Last spring, under a deluge of ignorance and arrogance released from T-Town and in a frenzy to help the new governor look like he knew what he was doing, the governing board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District tossed on the garbage heap eight of its most valuable resource management tools along with some 30 or 40 of its most effective, unpaid community voices.

Saying an estimated expense of $400,000 per year was too much to support its eight basin boards, the big board booted them from the district’s headquarters south of Brooksville without so much as a whisper or fare-thee-well to the dozens of cities and counties they served. Even $300,000 was too much to pay, they said, out of an annual budget that at one time exceeded $300,000,000. The district needed to cut irrelevant and unnecessary costs, they said.

For fifty years unpaid, volunteer basin board members vetted the district’s projects providing the governing board valuable guidance and local insight as well as garnering critically important community support for levying a property tax to fund them. Appointed by the governor, they also provided an important avenue of communications for the governor to personally touch dozens of communities within the 16 counties of SWFWMD, and for those same communities to let the governor know when he was doing good and when he wasn’t. Only a very naïve, unwise and terribly misguided politician would let something so valuable be so arrogantly discarded, and, yet, this is exactly what Rick Scott did.

At its meeting in November, SWFWMD’s governing board began the touchy process of developing policies and processes that will be needed to, 1) sort through an estimated 120 projects submitted by local governments for the 2012 local project cooperative funding program, 2) analyze the necessity for each project so priorities could be set, 3) develop local support of those specifically desired by the district, 4) gain support for levying the property taxes needed to fund those chosen, 5) develop an accounting procedure that will assure former basin funds currently in reserve will be spent only on behalf of the former basin’s geographic area, 6) develop another accounting procedure that will assure tax revenues will be spent equitably throughout the district for multiple projects, etc. , etc.

In other words, they were trying to develop policies and processes to do exactly what the basin boards had been doing for 50 years before they were summarily abolished last spring.

The irony of the discussion was obviously missed by the presumably, smart and well-intentioned but thoroughly inexperienced governing board members as they spent nearly two hours trying to reinvent from scratch what they had so unthinkingly destroyed a few months earlier.

They talked about how they should perhaps divide the district into smaller areas in order to facilitate “local input.” Some suggested using county boundaries but it was noted that watershed or “aguafer” (sic) boundaries made more sense, like the river watershed boundaries upon which the basin boards were designed.

They talked about creating citizen’s advisory committees and governing board sub-committees to seek public input, in order to replace the regional forums so effectively provided by the basin boards.

They talked about how to set up a new bookkeeping system in order to insure project costs reflected a commensurate benefit to the taxpayers paying for them, like that which the basin boards had once so effectively provided but are no longer.

They talked about how current reserves left over from the dismantled basin boards should be spent to benefit the basins from which the taxes were originally generated, like it was done routinely before the basin boards were declared too bothersome, cumbersome and unnecessary to keep around.

They talked about how the meetings should be held at various locations around the district to insure locals could have convenient access to the process and their voices fully heard, exactly like it was being accomplished by the basin boards.

They talked about needing to make sure the meetings were properly advertised so locals would know when and where they would be held as required by law, which was already being accomplished by the basin boards but which was terminated when they were abolished.

They talked further about how the staff would also need to do this, and the staff would also need to do that to insure everyone felt invited and to be a participant rather than just invited to attend, like the staff did for the basin boards before they were abolished.

But no one spoke of the expense of doing all this which was beginning to sound a whole lot like the $300,000-$400,000 they had so feverish tried to save by doing away with the basin boards in the first place.

BUT more importantly … they did not talk about the inescapably ugly little truth that once the reserves left over from the former basin boards are extinguished, there will be no legal requirement that will insure taxes levied within a given basin will be spent back within that basin, like only the existence of basin boards can guarantee.

They did not mention that sub-committees comprised of a couple of governing board members, or citizen advisory committees comprised of residents chosen by the governing would not be able to provide this important legal requirement that was lost when the basin boards were abolished.

This was the folly and the blatant subterfuge of the whole discussion.

Either the board was extraordinarily clever at camouflaging the issue or they themselves failed to see the significance and sad irony of it. I suspect it was the latter.

Commissioner Charlie Stone,
Marion County BOCC

Marion County Assistant County Administrator, M. Stuart McElhaney, apparently had no awareness of this important point when he approached the podium to read a letter signed by Marion County Commission Chairman, Charlie Stone. The letter urged the GB to recognize and continue the district’s long tradition of seeking local input for developing and cooperatively funding so many projects that were needed by both the district and the county. In fact, he said the county would support the committee concept and noted the commission felt the board was doing a good job!

He obviously had no idea that by abolishing the basin boards and assuming control of the basin taxes, the governing board had stripped away the fundamental legal requirement that basin taxes collected from Marion County would have to be spent back within the Withlacoochee River Basin of which Marion County is a part.

That part of the story was never mentioned or acknowledged. After the current reserves are gone, Marion County will have to compete against projects from the district’s other 15 counties to get funding for its projects, no matter that basin taxes collected from within Marion County would be involved.

Do you think Chair Charlie knew this when he signed the letter?

Do any of the other commissioners know that by doing away with the Withlacoochee Basin Board the governing board has stripped away Marion County’s only statutory guarantee that the basin taxes formerly levied within Marion County would be spent within the basin and by doing so, county taxes can now be spent elsewhere, like in Polk County to pay for Polk’s future water supply needs estimated by the district to cost some $320,000,000?

(This $320M figure, new to me, was offered by Kurt Fritsch during the discussion to point out that there were still plenty of water supply projects needed within the district pursuant to the district’s own Regional Water Supply Plan.)

I wonder if all those fiscal conservatives who attended the CEO-governor’s budget announcement party last year in The Villages know their property taxes can now be shuffled off to J. D. Alexander’s back yard for Polk’s needs and diverted from Lake County’s. Do they realize the chairman of SWFWMD, Paul Senft, is from Polk County? Maybe someone needs to talk to governing board member Doug Tharp who lives in The Villages and supposedly represents Marion County. You think? Maybe he’d be a little more interested in why the basin boards existed in the first place and what they did for the district that he’s now trying to replicate.

Commissioners
Robin DiSabatino, Joe McClash, Carol Whitmore, Donna Hayes, John Crappie, Larry Bustle, Michael Gallen
Manatee County BOCC

Manatee County Utilities Director, Mark Simpson, then stepped to the podium and, inexplicably, did the same thing. He noted how important local input is and how project parity for levied taxes was so important and how the “committees” were a “good compromise” because committees allowed local input.

He did not point out how the governing board’s destruction of the basin boards removed the statutory guarantee that taxes levied in the Manasota Basin were required to be spent on projects there and no such constraint exists for board sub-committees or citizen advisory committees. Does the Manatee County Commission know this? Do my friends, Commissioners Joe McClash, Donna Hayes, Carol Whitmore and Larry Bustle, know this? Or the other commissioners I might meet one day: Robin DiSabatino, John Chappie and Michael Gallen?

I wonder if my own commissioners from Hernando County realize this: Dave Russell, Jeff Stabins, John Druzbick, James Adkins, Wayne Dukes.

Commissioners
Dave Russell, Jeff Stabins, John Druzbick, James Adkins, Wayne dukes
Hernando County BOCC

And what about my friends on the Hillsborough County Board of Commissioners: Sandra Murman, Victor Crist, Al Higginbotham, Ken Hagan, and Les Miller. I wonder if they’re aware that the (former) Hillsborough River Basin Board right now has $28.5 million ($27 million in reserve and $1.5 million as balance forward) for projects within that basin? Most of it generated to co-fund a badly needed stormwater project for south Tampa but scuttled by former Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio.

Do they realize that after those funds are gone, the same ad valorem taxes from Hillsborough and the City of Tampa can be used to build a $320M project in Polk County if this is what the governing board chooses to do?

I wonder if friends from some of the other 16 counties within SWFWMD know this like: Commissioners Susan Latvala and Karen Seel from Pinellas County, Ann Hildebrand from Pasco County, Rebecca Bays and Joe Meek from Citrus County, Nora Patterson and Jon Thaxton from Sarasota County. (Pinellas County has $21.3 million ($13.5 million in reserve and $7.8 million as balance forward) for projects within the (former) Pinellas-Anclote Basin.

Here’s the point: when all that money is burned off, any basin funds raised afterward from the taxpayers of any of these counties for water projects can be designated for “regional” projects outside their county.

So here’s something for you and your commissioners to consider. A thoughtful resolution from your Board of County Commissioners might be able to bring some reason to this unreasonable scenario. If they were to pass such a resolution and send it to their respective county legislative delegations, perhaps the legislature can bring about a return of the basin boards that, in some reasonable form, would reflect the current objectives of the SWFWMD governing board and the original valid and now recognized roles of the former basin boards.

Here’s a draft resolution that might be considered:

RESOLUTION NO. __________

RESOLUTION OF THE ____________________ BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS OF ____________________ COUNTY

WHEREAS, the Southwest Florida Water Management District Governing Board created basin Boards in 1961 to insure property taxes collected within nine river basins defined by law for water management purposes would be expended only for purposes benefitting those respective basins; and,

WHEREAS, rule 40D-0.061, Florida Administrative Code, provides legal descriptions of the basins within the Southwest Florida Water Management District; and,

WHEREAS, basin board members were unpaid volunteers appointed by the Governor from each county wholly or partly within the basin thereby assuring each county had a voice in identifying the projects needed and the amount of taxes to be levied; and,

WHEREAS the duties of the Basin Board members included developing a budget to provide funding for the water resource projects they deemed would benefit, directly or indirectly, their basin; and,

WHEREAS, each board member was subject to the taxes levied by the basin board of which he or she was a member; and,

WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the District is prohibited from levying the taxes of the basin as long as the basin board exists and when the Basin Board develops a budget for its basin; and,

WHEREAS, on June 1, 2011, the Southwest Florida Water Management District Governing Board officially “merged” the Basin Boards of the district into one large basin with the same boundaries as the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and

WHEREAS, subsequently the Governing Board disbanded all the basin boards and released their members from further service; and,

WHEREAS, the Governing Board then designated itself as the new District-wide Basin Board thereby transferring ad valorem taxing capacity of the Basin Boards to the District Governing Board; and,

WHEREAS, this action was not announced on a published agenda and was taken without a good faith effort by the District to notify interested citizens who might have had concerns about such action, and;

WHEREAS, by disbanding the Basin Boards, the Governing Board will now assume responsibility for adopting a single budget for all the Basins collectively as one single Basin and levy a Basin tax uniformly for the single Basin; and,

WHEREAS, by doing so any taxes thus levied will no longer be controlled by local residents and could be spent anywhere in the district at the discretion of the Governing Board with no requirement that taxes levied within a particular river basin will benefit that particular basin as it was conceived by the original laws creating the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and,

WHEREAS the Southwest Florida Water Management District Governing Board will no longer be able to provide assurance that taxes collected from within a given Basin’s boundaries would be spent for purposes benefiting only that respective basin; and,

WHEREAS, more specifically, no sub-committee of the governing board or any citizens advisory committee created by the governing board can guarantee that basin taxes must be spent within the river basin from which they came; and,

WHEREAS until they were disbanded by the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Basin Boards served faithfully and efficiently in the interest of their basins for over fifty years;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ________________ County Board of County Commissioners does hereby direct the following:

1. That, the Governing Board of Southwest Florida Water Management District be requested to reestablish Basin Board’s within the District that will function as they have in the past to assure local taxes will be spent from within the area they were collected for purposes that benefit only that area; and,

2. That, the Basins and Basin Boards so reestablished will number no less than three in number and be representative of no less that the northern portion, middle portion and southern portion of the District; and,

3. That, each county lying wholly or partly within a basin be represented by no less than one member on the Basin Board; and,

4. That, the Basin Boards be provided by law no less than the same budgetary and taxing authority that they held before they were disbanded; and,

5. That, a copy of this resolution be sent to Governor Rick Scott along with a cover letter urging him to affirm his support of this resolution to the Chairman of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and making appropriate appointments to the Basin Boards upon becoming reestablished; and,

6. That, a copy of this resolution be sent to each member of the county’s legislative delegation asking that the delegation draft and support a legislative mandate to the Southwest Florida Water Management District that the basins be re-established accordingly.

PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of _____________ County, Florida this ____ day of _________________, 20__.

Tampa Tribune Editorial: Water stewardship economic driver

2011-12-12T12:03:00.000-05:00

http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2011/dec/09/meopino1-water-stewardship-economic-driver-ar-332681/

Published: December 09, 2011

Water stewardship economic driver

By TBO.com

The Southwest Florida Water Management District is up to its neck in financial woes, and while severe cutbacks are necessary, Gov. Rick Scott and lawmakers should be prepared to throw a lifeline. Its stewardship is critical to the state's economic growth.

As the Tribune's Keith Morelli reports, reduced tax revenues resulting from lower property values and cuts by the Legislature and Scott have reduced the regional water district's budget almost by half.

The district, commonly called Swiftmud, is using reserves to carry on critical responsibilities, such as cleaning rivers and lakes, helping agriculture reduce groundwater use and developing alternative water sources.

The money will run out within a couple of years, and then much of the district's vital water protection functions will be compromised.

Already the district has virtually halted land acquisition and now is looking at selling land.

All this should be intensely troubling to anyone who cares about Florida's future.

Florida can't grow without clean and abundant water sources. And it won't prosper if it wrecks its natural beauty.

Swiftmud's water controls have helped the region meet the water demands of a growing population while protecting critical resources. Its land conservation preserves beautiful stretches of wilderness that provide key wildlife habitat and offer countless recreational opportunities.

These lands also buffer rivers, springs, lakes and bays from polluting runoff. They avert costly flooding projects by preventing construction in flood-prone areas. Land purchases prevent harmful development without property rights disputes.

Yet some politicians act as if conserving land is a waste of money. That is a shortsighted attitude that will prove costly to taxpayers and the environment. Scott, to his credit, provides $15 million for the Florida Forever land conservation program in this year's budget. It's a minimal amount but shows the state intends to keep the effort alive even during these tough times.

We don't suggest that Swiftmud and the other four state water districts be exempt from serious cuts. Like many state agencies, they grew accustomed to a heavy flow of tax dollars during the boom years.

New Southwest Florida Water Management District Executive Director Blake Guillory now is seeking to wring every possible efficiency from operations.

It should be a beneficial exercise for taxpayers and the agency, as long as the district's water-protection mission remains the priority.

Similarly, selling some land of limited environmental value may be appropriate, particularly if the district sells it with restrictions that will prevent harmful uses. But such transactions deserve the utmost scrutiny.

The better approach is to encourage more public use of the land, which the district has emphasized in recent years. It offers an excellent guidebook detailing all the land available for hiking, canoeing, camping, fishing and other activities. Officials also are right to pursue expanded use, particularly hunting, which is prohibited at many sites. It can be managed so it has little impact on the land or other users.

Hunters — outdoor enthusiasts — should be natural allies of the district's conservation work. In these financially difficult times Swiftmud needs all the advocates it can get.

The painful austerity steps the district is undergoing now may result in a leaner more efficient operation. But voters should watch to ensure the district's critical stewardship responsibilities are not crippled.

A Florida that doesn't invest in safeguarding its natural riches will soon find itself wanting for water and economic opportunities.

Mandate From God

2011-12-11T12:29:00.000-05:00

I’m not sure why I am not a more religious person than I am. It’s one of those deep personal conflicts swirling everyday within me that even with 69 years of survival on this planet I can’t seem to resolve. Nevertheless, I feel like there is something out there - an event, a stroke of extraordinarily good or bad luck, an apparition, an experience, a force – that will one day bring the conflicts within me in alignment and a bright light of understanding will remove all the shadows surrounding my questioning and wonder.

But, while it hasn’t happened to me, I know it has happened to others in many forms and languages. Religion is crucial to how we perceive value for our having found ourselves on this piece of galactic potpourri and how we daily go about living on it. It also gives us structure and meaning beyond ourselves as individuals and gives us relevance as a race of humans in a strange world that, for all its unintelligible complexity, is the basis for all we think we know.

It is important, therefore, that we pay attention when we are offered an opportunity to see any of our more human difficulties in context with a higher moral value with a capacity to give guidance where guidance is badly needed.

Scott Maxwell, a writer for the Orlando Sentinel, tells us about how “… Rev. Joel Hunter offers people of Christian faith another reason to care for our natural resources — because God commands it.”

It was Rev. Hunter who said, “… if you think it's expensive to take care of our environment, try not taking care of it."

I’m thinking the Reverend is referring to a cost that is much greater than simple human dollars.

I’m also thinking we need to pay attention.

Here’s the article in full.

(http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/os-scott-maxwell-god-florida-environment-121111-20111210,0,1567495.column)

OrlandoSentinel.com

Caring for the environment is a mandate from God

Scott Maxwell

7:53 PM EST, December 10, 2011

There are plenty of practical reasons to be concerned about the environment and unchecked growth.

Sprawl leads to higher taxes. A drained aquifer could lead to water rationing and higher costs. Pollution affects all manner of living things, from plants to humans.

Still, those reasons aren't enough for everyone.

So the Rev. Joel Hunter offers people of Christian faith another reason to care for our natural resources — because God commands it.

"It was our first commandment when we were placed down here: Take care of the garden." Hunter said. "Really, it's a matter of obedience."

The Biblical examples go beyond Genesis.

Job reminds us that all creatures are God's creation. Jeremiah warns of "defiling" the land. Psalms talks of caring for creatures to "renew the face of the earth."

Revelation goes so far as to warn of judgment for "those who destroy the earth."

These words are not vague.

They are a clear mandate for what Hunter calls "creation care."

That mandate is why Hunter — a nationally known and respected pastor who presides over the 15,000-member Northland, A Church Distributed in Longwood — has decided to get more involved.

This month, Hunter agreed to team up with former Gov. Bob Graham as part of a broad and growing coalition of Floridians who are concerned about the continuing attacks on the environment and the laws that protect it.

"I want to be associated with people who have solid thinking and public service — and are willing to reach across party lines," said the man who has prayed with both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

That bipartisan outreach is a primary goal of Graham's newly formed Florida Conservation Coalition.

In the broadest sense, the group hopes to speak up for the environment — to remind lawmakers that natural resources aren't unlimited and that there are consequences for running roughshod over the land.

In a more immediate and specific sense, though, the group is less ambitious.

"Our first goal is to stop the bleeding," Graham said. "We need a tourniquet."

The last legislative session was widely viewed as the most damaging assault on the environment and growth regulations in decades.

The state did everything from close water-quality offices to dismantle the state's growth-planning agency.

Land-preservation programs were gutted. The Everglades restoration was slowed.

Audubon of Florida described the final product as "the most anti-environment budget this state has ever seen."

And yet the collective response from the Legislature and governor was a big: "So what?"

Well, we're now seeing what.

As a recent series in the Sentinel showed, water is such a concern in this state that private and government agencies are now fighting over it.

Pollution is going unchecked. Spring levels are dropping. The costs of sprawl continue to mount.

Some of the most profound effects of recent changes — making it easier to build on sensitive lands or pollute waters, for instance — won't be felt for years or even decades.

"We're all familiar with the expression: 'If you think education is expensive, try ignorance,' " Hunter said. "Well, if you think it's expensive to take care of our environment, try not taking care of it."

Graham is convinced most Floridians are well aware of the value of protecting the land on which we live. He's seen it in surveys and even green mandates that Floridians have voted into to the state constitution.

"What we need," Graham said, "is for the Legislature to be as aware as the people of Florida."

One of the problems, though, is that development interests have launched an in increasingly successful campaign to demonize people who care about the environment.

Those who speak up for protecting natural resources are blasted as small-minded and obstacles to prosperity.

I have trouble seeing Rev. Hunter as either of those things.

In fact, Hunter's quite convinced that prosperity can happen only when the earth is properly cared for.

And while Hunter doesn't point fingers, he also said one other thing that politicians who tout their commitment to Christ and God on the campaign trail might do well to remember: "You can always tell what you think of the giver by how well you take care of his gifts.”

smaxwell@tribune.com or 407-420-6141

Scott’s Revelation: About $359,880,000 too late

2011-12-09T20:38:00.000-05:00

I’ve been threatening to write a post entitled, “How Rick Scott Can Be Re-elected … And Why He Won’t” But while I’m still noodling the idea, this jewel popped up in today’s (12.09.11) St. Pete Times in a front page, above the fold article by Steve Bousquet (“Medicaid cuts decried”). If and when I do write the post, clearly, this quote by Scott’s representative, Jerry McDaniel, will fall under the part “… and why he won’t”

Here’s the pertinent part of the article. McDaniel’s telling quote is highlighted.

TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Rick Scott's proposal to pay less to hospitals to control spiraling Medicaid costs drew skepticism from some lawmakers and hostility from hospitals Thursday.

Scott's plan is central to his $66 billion budget proposal, and ensures that his own history as CEO of a for-profit hospital chain that paid a record $1.7 billion in fines for Medicare fraud would attract new attention.

Explaining Scott's plan to legislators, senior aides touted the governor's background as having built Columbia/HCA into the nation's biggest and most profitable hospital network.

"The governor operated 343 hospitals," Scott budget director Jerry McDaniel told the Senate Budget Committee. "He was very successful at it. He said his best paying clients were Medicaid and Medicare. He loved serving those populations. He was able to make a lot of money doing that. But unfortunately, the payer on this end is the taxpayer."

If this shows anything it’s that one reason CEO-governor is so out of touch with reality is because his “Senior Aide” and minion advisor, McDaniel, is himself lost somewhere out there between a galaxy far, far away and the Big Dipper.

One of the Senators should have asked this guy, “I understand your point, sir, but are you really certain it’s one you want to make?”

The committee expressed understandable chagrin that the governor, who made hundreds of millions off the medical needs of thousands of Medicare and Medicaid patients, is now saying hospitals have been charging too much for such services, including, apparently, those provided by the CEO’s former stable of 343 hospitals.

Scott was paid $359,880,000 to leave HCA after the Feds fined his company $1.7 billion for fraudulent billing practices, among other reasons.

I’d say the CEO-governor’s revelation about hospitals charging too much comes about $359,880,000 too late, wouldn’t you?

(Find the complete article HERE.)

Florida Conservation Coalition – New Game In T-Town

2011-12-03T17:19:00.004-05:00

CEO-governor Scott, not at all conspicuous by his absence, was nowhere in sight. Nor was the Senate budget czar, J. D. Alexander or other minions of any stripe who leach their living from the soul of Tallahassee. For sure, however, while they fretted behind shuttered blinds lest they be confused as members of the group, they had eyes on what was going down.

Former Governor Bob Graham
Roll Out of Florida Conservation Coalition, Tallhassee, Fla.
November 30, 2011

What was going down will soon likely give them cause to reconsider their client bases because it is only a matter of time before the 800-pound special-interest gorilla they’ve lulled to sleep - euphemistically known as The People - is about to be wakened.

Gathered on the steps of the old Capitol Building to mark the “roll out” of a new non-partisan organization called The Florida Conservation Coalition, speakers left no doubt that it intends to be a voice for those who know that a strong flourishing economy cannot be sustained without a strong viable environment.

Despite the cold wind and the cold shoulder by the T-Town elite, former governor and U. S. Senator Bob Graham hit hard the recent emasculation of growth management and resource protection laws wrought by an errant legislature and misguided governor. He painted a dark path to a place of 50 years ago when there was no environmental conscience and Florida was for sale to the highest bidder. He said the wrongs of the past legislative session must be corrected or we'll be repeating history.

He closed with olive branch in hand and offered to help the CEO-governor carry out his promised commitments (see Scott’s op-ed letter HERE ) and to do something the ill-advised naive governor and CEO-of-hospital-buying and expert of Medicare billing-codes has not been doing … lead.

See the Sunshine News YouTube video clip of Bob Graham’s remarks HERE

Join and support the Florida Conservation Coalition

If your concern about what’s going on have you shaking your head in disbelief and frustration and you want to learn more about how 40 years of very carefully developed laws and environmental protections were dismantled in 60 days last spring, you need to visit the organization’s website at http://floridaconservationcoalition.org/.

I encourage you to add the site to your “favorites” list and visit it often because as this group builds strength, you’ll want to be part of it. The legislature will be back in January and they must know that the biggest and strongest special interest in this state, i.e., all of you who know that the future of this state hangs in the balance, is watching and is ready to take action.

Finally, it should be noted that county commissions are beginning to wake up to the changes in water legislation that is moving the control of water to Tallahassee and potentially causing it to become a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder.

Farmers, in particular, who mistakenly believe weakening the water management districts serves their interests are going to feel like they’ve been tasered when they find themselves having to pay for water on top of what they now pay for pumping and piping.

The FCC website has a number of video and media reports on the “roll out.”

The Florida Conservation Coalition is to be watched. It’s going to be heard. It’s non-partisan, and it’s going bring reason back to proper management of growth and natural resource protection in this state.

Doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. If you care about Florida’s future quality of life in terms of a healthy environment and a thriving economy, this group is going to give you voice.

What's Going on Here? Stroke or Epiphany?

2011-11-27T20:10:00.004-05:00

CEO-governor Rick Scott

Either Rick Scott is seeing the writing on the wall or I’m having a stroke. He sent a letter to the Tampa Tribune today (11.27.11) declaring that he now understands how the health of Florida’s economy and that of its fragile ecology are “inextricably linked.”

While I think the odds greatly favor the latter, just maybe the State CEO has had some sort of epiphany. Or could it be that, just maybe, he’s realizing that the environment has a constituency that’s not limited to just liberals and democrats (bless their hearts) and a lot of folks are beginning to get a lot more than just nervous about his ill-advised ways.

Or maybe he’s the one who’s had the stroke.

The letter was obviously written either by someone who knows what the state really needs and the governor agrees with it, or it was written by someone who knows what the state really needs and the governor signed it anyway.

Such words out of Tallahassee, especially from an administration that to date has shown nothing but arrogance and disdain for protecting the state’s fragile natural environment and providing for reasonable management of its growth, are hard to believe. The proof, of course, will be in what happens next. Will the state’s environmental protections developed over decades by members of both parties be enhanced or weakened? Will the state’s economy flourish accordingly? Or, will we find ourselves led far down a primrose lane only to learn that it’s too late to turn around the egregious consequences of a terrible experiment gone wrong?

Lad Daniels

The letter was orchestrated with another letter released by the new chair of the St. Johns River Water Management District, Lad Daniels. The timing and the message of the two letters are more than obvious. It’d be a fair bet that this is the beginning of a concerted effort to turn around Scott’s pitiful poll ratings. Just more politics.

But, hey. If it means the ol boy has seen the light, good for him and good for the state. If nothing else, it gives folks like me a standard he’ll now have to meet. He’s set a bar for himself and it’s a high one. We can only wonder, though, in light of his previous cluelessness about environmental issues if he truly understands the extent of the commitment.

Here are some his statements quoted from the letter:

· As governor, I understand a healthy economy is dependent upon a healthy environment.

· A stable regulatory environment does not mean lower environmental standards. It means that environmental policy will be governed by sound science, not politics or one-size-fits-all solutions.

· At the same time, willful violations of our environmental standards will not be tolerated. We will be just as vigilant about prosecuting bad actors as we are about helping businesses comply with the law.

· The state of Florida should maintain its rights to protect our environment, and it should be done at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. We are a national leader in addressing pollution in our state's water bodies and have the most extensive monitoring and assessment program in the country. We know more about our water bodies than any federal agency or other state and are in a unique position to craft a solution that recognizes and respects the needs of our diverse landscape. We will continue to work cooperatively with our federal partners as we develop a state-led effort to restore and protect our rivers, lakes and streams.

· Florida is committed to moving forward on important restoration projects like improving water quality in the Everglades.

· Over the last five decades the state has acquired more than 4.2 million acres, including some of Florida's most critical conservation properties. However, now is the time to evaluate our inventory and ask ourselves if we have the right land in the right places.

· Our state's natural resources are unparalleled. It's why people choose to live here, vacation here and bring their businesses here. In Florida, we don't have to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. The two are inextricably linked, and as governor, I am working to ensure our resources are dedicated to the improvement of both.

Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Be not beguiled into rapture, however, because there were also hints of further potential mischief in the letter:

· That's why protecting our natural resources through a stable regulatory environment is key to ensuring businesses are successful and future generations will be able to enjoy all that our state has to offer.

What’s a stable regulatory environment? Anyone want to venture a thought?

· It also means that more of our dollars will be directed toward projects that actually benefit the environment instead of government bureaucracy, excessive salaries and benefits, and costly litigation.

Sounds good until he realizes that the engineers and scientists needed to achieve his goal of continued effective protection and preservation of Florida’s natural systems will have to be paid at a fair market rate. Has he checked the salaries of community college presidents, airport managers, sea port managers, expressway authority managers, city managers recently? And it isn’t exactly clear how “ …more of our dollars will be directed toward projects …” when he and Senate Budget Czar Alexander have eviscerated the budgets of the districts. Makes no sense.

· It means that our permit processes will be the same for Tampa residents and businesses as they are for those in Pensacola, Jacksonville or Key West, but also take into account our state's regional differences.

This has been a goal of DEP and the WMD’s for years. Good luck, Governor. The danger will be in creating a one-size-fits-all mandate that doesn’t, and the result will be the failure of the state’s regulatory system to reach the goals it is intended to reach, which, in turn, will lead to a disaster for the state’s future, environmentally and economically.

· As we do with other state agencies, we will expect accountability budgeting from our water management districts, which means justifying every dollar we spend and bringing spending in line with revenues.

He still doesn’t understand that WMD’s are not state agencies and cannot be considered such by him or the legislature lest they risk causing the districts loss of their constitutionally-granted ad valorem taxing authority. This is a bogeyman that’s going to bite him squarely you-know-where and only his and J. D. Alexander’s arrogance will be to blame.

Here’s the thing. Words are easy currency for the politician. It’s easy to say what people want to hear. I – and, I suspect, you – sincerely want to hear and believe that all is going to be okay in Florida. That its complex and fragile natural systems along with its economy will flourish under the guidance and wisdom of an enlightened leader in a position of major authority.

If However one can promise 700,000 jobs over and over again in order to get elected, proffering the conclusion that the state’s unemployment levels and thus its economy will improve, only to claim later that such a conclusion must be the result of delirium or unsavory political trickery of the liberal press, then why should we believe that we are now about to enter wonderland?

Rick Scott has been a resident in Florida only since 1997. His whole professional life has been buying and selling hospitals, and shutting them down. He was the CEO of a corporation that was fined over 2 billion for defrauding the United States Government. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it:

On March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.^[20]

Following the raids, the Columbia/HCA board of directors forced Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.^[21] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement. He also left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.^[22][23][24]

In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.

In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA plead guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.^{[4][5][6][7][8]}

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.^[25] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.^[26]

So, his letter sounds hopeful. So what?

Some things for which I am grateful …

2011-11-22T20:39:00.000-05:00

I am grateful for all the lessons my mother taught me and for that part of me she represents in both flesh and spirit. Years after she passed, I still marvel at the things she said, the things she believed and the things she did. She had only an eighth-grade education and was married at 14 to the only husband she would ever have, but she knew innately how to care for her children and provide them more than just food and shelter as she weathered the trials and missteps of growing up with them. I know each and every day what she meant to me, what she taught me and, most gloriously, how many times she forgave me even before I did the things I did that required it.

I am so very grateful for what I have: my wonderful wife, my wonderful children, my two wonderful sisters, a strong roof over my head, a warm bed at night and enough to eat when I am hungry.

I am grateful for my friends who seem to be more important to me, yet fewer and fewer, as I grow older. Maybe the criteria for becoming one are just getting narrower as life teaches how rarely true friends happen by in the first place.

I have learned that the value of one friend is not the same as that of another. It is as unique as the individuals they are. I value one friend because there is absolute trust between us. It is more than comforting to know with a virtual certainty that betrayal will never happen between us, no matter what. I value another because of his willingness to share his wisdom with others in a way he knows it is needed, gently and with great respect. It is redeeming for me to see such graciousness in another human in a world where it is so rare. I value many others because we have shared experiences and share a common understanding of a unique time others cannot know because they were not there. It is a quiet bond that needs no acknowledgement. I have yet to meet all who were there, but if I do, they, too, will be my friend and I am grateful for that.

I am grateful for my health. I am aware of those younger than me who were not so fortunate and whose lives have been cut short, in many cases painfully so. Some were very dear friends.

I am grateful for my dogs Bo and Mickey who are now buried in the warm sand next to the muscadines. They gave me absolute, unfailing, unquestioned loyalty and I am a better person for it.

I am grateful for our cats Weenie, Tiger and Orangie who humble me with their arrogance, sleep an incredible number hours each day and give my wife great satisfaction just having them around to hold and pamper.

I am grateful for all the pain we humans will have to endure if we are to become better stewards of this unique place we call earth. It is only through such pain that we will have any chance of learning how to survive our own inhumanity to ourselves.

I am grateful for my life and all those who have drifted through it, some staying longer than others, for each left a mark the total of which is who I am.

I am incredibly lucky and I am grateful.

Unsolicited Thoughts – Governing Board Meeting – 10-25-11

2011-11-15T19:34:00.003-05:00

Went online and watched the SWFWMD governing board meeting of October 25, 2011 this morning.

I know, you’re thinking - doesn’t this guy have a life?

(I’m asking myself the same question.)

Haven’t done it often, though. In fact, I can count on one hand the times, online or in person, that I’ve sat through a meeting since I retired in ‘03. Well, maybe two hands. Mostly because it triggers feelings I can do without. This morning was not much different except this time I took notes with the intent of sharing some thoughts.

Before you ask, so who’s asking for my thoughts, I’ll admit, no one. But I’m finding that when I share them, they seem to strike a chord. I can only hope that anyone who does read what I write will agree enough to help change what’s wrong and support what appears to be right. So with no expectations one way or the other and for what it may be worth …

WMD cutbacks too deep?

Irony of ironies, there is early feedback from the legislature (staff to staff, back channel) that maybe the cuts to some of the districts’ budgets were too deep. Why? Because it’s becoming apparent that the districts might not be able to fund their share of projects co-funded with local governments.

Guess where the concern is coming from? The Florida Senate.

Guess who’s the budget czar of the Senate who’d be the one to know if funding cuts were too deep since he helped create them? J. D. Alexander.

Guess what project he would be most concerned about the district not being able to fund? The $150,000,000 Polk County water supply project listed in the district water supply plan.

Guess who supported the dismantling of the basin boards? J. D Alexander and the SWFWMD governing board.

Guess how that helps the Polk County project? The governing board took control of the basin board taxing authority allowing it another $300,000,000 of funding capacity at the district board level, rather than by the individual basin boards which would have been controlled at the basin level. This will now allow the governing board to use basin property taxes to help fund the Polk County water project.

Look for J. D. to support an increase to SWFWMD’s legislated budget limits.

and HERE - Were the basin boards killed because J. D. Alexander wants you to pay for Polk County’s water supply?.

What’s all this about EPA and Numerical Nutrient Criteria?

Want a clear, concise explanation of what the fuss is all about? Then, you might take a look at that part of the board meeting tape where Veronica Craw, district scientist, gives the board a briefing on the issue and its significance to Florida’s agricultural and environmental communities. She did an outstanding job setting out the bases for the dispute and the positions of the interested parties, especially the state’s.

It’s extremely difficult to reduce a very complex subject to a lay board which may have to become involved at some point and must understand the issue thoroughly if they do. If board members aren’t grasping the issues now, they will be able to with only a few more lessons from Ms. Craw.

Good things are happening in the Southern Water Use Caution Area

District staffer, Jill Hood, reported to the board that groundwater elevations are showing improvement south of Tampa Bay after years of uncertainty. Very good news. This, despite the associated new demand of 500,000 new residents in the area where per capita water use has dropped from 135 to 105 gallons per day.

The improvement to the groundwater was mostly attributed to the shifting of the phosphate and citrus industries further south and changes by those industries in how they use and reuse water now vs. ten to twenty years ago.

Another very enlightening presentation of a difficult topic by an articulate and obviously very capable district scientist.

What was not mentioned was anything about how these “job-killing regulations” are not strangling the life-blood out of businesses as our CEO-governor wants us to believe simply because he so blindly believes it.

What was not said was how these kinds of regulations are the guardians of this state’s economic future because without them there would be less water available by orders of magnitude to meet today’s and tomorrow’s growth demands in the region.

What was not mentioned is that there needs to be great care about which regulations will be found unneeded by the arbitrary mandate the governor has issued (to review all rules and regulations of the state for possible repeal) and CEO sec Herschel Vinyard’s subsequent unblinking pursuit. Between the two of them, they’re in a position to do wholesale damage to the many critical protections such rules provide our quality of life and thus wholesale damage to the future of this state, if they act without thinking. And so far, there’s been a lot of action without, it seems, a whole lot of thinking.

Governing board saved by banished basin board from Strange and Bradshaw redux

Like a fever that appears every time there’re new and innocent minds to infect, Chester Bradshaw assumed the podium and acted like it was a new issue.

(Chester’s delivery has improved. He sounded almost believable.)

He complained about staff. He complained about the district. He asked for relief. Something about some very low land next to Lake Tsala Apopka in Citrus County, a levy or road, and what the district is doing or won’t do about some related problem for Charley Strange, the landowner.

He presented a letter, said it was from the county commission and implied it corroborated his concerns.

Unfortunately, one of the board members actually read the letter and realized it was not what Chester was implying.

Inexplicably, they began to discuss the problem anyway, asked the staff to explain details and seemed puzzled about it all until board member Neil Combe said he thought he remembered something.

That’s when the staff explained it had been an issue Chester Bradshaw and Charley Strange had been proffering to the district and basin board for years. It had been investigated beyond thoroughly and studied ad nauseam by the basin board until members decided it was not a matter that merited further district interest or concern. There is only so much staff time and energy the board can invest in a matter from a private citizen that is not within the purview of their public responsibility.

It occurred to me that this is what the governing board has to look forward to without the help of its basin boards. Hours and hours of circular discussion that will go on and on and which will be repeated over and over while, like it or not, they should be focused on much larger issues for which they won’t have the time.

This is what CEO Scott and the new governing board members don’t get. Government is not efficient in these situations. People will demand consideration and their opportunity to be heard even when everyone knows the agency either can’t or won’t fix their problem at the public’s expense because it isn’t legal or appropriate. The board will nevertheless be compelled to spend hours talking about it in order to give the appearance that they are an interested government when in fact doing so is simply inappropriate and inefficient.

This is where the basin boards’ real value would come in. They were local. They knew details. They would listen. They would bear the brunt of the responsibility to take action when it was merited. Take one basin board’s time committed to local input and multiply that by eight to get an incling of how much time this requires. The governing board better get a hotel room and plan on staying awhile. I recommend a Holiday Inn Express.

Another example of this was when the district ripped out the Wysong Dam from the Withlacoochee River over the objections of the local citizenry because, according to the staff at the time, it served no beneficial purpose. It caused such anger and ill-will it spurred the creation of an organization that would call itself “Too Far” because that’s where they felt the district went without input from local residents.

The locals believed fervently that it truly did serve a valuable purpose. They accosted the district for years until the basin board at last said, okay, it’s your taxes, you want it, we’ll put it back. And the basin board did. Al Coogler was the ex officio chair of the basin board at the time. Local folks were so appreciative they got the basin board to name the new structure the Coogler-Wysong Dam.

Chalk up another job done well by the Withlacoochee Basin Board and all the local citizens who refused to give up … that the governing board didn’t have to deal with.

Remove the District regional service office from Bartow?

Blake Guillory reported that the district’s service office is in need of repair. The bid price for fixing it came in at a cost greater than the combined appraised values of the property and building thus creating the dilemma: repair it and create an investment that would be more than the value of the end result, or find an alternative.

This triggered concern in the Bartow area that the district might consider just shutting down the district’s presence in Polk County all together and operating out of its Tampa office or Brooksville headquarters.

The tape clearly reflects Guillory stating there is no intent to shut down the Bartow office but they will need to find a more economically sensible approach to the problem.

A later communication directly from him confirmed this.

Rest easy J. D.

Core Mission … or whatever, again

That pesky concept that is presumed to describe what Florida water management is all about, according to slogan-meister Herschel Vinyard (who also wants “to get the water right”), just keeps coming up. No one can quite figure out what he means though. Even a collection of the presumed most brainy legal brains of the water world said recently at a Marco Island conference sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, that it basically means whatever one wants it to mean as long it’s statutorily authorized.

Chairman Senft wisely noted how core mission is defined at SWFWMD may not be the same at, say, SJRWMD or SFWMD because things are, well, different there.

Déjà vu? Imagine that.

After all the feed lot dust clears, I predict they will come to the same place the districts were long before CEO Scott’s reign in terms of their different identities and operations. They will, nevertheless, feverishly rejoice how they have achieved a splendid job of redefining water management in Florida, saved millions of dollars and reduced government, when all they really will have done is what could have been done anyway with a lot less pain and turmoil simply by reducing the scope of each of the district’s respective operations to reflect a recession of historic proportions and just freeze hiring. Let normal attrition reduce staff and operational activity. It would have worked, but I guess it wouldn't have had the same political impact for one's political ambitions, would it?

Later, Board member Doug Tharp cautioned they needed to be careful because if they aren’t, they’ll be identifying more things the district needs to be doing instead of less. Imagine that.

Thus, the governing board feels the need to have a workshop to work on what they want core mission to mean.

Stay tuned. No telling what will come out of that. Flood Protection, Water Supply, Water Quality and Environmental Protection maybe?

Can you imagine any of this? Maybe Alice can, down a rabbit hole. It's bizarre.

Restructuring the district, or; how to reduce the staff sensitively

This, in the final analysis, is where the new reality of water management is being brought home, literally, to hundreds of good, really outstanding people from all five of the districts.

However, as sad and uncomfortable as it is, a sound reason why it should not be done will be hard to find.

There are many emotional things all of us want to say to those snagged by the net - that it is wrong, that it is cold hearted, that there ought to be another way. We want them to feel our empathy, the pain we share, and how much we want it not to be happening.

But the hard, stark, irrefutable reality is that without question the districts needed to reduce the scope of their operations to reflect a severely stalled global economy that has impacted everyone.

This is not to say the way the districts’ new management teams are doing this is in the wisest or most sensitive way, but, at least at SWFWMD, their hearts seem to be in the right place even if their heads aren’t at times.

The proof of their wisdom and their true motivations will be in how effectively they will continue to be able to carry out their core missions, once they figure out what those are, and have done all the “restructuring” they will do.

Notably, after being criticized for slashing blindly without truly knowing what the consequences will be, it is being heard that the good the districts have done and can continue to do will not be abandoned. SWFWMD board chair Paul Senft said it succinctly, “We must guarantee the district’s historic level of service will be maintained and the district’s core missions continued.”

The legacy that will be left for our children by this period of destruction upon the water management districts, as it has been termed, must not be a beautiful and natural Florida permanently scarred or destroyed. It must, on the other hand, be a renewed appreciation for the fact that Florida’s unique natural beauty is as intertwined with its economic well being as water is with air. Only with one, can there be the other.