Environmental Intersection by George Lindemann

Scott vetoes ‘Conservation of Wildlife’ bill

By Virginia Chamlee | 04.09.12 | 9:56 am

Gov. Rick Scott (Pic via Facebook)

Gov. Rick Scott on Friday vetoed a bill that would have allowed for the placement of exotic animals (like zebras and rhinoceros) on public lands. H.B. 1117, known as the “Conservation of Wildlife” bill, was lambasted by environmental groups that argued it would “supplant threatened and iconic Florida species with exotic” animals.

The bill would have allowed private zoos and aquariums to lease state conservation lands in order to construct and operate breeding facilities for exotic wildlife, including large hooved animals. Groups like Audubon of Florida called the bill’s passage both ecologically and economically irresponsible.

In his veto letter, Scott wrote that the bill was unnecessary, as the the state’s water management districts already have the authority to use state-owned lands for purposes “not inconsistent with the State Constitution”:

The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) and the governing boards of the five water management districts may currently authorize the use of state-owned and district-owned lands, respectively, for any use not inconsistent with the State Constitution and Florida Statutes. Additionally, I believe that the bill lacks sufficient safeguards, and may restrict the current authority of the Board of Trustees and the governing boards, to ensure the protection of state and district lands, native species, and habitats.

As The Tampa Bay Times‘ Craig Pittman notes, Scott vetoed that bill, but signed an agricultural bill (H.B. 1197) that contains a provision lifting a ban on dyeing chicks, bunnies and dogs a rainbow of colors.

“Animal welfare groups and veterinarians had opposed the bill, which had been filed at the request of a dog groomer who wanted to color his show dogs for more dramatic effect,” writes Pittman. “It takes effect July 1.”

via floridaindependent.com

Audubon Florida Advocate

April 2012 - Veto HB 1117

Big Win for Florida's Conservation Lands

Governor Rick Scott vetoes "Rhinoceros Bill"

In a big win for Florida's conservation lands and native wildlife, Governor Rick Scott vetoed HB 1117 - Conservation of Wildlife.

Passed during the 2012 Legislative Session, this bill would have allowed zoos to lease state conservation lands to construct facilities, utilities and roads to support breeding and research operations for exotic ungulates—hoofed animals like elephants, zebras and giraffes. 

Click here to read Audubon Florida's formal veto request letter. 

In the days following our appeal, over 1000 Audubon Advocates - like you - sent in personal letters to the Governor urging him to veto this bill. Thanks to your voice, Governor Scott has agreed to do the right thing and put an end to this bad legislation.

Congratulations to everyone who stood up for Florida's conservation lands. You brought this issue to the attention of the Governor and made the case for it to be vetoed. 

This is a great example of Audubon Advocates making a difference for Florida's natural heritage. Thank you for all that you do. 

For further coverage of this issue, please see this article from The Florida Current.

 via fl.audubonaction.org

A decade-long legal dispute over Florida's process of listing waterways that require cleanups has taken another yet another turn.

Chief U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers in Tallahassee last week ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review Florida's revised "impaired waters" rule to determine whether it has caused some waterways to be dropped from the state's cleanup list.

Environmental groups, who say the state is attempting to drop waterways from its list rather than clean them up, are claiming victory in the latest ruling. An attorney for industry groups that backed the state rule at issue said it was scientifically valid as upheld by a state hearing officer.

Environmental groups in 2001 challenged the Florida Department of Environmental Protection rule that established the process for listing "impaired waters" as required by the federal Clean Water Act. 

The groups said DEP was seeking to avoid forcing industries to reduce pollution by removing waterways from the list. DEP said in a news release at the time that the goal was to identify and focus restoration efforts on waterways that are truly degraded.

The 11th Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals has stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must determine whether water bodies will be removed from the cleanup list under the initial 2001 rule and subsequent revisions. Rodgers ruled last week that the EPA had not done so and gave the agency 120 days to take action.

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman said the agency was reviewing the order. A DEP spokeswoman said the agency stands by its state rule, which she said was not questioned by the judge's ruling.

"In fact, the judge’s ruling upholds every technical aspect of those sections of the IWR (impaired waters rule) that EPA has reviewed and approved," spokeswoman Dee Ann Miller said. "It simply directs EPA to expand or further document its evaluation and analysis of those sections of the rule that EPA has not reviewed."

The judge's ruling is a huge boost for environmentalists who now want the federal EPA to give up its appeals, said Linda Young, director of the Clean Water Network of Florida. She said the EPA should review the list to determine what water bodies were being dropped because of the rule changes, not because they had been restored.

"Honestly I'm so happy about this ruling," Young said. "The Obama administration has been so disappointing in so many ways. I'm hoping and praying this will not be another disappointment."

Other environmental groups that are plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit filed in 2009 are the St. Johns Riverkeeper and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The court earlier denied requests by industry groups seeking to intervene on behalf of EPA.

DEP has reported that the number of miles of impaired waterways increased from about 1,000 miles in 2008 to about 1,900 miles in 2010, according to a federal EPA web site. Impaired acres of lakes increased from 350,000 acres in 2008 to 378,000 in 2010. 

The case is separate from the dispute over proposed federal water quality rules that has raged during the past two years and led to HB 7051, waiving adoption by the Legislature of proposed alternative state rules. 

Reporter Bruce Ritchie can be reached at britchie@thefloridacurrent.com.

 

The Everglades Foundation on Monday released a report showing that 76 percent of phosphorous pollution entering the Everglades comes from agricultural operations while that sector pays 24 percent of the cost.

The group says it hopes the findings help Gov. Rick Scott as he negotiates a new Everglades restoration plan with federal agencies. The information also could be used by the Legislature to shift the cost burden more to agricultural interests, Everglades Foundation officials said.

The Everglades ecosystem extends from south of Orlando south to Lake Okeechobee, Everglades National Park and Florida Bay. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus from a variety of sources has contributed to some areas of the national park having become choked with cattails.

Sixty-eight percent of Florida voters in 1996 approved a state constitutional amendment requiring that those who cause pollution in the Everglades to be "primarily responsible" for the cost of cleanup. The Everglades Foundation says its report, produced by RTI International, uses public data to help identify who is causing the pollution and who has been paying for the cleanup.

While 24 percent of the money for nutrient removal comes from agricultural sources, 39 percent comes from property taxes collected by the South Florida Water Management District, which operates 45,000 acres of stormwater treatment areas. State and federal governments pay 27 percent and wastewater customers pay 10 percent of the cost.

"I think it's hard to fathom how any honest person could suggest that the big sugar and agricultural interests are complying with the constitutional amendment by picking up only 24 percent of the cost right now," Everglades Foundation Executive Director Kirk Fordham said.

In response, U. S. Sugar Corp., Florida Crystals Corp. and the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida issued a statement condemning the Everglades Foundation for producing studies "resulting in hocus pocus economic conclusions."

"The Everglades Foundation’s report is riddled with so many erroneous assumptions, then hedges the conclusions with an equal number of caveats and uncertainties, that it serves no purpose except to throw mud on productive restoration efforts," the statement said.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection in response issued a statement that did not address the cost issues raised in the report. The statement said the report noted progress made on Everglades cleanup and agriculture's role in that effort.

Some sugar industry representatives have said the state should focus more attention on reducing phosphorus and nitrogen pollution in the northern Everglades north of Orlando. But Fordham noted that his group's report says that only about 13 percent of the phosphorus reaching the stormwater treatment areas is coming from Lake Okeechobee.

The Everglades Foundation decided in the fall of 2010 to do the study, so its release after the 2012 legislative session while the governor is negotiating with federal agencies is coincidental, Fordham said.

"I think it really is up to the Legislature to determine how to shift the cost," Fordham said. "If that doesn't take place, then I think taxpayers ought to take a look at whether or not there are other means to guarantee it is enforced."

He added, "Certainly if the question is, is the Everglades Foundation looking to file a lawsuit right now -- the answer is no."

Read key findings of the report at http://www.evergladesfoundation.org/pages/1708.  Download the 107-page Everglades Foundation report by clicking here.

Reporter Bruce Ritchie can be reached at britchie@thefloridacurrent.com.

 

 

Back in 1996, Florida voters approved a “polluter pays” amendment that environmentalists hoped would force the agricultural industry — particularly sugar growers — to bankroll the hefty expense of stemming the damaging flow of nutrients into the Everglades.

It hasn’t worked out quite that way.

According to a study released Monday by the Everglades Foundation, the agricultural industry produces three-quarters of Glades pollution but pays only a quarter of the costs of cleaning it up. The public, the study found, pays the rest of an annual $106 million treatment tab through property taxes, utility bills and state and federal taxes.

“I’m quite certain that most Floridians would find it rather outrageous that they are picking up the bill for giant agricultural operations,’’ said Kirk Fordham, chief executive officer of the foundation, a group that championed the 16-year-old amendment that the Legislature has never enacted.

Fordham said he hoped the study would persuade state and federal negotiators trying to resolve decades of lawsuits over Florida’s oft-delayed clean plans to shift the burden — and bills that could run hundreds of millions of dollars or more — to farmers, ranchers and nurseries responsible for the bulk of nutrient pollution that has poisoned vast swathes of the Glades, killing off and crowding out native plants.

South Florida’s sugar farmers immediately bashed the study, which the foundation commissioned for $185,000 from researchers at North Carolina-based RTI International.

In a joint statement, the U.S. Sugar Corp., Florida Crystals Corp. and Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida defended their efforts and their record of reducing phosphorus use, saying the study was based on “grossly flawed assumptions, resulting in hocus pocus economic conclusions.’’

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection issued a statement claiming “significant progress’’ in reducing nutrients but acknowledging “that there is more to be done.’’ The statement also sent an upbeat signal about settling long-running federal lawsuits over the slow pace of clean-up, adding that “because of the leadership of Gov. (Rick) Scott, Florida is on the verge of a momentous step forward in Everglades restoration.’’

The state, which first agreed to reduce the flow of phosphorus into the Everglades to settle a federal lawsuit in 1988, has been under mounting pressure from federal judges frustrated by the decades of delay. Florida has spent more than $1.3 billion to construct a 45,000-acre network of artificial marshes to scrub phosphorus flowing from farms into the Glades but it hasn’t been enough to meet the super-low standards required to protect the sensitive marsh.

Phosphorous, a common fertilizer ingredient that drains off farms and yards with every rain storm, can trigger fish-killing algae blooms in lakes and coastal waters. But its impact can be catastrophic even at minute concentrations in the Everglades, said foundation senior scientist Tom Van Lent. As concentrations rise, it can kill off an important algae at the base of the Everglades food chain and fuel the spread of cat tails, a plant that a scientist once dubbed “the grave markers of the Everglades.’’

Florida is in the crosshairs of climate change. Rising seas, a population crowded along the coast, porous bedrock, and the relatively common occurrence of tropical storms put more real estate and people at risk from storm surges aggravated by sea level rise in Florida, than any other state by far.

Some 2.4 million people and 1.3 million homes, nearly half the risk nationwide, sit within 4 feet of the local high tide line. Sea-level rise is more than doubling the risk of a storm surge at this level in South Florida by 2030. For the hundreds of thousands of Floridians holding 30-year mortgages, that date is not far off in the future.

The world’s oceans are already rising, thanks to global warming. Global average sea level has gone up about eight inches since 1880. In South Florida, taxpayers are already paying the price for climate change as salt water pushes through porous bedrock into coastal drinking-water supplies, and rivers and canals choked by heavy rains have a harder time draining into the ocean. A recent Florida Atlantic University study estimated that just six more inches of sea level rise — very plausible within two decades — would cripple about half of South Florida’s flood control capacity.

It’s now, not later, for sea-level rise in South Florida.

That’s a big reason why Climate Central has worked for two years on a new analysis of this threat, blending storm surge, tides and more into the picture. Integrating storms and tides show that a small amount of sea level rise can make a big difference — multiplying the odds of extreme coastal floods around the United States, not just South Florida. Think of it like raising the floor at a Miami Heat game: you’d see a lot more dunks. Overall, sea-level rise is making the odds of a South Florida flood reaching more than four feet above high tide, by 2050, on par with the odds of losing at Russian roulette.

More than half the population of more than 100 Florida towns and cities lives on land below that four-foot line. Miami-Dade and Broward counties each have more people below four feet than any state, except Florida itself and Louisiana.

Just how vulnerable any area is depends on many elements. Our analysis factored in not only local sea-level rise projections, storm-surge patterns and tides, but also local topography and patterns of development. In an attempt to better inform people, businesses and planners who live and work near the coast, we have mapped and evaluated risk in 3,000 towns, cities and counties across the lower 48 states, including South Florida, and have created a free, ZIP code-searchable map with neighborhood views and risk information at SurgingSeas.org. Among our key national findings:

• Global warming has already doubled or tripled the odds of extreme high water events over widespread areas of the U.S. coast.

• Widespread areas are likely to see storm surges on top of sea level rise reaching at least four feet above high tide by 2030, and five feet by 2050.

• Almost five million U.S. residents currently live on land less than four feet above high tide, and more than six million on land less than five feet above.

Sea-level rise is already increasing flood threats everywhere. It’s set to become an even greater problem much sooner than most people expect. Swift cuts in greenhouse gas pollution can significantly reduce sea level increases, but past and present pollution already commit us to a good deal more rise.

It’s time we start preparing for higher seas and storms, if we want to avoid their worst effects. In South Florida, where the porous limestone makes building effective sea walls or levees almost impossible, the task is especially urgent.

Ben Strauss is director of the Program on Sea Level Rise at Climate Central, a nonprofit research and journalism group.

WASHINGTON -- Floods and water shortages in the next 30 years will make it hard for many countries to keep up with growing demand for fresh water, particularly in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. intelligence community reported Thursday.

Water problems in the next decade will add to instability in countries that are important to U.S. national security, the report said. Floods and shortages also will make it hard for some countries to grow enough food or produce enough energy, creating risk for global food markets and slowing economic growth.

"I think it's fair to say the intelligence community's findings are sobering," said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who requested the report last year. "These threats are real and they do raise serious security concerns."

Clinton, speaking at an event to mark World Water Day, announced a new U.S. Water Partnership, made up of private companies, philanthropy and advocacy groups, academics and government. The group will coordinate efforts to solve water problems and make U.S. expertise more accessible.

"We believe this will help map out our route to a more water-secure world," Clinton said.

The intelligence assessment, drafted by the Defense Intelligence Agency with contributions from the CIA and other agencies, was aimed at answering how water problems will affect U.S. national security interests. The classified version, finished in October, named specific countries expected to have water problems, but they weren't identified in the unclassified version. The public version said only that analysts focused on "strategically important countries" along major rivers in the Middle East, Central and South Asia and North Africa.

Some findings:

-Agriculture, which takes 68 percent of the water used by humans, is one of the biggest areas where countries need to find solutions to water problems. Desalination may be economical for household and industrial use, but it isn't currently economical for agriculture.

-Wars over water are unlikely in the next decade. Still, as water shortages worsen, countries that share water basins may struggle to protect their water rights. And terrorists "almost certainly" will target water infrastructure.

-Industrial demand for water will remain high, because water is needed to generate power, run industry and extract oil, gas and other resources. This means that water shortages and pollution likely will harm the economies of "important trading partners" of the United States.

The report covers the period to 2040. In that span, population growth and economic development will be the key reasons for growing water demand, while water supplies will decline in many places.

Climate change, meanwhile, will bring a higher risk of droughts and floods. Water stored in glaciers and snow will decline. Sea-level rise will mean that coastal storms will cause more damage.

"At times water flows will be severe enough to overwhelm the water-control infrastructures of even developed countries, including the United States," the report noted.

The least-prepared areas the intelligence analysts studied were the basins of the Amu Darya and Brahmaputra rivers. The Amu Darya basin in Central Asia (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) is expected to have poorer food security throughout the next 30 years. The Brahmaputra basin (Tibet, India and Bangladesh) is expected to have tensions over water-development projects, reduced potential for hydropower after 2020 and reduced food security, especially for fisheries, the report said.

Clinton said that in northern India, too much use of ground water could leave millions of people without enough food and water.

With the state’s growth management agency dismantled last year by lawmakers and Gov. Rick Scott, agriculture and development interests are seizing the opportunity, he said.

He pointed to the appointment of Peña to the panel recommending changes in wetlands laws as particularly troubling. She’s president of the Las Palmas community association — several hundred small nurseries, ranches and farms west of Krome Avenue long known as the 8.5 Square Mile Area. Residents in the area have repeatedly ran afoul of DERM, racking up some 90 code and wetlands violations in the last decade, according to county records.

“It’s such a grim scenario that when it comes to participating in these county task forces and working groups, I don’t see any point to it,” he said.

The county’s environmental agency, charged with monitoring and enforcing a wide range of county, state and federal laws, has long been a lightning rod for criticism. But the tone has grown more strident.

During last month’s commission meeting, Peña ticked off a long list of complaints: inspectors jumping fences, DERM dragging people to court over unpaid fines and forbidding residents from using portions of their lands.

“Is this America, or are we now going to legitimize Gestapo tactics in this country?” she said.

Several commissioners were quick to share in the disdain, branding regulators as overzealous and out to bolster the agency’s budget by assessing fines. Despite “the best intentions,” Commissioner Bruno Barreiro said, “a great idea has morphed into something that’s basically a monster.”

Complaints grew so heated at early wetlands advisory meetings that the county ordered police protection, said Deputy Mayor Jack Osterholt, who oversees the planning, zoning and environmental agencies.

But Osterholt insisted the administration was looking to overhaul outdated and inconsistent environmental regulations and permitting requirements that cost businesses time and money — not to loosen regulations.

“The focus is unchanged,’’ Osterholt said. “The mission is unchanged.”

Bell, in an interview, insisted her goal in pushing for the wetlands laws wasn’t intended to open the door to more development but to “balance the needs of the average worker and the average small business.”

“I’m not trying to gut anything,” Bell said. “We are perceived as a county that’s unfriendly toward business. We have to change that.”

Environmentalists are skeptical. They contend the verbal attacks combined with shuffling leadership and staff cuts have undermined morale and created a “bunker mentality.” Since 2000, the DERM staff has dropped from 556 to 482, with another 56 cuts proposed for next year.

“There is a lot of pressure on them,” said Laura Reynolds, executive director of the Tropical Audubon Society. “The climate is so bad, they’re afraid to say anything.”

Sara Fain, an attorney for the Everglades Law Center, said the complaints have come largely from landowners who have repeatedly flouted county laws and refused to pay court-ordered fines.

“It would be the same things as if I decided to install new windows in my house and didn’t apply for a permit,” she said. “This idea that DERM is trying to stop them from using their land is a fallacy.”

 

The ruling was drawn narrowly around the issue of judicial review rather than the larger question of the E.P.A.’s jurisdiction over wetlands. Nonetheless, property-rights advocates hailed it as a victory for individual freedoms over governmental authority.

For years, the E.P.A. has invoked its authority under the Clean Water Act to issue so-called compliance orders declaring a site to be a wetland and requiring owners to stop construction or to restore the land. Property owners could not seek judicial review of these orders without taking other administrative steps like applying for permission from the Army Corps of Engineers to build on a wetland.

Wetlands have been accorded federal protection because of their role as natural incubators and as water-cleansing filters within larger ecosystems. The agency argued that compliance orders are crucial to its ability to step in and guard such areas from illegal development, and that immediate judicial review of these administrative actions would undermine the Clean Water Act.

But the couple bringing the case, Michael and Chantell Sackett, argued that they should be able to ask a court to rule immediately on an agency order that carries with it the threat of fines of $75,000 a day.

The Sacketts had sought a hearing with the E.P.A. but were denied one. They then sued for judicial review of the wetlands determination.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said, “There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review.”

The ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 10-1062, did not address the question of the E.P.A.’s jurisdiction, particularly over wetlands. This issue was addressed — but not clearly decided — in a 2006 case involving a Michigan developer, John Rapanos.

In a statement, the E.P.A. said, “E.P.A. will, of course, fully comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, which the agency is still reviewing, as we work to protect clean water for our families and future generations by using the tools provided by Congress to enforce the Clean Water Act.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called on Congress to end the ambiguity over the E.P.A.’s jurisdiction. “Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act,” he wrote.

The Sacketts were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian group in California. Their case drew support from groups including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

 

Scott again faces decision on vetoing environmental restoration projects

Bruce Ritchie, 03/21/2012 - 01:47 PM

A year after Gov. Rick Scott vetoed $10 million for environmental restoration projects, two senators are supporting about the same amount again -- and are hoping for a better outcome.

When he signed his first state budget as governor last year, Scott vetoed $10 million for St. Johns River restoration projects among $615 million in spending vetos. He didn't give a reason for vetoing the river projects but said Florida families were having to get by with less and so should state government.

The 2012-13 state budget passed by the Legislature has $19 million in water quality projects (Line 1683A) including $5.6 million for St. Johns River restoration, $3.5 million for a Hendry County airport utility system, and $2.3 million for a LaBelle sewage treatment plant. 

An additional $400,000 was appropriated for an economic analysis of the St. Johns River by the University of North Florida. Another $4.8 million is appropriated (Line 1863A) for restoration projects for Lake Apopka north of Orlando, one of Florida's largest lakes.

Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, said Tuesday that he wants to get Scott onto the river, but not to press him on the budget item.

"I think we're going to be OK on the budget -- that's my gut feeling," Thrasher said. "We want to get him out there as governor soon, to see what we consider a real treasure for our area."

The St. Johns River has algal blooms caused by nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater treatment plants, discharges from farms and dairy operations and dirty stormwater runoff. The St. Johns River Water Management District is considering a 2011 list of projects that could receive some of the $5.6 million, district officials said.

Asked what criteria he will use to veto environmental projects, Scott told reporters Tuesday, "What I will do with anything in the budget having to do with the environment -- I will look at it (and) get advice from the Department of Environmental Protection to make sure it is money well spent."

In December, Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla and chairman of the Senate Budget Subcommittee on General Government Appropriations, co-hosted the Lake Apopka Restoration Summit to review progress being made and discuss its future. 

Lake Apopka lost 20,000 acres of shoreline wetlands to farming beginning in the 1940s and received high-phosphorus discharges from those farms until the late 1990s. The district purchased the farmland in the late 1990s and created a marsh treatment flow-way in 2003.

Recalling how Lake Apopka was a prized fishing lake before its ecological collapse, Hays told The Florida Current that the $4.8 million will be used to identify new technologies that can accelerate the lake's restoration. The budget language requires the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to submit a list of projects to the Legislature before it receives the money.

"I think it is incumbent on those of us who care about the health of Lake Apopka and about the health of the St. Johns River to impress upon the governor why those projects are important to the long term health of the state of Florida," Hays said. "I don't stand to gain a single thing out of either one of those."

Reporter Travis Pillow contributed to this report.