Peace may finally be at hand in the decades-long Everglades dirty-water war.

Eight months after Gov. Rick Scott flew to Washington to extend a political olive branch and personally pitch Florida’s latest plan for stopping the flow of polluted farm, ranch and yard runoff into the Everglades, state and federal negotiators are on the verge of an accord expected to be hailed by both sides as a major milestone.

A settlement crafted with the goal of resolving two protracted and paralyzing federal lawsuits — one goes back almost a quarter century, the other eight years — could be soon finalized, possibly within the month, according to officials on both sides of the confidential negotiations.

The agreement would commit Florida to a significantly expanded slate of Everglades restoration projects pegged at an estimated $890 million. Still, that’s a considerably smaller price tag than a $1.5 billion plan drawn up by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that a Miami federal judge has threatened to impose.

Most key technical issues — such as the size of additional artificial marshes used to scrub dirty, nutrient-laced storm runoff that has poisoned vast swaths of the Everglades — have been largely sorted out. But both sides cautioned the deal could still be delayed as negotiators work through the nuts and bolts of rolling out, implementing and enforcing a complex and likely controversial agreement.

Environmental groups and sugar growers have heard increasingly encouraging reports from negotiators over the past few months, though they have not been briefed on key details. But they agree the new cleanup blueprint that emerges will stand as a landmark in the costly, contentious legal and political battles to revive the struggling, shrunken River of Grass.

“It would be huge for everyone,’’ said Gaston Cantens, a vice president for Florida Crystals, one of the region’s largest sugar growers. “For a business, whenever you can have stability and certainty, then you can make long-term plans with confidence.’’

Environmentalists are reserving judgment, with some bracing for a deal they fear will be a compromise that might fall short of providing the Glades the pristine fresh water it needs and will push cleanup deadlines, already repeatedly delayed, back by years.

David Guest, an attorney for EarthJustice who represents several environmental groups in a 24-year-old lawsuit brought by the federal government that first forced Florida to deal with Glades pollution, said he has heard enough about the framework of the deal to know he’ll find plenty to question.

But even Guest acknowledges, “It’s absolutely going to be progress, there is no doubt about that.”

The South Florida Water Management District, which oversees restoration projects for the state, responded to questions with a statement, saying the state plan was “scientifically sound, economically feasible and would bring about long-term protection for America’s Everglades.’’

“We’ve had productive dialogue with our federal partners and have made significant progress toward an agreed-upon approach. However, there are some outstanding issues that are important to Florida.” For both the Obama and Scott administrations, finalizing a major Everglades deal would represent a political win and a rare example of bipartisan cooperation. It would be particularly notable for the governor, a tea party-backed, anti-regulation Republican healthcare executive who infuriated environmentalists in his first year in office by slashing environmental programs and gutting much of the state’s grown management oversight.

With the state facing the threat that U.S. District Judge Alan Gold would impose the $1.5 billion EPA cleanup plan on the state, Scott last October flew to Washington to pitch Florida’s alternative plan, meeting with high-ranking White House officials, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

He has continued campaigning since, in meetings and letters, including a Feb. 1 letter to President Barack Obama discussing encouraging settlement talks and stressing a message repeated in a state court brief filed this month requesting more time for negotiations: that the state’s time and taxpayer’s money would be better spent on projects than “pointless, expensive and time-consuming litigation.’’

In an April 5 response to Scott, EPA administrator Jackson echoed the upbeat tone, noting “we share a common desire to take advantage of the opportunity in front of us for quick, historic progress towards clean water for the Everglades.’’

Though four federal agencies initially found the state’s plan inadequate, the state has made a number of tweaks and additions during negotiations, officials said, adding some 8,400 more acres of treatment marshes — still far less than the 42,000 additional acres the EPA had proposed. In addition, the state plan calls for expanded water storage in a string of new “flow equalization basins’’ intended to keep the marshes more effective by limiting flooding or damaging dry-downs.

To save money, land swaps are being considered and water managers also intend to convert a massive reservoir that water managers halted two years and $272 million into construction in 2008 would be turned into one of new, shallower basins.

The nearly $900 million in projects would add to the $1.8 billion the state has already spent to construct a 45,000 acres of existing marshes, with an additional 11,000 acres scheduled to come online later this year. But that massive network hasn’t been enough to meet the super-low standards needed to protect the sensitive Glades ecosystem from phosphorous, a common fertilizer ingredient that drains off farms and yards with every rainstorm. It fuels the spread of cat tails and other exotics that crowd out native plants.

Though Scott has earned praise from some environmentalists, Guest, the EarthJustice attorney, isn’t among them, arguing the governor didn’t lead so much as he was pushed by courtroom defeats and mounting pressure from two federal judges.

Gold, in a 2004 suit brought by the Miccosukee Tribe and the environmental group Friends of the Everglades, has issued a series of rulings blasting the state and federal agencies for “glacial delay’’ and repeatedly failing to enforce water-pollution standards tough enough to protect the Everglades. In 2010, he ordered the EPA to draw up a cleanup plan that water managers said they couldn’t afford.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno, who oversees the original 1988 cleanup suit by the federal government, has expressed similar frustrations and urged both sides to come up with a viable plan.

Barbara Miedema, vice president of the Belle Glade-based Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative, said she expects it will still take a while to nail down the deal. With multiple federal and state agencies, more than a half-dozen environmental groups, the Miccosukee Tribe and two federal judges involved, there are numerous legal, practical and political hurdles to clear, she said.

“We hear they are close, but we have been hearing they are close for months,’’ she said. “A lot of signs say it’s likely. I’m not betting on it.’’

Pythons Swallow Whole Deer in Florida, $6 Million Tab

By Mike Di Paola - May 3, 2012 12:01 AM ET

The meandering trail in the Everglades marshlands was made by alligators, I’m told, so be careful. There’s also poisonwood, fire ants and the recently added Burmese python.

“It’s really a very harsh place to work,” says Kristen M. Hart, a research ecologist for the U.S. Geological Survey and a close follower of the python, which has invaded the Everglades in startling numbers.

Pythons Swallow Whole Deer in Florida, $6 Million Tab

South Florida Water Management District via Bloomberg

A Burmese python. Kristen M. Hart, a research ecologist for the U.S. Geological Survey, thinks there are tens of thousands of Burmese pythons in the Everglades, but says the number could be higher.

A Burmese python. Kristen M. Hart, a research ecologist for the U.S. Geological Survey, thinks there are tens of thousands of Burmese pythons in the Everglades, but says the number could be higher. Source: South Florida Water Management District via Bloomberg

Mike Di Paola/Bloomberg

Biologists use radio signals to track pythons in the Everglades. Eight tagged snakes are tracked almost daily, either on foot or from small planes.

Biologists use radio signals to track pythons in the Everglades. Eight tagged snakes are tracked almost daily, either on foot or from small planes. Photographer: Mike Di Paola/Bloomberg

Mike Di Paola/Bloomberg

Wildlife biologist Brian Smith tracks a Burmese python using radio signals in the Everglades. Researchers implant radio transmitters in snakes in order to track their movements in the Everglades and to record other biological data.

Wildlife biologist Brian Smith tracks a Burmese python using radio signals in the Everglades. Researchers implant radio transmitters in snakes in order to track their movements in the Everglades and to record other biological data. Photographer: Mike Di Paola/Bloomberg

Mike Di Paola/Bloomberg

An 8-foot female python slithers through the cattails in Everglades National Park. Pythons eat birds and small mammals and, like this one, blend seamlessly into the habitat.

An 8-foot female python slithers through the cattails in Everglades National Park. Pythons eat birds and small mammals and, like this one, blend seamlessly into the habitat. Photographer: Mike Di Paola/Bloomberg

Mike Di Paola/Bloomberg

Biologists slog through the wetlands on the trail of a Burmese python in the Everglades. Government agencies have spent at least $6 million in the past five years to develop a plan to control the growing python population in southern Florida.

Biologists slog through the wetlands on the trail of a Burmese python in the Everglades. Government agencies have spent at least $6 million in the past five years to develop a plan to control the growing python population in southern Florida. Photographer: Mike Di Paola/Bloomberg

“We don’t know how many there are,” Hart says, “and that’s ultimately the question everyone wants to know.”

She reckons tens of thousands in the Everglades, but allows the number could be higher: “I think there could be more here now than in their native range” of Southeast Asia.

I’m with Hart and other wildlife biologists tracking an 8- foot, 20-pound (2.4 meter, 9-kilo) female python that had been captured and implanted with radio transmitters a few weeks earlier.

There are many reasons why the python thrives in the Everglades, beyond the obvious fact that it eats just about anything, while almost nothing eats it.

Pythons prey on mammals, other reptiles, fish and birds. The invaders in Florida have consumed everything from the endangered Key Largo woodrat to the threatened American alligator.

Last October, a snake in the Everglades was found to have swallowed a 76-pound (34-kilo) deer. Another specimen was discovered with an adult alligator bursting from its insides -- a tooth-and-claw encounter neither animal survived.

‘Dramatic Declines’

In January, the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study showing “dramatic declines” of mammal populations in southern Florida -- raccoon, opossum, bobcat, deer and rabbit -- all believed to have become snake food.

It is not known how the Burmese python was introduced to the Everglades. Large pythons -- almost certainly escaped or discarded pets -- have been spotted here since the 1980s. By 2000, however, it was clear that the snakes were not escapees, but a growing, breeding population.

“People think this is a Florida thing,” says Ken Warren of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “But there have been reports of large constrictors found in Texas, Georgia and California, as well as the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. This is bigger than Florida.”

Federal agencies and local governments have spent more than $6 million since 2005 to figure out how to control the snakes. Eradicating them is not a realistic goal; managing them is imperative. To that end the biologists are gathering data.

‘Control Strategies’

“What we’re ultimately trying to do is understand the biology,” Hart says. “How do you exploit what you know to really knock them down? Where might the pregnant females be? What is their preferred diet? That’s the kind of information we need to design control strategies.”

Besides the python we’re tracking, there are seven other snakes implanted with transmitters, including a female weighing 140 pounds. Their movements are tracked almost daily, either on foot or from small planes.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are doing the legislative equivalent of closing the barn door after the horses have fled. Earlier this year, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee approved a bill to widen the ban on imported snakes to include the Burmese python and other large serpents.

Big Babies

Aside from their indiscriminate diet and unchallenged position in the food chain, Burmese pythons have other survival advantages. Hatchlings are big -- two to three feet long when they wriggle out of their eggs -- and so are not easy pickings for a potential predator. It is believed that females can reproduce without a male partner.

They are excellent swimmers, can survive for extended periods in salt water if they have to, and are barely visible in the Everglades habitat, so can sneak up on dinner with ease.

“I think she’s right between us,” the biologist next to me says. He points his antenna at my feet, which I can’t see in the murky water. Nor can I see the snake, until the slightest movement betrays her location, about a yard away.

Her head looks to be the size of my fist. Her colors aren’t brilliant but they are beautiful, a delicate patchwork of tawny lines that match the grasses all around us.

The biologists record the salient details: habitat, predominant flora, GPS coordinates, and so on. The snake doesn’t flee at our approach. For an invasive species, she looked very much at home.

(Mike Di Paola writes on preservation and the environment for Muse, the arts and culture section of Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

BY CURTIS MORGAN

CMORGAN@MIAMIHERALD.COM

Though the previous washed-out weekend might have suggested otherwise, South Florida’s rainy season has not yet begun — at least officially.

But when it does start sometime this month, expect it to be a bit wetter than normal, forecasters and water managers said Thursday.

South Florida’s wet season, which usually begins around May 20 and runs until mid-October, typically produces about 70 percent of the regional rainfall. Those five months help keep the Everglades healthy and water supplies recharged or — if the rains don’t show — produce droughts that kill crops and lawns.

Robert Molleda, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service’s Miami office, said a number of indicators, including the easing of the global La Niña weather pattern, point to a wetter season into June. The remaining months appear likely to be close to average.

With the region still showing lingering effects from an unusually dry fall and winter, a bit more rain would help, said Susan Sylvester, chief of water control operations for the South Florida Water Management District, which oversees the water supply for 7.7 million people from Orlando to Key West.

Above-average April rainfall, much of it delivered last weekend, helped Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties but only provided a bit of recharge for Lake Okeechobee, which serves as the region’s water barrel.

Overall, the 16-county district’s rainfall deficit since November is about 5.5 inches. Lake Okeechobee was at 11.63 feet above sea level Thursday, about two feet below its average mark for the date.

The typical wet season produces about 35 inches of rain but one tropical storm or hurricane can easily push the figure higher.

 

The “Deep Dredge” project, a critical and controversial key to PortMiami’s ambitious $2 billion expansion plan, is back on schedule after a legal settlement announced on Wednesday.

Environmentalists, who had argued that two years of blasting and digging in the port’s main channel would leave long-lasting scars in Biscayne Bay, agreed to drop an administrative challenge that threatened to delay the work for months or longer.

In exchange, Miami-Dade County has agreed to an additional $2.3 million in restoration and monitoring projects and other tweaks, such as a narrower daily blasting window, intended to enhance protection for corals, sea grass beds and other marine life.

“This is a win-win for the entire community,” Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez said in a release. “The agreement provides additional funding for important environmental projects while at the same time allowing for the timely completion of the dredge project.”

Laura Reynolds, executive director of the Tropical Audubon Society, said the settlement didn’t address all of environmentalists’ concerns but had “raised the bar’’ on protecting the bay’s surrounding, fish-rich waters.

“What we’ve been able to do is make the permit a lot stronger,” said Reynolds, whose organization joined with Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper and local fishing captain Dan Kipnis last November in filing a legal challenge to a Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit issued for the project.

The deal, expected to be approved by the Miami-Dade County Commission on May 1, clears the way for work to begin as early as this summer.

For port managers, keeping to that schedule is important. With a truck tunnel under Government Cut in the works and a new freight rail system also coming on line, the plan was to complete the dredging in 2014, putting Miami in position to lure a new class of mega-size cargo ships at the same time an overhaul is completed at the Panama Canal. Port Director Bill Johnson has projected the deeper channel could double the seaport’s container shipping business and spawn thousands of jobs in coming years.

The work — widening the port’s offshore entrance to the main channel by some 300 feet and deepening much of the port to 52 feet by scooping out about eight feet of rock, sand and rubble — would also consume some eight acres of sea grass beds and seven acres of reefs, including about five acres of previously undisturbed reef at the channel’s mouth.

Environmentalists had argued that the DEP and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers didn’t include enough “mitigation” to offset the loss of reefs and sea grass beds or set strict enough water quality standards to minimize silting damage to surrounding areas. They also warned that blasting during the two-year-long project could harm or kill marine life from snook to dolphin.

Port managers, backed by state and federal agencies, insisted most impacts will be minimal and short-lived, pointing out a smaller dredging project a few years ago that left no lingering scars to surrounding areas.

Under the terms of the settlement, reached after three days of mediation involving environmental groups, the county, the DEP and the Corps, the seaport will transfer $1.3 million into a Miami-Dade trust fund for environmental enhancement projects.

Eric Eikenberg, chief of staff to former Gov. Charlie Crist and a seasoned Republican strategist, has landed one of the state’s most influential environmental advocacy jobs.

The Everglades Foundation, a Palmetto Bay-based group whose membership boasts deep pockets and political clout, will announce Wednesday that Eikenberg will become its new chief executive.

Eikenberg has experience and connections in both Tallahassee and Washington and championed the Everglades restoration land deal Crist pitched in 2008 with the U.S. Sugar Corp., a controversial project strongly supported by the foundation and other environmental groups.

“Eric impressed us from the first moment we met,’’ foundation Chairman Paul Tudor Jones II said in a release. “He has a deep understanding of what it takes to achieve success both in Washington and Tallahassee and he has the leadership skills that will help the foundation continue to be at the forefront of Everglades restoration.’’

Eikenberg, 36, a Coral Springs native and graduate of Majory Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland who will leave his current job as a Tallahassee lobbyist, said he looked forward to leading an organization he called “the premier voice when it comes to Everglades restoration.’’

With a well-heeled, well-connected board led by Jones — a billionaire hedge fund manager and avid fly-fisher who owns an Islamorada home — the foundation has significantly raised its profile and influence in shaping Everglades policies in the past few years.

Under previous chief executive Kirk Fordham — also a former Republican political aide in Washington who resigned in March to lead Gill Action, a Colorado-based gay advocacy organization — the foundation’s budget grew from $3.9 million in 2008 to nearly $7 million this year.

The foundation boasts a team of scientists and last year added three full-time lobbyists in Tallahassee. It’s also a major contributor to other environmental groups in the state, last year giving a total of $1.3 million to 15 other organizations.

Eikenberg comes with a similar political pedigree to Fordham but with far more Tallahassee connections.

He spent two years as Crist’s top aide. He also ran the former governor’s ill-fated Senate campaign before resigning in May 2010 when Crist, facing a certain loss to Marco Rubio, quit the Republican Party to run as an independent.

Earlier, Eikenberg spent four years in Washington as chief of staff to U.S. Rep. E. Clay Shaw, a Fort Lauderdale Republican who was a strong supporter of the landmark $12.4 billion Everglades restoration effort. Since June 2010, Eikenberg has worked for the Holland & Knight law firm in Tallahassee, co-chairing a lobbying team with former Florida Gov. Bob Martinez.

In a foundation release, Martinez and Shaw praised the choice.

“Eric has the ability to work with anybody and find solutions to difficult problems,’’ said Shaw, who called him “the perfect fit.’’

Eikenberg, who will move to Miami with his wife, Tonya, and four children, said he was looking forward to “re-engaging’’ on Everglades issues.

“The mission is simple: Save the Everglades,’’ he said.

The Colorado River Aqueduct, a lifeline to Southern California.

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: April 23, 2012

SAN DIEGO — There are accusations of conspiracies, illegal secret meetings and double-dealing. Embarrassing documents and e-mails have been posted on an official Web site emblazoned with the words “Fact vs. Fiction.” Animosities have grown so deep that the players have resorted to exchanging lengthy, caustic letters, packed with charges of lying and distortion.

 And it is all about water.

Water is a perennial source of conflict and anxiety throughout the arid West, but it has a particular resonance here in the deserts of Southern California. This is a place where major thoroughfares are named after water engineers (Mulholland Drive in Los Angeles) and literary essays (“Holy Water” by Joan Didion, for instance) and films (“Chinatown”) have been devoted to its power and mystique.

Yet in the nearly 80 years since the Arizona National Guard was called out to defend state waters against dam-building Californians, there has been little to rival the feud now under way between San Diego’s water agency and the consortium of municipalities that provides water to 19 million customers in Southern California. This contentious and convoluted battle seems more akin to a tough political campaign than a fight between bureaucrats, albeit one with costly consequences.

At issue is San Diego’s longstanding contention that it has been bullied by a gang of its neighbors in the consortium, able by virtue of their number to force the county to pay exorbitant fees for water. The consortium two weeks ago imposed two back-to-back 5 percent annual water rate increases on San Diego — scaled down, after strong protests, from what were originally set to be back-to-back increases of 7.5 percent a year.

The battle is being fought in the courts — a judge in San Francisco is struggling to untangle a welter of conflicting claims from the two sides — but also on the Internet. San Diego officials have created a sleek Web site to carry their argument to the public, posting 500 pages of documents they obtained through public records requests to discredit the other side.

And they might have struck oil, as it were, unearthing documents and e-mails replete with references to the “anti-San Diego coalition” and “a Secret Society,” and no matter that the purported conspirators contend that they were just being jocular.

“There is a lot of frustration,” said Jerry Sanders, the mayor of San Diego, who has watched from the sidelines as the independent San Diego Water Authority waged its wars. “It’s been building over the years.”

Asked about the tactics, Mr. Sanders demurred. “Whether they are effective or not, I’ll leave that to other people to judge.”

If nothing else, the fight is an entertaining diversion from the kind of bland bureaucratic infighting that usually characterizes these kinds of disputes.

Dennis A. Cushman, the assistant general manager of the San Diego authority, said it posted the documents — and asked a judge to force the disclosure of a ream of other private e-mails and documents — so beleaguered water consumers “could see how the business of water in California is actually done.”

“We had suspicions about what was going on,” Mr. Cushman said. “We were shocked by the depth and scope and the level of sophistication of what was going on.”

“It’s not done in public,” he said. “It’s done out of public view. The meetings aren’t open. They are designed to expressly exclude the agency they are discriminating against.”

Jeffrey Kightlinger, the general manager of the regional water consortium, described the charges as “nonsense,” saying that the meetings that Mr. Cushman had deemed illegal did not fall under the state’s open meetings laws. He described the campaign against his organization — the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, also known by the acronym M.W.D. — as unlike anything he had seen.

“It sounds like a political campaign, and hiring political consultants to run it for them strikes me as a new level of activity I haven’t seen before in public service,” he said.

“It just seems to me to have a different tenor and tone than before,” he said. “The idea of bandying about secret-society issues, talking about ‘the truth about M.W.D.’ strikes me as unprofessional and does a disservice to the public.”

Kevin P. Hunt, the general manager of the water district of Orange County, said he was taken aback at the suggestion that some kind of plot was afoot. “It would be funny if it hadn’t created such a furor,” he said. “It was a bunch of guys and gals getting together to do their work. It’s all in the spin you put on it — calling it a ‘secret society’ and making it sound like a cabal. I didn’t even know what a cabal was.”

The case ultimately will be determined in a state court in San Francisco. At issue is how much the district should be charging San Diego to use the district’s pipes to transport water the county bought elsewhere. (San Diego officials have made a concerted effort to expand the sources of their water over the years — including a long-contested, substantial transfer of Colorado River water from inland farmers — so they are not as reliant on the district as they once were).

San Diego has four seats on the district’s 37-member board, and there is little incentive for other communities to entertain San Diego’s argument: When San Diego pays less, everyone else pays more.

Mr. Cushman said that the district had come to view San Diego as “its golden egg.”

Still, even supporters of San Diego’s actions suggest that all accusations may ultimately be little more than a sideshow.

“It just doesn’t feel right,” said Lani Lutar, the president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association. “They are already pursuing the lawsuit. Those are ratepayer dollars being spent and all of the advertising. Is that necessary? The lawsuit is going to resolve the matter. The P.R. stunt has taken it too far.”

San Diego is the eighth-largest city in the country, and this part of California gets 10 inches of rain a year, on average. And this city is at the end of two long water transport systems.

“We’ve always had end-of-pipeline paranoia,” said Lester Snow, the executive director of the California Water Foundation and a former head of both the San Diego and state water agencies. “It is often just physical — the pipeline crosses earthquake faults and anything that happens bad anywhere can affect us.”

The long history has left San Diego with what seems to be a permanent sense of grievance. But Mr. Snow said that this represented a new level of animosity. “The current dispute has gone way beyond a rate-increase dispute,” he said.

 

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

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.’’