Environmental Intersection by George Lindemann

Re the March 7 editorial, Hands off our water: I would like to address a few key points regarding discussions with our partners to find a new site for the Miami-Dade County Fair & Exposition, which currently is located on land adjacent to our Modesto A. Maidique Campus.

Particularly, I’d like to emphasize that FIU has never proposed to move the Urban Development Boundary or pursue incompatible land use outside of it. This university has always been committed to protecting the natural resources of our region. Indeed, our faculty is made up of some of the foremost experts on Everglades restoration and protection. Our sole purpose has been to find an available and agreeable site for relocation of the fair, so that FIU may grow into the 86 acres the fair currently occupies, just south   of FIU’s campus. The Bird Drive Basin site also presents an opportunity to establish a new legacy park for area residents on the rest of the property.

The Bird Drive Basin property, located about six miles west of campus, was originally acquired by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for the purpose of water management and conservation. As we explored — together with county and fair officials — 16 possible new locations for the fair, we learned that the SFWMD had placed the Bird Drive Basin property on the surplus land list. In November 2011, we began discussions with them about the possibility of relocating the fair to a section of that property.

We look forward to ongoing talks with Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez, county commissioners, state legislators and fair officials as well as a public process to find a win-win resolution that will allow this community’s only public research university to grow, prosper and provide access while preserving the fair and protecting our precious natural resources.

Mark B. Rosenberg,

president, FIU

 

 

An unusual legislative maneuver intended to push the accelerator on PortMiami’s Deep Dredge project, which has been indefinitely stalled pending an environmental review, could quickly encounter a speed bump.

The measure would force such reviews to be held within 30 days — but environmentalists question whether it will hold up in court. James Porter, a Miami attorney representing environmentalists challenging a state permit for the controversial $150 million dredging project, called the effort to rewrite rules and then apply them retroactively “extremely uncommon.”

The measure, attached to an important transportation bill, was expected to pass in the last hours of the session Friday. It would go into effect once signed by Gov. Rick Scott, potentially forcing an administrative challenge now set for August to be moved months earlier.

“From my perspective, this is highly prejudicial,” said Porter, whose clients include Audubon Society, Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper and Miami Beach fishing captain Dan Kipnis.

One of the measure’s supporters, House Majority Leader Carlos Lopez-Cantera, R-Miami, said he was not concerned about potential legal challenges, which he dismissed as “another stall tactic” from environmentalists. “The language doesn’t stop them from having the ability to be heard,” Lopez-Cantera said. “It just speeds up the process.”

Lopez-Cantera said he was confident the measure, which he said was drafted by Miami-Dade County attorneys and reviewed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, would hold up. The measure doesn’t specifically mention PortMiami but it was written to force a quicker administrative hearing.

Porter called the accusations of foot-dragging “hogwash.” The groups were unable to formally appeal the permit to allow the dredging until a draft version was issued in November. He said the request was filed within a 14-day window.

Timing of the dredging is important for port managers. With a tunnel under Government Cut to give trucks better access and a new freight rail system coming on line, the plan was to complete the dredging in 2014. That would open up Miami for a new class of mega-sized cargo ships at the same time when the Panama Canal, which is also undergoing an overhaul, will also be able to handle such cargo.

The project is a priority for both Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez and the governor. In his first months in office. Scott took the unusual step of pledging to cover the $75 million federal share in the project, with hopes that Congress will pay the state back.

Environmentalists contend the state and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers haven’t set strict enough water quality standards to minimize silting damage surrounding sea grass beds and reefs and warn that weeks of blasting to deepen the channel could harm marine life. Port managers, as well as state and federal agencies overseeing the job, insist most impacts will be short-lived and minimal, pointing out a smaller dredging project a few years ago that left no lingering scars to surrounding areas.

Port Director Bill Johnson, who calls the dredging critical to an ambitious $2 billion port overhaul, said the plan had already been exhaustively and repeatedly reviewed. Port managers weren’t being the “bad guys,” he said, but trying to ensure the success of a project that could help produce thousands of new jobs.

“This is not something that has just been pulled out of the rabbit’s hat,” he said. “Thirteen years this project has been around. Let’s be honest, this is nothing new.”

But Kipnis, a charter captain and activist, said the preliminary permit Florida environmental regulators issued includes variances that will allow contractors to produce “mixing zones” that are five times larger and more turbid than typically allowed. Kipnis called the maneuver a blatant power play. “This is like old time Chicago politics.”

Florida International University came up short Thursday in its legislative push for a controversial deal that would have given the school 350 acres of wetlands bordering the Everglades.

An amendment to a water management bill that would have given FIU control of the state-owned tracts in West Miami-Dade was killed at the request of the governor’s office, said House Majority Leader Carlos Lopez-Cantera, R-Miami.

FIU had hoped to use the land in a land swap that potentially would have moved the Miami-Dade County Fair & Exposition to the wetlands site so the university could expand into existing fairgrounds land next door.

But Lopez-Cantera said the school could still secure the wetlands — purchased more than a decade ago for $3.7 million for a now-scrapped Everglades project — through on-going negotiations with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

He said aides to Gov. Rick Scott have said “they would work with FIU to help them achieve their goal.”

In a letter to lawmakers this week, Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez objected to moving the fairgrounds to the site because it sits beyond the county’s urban development boundary, or UDB.

Environmentalists were pleased with the removal of the amendment. They broadly support the remainder of Senate Bill 1986, because it reverses budgets cuts ordered to the state’s water management districts last year.

Laura Reynolds, executive director of Tropical Audubon, was hopeful that FIU and the county would seek a new fairground site inside the UDB.

“We’re not against the FIU expansion. We’re not against the movement of the fair,” she said. “We’re against filling wetlands, particularly in that area.’’

The dredging project will have to proceed with all deliberate speed if the Port of Miami is to be ready to receive super-sized cargo ships coming through the Panama Canal. But the economic benefits expected to come to this region, and the state, should not come at the expense of another economic powerhouse for this community — Biscayne Bay.

The dredging, no doubt, will have an impact on the bay. Local groups of environmentalists and waterfront residents want a clearer idea of the extent from the Army Corps of Engineers and the state Department of Environmental Protection of whether the blasting and digging will harm sealife and water quality. The Corps’ past record of dredging the bay bodes well for contained and safe blasting. Still, it seems as if some elected officials are working to thwart the administrative-hearing process to fast-track the dredging.

The state House already has passed a bill that would impose a 30-day deadline for such groups to secure a hearing. The Senate should reject its version. It puts an unfair onus on groups seeking due process to line up expert witnesses and gather relevant data, while the government’s side likely has the information to make its case at its fingertips.

Already, the local groups have secured two mediation hearings, with an administrative hearing set for August. They’ve done it the right way, and state lawmakers and port officials should respect that.

Florida may be the Sunshine State but it’s the drinking water in our underground aquifers and wetlands as big as the Everglades — serving as bird and wildlife habitat and helping cleanse rainwater back into aquifers, rivers and lakes — that has enabled millions of people to move to this paradise we call home.

As the Legislature moves at warp speed to end its 60-day session by Friday, three issues crucial to South Florida’s ability to grow responsibly and prosper with sufficient clean water are in play. Legislators should restore funding to water management districts, keep their hands off Miami-Dade County’s urban development boundary and provide land for expansion of Florida International University’s medical school at the current fairgrounds in southwest Miami-Dade without putting into jeopardy environmentally sensitive land now being eyed for new fairgrounds.

Fund water districts

After decades of new developments putting pressure on Florida’s water supply, wise state leaders in the 1970s, led by then-Gov. Reubin Askew, created land planning agencies and five regional water districts based not on political power plays but on the state’s natural watershed areas. In 1976, Florida voters approved giving district boards, appointed by the governor, the authority to raise taxes to buy land and manage the water supply in their area. The districts have been instrumental in ensuring there’s enough water before any new massive developments can pop up, and that floodwaters get directed away from existing homes and businesses.

Then last year the Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott — in the name of “economic development” — stripped the state Department of Community Affairs of most growth planning duties, decimated Everglades restoration projects and gutted regional water districts’ budgets by lowering their tax rates, crippling budgets statewide by $703 million. That sent almost 600 of Florida’s top scientists, engineers, flood managers and planning experts packing. All that pain, and the typical taxpaying property owner saved $20 to $40 a year.

Now there’s a chance to restore the five districts’ tax rate cap, but SB 1986 carries meddling strings that would require water districts to get their budgets, at all stages, approved by the Legislative Budget Commission. Such legislative interference not only diffuses accountability away from the governor’s office, where the buck should stop, but injects another political layer on water use decisions that should be based on science, not on what pricey lobbyists say is right.

Restoring funding is a desperately needed first step in getting water resources back on track. A second step would restore water districts’ ability to pay for projects through the sale of bonds. But budget leaders should butt out of micromanaging water policy.

FIU expansion

An amendment that would force a land swap to help FIU’s medical school expand to land around the current fairgrounds south of the campus sets up a conservation nightmare. The problem isn’t the expansion, but the swap that would turn over 350 acres of wetlands in the Bird Drive Everglades Basin for a new fairgrounds far west. That land was bought by the state to protect wetlands and water recharge areas and prevent flooding. As Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez points out, fast-tracking is not advisable. That land is not the right fit for parking lots and buildings.

Miami-Dade UDB

At least a move by Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, to require only a majority vote by local governments to change long-term growth plans has died. For now. The change would have meant that Miami-Dade’s urban development boundary — which protects taxpayers from willy-nilly growth in the county’s far western fringe near the Everglades — could be changed by a simple majority instead of a super majority commission vote as Miami-Dade now requires.

Stop meddling with local control, legislators.

Opposition from Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez appears to have killed a complicated land swap proposed by Florida International University — at least the most controversial part of the deal, aimed at moving the county fairgrounds onto wetlands bordering the Everglades.

In a letter sent Monday to state lawmakers, Gimenez said he objected to pushing the Miami-Dade County Fair & Exposition from its long-time home abutting FIU’s main campus to a site outside the county’s sprawl-controlling urban development boundary (UDB.)

He repeated the message during an interview with The Miami Herald editorial board. While the county has been working to help “land-locked’’ FIU find ways to expand its main campus and new medical school in West Miami-Dade, he said, “I don’t support moving the county fairgrounds outside the UDB.’’

Laura Reynolds, executive director of The Tropical Audubon Society, one of several environmental groups that campaigned against moving the fair to a mucky, frequently flooded area favored by wading birds, praised the mayor’s stance as “great news.’’

But another part of the proposal may still have life in it. In the waning days of the legislative session, FIU lobbyists and Miami-Dade lawmakers continue to push an amendment to secure a 350-acre tract bought by the state more than a decade ago for $3.7 million for a since-scrapped Everglades restoration project. The university’s original plan was to give Miami-Dade the wetlands tract as a site for a new fairground and park. In exchange, FIU hoped to take over the existing 87-acre fairgrounds.

But even if the Legislature does sign off on the free, 99-year lease FIU seeks, the idea of moving the state’s largest county fair to land originally purchased for conservation now appears dead at the county level.

Doris Howe, a spokeswoman for the county’s Parks and Recreation Department, which had been working for 18 months with FIU and the fair’s board of directors to find potential new locations, said the mayor’s letter to lawmakers about the wetlands west of the UDB had “made it really clear that it’s not under consideration to become a fairgrounds.”

“Without question, we’re going to abide by what our chief executive says,’’ Howe said.

FIU administrators did not respond to repeated interview requests. But Sandra Gonzalez-Levy, an FIU senior vice president, issued a brief statement Tuesday saying FIU was continuing to work with the county and fair to explore options “that could support our growth plan and need for additional land contiguous to FIU’s Modesto A. Maidique Campus. Moving the fair would make the current fairgrounds available to FIU.”

FIU had pitched its proposal as a win-win that would help a university with a fast-growing medical school that has run out of real estate while also preserving undeveloped land near the Everglades.

The school, along with parks managers and the nonprofit company that runs the fair, scouted 16 sites in Northwest Miami-Dade for potential new locations of up to 250 acres, most needed for parking up to 18,000 cars. The top choice was a chunk of wetlands along Tamiami Trail a few miles east of Krome Avenue that the South Florida Water Management District was considering selling as “surplus.”

By ANN ZIMMERMAN

Fresh-fallen snow may get all the credit, but many ski resorts can't keep their runs open without water that is piped in, often from miles away. Control of that water is the source of a battle between resort operators and the U.S. Forest Service.

Federal officials have until Monday to respond to a lawsuit by a trade group for the owners and operators of ski destinations, challenging a new directive that requires resorts operating on Forest Service lands to transfer water rights to the federal government.

 

The Vail Daily/Associated Press

A skier hits the powder on Vail Mountain in Colorado in February. A new federal policy on water rights affects such resorts on Forest Service land.

The group's suit, filed in U.S. district court in Colorado in January, alleges the change is an "uncompensated taking of private property" by the federal government. Ski-area owners contend it will diminish the value of the water rights they obtained "at great expense," according to the suit, and prevents them from selling those rights to anyone but another ski operation. The Forest Service says the new directive will guarantee the water will always remain with the mountain.

Ski resorts require considerable quantities of water for snow-making, as well as sanitation and cooking for guests, and they frequently gain access to extra water by securing water rights from private landowners or from the federal government, in accordance with state laws. The ski companies use tunnels, pipelines and reservoirs they build at considerable expense to transport the water—the amount, source and cost of which vary widely.

The ski-resort operators argue the regulation covers water rights they have purchased from both federal and private lands. But the Forest Service insists it only pertains to water rights obtained from federal lands, and the agency said it plans to change the directive's language to make that clear. Even so, the ski operators say they still wouldn't be satisfied.

The suit marks the latest turn in a decades-long push and pull between ski operators and the federal government over water rights. Such water fights are becoming increasingly common in many parts of the U.S., especially the Rocky Mountain states, where population growth is putting new strains on resources, and land ownership laws don't always automatically include the rights to the water there.

 

Associated Press

Ski resorts require considerable quantities of water for snow-making, as well as sanitation and cooking for guests.

The new federal policy on water rights, part of the permit a resort must secure if it operates on a mountain owned by the Forest Service, has alarmed the National Ski Areas Association, which estimates it affects 121 resorts in 13 states.

The ski association and its members are concerned that they wouldn't get fair market value for the water rights if there was only one type of buyer, rather than allowing numerous bidders. "We had no choice but to defend ourselves and our property by filing suit," said Geraldine Link, the group's director of public policy.

Officials with the Forest Service, part of the Department of Agriculture, said the aim of the revamped clause is to make clear that resorts cannot sell the water rights and leave towns and mountains high and dry.

"The issue becomes, what if the water becomes so valuable that the resort owner sells it off for a different use, and the communities dependent on the ski areas are no longer viable," said Jim Peña, associate deputy chief for the Forest Service. Resort owners say that situation hasn't happened, a point Mr. Peña conceded. "It is a Draconian solution to a hypothetical problem," said Ezekiel Williams, an attorney for the ski-resort trade group.

Mark Squillace, a law professor and director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado, said the resorts' claim that the government was taking their property "seems overwrought," given that the law ultimately gives the government the right to do what is deemed in the public's best interest. But he said "they may have a legitimate argument" in another claim in the suit, which also argues that the government didn't give the resorts sufficient notice of the change and an opportunity to comment.

Tensions have been brewing over ski-area water rights since the late 1980s, when legislation governing the ski-resort permits on Forest Service land gave the federal government ownership of water rights on federal land. That changed in 2004, when ownership of most of the water rights moved to the resorts.

Last fall, after news of the impending permit clause became public, the ski association and several congressmen asked the Forest Service to study the issue further and get public comment. The agency declined and began enforcing the directive in November.

Ski groups noted that under the new clause, the federal government would be permitted to sell off the same water it is worried the resorts will auction to the highest bidder. The Forest Service's Mr. Peña said his department plans to strengthen the language to make clear it doesn't intend to sell the rights or repurpose them for any use but skiing.

Write to Ann Zimmerman at ann.zimmerman@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared Mar. 7, 2012, on page A3 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Water Fight Hits the Slopes.

An Everglades National Park helicopter flies over a river of sawgrass shooting special firestarting balls in an area east of Shark Valley Road in the northern section of the park to create a controlled burn. The fire was planned for two years and had to meet exact wind, temperature and moisture content levels to be started. The fire was set at about 11 a.m. Monday, March 5, 2012. 

TIM CHAPMAN / MIAMI HERALD STAFF

 Smoke may be visible Monday from Everglades National Park, where a controlled fire burn will be lit in the eastern district of the park.

The process begins at 10 a.m. when the park’s fire and aviation division will burn a 31,000-acre area south of US 41/Tamiami Trail into park lands and west of the Shark Valley park entrance and Visitor Center, and then east of the L-67 canal.

The fire is meant to burn off fuel in the area referred to as River of Grass.

This is not the first time there has been a controlled fire in this area. In November 2011, park firefighters burned a large portion of the same area when water levels were high and help was needed with the heavy fuel loading in the area.

Controlled burns are an important part of resource management at Everglades National Park. Information on the fire management program at the park can be found on the park website http://www.nps.gov/ever/parkmgmt/firemanagement.htm.For information on the burn, call Everglades Fire Dispatch at 305-242-7850.

 

A short-lived legislative attempt that would have made it easier to move Miami-Dade County’s urban development boundary died Monday morning in the Florida Senate.

The Senate’s rules chairman found that the proposal by Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, a Fort Lauderdale Republican, was out of order because it was not directly related to the legislation she was trying to amend.

Bogdanoff’s amendment would have required a simple majority of the commission to approve any change to the county’s comprehensive development — including any shift to the UDB. Bogdanoff proposed on Friday to add the language to a short bill, HB 4003, repealing an unfunded urban infill grant program.

Bogdanoff’s amendment was not germane to that bill, ruled Sen. John Thrasher, a St. Augustine Republican, saying it “introduces a new, unrelated subject that is not natural and logical.”

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez sent lawmakers a letter Friday opposing Bogdanoff’s effort as an attempt to undermine the county’s unique local powers.

Last week, the mayor proposed requiring an extraordinary supermajority — three-fourths, or 10 of 13 commissioners — to sign off on any changes to the invisible boundary that limits development bordering the Everglades.

The county currently requires a two-thirds majority — nine of 13 commissioners — to approve any change to the UDB.

When she presented her amendment Friday, Bogdanoff argued the few counties and cities that impose supermajority requirements on development trample on property owners’ rights.

A short-lived legislative attempt that would have made it easier to move Miami-Dade County’s urban development boundary died Monday morning in the Florida Senate.

The Senate’s rules chairman found that the proposal by Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, a Fort Lauderdale Republican, was out of order because it was not directly related to the legislation she was trying to amend.

Bogdanoff’s amendment would have required a simple majority of the commission to approve any change to the county’s comprehensive development — including any shift to the UDB. Bogdanoff proposed on Friday to add the language to a short bill, HB 4003, repealing an unfunded urban infill grant program.

Bogdanoff’s amendment was not germane to that bill, ruled Sen. John Thrasher, a St. Augustine Republican, saying it “introduces a new, unrelated subject that is not natural and logical.”

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez sent lawmakers a letter Friday opposing Bogdanoff’s effort as an attempt to undermine the county’s unique local powers.

Last week, the mayor proposed requiring an extraordinary supermajority — three-fourths, or 10 of 13 commissioners — to sign off on any changes to the invisible boundary that limits development bordering the Everglades.

The county currently requires a two-thirds majority — nine of 13 commissioners — to approve any change to the UDB.

When she presented her amendment Friday, Bogdanoff argued the few counties and cities that impose supermajority requirements on development trample on property owners’ rights.