"Brevard County wetlands proposal offers test of revised state growth management laws"@flcurrent

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964 famously wrote of pornography, "I know it when I see it."

His statement exemplified the difficulty of defining pornography, much less regulating it against constitutional protections for free speech.

A similar question of definition is slowly unfolding in Florida as a result of growth management law changes approved by the Legislature in 2011.
HB 7207 reduced the state's role in overseeing local government growth policies and future land-use map changes. But the bill also called on state government to continue "protecting the functions of important state resources and facilities."

While environmentalists said the law would unleash urban sprawl and threaten natural resources, supporters said the state would focus its reviews on natural areas deserving of state protection.

Now a Brevard County proposal to revise its wetlands protection policies has begun to reveal how the state will define those important natural resources worthy of state protection.

Planners last year were left asking what areas the state would protect in addition to obvious environmental areas, such as The Everglades.

"(HB 7207) did not give a definition of what it (important state resources) was," said Merle Bishop, immediate past president of the Florida chapter of the American Planning Association and senior planner with Kimley-Horn Associates in Lakeland. "It was kind of like, 'We'll know when we see it.'"

Brevard County now has perhaps the most stringent wetland protection ordinances in the state, said Ernest Brown, director of the Brevard County Natural Resources Management Office.

The Brevard County Commission directed its staff to develop comprehensive plan language that brings the county to a "level playing field" with surrounding counties, Brown said. The proposed changes, he said, would allow development in wetlands along certain roadways for commercial and industrial properties and in some areas with agricultural zoning.

In reviewing the proposals, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection identified important state resources as federal national wildlife refuges, state aquatic preserves, the Indian River and portions of the upper St. Johns River Basin that have been identified as "Outstanding Florida Waters" requiring protection under state law.

DEP asked the county to either not adopt the changes or to provide maps to identify areas that could be affected and demonstrate that resulting changes would be minimal. The St. Johns River Water Management District and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission also filed comments.

Charles Pattison, executive director of the 1000 Friends of Florida environmental group, said the state for the first time is identifying areas where development deserves comment, but he also wondered whether the state will object if the county moves forward to approve

"Now the question is are they going to do enough to say, 'It's an important state resource, are you (Brevard County) doing enough to protect it?' And are we OK with it?'" he said.

There remain questions about which less obvious state resources deserve protection and how the state defines those, said Bishop, who was the American Planning Association chapter president until this past week.

"Is it things that impact the Peace River? Probably," Bishop said. "But what about somebody's little stream or small wetland in their backyard?"

Brevard County has revised the proposal to include maps showing specific areas along roadways where protection policies will be relaxed and other areas where higher quality wetlands will remain protected, Brown said. The Brevard County Planning Commission will consider the revised proposal on Monday and the Brevard County Commission will consider final adoption on Oct. 9.

1000 Friends of Florida was still reviewing the revised proposal on Friday, Pattison said. Mary Sphar, a Sierra Club member from Cocoa, said she thinks the revised proposal is worse than the earlier proposal because it allows higher-quality wetlands to be developed if a project is found to be in the public interest for economic reasons.

Brown said Brevard County is attempting to promote "flexible and balanced stewardship" of its resources. He said he agrees the case is important in defining what important resources are protected by the state.

"I think we have achieved a pretty decent middle ground," he said. "I think it was healthy the state weighed in. They helped us further refine the proposed outcome."

-Bruce Ritchie

"Letter: South Florida Water Management District staying ahead of region's needs" in @TCPalm.com

By Melissa L. Meeker, West Palm Beach

Effective strategies used in the early and mid-2000s by the South Florida Water Management District to acquire land for water resource and restoration purposes have come under recent criticism.

For anyone who lived in Florida a decade ago, it's not hard to remember the fast-paced real estate market during that time. As development increased and property values escalated, it made sense for the district to set aside lands ahead of the design and construction of projects associated with long-term restoration programs.

The SFWMD land acquisition program accomplished its goals. From 2000 to 2008, the district put close to 165,000 acres into public ownership for Kissimmee River Restoration, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and other water resource purposes.

The $1.6 billion invested in land during those years has brought tangible results. In the restored Kissimmee, for example, we have vastly expanded the river's flood plain, holding more water north of Lake Okeechobee and thereby reducing harmful discharges to coastal estuaries. For the new suite of projects that will send cleaner water to the Everglades, timely implementation would not be possible without needed tracts of land already in public ownership.

With the years of intensive land buying behind us, we are concentrating on strategic acquisitions and putting publicly owned acreage to its best use. Whether constructing on-site projects, exchanging for lands in more critical locations or leveraging our real estate assets, we are focused on targeting resources where they are needed most and implementing restoration work.

The district's policymaking, land acquisitions and surpassing activities have always been carried out under Governing Board direction in accordance with state statutes and as part of an open and public process.

For the past year, we have been reviewing and improving the agency's business, administration and operational practices districtwide. My ongoing goal is to ensure the agency is operating prudently, effectively and efficiently in the best interest of South Florida's water resources and its taxpayers.

Melissa L. Meeker is executive director of the South Florida Water Management District.

 

"Don’t abandon the environment" in @miamiherald Opinion Section

Miami-Dade County’s Department of Environmental Resource Management — vital to the region’s natural resources, but reviled by some residents who consider it heavy-handed — already is a shadow of its former self. Now it looks like the county commission is poised to finish it off in the name of streamlining the county’s construction-permitting process and economic development.

That would be a mistake, putting the long-term environmental well-being of this community in danger. Environmental protection is not antithetical to either of those goals, and commissioners should seek balance when the issue comes up for discussion, scheduled for their Tuesday meeting.

County Mayor Carlos Gimenez last year combined the functions of the environmental, planning and zoning departments. It was part of his campaign promise to streamline county operations at a savings to tax-stressed residents. His idea of a “one-stop shop” for permitting functions makes a lot of sense. As he said: “You have to jump through 17 hoops for somebody to replace a sea wall.”

Now, in his pursuit of another overhaul, he and the commission must make sure that taxpayers ultimately don’t bear the high costs of a tainted, damaged environment. In many ways, it’s our bread and butter, drawing tourists, providing recreation and, yes, creating economic development. Compare the parks and condos that have come to line Biscayne Bay decades after it was cleaned of icky things that repelled rather than attracted water activities.

More important, this community is sitting on top of its water supply, a fragile resource that is under threat of contamination, along with the Everglades, which must be protected from further degradation.

Mr. Gimenez’s vision is to fold what remains of DERM into a new Regulatory and Economic Resources Department. DERM was responsible for enforcing a broad range of county, state and federal laws. But notice how “environment” is not even in the new department’s name. That’s worrisome, despite the mayor’s protestations that the environment — the air we breath, the water we drink, the landscapes and vistas we enjoy — remains a priority.

Apparently taking their cues from the state, which foolishly took a sledgehammer to its growth-management laws, some commissioners, too, seem ready to dismantle the policies that have stood between smart growth and a development free-for-all. One proposal would let small farmers fill wetlands without permits. This means that residents who have staked a claim in the 81/2-Square-Mile Area in west Miami-Dade could build in areas that, along with underground aquifers, provide the water the community relies on. Of course, these residents have waged a pitched battle with DERM — vilifying its inspectors and its fines — for almost two decades. But allowing building in designated wetlands would be a short-sighted sop to a very small group of disgruntled people, to the detriment of the rest of us.

Mr. Gimenez, however, is right to want to streamline the county’s construction-permitting process. It has been an impediment to getting businesses up and running and letting homeowners make necessary repairs and move on.

Still, replacing a sea wall remains a lot easier than replacing coral reefs and drinking water and wetlands. It was DERM’s responsibility to protect them all. And the mayor and commission must ensure that this responsibility does not disappear when the department does.

FL Supreme @FLCourts Sides w/ @FL_Audubon+@SFWMD on Wetlands Mitigation Case #Eco #Everglades @AllEverglades

Florida Supreme Court Sides With Audubon on Wetlands Mitigation Case

Posted on November 4, 2011 by Florida Audubon

The Supreme Court of Florida last Thursday ruled in favor of the position advocated by Audubon of Florida that continues to support state agencies’ ability to negotiate terms of development permits to ensure they protect the environment.

Coy A. Koontz applied for a permit with the St. Johns Water Management District (District) to develop 3.7 acres of his property that was comprised mostly of wetlands. The District offered to grant the permit to Mr. Koontz only if he complied with certain conditions to conserve property and mitigate the loss of wetlands by improving other wetlands off site.

Wetlands by Chad Johnson

Mr. Koontz refused to comply with the District’s conditions and his permit was not granted.  Subsequently, he sued the District, claiming the District had “taken” his property during the time the negotiations continued without a resolution. The Supreme Court reversed a previous decision that ordered the District to pay Mr. Koontz over $300,000.

Audubon filed a brief supporting the District and requiring that the fine be reversed- this reversal was unanimously supported by the Supreme Court Justices (although they reached the same conclusion for a number of different reasons.)

Audubon’s support for the District’s case stemmed from recognizing the importance of allowing water management districts and other state agencies to negotiate terms before issuing a permit without fear that they could face financial repercussions if an agreement is not reached quickly enough.

Audubon applauded the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that gives agencies greater power to require specific protections when wetlands are developed, as they did with Mr. Koontz.  This decision will prevent the agencies from being pressured into issuing permits hastily that could harm Florida’s wetlands and environment.

Audubon’s intervention in this case was facilitated by the late Thom Rumberger, and the firm of Rumberger Kirk and Caldwell, who have done much very important legal work for Audubon. Tallahassee attorney Anna Upton also was instrumental in the preparation of Audubon’s brief before the Supreme Court.