Can't we all just get along....
WASHINGTON — A dispute over what should happen to 150,000 acres of the northern Everglades pitted environmentalists and sports enthusiasts against each other at a House subcommittee hearing Thursday.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hasn't said which 150,000 acres it wants for the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge. The agency says the proposal will improve the quality and quantity of water and protect wildlife. Those opposed to the plan worry about public access to the land.
"These areas need to be open. They need to be open to recreations," Jorge P. Gutierrez, president of the Everglades Coordinating Council, told the House Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs subcommittee.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would purchase easements to protect 100,000 acres from future development. The land would remain privately owned. The agency would buy 50,000 acres to create a refuge open to visitors for recreational activities, including hunting and boating.
Some witnesses worried about not being able to hunt and boat on the 100,000 acres that would remain under private ownership.
"Air boaters are unique individuals, and we don't really appreciate land being locked up," Bishop Wright Jr., president of the Florida Airboat Association, said. "There are no airboats for public use in refuges."
Mark J. Masaus, deputy regional director for Region 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said officials are meeting with hunters to hear their suggestions about the project.
Some committee members questioned how the proposal would be funded. The government plans to use money from offshore oil and gas revenues.
The project would take several years to complete and cost about $450,000 annually to maintain and operate.
Rep. John Fleming, R-La., the subcommittee chairman, said it would cost $700 million to buy the easements and land, a figure others said was merely an estimate.
"What the service fails to tell the American people is how many thousands of new jobs will be lost by locking up this land to no development in the future," Fleming said.
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.
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.