Environmental Intersection by George Lindemann

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.

 

By JENNIFER KAY, Associated Press – 17 hours ago   

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, Fla. (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden has taken what he says was his first airboat ride, touring a swath of the Everglades while touting the benefits of a federally funded restoration project to restore the flow of water.

Biden boated past a bridge project west of Miami that will elevate a cross-Everglades highway that long dammed water flowing through Everglades National Park. Environmentalists say the project will improve wetlands habitat for alligators, wading birds and other wildlife.

The project was approved in 2000 but construction was only expedited after years of legal challenges using stimulus money under President Barack Obama's administration, park officials say.

Biden brought his granddaughter along on the airboat tour and also was joined by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, two Florida Democrats.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Fourteen states suffering under drought. Water use in Southwest heads for day of reckoning. Water-pollution laws violated more than 500,000 times in five years. Ruptures in aging water systems cause pollutants to seep into water supplies.

 The above reporting from The Times speaks to a growing reality: the United States faces a water crisis. In making the feature documentary “Last Call at the Oasis,” I found the flow of evidence bracing in its breadth and acceleration, but the underlying dynamics are not new: we use more water than the system can naturally replenish, and we abuse the supply we have. During, say, periods of drought, we might fitfully curtail our consumption habits, but when it comes to long-term management strategies requiring long-term sacrifices, we balk. Isn’t clean and abundant water a basic right? We just need to find more water!

While we can’t “make” more water, there is one solution to water shortage problems that addresses issues of both quality and supply. Without mining an ancient aquifer, draining a natural spring or piping in the pricey harvest from a greenhouse-gas-and-brine-generating desalination plant, there is a solution to provide a valuable source of extremely pure water: reclaim it from sewage. The stuff from our showers, sinks and, yes, our toilets.  In Israel, more than 80 percent of household wastewater is recycled, providing nearly half the water for irrigation. A new pilot plant near San Diego and a national “NEWater” program in Singapore show it’s practical to turn wastewater into water that’s clean enough to drink. Yet, in most of the world, we are resistant to do so.

Why?

We think we are rational beings, but we are not. We are emotional creatures, subject to obscuring feelings like fear and disgust. No one knows more about this than Paul Rozin, the subject of this piece, who has studied disgust for decades. His work shows us the fallacy in assuming that, given the facts, people will make logical choices. While recycled water may be a smart and clean way to manage our water supply, our primitive instincts are more programmed to fear the murky water hole than to worry about climate change, new contaminants and population growth. We should think green, but we can’t help thinking brown. Until we understand the very human, irrational component to our actions — or lack thereof — we’ll still be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 

The Academy Award-winning filmmaker Jessica Yu is the director of the forthcoming “Last Call at the Oasis,” a feature documentary on the water crisis for Participant Media.  Her nonfiction and scripted films include “Protagonist,” “Ping Pong Playa” and “In the Realms of the Unreal.”

 

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.