Environmental Intersection by George Lindemann

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.

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.

By NATHAN KOPPEL

AUSTIN, Texas—The state's persistent drought has claimed its latest victims: rice farmers.

Because of low water levels in several lakes that serve as reservoirs here, officials said Friday that they wouldn't release irrigation water to farmers in three counties downstream that produce much of the rice in the state.

Associated Press

Ronald Gertson stands beside one of his John Deere tractors last month at his rice farm in Lissie, Texas.

The rice industry contributes about $394 million annually to the economy of the state, which produces about 5% of the nation's rice. The three counties—Colorado, Wharton and Matagorda—lie west of humid Houston and usually get enough rain to make rice farming practicable.

This is the first time in its 78-year history that the Lower Colorado River Authority, which is based here, has cut off water to farmers. The agency waited until the last possible moment—a minute before midnight on Thursday—to make its decision, hoping that water levels would rise enough to avert a cutoff.

The irrigation ban is not expected to affect the shelf price of rice, but it has forced some farmers to lay off employees and consider diversifying into other crops.

"This is my livelihood at stake," said Ronald Gertson, a Texas rice farmer who projected he would produce only about 40% of his typical rice crop this year.

"It sticks in the craw" of farmers, Mr. Gertson said, that the authority will continue to release water to golf courses and other recreational customers that pay higher rates for a guaranteed water supply.

In a statement, the agency said that farmers "pay considerably less for water than cities and industry. And therefore, their water is considered 'interruptible' during a severe drought."

Texans in the rice business said they could probably stay afloat this year, thanks in part to crop insurance, but they worried about another year of interrupted irrigation water.

"If this happens again, we'll be in much more trouble," said Dick Ottis, the president of the Rice Belt Warehouse in El Campo, Texas, which stores and dries rice. The warehouse plans to store more corn, wheat and other commodities this year, he said, but those crops do not produce the profit margins rice does.

"I have already let go about 20% of our employees, because I knew this day was coming about," Mr. Ottis said, adding that his family had been involved in rice farming for almost 100 years and had lived through droughts, but none this bad.

It always seemed like the good Lord would bless us with more rain," he said.

But there appears to be little relief in sight from the drought that still afflicts 85% of Texas. Temperatures are expected to be above normal this summer, said John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist.

Rainfall levels are harder to predict, he said, but "we are in a dry stretch now, which will be worrisome if it continues. It reminds me of last year."

The water agency said it plans to find new supplies of water to avoid a repeat of this year's problems.

Farmers agree. "The development of new reservoirs is imperative," said Daniel Berglund, a 49-year-old rice farmer in Markham, Texas, who said he woke up at 1:15 a.m. Friday and checked to see whether the lakes, against all odds, had risen high enough to allow irrigation water to be released.

"Consumers only see grocery shelves stacked with food, floor to ceiling," he said. "This is an example of the risks we take as farmers. When you lose irrigation water, it stops everything," he said.

Write to Nathan Koppel at nathan.koppel@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared Mar. 3, 2012, on page A3 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Texas Rice Farmers Lose Their Water.

Giving directions to Laurie Miller’s home just got easier, courtesy of the city of Miami Beach.

“Make a right on 29th Street, go for one block, and I’m the house with a fire hydrant in the middle of the lawn,” she told a reporter.

On Feb. 23, Miller, 70, received a present from the city: a bright yellow fire hydrant smack dab in her well-manicured lawn between pruned, flowering bushes and palm trees.

She said she came outside about 8 p.m. and found a crew installing new water pipes and improving storm drainage in her Central Bayshore neighborhood had also plopped a hydrant about 14 feet into her roughly 40-by-60-foot yard.

The crew was working in the dark — running late, they said — but that wasn’t the problem.

When she asked what possessed the city to place the hydrant there, Miller, who lives in her home of 42 years with her husband, says she was told that it was what the city’s plans called for — even if planners now agree common sense called for it to go somewhere else.

Engineering documents provided by the city’s Capital Improvement Projects office show that Miller’s yard is only about half her property because the public right-of-way stretches deep into her lawn. As a result, the hydrant is technically on public land.

But while dogs in the neighborhood might be excited about Miller’s new lawn ornament, she just wants it removed, or at least moved to the edge of the lot.

“It’s a joke,” she said.

Miller may laugh about it soon.

City spokeswoman Maria Palacios said Miller won’t have to throw a Marlins cap and T-shirt on her hydrant to pass it off as a grandson. Due to Miller’s repeated complaints, the city plans to move the hydrant as close to the road as possible on Friday.

“I’ll believe it when I see it,” Miller said Thursday.

As for why the hydrant wasn’t placed further out in the first place, Palacios said: “That’s something we will pose to our contractors.”

BY STEVE ROTHAUS, srothaus@MiamiHerald.com

Kirk Fordham, CEO of the Everglades Foundation in South Florida since 2008, has resigned to become executive director of Gill Action, a Colorado-based organization that provides funding for pro-gay political campaigns across the nation.

“Perhaps having a family has made it more imperative to get involved on a full-time basis to make sure American families have the same rights as everyone else regardless of sexual orientation,” said Fordham, 44, a one-time aide to several Republican politicians, including former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley of West Palm Beach.

Fordham, partner Mike Cevarr, a senior research analyst for Fannie Mae, and their two sons, 13-month-old Lukas and Levi, 7 months, will move this spring from Coral Gables to Denver.

“I’m giving up the sun and the surf for the sun and the snow,” said Fordham, originally from Rochester, N.Y. “It's an unexpected opportunity and I hate, hate, hate to leave my Everglades work. It's near and dear to my heart.”

His last day at the Everglades Foundation will be Friday, April 13. He starts the following Monday at Gill Action.

The Everglades Foundation, based in Palmetto Bay, will soon look to replace Fordham. “Paul Tudor Jones, our board chair, will lead the search committee,” Fordham said.

After graduating from University of Maryland with a degree in government and politics, Fordham got a congressional internship; worked for Jim Inhofe (then a U.S. Congressman, now a senator); and became Foley’s chief of staff in 1994. He stayed with Foley until 2004, then worked a year as finance director for Sen. Mel Martinez.

For three years, Fordham worked in public affairs/governmental public relations. In January 2008, he became CEO of the Everglades Foundation.

Although Fordham has been closely tied to Republican politicians, he also has cultivated relationships with Democrats. South Florida’s two congresswomen both praised him in news statements.

"Although we will miss Kirk's determined efforts to protect and restore America's Everglades, I am thrilled that I will now have the opportunity to partner with him in his new role at Gill Action,” said U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman from Weston. “Kirk practices a bi-partisan approach to problem-solving that has earned him the respect of many friends on both sides of the aisle. As we continue our march forward to protect the right of every LGBT person to enjoy every opportunity this nation has to offer, I look forward to working with Kirk to build on the progress that has been made by groups like Gill Action."

Said U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami, one of the Republican Party’s most outspoken gay-rights advocates: “The Everglades will lose one of its most tireless and effective advocates, but the nation will benefit as Kirk shifts his focus to advancing equal opportunity for each and every American. Kirk is well regarded in Tallahassee and on Capitol Hill as a staunch supporter who has used his knowledge and experience in government affairs to further important causes. I look forward to working with him to ensure that our nation — and our laws — treat everyone fairly and equally.”

Gill Action fund, begun by Quark software inventor and philanthropist Tim Gill, has given $14.45 million to pro-gay campaigns since 2005. In Florida, Gill Action helped fund the unsuccessful 2008 campaign to prevent a statewide amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions, said Fordham, who made national news in 2006 when Mark Foley’s political career imploded during a sexting scandal involving teenage male congressional pages.

Fordham, who helped orchestrate Foley’s resignation from Congress after ABC News obtained copies of the text messages, later told a House Ethics Committee that he reported Foley’s antics to House Speaker Dennis Hastert three years before that scandal broke, but that Hastert did little with the information.

Some gay activists believe Fordham didn’t do enough to stop Foley when he suspected inappropriate behavior between the congressman and underage pages.

“While I appreciate Kirk’s many talents at bringing various political players to the table to move the LGBT agenda forward, I am perplexed as to why these guys just can’t say they’re sorry for what they did,” said Mike Rogers, a Washington-based activist blogger who appeared in the 2009 film documentary Outrage, about closeted gay politicians including Foley. “He said, ‘Oh, I gave the information and no one did anything with it.’ ”

Fordham says he doesn’t know what more he could have done about Foley’s “flirtatious” behavior: “I went behind my boss’ back to the House speaker to report it.”