If you do, you are pretty darn lucky because clean water is becoming a rare commodity in the State of Florida. It's a good day for a lot of rivers and bays if there is no toxic algae blooming and people can get on or near the water without their eyes burning and having coughing fits. How did things get so bad?
(Clean Water Network of Florida, Inc.
The Clean Water Network of Florida is a Coalition of more than 155 groups that are committed to full implementation, enforcement and strengthening of the Clean Water Act and other safeguards of our water resources.
It includes a variety of organizations representing environmentalists, family farmers, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, surfers, boaters, faith communities, neighborhood associations, environmental justice advocates, and civic associations.
International Paper Case Victory Proves Hollow : 05/06/08
In August of last year the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a final order denying International Paper’s applications to discharge 23.8 million gallons of industrial wastewater effluent from its Cantonment paper mill into waters of the state. I had the honor of representing James Lane and Friends of Perdido Bay in the administrative hearing concerning DEP’s proposal to issue the permit and other regulatory authorizations that International Paper (IP) sought. After eleven days of testimony, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended denial of the permit application, and DEP issued a press release with a nice color picture of Secretary Mike Sole, looking all handsome and officious, and the statement that, while the Secretary “does not agree with all the Judge’s rulings,” he was nonetheless denying the permits.
Before my co-counsel and I even had time to toast our “victory” IP appealed the order, and almost simultaneously submitted a new permit application. Well, virtually the same permit application actually.
A stay pending appeal was immediately granted by DEP, without addressing any of the factors that would typically be considered in granting or denying a stay, such as IP’s likelihood of success on the merits, or whether the stay was in the public interest. Thanks to the stay, IP’s discharge into 11 mile creek in violation of water quality standards continues unabated, as it has for decades. Funny but DEP did not issue a press release broadcasting that little tidbit.
Even though my side supposedly won, we filed a cross appeal challenging a portion of the state law that allows DEP to issue or renew an operating permit even when, as in the IP case, the discharge will not comply with applicable statutes and rules, so long as “granting the operation permit will be in the public interest.” You see, during the hearing I asked William Evans, Domestic Wastewater Permitting Supervisor with the Department’s Northwest District Office, how the determination was made that IP’s noncompliant discharge would be in the public interest. His answer was that DEP had basically considered “International Paper’s interest as public interest in our test.” I am not making that up.
IP has had literally decades to come into compliance. And DEP, rather than enforcing our environmental laws and fining IP for its pollution, instead grants more permits and waivers and variances with a few more years and then a few more years to come into compliance. Pollution control technology costs money, cutting production to stay within discharge limits costs money, why cut into profits when you can just get your consent order “administratively continued” for almost 20 years?
So, on behalf of my clients I have challenged as vague the state law that leaves it to DEP’s apparently unbridled discretion to determine when discharges that will pollute our state waters are “in the public interest.” I have done that in hope that the law will eventually amended, so that factors such as impacts on fish and wildlife and recreational values will be explicitly part of the permit review, not just the interest of the would be polluter. If that provision is stricken as vague, DEP just might have to start enforcing our state’s environmental regulations instead of issuing consent agreements that allow IP to keep operating despite the fact that its wastewater discharge does not and will not comply with water quality standards.
So here is the kicker. FDEP moved to dismiss my cross-appeal based upon my clients having supposedly won. “You cannot appeal a case that you won” FDEP’s attorney, David Thulman has argued.
But what exactly have my clients won? IP, which just reported preliminary first-quarter 2008 net earnings of $133 million, continues to cause pollution by discharging its paper mill effluent into 11 mile creek, a water body that is too small to assimilate the pollution. The pollution continues to flow into Perdido Bay, which would be a far healthier, more productive estuary if DEP didn’t allow it to be IP’s sewer. And DEP is already proposing to approve of IP’s “new” permit application, which at first blush is strikingly similar to the proposal it reluctantly denied last August. This leaves my supposedly victorious clients with two options. Option number one, hope the same proposal will work, a ten mile pipeline to wetlands bordering Perdido Bay, even though they already defeated that proposal once when the Judge did not believe the wetlands could assimilate IP’s waste. Option number two, lawyer up and hire experts and spend thousands of dollars to challenge the “new” permit all over again-whether the appeal in the First District Court of Appeals is successful or not. Even though we are the so called “prevailing party” in the previous permit challenge, for their efforts my clients appear to be no closer to their ultimate goal of clean water in Perdido Bay.
Last May while we were in the middle of the hearing regarding IP’s permit, IP issued a press release which announced it was closing its mill in Terre Haute, IN. According to IP, "The mill's relatively small size and high manufacturing costs hindered its long-term competitiveness, and ultimately have led to our decision to close the mill." Obviously, when it is in IP’s economic interest to close a mill, it does so. If IP can not operate the Cantonment mill profitably and in compliance with environmental regulations, that mill should be closed too.
Marcy LaHart, Esq.
711 Talladega St.
WPB, FL 33405
561-655-9537
CLEANING UP POLLUTED RUN-OFF IN FLORIDA: 04/29/08
By Linda Young
Dear friends of Florida's waters:
The Florida DEP is in the process of making changes to Florida's statewide stormwater treatment rule, which is an effort that is long over-due. Most people understand and witness daily the devastation of our waters (springs, lakes, rivers and estuaries) from polluted run-off. In a state that is so terribly addicted to development, controlling run-off should be a top priority. So, we are very supportive of the concept of improving/strengthening the statewide stormwater rule.
HOWEVER - we have some concerns about how DEP is positioning this rule to eventually develop and we are not the only ones with concerns. EPA has written a comment letter to DEP in which they outline a number of concerns. You can read this document on DEP's website which gives EPA's comments and DEP's responses. This is very technical stuff and it may not appeal to everyone. We will be providing regular updates on what's happening with this rule so you can weigh in on it as you have time. The next meeting will be on May 28th at UCF in Orlando. Please go to the DEP website for specific information about past and future meetings.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/erp/rules/sw_swt_rule_dvlpmt.htm
THIS RULE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!! It is going to require your help and participation if we are going to overcome the strong political power from the development community and others. For those of you who do not have the time to read through EPA's comments, here are some of the issues that you will see throughout the coming months in regards to this proposed rule:
1. An independent review of the Harper Methodology must be done. DEP is having one done by the University of Florida but the review will not be completed until the TAC meetings are almost over - which may be too late to matter;
2. Harper Methodology treats wetlands as land-uses and leaves pollutant loading rates for natural wetlands up to the user. THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE FOR US AND MUST BE RESOLVED IF WE ARE TO HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER OUR CURRENT RULE! This effectively means that DEP assumes that wetlands are a source of nutrient pollution, which is a concept contrary to the Clean Water Act.
3. Pre-project condition should be treated as the land as it was in its natural condition - prior to ANY development including agriculture and silviculture, not as it is now. Right now, this is how the proposed rule reads and the Governor's office is in support of this position. We need to let the Governor's office know that this is a critical issue for us and we want them to stick to their guns. The developers are going to be lobbying for this policy to be changed and we must not let that happen.
There are other important issues as well, however, I don't want to bog you down with too many details right now. Please just accept this as a heads up about a very important issue that will need your attention. The sooner the better!
You will be seeing more about this on our website over the next few months and please go to the DEP website when you have time and start educating yourself about this important policy work that is underway.
For the waters we love! Linda
SWFWMD Board appointment - You Can Help: 04/22/08
By Linda Young
The environmental community in the northern part of the South West Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) is excited about the potential of being part of framing and deciding SWFWMD policy and actions. Al Grubman is an applicant for a seat on the SWFWMD board. Please contact the Governor's appointment office to let them know your thoughts about this vacant seat. (Governor's Appointments Office, LL10 The Capitol, Tallahassee FL 32399-0001, (850) 488-2183). Clean Water Network of Florida is supporting Al Grubman for this board position. Here's what he has to say on his own behalf:
When several environmental group representatives asked me to apply for the new SWFWMD Governing Board seat, I was overwhelmed but it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to continue the movement I have fostered as president of TOO FAR, to build bridges with the environmental community and the water management community.Below is an excerpt from the application (hope I do not sound like a politician, I am not one):
17. A. State your experiences and interests or elements of your personal history that qualify you for this appointment.
· As a registered professional engineer, I am able to understand and work with the technical and planning issues. · As an outdoorsman, I understand and value access to and preservation of our natural blessings. · As a practical environmentalist, I am committed to sustainable growth by working together.· As a businessman, I understand finance, return, profit and worth.- I work hard and get things done.
Lawmakers Should Halt Airport Funding: 04/15/08
By Linda Young
Florida lawmakers are grappling over the $4 billion shortfall in the state budget. Some of the spending cuts are going to be painful, and include funds for life-saving medical care for the poor, millions from our schools and many other important services and programs. Yet at the same time, the state is pouring large sums of money into an unneeded $331 million new airport for Bay County, largely to enrich the adjacent land values of one politically connected property owner, the St. Joe Company. So far the state has sunk $10 million into the project, with at least another $67 million earmarked from state coffers. And given the debt it will incur, taxpayer-funded financial bailouts are likely in this airport's future. It would be bad enough if this airport, which will destroy 2,000 acres of wetlands, were truly needed, but the fact is, it isn't. The current Bay County airport is not only adequate, but is actually underutilized. Traffic at the current airport has fallen over the past few years and keeps heading downward, with now only about half the number of flights it hosted in 2001. Market projections show that it will be adequate to meet expected demands for at least the next 20 years. The FAA's own benefit-cost analysis showed only very modest aviation benefits for this project, but substantial real estate benefits for private companies. The only issue worthy of any consideration, runway length, can be addressed with onsite changes at a fraction of the cost of a new airport. It is notable that 40 percent of the airports in the United States, including Reagan Airport in our nation's capitol, have similar or shorter runways, yet have much greater air traffic and are not building new airports. In the only real poll taken, the citizens of Bay County said they don't want this airport. The site chosen, in the wetlands of West Bay, is far from population centers, and there is no firm commitment from any airline to bring more, or cheaper, flights into this end-of-line small market. Voters gave it a thumbs-down in a 2006 nonbinding referendum, 56 percent to 44 percent, even though the ballot language promised it would be "at no cost to taxpayers." The local citizens could not be fooled, but decision-makers have been hoodwinked into spending vast sums of public money on an environmentally destructive fiasco. Unfortunately, this boondoggle, which dwarfs the infamous Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" in the scale of its waste, currently has the support of Gov. Charlie Crist and our state and congressional legislators. What's needed is for citizens to let them know that this kind of throwaway spending at a time like this is not only irresponsible - it's unconscionable, and must be stopped.
What to do with anti-Florida Hometown Democracy mail: 09/13/07
By Linda Young
Some folks are reporting that they received in the mail a request that they revoke their signatures on the Florida Hometown Democracy petition. This mail is coming from the developer interests around Florida who can't stand the thought of you having a say in what your community looks like.
Here is my suggestion of what to do if you receive such a request:
These requests come with a self-addressed stamped envelope, so I'd suggest
putting a huge X over the revocation sheet, and perhaps some epithets of
your choosing as well, and then stuffing the envelope with that sheet and as
much additional paper as you can fit in, and mailing the envelope back, to
increase the costs of this revocation effort to the business interests
conducting this anti-environmental crusade.
And if you haven't signed a petition yet, then contact Florida Hometown Democracy and ask them to send you as many as you can get signed and turned in. This is the number one thing you can do for Florida's environment.