SB 604 by Sen. Dean – Fertilizer Preemption Bill
In Environmental Preservation and Conservation on Monday, January 30

Senate Bill S 604 – Limited Certification for Urban Landscape Commercial Fertilizer Application by Sen. Dean, Charles S. “Charlie”, Sr. will be heard in the Senate Environmental Preservation and Conservation committee next Monday at 3:30 in room 110 of the Senate Office Building here in the Capitol. If there is any way you can make it to the Capitol to attend the meeting, PLEASE COME! Bring examples from your community demonstrating the cost of nutrient impaired waters to public health, the local economy, and quality of life.

We need to make sure every member of the committee knows how much this bill will cost local communities in terms of worsened water quality and in terms of higher taxes and fees. Yesterday, the House fertilizer bill, HB 421 passed in committee by a vote of 9-6 because we lost two of our declared NO votes (Reps. Hooper and Van Zant) and now the Senate bill will be heard in its second of three committees. A bill has to pass both the House and Senate in order to become law, so we have a good opportunity to stop it here.

SB 604 has not yet been amended to match HB 421, but we anticipate that it will. The expected amendment will exempt lawn care workers who have taken a 6 hour course from local fertilizer application bans during the rainy season. This is the most important part of local lawn fertilizer ordinances. Source control is both the most effective and least expensive way to protect water quality.

Fertilizer feeds more than grass. It also feeds algae that clogs Florida’s waters, hurts our water related industries (recreational and commercial fishing, tourism, and waterfront real estate), and presents a threat to public health. The Olga Water Treatment Plant that provides drinking water to 30,000 southwest Floridians had to be closed because of an algae bloom (anabaena) that produced nerve toxins.

The contact information for members of Senate Environmental Conservation and Protection follows. Please contact each one, but if one of them represents your County, be sure to contact them at the very least. A phone call to the Capitol during business hours Thursday, Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Monday is also good.

Thank you for helping save Florida’s waters from nutrient pollution!

TALKING POINTS

Sen. Charles S. Dean, Chair (and sponsor of SB 604)
Delegations: Baker, Citrus, Columbia, Dixie, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Madison, Marion, Suwannee, Taylor
District Phone: (352) 860-5175
Local Phone: (850) 487-5017
dean.charles.web@flsenate.gov

Sen. Nancy Detert
Delegations: Charlotte, Manatee, Sarasota
District Phone: (941) 480-3547
Local Phone: (850) 487-5081
detert.nancy.web@flsenate.gov

Sen. Dennis Jones
Delegations: Pinellas
District Phone: (727) 549-6411
Local Phone: (850) 487-5065
jones.dennis.web@flsenate.gov

Sen. Jack Latvala
Delegations: Hillsborough, Pinellas
District Phone: (727) 556-6500
Local Phone: (850) 487-5075
latvala.jack.web@flsenate.gov

Sen. Steve Oelrich, V. Chair
Delegations: Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Levy, Marion, Putnam, Union
District Phone: (352) 375-3555
Local Phone: (850) 487-5020
oelrich.steve.web@flsenate.gov

Sen. Nan Rich Delegations: Broward, Miami-Dade
District Phone: (954) 747-7933
Local Phone: (850) 487-5103
rich.nan.web@flsenate.gov

Sen. Eleanor Sobel
Delegations: Broward
District Phone: (954) 924-3693
Local Phone: (850) 487-5097
sobel.eleanor.web@flsenate.gov

(Provided courtesy of the Surfrider Florida Chapter Network)

by Mike Daniel

One would have to search far and wide to find a better poster-child for wasteful government spending.

I was not aware that our federal, state and local governments were so awash in cash that they could afford to play sandcastle at taxpayer’s expense. There must have been some new economic data that I missed.

I would assume that Brevard County government has also found all the money they need for our law enforcement, firefighters, schools, roads and libraries before they budget for any more of this ongoing nonsense. Hopefully the good news about our renewed fiscal outlook can find its way to the front page soon.

Aerial photos have shown the beaches in the mid-reach to be nearly stable over the last 30-plus years, so any arguments about a “crisis’’ are ludicrous. The only “problem” is that some buildings have been built n the wrong place, directly in the dune line.

Now comes the laughable cry that "we must protect these structures" against an Atlantic Ocean that doesn’t care about our feeble attempts to control beach dynamics.

In your wildest dreams, you could barely imagine the corporate welfare that
is flowing to some of Florida's biggest air and water polluters.  From 2009
and up to the present day, the federal government gives paper mills billions
of dollars to do something that they have been doing for decades: burning
"black liquor" in their boilers.  Black liquor is a byproduct of their
process.  By adding petroleum to their "liquor" fuel, they qualified for a
federal tax credit that was intended to encourage the burning of biomass for
industrial fuel.  Here is the list of Florida corporations that are
exploiting the tax code and the amount of your hard-earned dollars that they
scarfed up in 2009:

International Paper (Pensacola): $2.06 billion in black liquor credits;
$2.36 billion net income
Smurfit-Stone Container (Panama City): $654 million; $8 million net income
Rayonier (Fernandina Beach): $205 million; $313 million net income
Buckeye Technologies (Perry): $130 million; $154 million net income
Georgia-Pacific/Koch (Palatka):  $1 billion (at least); net income unknown

This federal corporate welfare for paper mills continues until at least 2015
. And the State of Florida is doing its part to make the situation even
worse. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is seeking
approval on December 8th, of a water quality rule that would give these same
big polluters an unprecedented "free-pass" to use Florida's rivers as giant
dilution/mixing zones These giant corporations (along with the mining and
chemical industry) discharge massive amounts of nutrients into our waters
that in turn, cause fish kills, red-tides and other harmful algal blooms.
They smother sea grasses and destroy our fisheries.  The cost for health
care when humans are exposed is only beginning to unfold. And the FDEP wants
to configure the rules to make even higher levels of pollution legal. The
ERC faces a clear choice: pander to politically powerful polluters, or
protect our waters and the many businesses that depend on clean water for
their livelihood. Right now, unless we stop them it looks like they are
going to choose pollution over protection.

A huge chunk of Florida's work-force is job-dependent on clean water:
restaurants, hotels, charter boat operators, real estate, fishing related
businesses, recreational companies, etc.  The list goes on. If we continue
to allow the reckless dumping of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds into our
waters, the steady degradation that we have all witnessed over the past few
decades will continue. We all recognize the need for more jobs in Florida
and everywhere, but without clean water, Florida's economic future looks
grim. No one wants to spend their vacation on a beach, suffocating from
toxic air that is blowing in from near-shore waters.  No one wants to spend
$50 on a seafood platter that may have contaminated fish on it.  No one will
eat our wonderful oysters if they may contain poison from algae-infested
waters.

We can't afford to keep subsidizing big polluters who are not doing their
part to protect and preserve the resources that are the economic lifeblood
of our state. Don't think that the federal government will come to our
rescue - they are on board with the big polluters, too. Yet they expect us
to keep sending our tax dollars to Washington and Tallahassee so they can
squander them on the very companies that are destroying the natural beauty
of Florida which is our most important capital resource .  This river of
fiscal insanity is flowing backwards and you can turn it around by speaking
out now. You can find the contact information for the ERC members at:

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/ERC/members.htm

Linda Young is the director of the Clean Water Network of Florida, a
not-for-profit network of 300 organizations working together to protect
Florida's waters.  www.cleanwaternetwork-fl.org

Another concern in the Final Panel Comments for the Mid-Reach Project review was the claim that all of the reef will be covered by the added sand. “On page 99, various reasons for the 100% loss assumption were alluded to, but the specifics and rationale were lacking.” The panel wants more specifics on the argument that the whole reef, all 100% of it, would eventually be covered by the project sand. Comment seven starts off with “Benefits of beachface fill appear to have been significantly overestimated.” Rising sea levels is an issue that the report claims must be taken into affect when talking about storm damage reduction. “Moreover, the storm damage reduction analysis did not account for acceleration of erosion due to sea level rise.”

-- Julio Torres

The Final Panel requests a list of species that need the reef.  Also, the Final Panel wants evidence and studies that show the ecosystem on the reef is worth saving. What creatures lurk in the tiniest of crevice and what fish maybe just survives because of the reef?

Tangible evidence to those questions will help justify why we must protect the reef. In addition, similar reefs outside of this situation could also be compared with the possible results of Brevard’s nearshore rock.

The striped croaker is the only species identified in the review as dependent on the nearshore rock for its habitat.

A couple of recommendations for resolutions by the panel were to provide “a list of species of concern that would be harmed by rock burial, an evaluation of whether those species of concern are likely to be present in Mid-Reach rock.”

-- Julio Torres

My Analysis on the First Three Comments Regarding the Mid-Reach Final Panel Comments 

Regarding the Mid-Reach Shoreline Protection Project Final Panel Comments I have reviewed the first three Final Panel Comments out of its twenty-one Final Panel Comments. Things look like they’re in our favor – we’re winning; however, victory is still far away.

The first comments states the GRR/SEIS estimates have a number of deficiencies. The reported claims that the sand is good for the beach are not adequately supported. Also, the stacking of the sand and its steep angle will eventually erode toward the reef. Visually, it makes sense: the more sand added onto a pile, the faster the decline of sand toward the reef.

Interestingly, there’s a clause that states the widening of the shoreline “that was assumed for the SBEACH storm recession analysis would not be in place at the time of the storm.” This reminds us that if the project is approved, the slow implementation of large quantities of sand will not necessarily be in place on time for future storms – the ocean is unpredictable, so how can someone predict the sand will be in place, on time, and ready to stop a future Katrina barreling toward little ol’ Satellite Beach or Cocoa Beach?

Based on the first three comments I reviewed, there is a lot of pressure on them to prove the idea will work and the implementation of sand at the risk of the reef has benefits. Many of the beneficial claims are not supported with data. For example, the review claims “The erosion rate of the beachface fill has not been adequately analyzed and has been underestimated for the Mid-Reach Project because of a number of factors.”

Regarding the first comment, at the end there’s a section titled Recommendations for Resolution. The first bullet proposes “A re-evaluation of the erosion rate of the beachface fill options to include the erosion of the full profile, plus the erosion due to equilibration of the beachface fill and the contribution of accelerating sea level rise.” Rising sea levels will probably prove the money of adding more sand was a waste because the ocean came and took it all away and we’ll be back to the same size beach that the coast allows.

Final Panel Comment three brings up an interesting point for those against the sandfill project. “In general, the scientific treatment of the sandy shore ecosystem should be comparable in scope to that given the rocky shore ecosystem.” So in this case, what will have a better ecosystem in the long run, more sand on the beach, or a thriving reef that has not been covered with sand?

The Mid-Reach will use tax payer money if approved so contact your local Congressman and inform them that federal dollars will be a waste because the sand will eventually be pulled into the ocean – and, the reef’s ecosystem is at risk.

U.S. Congressman Bill Posey, represents the 15^th district of Florida, which is the Melbourne area.

Washington, DC office, (202) 225-3671
Fax: (202) 225-3516.

Melbourne, FL office, (321) 632-1776
Fax: (321) 639-8595

 -- Julio Torres

Show up tomorrow to say NO to offshore drilling and YES to clean energy.  People around the nation will all be holding hands for 15 minutes starting at noon EST.

Here is a map: 
View Larger Map

For more information, visit http://www.handsacrossthesand.org

We'll see you there!