|
For over 400 years various governments have offered incentives for people to settle in Florida. Florida’s environment was the greatest challenge facing developers, so governments spent big money to make growth possible. Dredging canals, filling wetlands, road and bridge building were the right prescription to insure employment and access Florida’s “wastelands.” These big ticket projects make it physically possible to develop in Florida, but many other subsidies are required in order to keep the development engine racing. Schools, law enforcement, fire/ambulance service, waste management are allowed to be downgraded, and the costs spread to all. Of great concern today is the continuing give-away of water. And then there are the so-called “quality of life issues”(i.e. air/water pollution, light pollution, noise pollution, loss of open space and wildlife habitat, and community impacts). During the last 20 years, efforts to plan growth and shift some of the costs associated with growth to the newcomers enjoyed moments of acceptance but several factors have been quite effective at undermining even these feeble attempts. The most important has to be the fact that developers and their money have great sway with our lawmakers. Another factor is the relative beauty of the less spoiled parts of Florida; Lake county appears so much nicer than most of the places people move from that “with a few more shopping centers, this place will be perfect.” Another important factor is that excepting developers and their representatives, most people have jobs/lives outside of county commission chambers. Growth creeps in one development at a time, two Tuesdays a month. According to Census 2000 Lake county’s population is 210,528. If we manage growth as effectively as we have in the past we could easily break 300,000 by census 2010. We must decide now if our goal is to continue to search for the limits of our environment or if we wouldn’t be better served by joining the growing numbers of people who have set quality-of-life as their goal and are building sustainable communities.
Saturday, April 21 10:00AM – 3:00PM Come celebrate, learn, and enjoy a spring day in the park. We’ll be having a picnic at noon. Bring a dish to share (with a serving utensil); beverages will be provided Thursday, May 17 – 7:30 PM General Meeting Linda Vagts, representing Florida Rock, Inc. and the Wildlife Habitat Council, will be presenting a slide show on “Mining and Wildlife Habitats.” Afterward, she will discuss the WHC, its purpose, and its goals.
Board of Directors 2001-2002
Restoring The Ocklawaha WatershedI n January, Carol Lippincott, a biologist from the St John River Water Management District, made a presentation at the general meet-ing about the status of the Oklawaha Restoration and other projects along the Harris chain of lakes, including Lake Griffin. Although SJRWMD has pursued improvements in sewage systems, agricultural practices (including “muck farm” buyouts), and stormwater run-off, the watershed restoration has been complicated since 1997 by widespread wildlife die-offs, particularly of alligators in Lake Griffin, and the emergence of a blue-green algae, Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii, as the dominant bio-mass component in that lake. While much remains to be researched about Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii and its relationship to alligator die-offs, it is clear that Lake Griffin will not be healthy until “Cy” (as it has come to be known) is brought under control. SJRWMD’s strategies for controlling blue-green algae focus primarily on removing phosphorus from the water. This is done tactically by eliminating run-off; by remedial pro-jects such as the Emeralda Marsh flow-ways; and even (in Lake Apopka) by the removal of gizzard shad, a algae-feeding fish which accumulates phosphorus in its flesh. Another tactic will be the use of alum in the Flow-way area to precipitate the phosphorus into an inert layer among the former muck-farm sediments. Carol described the sum of these tactics as “liposuction” for eutrophic lakes. Once the watershed is healthy, SJRWMD has two primary strategies for keeping them that way. The first is the restoration of more natural flows through the establishment “minimum flows and levels” throughout the chain (and the implementation of these more natural flows). In conjunction with minimum flows and levels, the District has set aside 100-million dollars for channel dredging aimed at preserving recreational and commercial use of the lakes. The second part of the District’s plan to manage the Harris chain is the restoration of the upper Oklawaha River to its original channel north of Lake Griffin. The way to do that is to sequester from all other uses and in perpetuity all the water that the river needs to flow naturally. For the last fifty years, the Harris Chain and the Oklawaha have been ideally managed for “death” rather than “life.” The normal water flows, which historically fluctuated by up to 6', have been constrained to a mere 18". While this rigid control may have prevented flooding and benefitted agriculture, it has been a slow death-sentence for the lakes, the river, and the land around them. SJRWMD is committed to reversing this trend. It has formed a Algal Bloom Toxin Taskforce to study the effects of blue-green algal toxins in fresh water and employed scientists, including Dr. Peter May, to oversee the effects of the District’s efforts on the land and its wildlife.
A Biologist’s View of Emeralda Marsh LCCC was honored at its Annual Meeting in February to have Dr. Peter May as our keynote speaker. Dr. May is a professor of biology at Stetson College who was hired by the St. Johns River Water Management District to make weekly reports on the health and activity of bird populations in the Lake Griffin Flow-way within the Emeralda Marsh. In the course of these weekly censuses, which Dr. May has been conducting for more than a year now, he has amassed a striking collection of bird-watching photographs which formed the core of his presentation: a season of changes at Emeralda Marsh. Dr. May’s pictures alone would have made the meeting a special occasion, but in addition the fifty-odd people in attendance got to hear the thoughts and insights of scientist who clearly loves his work. The good news, in Dr. May’s opinion, is that the birds of Emeralda Marsh are holding their own and that although there are ebbs and flows of population and activity there have been, to date, no signs of the catastrophes which have plagued the SJRWMD’s Lake Apopka clean-up efforts. LCCC can rest assured that should this good-news situation change, Dr. May will let us and everyone else know immediately. Members with Internet access can see many of Dr. May’s images and learn more about both Emeralda Marsh and Dr. May’s observation techniques by visiting his website at http://www.stetson.edu/~pmay/index.htm A link to this page is available at LCCC’s website:
“Trying to build your way out of traffic congestion is like trying to deal with being overweight by buying bigger pants” Michael Replogle, Environmental Defense
The season that all true environmentalists fear has returned. I’m not talking about the heat or the blind mosquito hatchings. I’m talking about the Spring Legislative Session. This year’s Legislative Session is considering many bad bills, but one is of particular concern: House Bill 729 introduced by Rep Nancy Argenziano, (R-43). When Representative Argenziano first introduced this bill last year, the environmental community should have rallied against it. Instead, this initial attempt to ravage our shorelines drew little attention and died without a vote. Rep. Argenziano went back to the drawing board and has returned with a bill that is even worse last year’s. (There is a companion Senate bill, SC2074, sponsored by Senator Ginny Brown-Waite (R-10).) For example, the 2000 bill would have allowed the removal of all aquatic plants and organic material for a distance of 150' from a shoreline; twenty percent of the removed vegetation had to be replaced. This year’s bill, HB729, would allow the removal of all herbaceous or semi-woody herbaceous plants within the owner’s frontage all the way to open water, wherever that might be. There is no replanting requirement whatsoever in HB729. Moreover, HB729 does away with “inconvenient” permitting. If an owner’s property includes organic banks, islands, shorelines, or any wetland plants, then that property owner would be allowed to remove these features down to the inorganic substrata without a permit or oversight. Environmental exemptions won’t help: Argenziano’s HB729 applies to all lakes and rivers, including Outstanding Florida Waterbodies, like the Clermont Chain and the Wekiva and Oklawaha Rivers. Common sense might suggest that, at the very least, one of the legislature’s environmental oversight committees would object to HB729 but the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Committee report made NO mention of environmental impacts; it evaluated HB729 solely in terms of its benefits to property owners and, concluded that such owners would indeed save time and money under the bill. Therefore, they recommended HB729/CS2074 by a 13-0 vote. Now is the time to contact your legislators and tell them to kill this bill! It’s also time to tell our County Commission that Lake County must have a shoreline protection ordinance in place by July 1. A local rule may our last hope for preventing the wholesale destruction of Lake County’s lakes, wetlands, and rivers. The Anonymous Limnologist
THE DAM THAT WILL NOT DIE: HB1085/SB1246 would declare a state reserve around the Rodman dam, and require DEP to manage the reserve in its current condition. This bill is supported by Rep. Carey Baker. Senators Jim Horne and Jim King have proposed $1.6 million budget appropriation for “improvements” at the impoundment, reasoning that if these “improvements” are made, their colleagues won’t vote to remove the dam. CITIZEN RIGHTS IMPERILED: SB910/HB1135 would radically restructure the procedures whereby “third parties” (including neighbors and other ordinary citizens as well as groups like Audubon and the Sierra Club) participate in judicial and legislative processes. If passed, third parties would find that not only had their ability to challenge such things as development proposals been severely cur-tailed, they would also be liable for the other party’s court costs in the event that their challenge to either a developer OR a government agency failed. AQUIFER STORAGE & RECOVERY – AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS NOT ARRIVED: Rather than consider that stormwater pollution and aquifer depletion might be reasons to rein in rampant growth, the legislature wants to “solve” two problems at once by authorizing the injection of partially treated surface water deep into the aquifer without conducting scientific pilot studies. There is an energy-intensive desalinization initiative attached to this bill. Desalinization is a good idea, but not in this form or in conjunction with unproven injection techniques. AN INTERESTING IDEA (AND A REMARKABLE COALITION): Audubon of Florida, the Florida Farm Bureau, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cattleman’s Association, among others, have formed an unlikely partnership to support SB1758, The Rural and Family Lands Protection Act. This bill would follow in the footsteps of Preservation 2000 and Florida Forever to establish a trust which underwrite the preservation of agricultural land and offer its owners financial alternatives to development. SPEAKING OF FLORIDA FOREVER: There’s a move afoot to raid that endowment for Everglades restoration thereby freeing Everglades money for budget balancing. Didn’t we see this trick before with the state lottery and the schools? Updated information about these and other legislative issues can be found at LCCC’s website, , and at
The highlight of the March 15 general meeting of LCCC was a presentation by Catherine Hansen focusing on the issue of growth in Lake County. Catherine is a member of LCCC and has been a County Commissioner since the mid-1990s. Currently she is the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and though, by her own admission at the end of her presentation, Catherine did not rush to embrace the tenets of Smart Growth when LCCC and others began raising them more than a decade ago, she said she is now willing to stake her political future on the implementation of a Smart Growth plan for Lake County. Catherine supported her presentation with handouts from the Trust for Public Land, a non-profit organization which specializes in conservation real estate leading to the acquisition of carefully selected land parcels leading to the creation of public lands which guide private development; and the Urban Land Institute, a non-profit consultant in matters of redevelopment and growth management founded in 1936. Given the patchwork nature of government jurisdiction between the county and municipalities in Lake County, Catherine has concluded that it is through a land acquisition program that the county can most effectively serve the changing needs of its residents. This is not to say that the county shouldn’t work closely with its cities, towns, and smaller communities–it must–but the county’s focus is necessarily on the unincorporated parts of the county and its goal should be to direct development into the towns and cities, away from rural, agricultural, and undeveloped land. Lake County’s needs have changed. The last 15 years have coupled a decline in agricultural use of land with an explosion of residential development. As fast as the county’s population has grown, the costs of providing government services to that population have grown faster. Catherine quoted a figure of $300,000 as the break -even point where the county’s impact fees cover the costs of service for a new residence. Needless to say, relatively few of Lake County’s new homes carry a $300,000 price tag. The county believes that one way to bring down the per capita cost of services is to attract more industry–desirable low-impact, high-wage industry– and they will continue to try to do just that. Another way is through Smart Growth, which in recent years has become the catch-all label for alternatives to the steady erosion of agricultural and undeveloped land into urban and suburban sprawl. “Smart Growth” is something of a compromise between “greens” who believe that protecting the environment is a goal that needs no additional justification and others–particularly local governments–who have realized that he who controls the land controls the economics of growth and sprawl. Catherine pointed to several decisions the County Commission has made in the last twelve months–including their votes against proposed developments at Harbor Hills and Sugarloaf– as indications that she and the other Commissioners are, indeed, changing their perspectives. The perspective that Catherine wants the BCC to adopt, recognizes, a priori, that growth will continue in Lake County and that landowners have the right to sell their land for a fair market price. She envisions a program of land acquisition by the county that will simultaneously curb sprawl and protect Lake County’s environmental landmarks. While saying that she wants consultants from the Urban Land Institute to draw up a prioritized list of properties for county acquisition, Catherine singled out Sugarloaf as a prime acquisition target, adding that such an acquisition won’t come cheap. Which brought the presentation to its focal points: Before Lake County can implement a land-acquisition program, the voters must decide to fund it by taxing themselves. There will have to be a referendum which must be preceded by a campaign of public education. Catherine came to LCCC, as she is going to other conservation organizations and governments in Lake County, asking not only for our support of her Smart Growth agenda, but also for our help in making it happen. For many years, LCCC and other like-minded organizations have opposed sprawl because of its negative impact on the environment –on wildlife habitats and natural resources such as wetlands and recharge zones. Now we find ourselves with unexpected allies who oppose sprawl for economic reasons: the scattershot patterns of sprawled development are too expensive for government officials to continue to endorse. In the question-and-answer session that followed Catherine’s presentation, LCCC members brought up Comprehensive Plans, EARs, unfunded mandates, and unfinished studies, saying–in effect: Whether the goal was protecting the environment or preventing expensive sprawl, the management tools have been there for a decade or more and were ignored or abused by the majority of the county’s elected officials. What we heard in reply was a bit of defense, a bit of denial, and a plea that we all put the past behind us and find common cause under the umbrella of Smart Growth. For LCCC members, the question is not only where do we stand on Smart Growth in general and Commissioner Hansen’s proposals in particular, but what role will we choose for ourselves in the larger community as the debate unfolds. The emerging consensus at the March 15 General Meeting is that LCCC should take a leadership role both in educating voters about the long-term benefits of land acquisition, even if it does cost them a few extra dollars a year, and working closely with the County Commission–and all the other governments within the county–to insure that Lake County’s “Smart Growth” is environmentally responsible “Smart Growth” consistent with the mandates in LCCC’s constitution.
Growth and Water Supply Should be Linked The St Johns River Water Management District Water Supply Plan (Water 2020) includes an important statute– Florida Statute 373.0395 which states: “It is the intent of the Legislature that future growth and development planning reflect the limitations of the available groundwater or other available water supplies.” A groundwater basin availability inventory is to be furnished to local governments by the water management districts for the purpose of coordinating the Comprehensive plans and future Comprehensive plan amendments. With the serious water supply crisis Florida is having, it is essential that growth management be contingent upon the availability of the water supplies in the area where the growth is to occur. In addition to Chapter 373.0395, in 1997 Florida’s water management districts sponsored an assembly called “The State of Land and Water: Foraging Stronger Linkages.” A history of the attempts to form stronger linkages between land use and water supply was included in that assembly’s position paper which stated: “The third Environmental Lands Management Study Commission, as one of its conclusions stated: ‘Except for limited provisions regarding water resource data and stormwater management, Florida law does not establish a formal link between land planning and water planning.’ In light of the importance of water resources for the future development of the state, this is a significant ‘missing’ link.” (Elms III, 1991) The Assembly Paper made documented a history of attempts to link land use and water management decisions stating: U “In 1994, the Land Use and Water Planning Task Force recommended strengthening data collection and dissemination on water resources and the use of such data by local governments.” U “The Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida called for integrating land use with water management.” U “In 1997, the Governor’s Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group recommended including water sources in the infrastructure element of local government comprehensive plans.” U “Water management districts have little influence over development approvals by the local governments, while local governments have little ability to prompt water management districts to develop local water supplies commensurate with local governments’ estimates of projected growth.” The assembly concluded, “that Florida has not made progress in linking land and water management and lacks coordination and direction.” It added that the Water 2020 Plan makes progress in improving the land and water link, but much remains to be done by the District as well as by local governments and stated that: “There are a number of independent initiatives whereby several levels of government are working together with various interest groups (developers, agribusiness and environmentalists ).” But for all its good intentions, Water 2020 neglects Florida Statute 373.0395, which states “It is the intent of the Legislature that future growth and development planning reflect the limitations of the available water.” Dry lakes and dry wells are not altogether the result of the drought. Submitted by Ann W Griffin
One Down (An Editorial Message) It’s appropriate that I’m finishing up my first LCCC newsletter a few weeks before Earth Day 2001. My environmental eyes opened for the first time back in 1970 at the inaugural Earth Day in New York City. It was a different world then; we’d gone to the Moon, to Selma, and to Viet Nam. The nightly news was a war-zone and so were many dinner tables. Then along came this idea of Earth Day -- a rally in support of the one thing we all had in common: our planet. Surprisingly, we did all have the Earth in common. One of our local papers, The New York Times, put it this way: “Conser-vatives were for it. Liberals were for it. Democrats, Republican and independents were for it. So were the ins, the outs, the Executive and Legislative branches of government.” Of course, it helped that April 22, 1970 was a beautiful spring Wednesday, the streets around Central Park were closed, the subways and buses were fouled up, and that a lot of people, including me, who’d missed Woodstock the previous summer were determined not to miss Earth Day’s free concert on the Great Lawn. As it turned out, I couldn’t leave work early, missed most of the concert, and didn’t want to plow through the 100,000-plus crowd that hadn’t, which gave me the opportunity to wander through the “Ecology Fair” set up on the Lawn’s edge. The Clean-Air Act was a dream then; I signed a petition supporting it. DDT was still a popular pest control chemical; I signed a petition to ban it. Someone was handing out flyers that said “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” while someone else was arguing that the planet didn’t belong to us; we were merely stewards for our grandchildren–an incomprehensible notion to a Baby-Boomer in her early twenties. Thirty-one years after the fact, I can’t remember whose music I wanted to hear at that concert. What I do remember is signing those petitions, the mantra of “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” and the idea that I owe the planet, not the other way around. So when Nadine Foley asked me if I’d take over the LCCC newsletter, I realized it was something I could do, and therefore should do even though the idea of stepping into Nadine’s shoes is a daunting one. For one thing, I’m a relative newcomer to Lake County having arrived here only in 1997 (it’s fair to say that I’m more a part of the growth problem than its solution). I don’t have Nadine’s depth and breadth knowledge of the challenges facing LCCC. This means that I’ll have to rely more heavily on others, especially other LCCC members, to get the information to put in future issues of this newsletter. This issue wouldn’t have come together without help from Ruth Gray, Egor Emery, Ann Griffin, and a handful of others who’d only speak to me if I promised not to use their names (I’ve begun to feel like a “real” journalist!). I know LCCC’s got several hundred members, which means there must be a thousand problems I don’t know about and opinions I haven’t heard. I can’t learn everything at once, but I do want to hear from the membership. This is your newsletter. Please help me make it an informative one. Lynn Abbey ( webmaster@conservationcouncil.org )
After several years of effort and negotiation the Palatlakaha Environmental and Agricultural R eserve (PEAR) has come into being. At a public ceremony and celebration on April 7, 2001 at 10 AM representatives from the University of Florida were to have given a symbolic key to the former Institute of Food and Agricultural S ciences (IFAS) to representatives from Lake County. PEAR is a project to retain the environmentally sensitive former IFAS research farm at Leesburg as a conservation, recreation, and educational community resource for the citizens of Lake County. The project was developed and carried to fulfillment by a hard-working committee comprised of representatives of numerous county and local agencies, private citizens, and citizen groups (not least of which is the Lake Soil and Water Conservation District whose efforts were spearheaded by LCCC members Cathy Benton, who has served on the District Board since the PEAR project was conceived in 1997, and Nadine Foley who was elected to the District Board last year). Creation of the reserve is only the beginning. Now that the property has been formally transferred to the county government, we can all look forward to more celebrations as the PEAR committee pursues its goals of turning the site–one of the very few unchanneled stretches of the Palatlakaha River– into an environmental haven that is as educational as it is enjoyable.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Lake County,
FL
