Home > Legislative Tracker > Wetlands 3 (5) acres or less delegation and anti-manatee legislation

Wetlands:
Wetlands 3 (5) acres or less delegation and anti-manatee legislation

Our Position: oppose
Bill Number: HB957/SB2082
Sponsor: Senator Bennett/ Rep. Williams
Legislative Session: 2007

5/4/07: HB957/SB2082 died and no amendments containing this bill language was amended to other bills. CELEBRATE, WE DEFEATED THIS BILL. WHEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRE-EMPTION LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED, WE WERE ON OUR OWN (LWVF volunteers stayed with us) to continue the fight. The  FIGHT was to educate Senators, Senate Leadership, and  the Governors office and policy people that this  DRY DOCK STORAGE AMENDMENT would impact manatees and that the FWCC letter stated just that. So, we never gave up and we did it. We showed the IMPACT to  MANATEES AND THE loss of  WETLANDS the delegation of wetlands permitting from the  ACOE to DEP would generate.

4/28/07: Neither bill contains local government wetlands protection pre-emption.

4/28/07:HB957 and SB2082 now include DRI dry storage slips for boats as we discussed on 4/25/07 in our alert. This dry dock, should it be built will increase boat traffic on the Caloosahatchee River in a Manatee Protection area. Click here to see the House Policy Vote:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Committees/billvote.aspx?VoteId=15101&IsPCB=0&BillId=35822&

 So again, here is the good news: the Senate bill and the House bills no longer have  the local government wetlands protection pre-emption language.
Now for the bad news:

     First,  5 acres is still the number. (For background read the previous Tallahassee Report.
     Second,  new DRI  language was added that  where a DRI development order for dry dock storage/slips had been approved before July 1, 1995, and not built, is entitled to the number of dry slips approved under that development order.

 This language is being put thru for one special project that we know of -  A 378 dry boat/dock storage slip facility located in Lee County along the Caloosahatchee River near  US 41 on the North Shore.

 The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation  Commission said it should not be built.  They found it to be inconsistent with the Manatee Protection Plan and harmful to Manatees. 

 Here are additional reasons why we don't like these wetlands permitting bills:
 1. The 5 acres or less of wetland permitting would not be a minimal impact -- think of the big box stores and strip malls.   -- think of hundreds of similar projects statewide -- projects that are covering 5 acres or less.

 2. Filling  in these acres of wetlands on top of all of those that have already been lost (over half) means less protection from severe weather and fewer filtering systems for fresh water.
 
 3. Regional general permits are not clearly defined and could allow major wetland destruction without adequate review.
 
 4. It appears that on the one hand Florida is desperate for new sources of water -- because of drought and shortages, and on the other hand wants to destroy the wetlands that recharge our aquifers.   They want to allow permitting on wetlands that would protect our existing water supply.
 
 5. No money for increased staff to handle the increased workload, and less review time then what the ACOE (120 days) takes.

 
 
 And contact your legislators in the HOUSE and SENATE and tell them to vote against this bill.  Thank Representatives Bucher and Randolph, who  spoke in debate against the bill.

Bill add-on eases wetland restrictions

Tallahassee Democrat, 4/27/2007

View article on Tallahassee Democrat

A Naples developer barred from building a $4.5 million marina on the Caloosahatchee River could go ahead with the project under a provision added to a bill in the final days of the legislative session.

Rep. Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers, added the proposal earlier this week to a bill (HB 957) that would make it easier to get wetlands permits for strip malls and other projects on fewer than 5 acres. ''These legislators are taking up our water recharge areas and now they're helping this special interest get a marina, despite the impact on manatees. They just don't get it,'' said Susie Caplowe, a lobbyist for the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The amendment does not mention the project by name but was pushed by a lobbyist who represents the developer, Donald Epler and his business, Hancock Bridge Marina.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission denied Epler permission in February to expand his 28-slip marina on Hancock Creek by adding 352 dry-storage slips.

Regulators cited aerial and satellite surveys showing a high manatee population and 27 manatee deaths from ''watercraft-related causes,'' within a five-mile radius between April 1974 and September 2006.

Lobbyist Frank Mathews said the legislation merely fixes a ''glitch'' in a bill last year that streamlined wetlands permitting but somehow let his client's project fall through the cracks.

''It was an omission,'' Matthews said, adding that the commission decision would ban all new marinas on the river despite last year's compromise.

An identical bill (SB 2082) in the Senate contains the same amendment and both are expected to pass before lawmakers adjourn May 4.

The legislation would limit daily boat traffic from Epler's marina to 15 percent of his storage capacity, or about 50 boats.

That's 13 more than approved by Lee County in 2005. The county allowed the development because the expansion was requested before the county adopted a manatee protection plan.

Epler said he does not want special treatment, just fair treatment for a project he has been pursuing since 2003.

Epler said he has $4 million worth of steel sitting in Tampa while his costs mount.

''I think it's important to the state and Lee County,'' he said. ''We might as well hang out a sign that says we do not want more boats in Florida. The environmentalists would have everybody go out of business.''

Also on Thursday, the House gave unanimous approval in a final vote to a measure that would give Gov. Charlie Crist and the Cabinet authority to approve logging of rare cyprus trees and tenant farming on the 74,000-acre Babcock Ranch preserve.

Rep. Will Kendrick, R-Carrabelle, backed off a measure that would have opened up the preserve without restrictions, citing opposition from environmental groups.

4/18/07: Good morning everyone, I wanted to just add to what I sent late last night and that is, the next step is to get the local government preemption language OUT OF HB957. So, again, as of this moment...HB957 still has the bad language, SB2082 does not have the local government pre-emption in the amended version the Senate will work on today.

4/14/07: The House version still contains the language that prohibits local governments from protecting wetlands from development/bulldozers. The Senate bill is coming up Wednesday 4/18 in the Senate Environment and Preservation Committee.  We need you to contact the Committee and tell them to vote this delegation bill down. You can scroll down to the background section and read why we oppose this bill.  Also include in your conversation, the distain we have for the wetlands local government pre-emption.

4/6/07:  HB 975 gets the wind taken out of its sails for a few days due to Governor Crist's statement he would veto the bill. The bill has been scheduled for the House Policy and Budget Council before going to the full floor. The next Policy meeting is scheduled for Friday10 am until completion.

Thank you Governor Charlie Crist for recognizing the flaws in the pre-emption of local governments ability to protect wetlands. We appreciate you!!!

The article below covers several different issues very well.

Status

5/4/07: Bills died and no amendments containing this bill language was amended to other bills. CELEBRATE, WE DEFEATED THIS BILL. WHEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRE-EMPTION LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED, WE WERE ON OUR OWN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SIERRA/LWVF VOLUNTEERS, TO FIGHT THE DRY DOCK STORAGE AMENDMENT THAT IMPACTS MANATEES AND THE WETLANDS DELEGATION from the ACOE to DEP.

To learn more about HB957, click here

To Learn more about SB2082, click here

Action Needed

5/6/07: 5/6/07: PLEASE CONTACT REP.WILLIAMS AND SENATOR BENNETT AND TELL THEM THREE STRIKES AND YOUR OUT. THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR WE HAVE FOUGHT OFF THIS LEGISLATION AND IT IS TIME FOR THEM TO PUT THIS ONE ON THE SHELF AND LET IT COLLECT DUST. THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SENATE COULD HAVE ALLOWED FOR THE HOUSE BILL TO BE TAKEN UP ON THE SENATE FLOOR BUT THEY DIDN'T, THEY LET THE HOUSE BILL DIE IN SENATE MESSAGES AND THE SENATE BILL DIE UNDER REVIEW. THEY NEVER PLACED THE BILL ON SPECIAL ORDER CALENDAR.

4/28/07: Contact your House and Senate members and tell them to vote against this legislation.

4/28/07: Contact House and Senate members and tell them to vote NO on the bill.
4/24/07: Contact Senate Government Appropriations Committee to keep off local government pre-emption language. Contact Senate Government Appropriations Committee

4/14/07: Contact Senate Environment and Preservation Committee members and tell them to vote NO on this bill. Please read why in the background info below. The House version may come up the week of the 16th in the House Policy & Budget Council.  Tell them not to allow any form of an amendment that would eliminate, prohibit, prevent local governments from being able to protect wetlands. This pre-emption even prohibits locals from pollution prevention and control programs like stormwater runoff controls, etc.

4/4/07: Thursday the bill could be heard 4/6/07 in the House Policy and Budget Council. Please contact the members of this committee and tell them to vote on on this bad bill.

3/31/07: HB957 next stop will be the House Policy and Budget Council. Contact the following members and tell them to vote NO. Read reasons we oppose below. We need all citizens to come to this hearing and put in a speakers card and tell the Council you want the wetlands in your community protected. Representative Kendrick stated that the only folks the House Environmental Council heard from was City and County workers who are trying to protect their jobs.

3/13/07: Call the members of this committee and tell them to vote NO on this legislation. Before 9AM Wednesday morning

More information

3/16/07: The House Environment  Protection Committee voted the bill out. Representatives Scott Randolph and Fitzgerald were the only two no votes.

WE need to thank them for their votes and send a message to the other committee members why they should have opposed this bill.

The next stop for this bill is Environment & Natural Resources Council.

Contact

www.flsenate.gov

www.myfloridahouse.gov

Background

3/31/07:

18 words imperil 3-million acres

By REBECCA CATALANELLO and CRAIG PITTMAN
Published March 31, 2007


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

TALLAHASSEE - A single sentence added to a bill passed this week by a
House committee would wipe out strict protections for wetlands in 20
Florida counties, say county officials.

"It's a huge step backward for wetlands protections in Florida," said
Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission attorney Rick
Tschantz.

Currently, developers who want to wipe out wetlands in Hillsborough
County need permits from federal and state agencies, as well as the
county. Nineteen other counties, including Hernando and Pinellas have
their own rules, too.

To Rep. Will Kendrick, those county wetlands protection programs are
an unnecessary duplication of the state's permitting program.

So during Wednesday's meeting of the House Environmental and Natural
Resources Council, Kendrick proposed a one-sentence amendment to HB
957: "In order to avoid duplication and inefficiency, no local
government shall enact or enforce a wetland regulatory program." The
only exception would be if the county received permission to take over
the state's own permitting program.

Kendrick, R-Carrabelle, said the change is necessary to halt
expensive, heavy-handed government regulation that undermines private
property rights.

"In many cases, not only are they spending considerable dollars to
review the same activities, but they are also costing many of our
constituents additional dollars for the same requirements that are
already required by other agencies," Kendrick told the committee.

Dealing with that additional layer of permitting adds perhaps $2,000
to the cost of a new home, said Frank Matthews, who lobbies for both
the Florida Home Builders Association and the Association of Florida
Community Developers and who has long advocated doing away with the
county permit programs.

"I think the builder position has been pretty consistent: Set the bar
wherever you decide and we'll meet the bar - just make it one bar,"
Matthews said.

The poster child for wastefulness, according to Kendrick, is
Hillsborough's wetland protection program, which has a $2-million
annual budget and employs 27 people to review permits and check
whether the rules are being followed. The Panhandle Republican called
it a "duplication of what is already required by the state."

However, Hillsborough officials contend that their wetlands rules
don't duplicate the state's. They are much stricter, they said.

For one thing, the state does not protect wetlands of a half-acre or
less, but Hillsborough County does. If HB 957 passes, developers won't
need a permit to wipe out those smaller wetlands, even though they are
as valuable as bigger ones, Tschantz said.

Wetlands disappear

There are other differences. For 20 years, Hillsborough has said no
wetlands can be destroyed unless there is a documented need to do so
to use the property, say, for a road for access to the land. Only then
can county officials consider how developers can make up for the
damage, known as "mitigation."

State officials take the opposite approach, Tschantz said. They let
developers propose mitigation up front, which then becomes the
justification for approving the permit to wipe out the wetlands, he
said.

Scientific studies going back to the 1980s have found that mitigation
does little to replace natural wetlands, which stem flooding, recharge
water supplies, filter pollution and provide habitat for a variety of
wildlife. In 1991, a state biologist checked 119 wetland mitigation
sites around Florida and found only 17 that could be called a success.

State and federal agencies are supposed to follow a policy of no net
loss of wetlands. But a St. Petersburg Times analysis of satellite
imagery found that about 84,000 acres of wetlands have been wiped out
in Florida since 1990.

Property rights

Noting the Times' analysis, Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, said he
couldn't vote for the amendment.

"I believe that local governments who are the closest to their
citizens have the right and the ability to create more stringent
programs if that's what their citizens want," he said. "And in a lot
of these communities, citizens have said we want a great environment
to live in. We are fine with having more stringent programs."

Among those who voted for Kendrick's amendment: Tampa Republican Rep.
Faye Culp, even though her own county was urging her to vote no. Culp
said she is hopeful Kendrick will be able to smooth over the
objections.

Kendrick complained that the only people opposing the change are paid
lobbyists.

"Members, I ask you today what are you doing to protect property
rights?" Kendrick said. "Because what you're seeing is people across
this state are being permitted almost out of their homes. ... There
are a lot of people that says this is a bad thing. Those are people
who are usually on the payrolls to get paid to say what they're
saying."

Development lobbyist Matthews said he supported but did not write the
amendment. Two years ago he helped write a bill sponsored by Rep.
Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers, calling for the state to take over much
of the federal government's wetland permitting duties because the
state says yes to destroying wetlands faster and more often.

3-million acres at stake

The bill passed last year, but so far federal officials have not
agreed to the change, which would result in a loss of legal protection
for about 3-million acres of Florida wetlands.

HB 957, sponsored by Williams, once again calls for a state takeover
of federal permitting for wetlands of five acres or less. It has one
more committee stop before the full House would vote on it.

(c) 2007 . All Rights Reserved . St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South . St. Petersburg, FL 33701 . 727-893-8111
Contact the Times | Privacy Policy | Standard of Accuracy | Terms,
Conditions & Copyright

3/7/07: 3/31/07:We strongly oppose this bill

In addition to not offering protection for anything under 5 acres, also offers no protection for isolated wetlands. The ACOE and FDEP never mention them yet they are vital to certain species that are fast disappearing, such as the gopher frog and the wood stork.