2012Candidate Survey

Threats to the River’s Health

The health of the St. Johns River is threatened by many activities and problems, including:

  • Sedimentation from construction-site runoff.
  • Fecal coliform bacteria pollution from failing septic tanks, leaking sewage pipes, sanitary sewer overflows (SSO’s), and animal waste.
  • Nutrient pollution from wastewater and industrial discharges, failing septic tanks, and urban and agricultural fertilizer runoff.
  • Loss of wetlands, springsheds, aquifer recharge areas, and habitat for plants and wildlife.
  • Declining flows from springs as a result of lower aquifer levels.
  • Lack of enforcement and compliance with environmental regulations and permit conditions.
  • Water withdrawals from the St. Johns River and its tributaries for irrigation and drinking water, resulting from our wasteful and inefficient use of water.
  • Dredging projects that can impact habitat, alter hydrology, and disturb contaminated sediments.
  • Severe budget cuts that have compromised the ability of the water management district and state agencies to adequately fund monitoring, education, research, land acquisition and restoration programs.
  1. What do you consider to be the two biggest threats to the health of the St. Johns River and its watershed and, if elected, what will you do about them?

Two biggest threats to the health of the St. Johns River are pollution and ideologues.

No one wants to see green slicks on the surface of the river, water ski in water with a high E. Coli count, fish in a river where the catch is not edible due to open sores on fish, etc.

Everyone wants more jobs in our local economy and most all of us consume products daily that require toxic byproducts as the result of the manufacturing process to make them.

Industry and environmentalist need to work together for solutions that encompass broad support of the community instead of using special interest and lobbying on one side and “anything they offer is not good enough” on the other.

From what I understand of the paper mill in Palatka, we would not have to worry about dioxins if we all did not require stark white toilet paper. Can anyone make a good argument for the need of stark white toilet paper? If you can, is it worth the effluent that is discharged in the same river some of the seafood you may consume is harvested?

Nutrient Pollution

Unfortunately, the St. Johns River and its tributaries are receiving too much nitrogen and phosphorous from wastewater treatment plants, industrial discharges, failing septic tanks, stormwater runoff, and fertilizer.

Excessive nutrients feed uncontrolled algal blooms that deplete oxygen in the water needed by fish, reduce light that is essential to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs), and threaten the health of both humans and aquatic life by emitting toxins. Toxic algal blooms and pollution also hurt businesses (marinas, kayak outfitters, fishing guides, realtors, boat dealers, restaurants, hotels, etc.), cost jobs, reduce property values and our tax base, and diminish recreational opportunities.

Since 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been calling on states to develop numeric limits for the nutrients that are poisoningour nation’s waterways. In October 2009, a Federal judge ordered the EPAto establish numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for Florida’s waters, determining that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) had not followed through in a timely manner with its commitment to do so. Since that time, the FDEP has established its own NNC that St. Johns Riverkeeper believes to be less protective.

  1. What is your position on numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for Florida? If you believe NNC are not necessary, please explain your solution to address the widespread nutrient pollution problem.

I think science from both industry and environmental concerns should be scrutinized and be central to all efforts to determine this requirement. Sounds as if the levels have been established by the FDEP and it is settled. Therefore, The St. Johns Riverkeeper needs to sue to change these levels, should it have the science on its side. If a lawsuit is not economically feasible, then I look forward the understanding the Riverkeeper’s findings and will support public pressure to change the established NNC levels, should it be warranted.

Funding

In 1998, the St. Johns River was designated by the federal government as an AmericanHeritageRiver, one of only 14 rivers in the United States to be recognized with this prestigious honor. In April of 2012, the St. Johns was named one of America’s Great Waters. Unfortunately, these important designations have not led to any significant federal funding or federal programs to restore the health of the St. Johns.

In 2006, Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton and numerous partners announced the River Accord (), a 10-year $700 million commitment to reduce nutrient pollution and protect the St. Johns River. JEA, a Jacksonville municipal utility, pledged to contribute $200 million toward the Accord, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) up to $150 million, the City of Jacksonville $150 million, and the remaining $200 million was expected to come from various state and federal funding sources. Unfortunately, the Accord has failed to meet expectations, in large part due to the lack of a dedicated source of funding to ensure its success.

  1. Do you support a dedicated funding source for the restoration and protection of the St. Johns River system? If “Yes”, do you have ideas for sources? If “No”, what will you do to help secure the funding necessary to restore the health of the river?

Money will be required for any restorative efforts. Do not know if $700M is necessary but I know we should stop unmanageable levels of pollutants from entering the riverimmediately before any restorative efforts are funded in large scale.

Ultimately, I think those who make a profit and discharge their waste in to Our River should be first in line to fund such restorative efforts. I think the local economies who benefit from the economic impact of the jobs created by such industries should also be in this line. Lastly, all counties and cities that benefit from the Our River should also be a part of such funding.

The budgets of the state’s water management districts and many of its regulatory agencies have been dramatically reduced over the last couple of years. This has resulted in the elimination or significant reduction of water quality monitoring, research, restoration, conservation land acquisition, education, and cost-share programs. A significant amount of institutional knowledge and expertise has also been lost. We believe that the severity of the cuts have compromised the ability of the water management districts to adequately manage and protect our water resources.

  1. Do you support the cuts or believe that an increased level of funding should be restored for the water management districts?

Did the green blooms happen under such times of “proper” funding? Recently, we have not had any problems like we did in 2005. We have obviously learned much from that horrible time in Our River’s history and are obviously doing something right.

I mention the previous to highlight that money alone is not the answer. It is dangerous to measure things in dollars. Necessary processes, solutions and actions should be funded. I am supportive of funding all necessary processes, solutions and actions to keep Our River healthy.

Regulations

Strong, science-based regulations and the aggressive implementation and enforcement of those rules are essential to the maintenance and protection of the health of the river. Unfortunately, regulatory agencies often lack adequate resources or the political will to effectively monitor and enforce permit conditions, local ordinances, or state laws and regulations. In some cases, our regulations are not sufficient to protect our water resources, such as the nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

Environmental regulations are often cited as a hindrance to job growth and business performance. However, we believe that environmental protection and economic development are not mutually exclusive or at odds with each other, and a healthy St. Johns River is essential to a sustainable economy and our quality of life.

  1. Which statement best describes your perceptions of our current environmental rules and regulations? Please, explain your answers.
  2. Current rules and regulations are sufficient to adequately protect our water resources (i.e., rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, groundwater, and wetlands) and meet water quality standards in Florida, including the St. Johns River.
  3. Current rules and regulations are not sufficient to adequately protect our water resources and need to be strengthened or improved.

Duplicate and redundant regulations and agencies need to be streamlined to improve our stewardship and to ensure that we most efficiently use our limited resources to best protect our resources.

  1. Current rules and regulations are excessive and need to be curtailed.
  2. Current rules and regulations are sufficient but are burdensome to businesses and need to be curtailed in order to stimulate job growth.

If your answer is “c” or “d”, what regulations or agencies would you curtail or eliminate and why?

Surface Water Withdrawal

As a result of our wasteful and inefficient water use practices in Florida, we are reaching the limits of what our aquifer can sustainably provide. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) is requiring communities to identify Alternative Water Supply (AWS) sources. As a result, surface water withdrawal projects are being proposed that pose a high potential cost to our environment and to taxpayers. The St. Johns River and OcklawahaRiver (a major tributary of the St. Johns) are primary targets for proposed water withdrawal projects. The water withdrawal projects being considered would cost billions of dollars to construct with substantial operating and maintenance costs for years to come. Also, these projects would only address our future water supply needs for a relatively short period of time, necessitating additional AWS projects in the not-too-distant future. These projects also pose a significant risk to the health of our rivers. Water conservation is much more cost-effective, environmentally-responsible, and can potentially meet most, if not all, of our water supply needs.

  1. Do you support the withdrawal of water from the St. Johns River and its tributaries, including the OcklawahaRiver, to supplement anticipated drinking water and irrigation needs for future population growth? Please, explain your answer.

No, our springs are telling us there is a problem with replenishment. Jacksonville and Florida could lead our nation by looking to desalination as a way to provide fresh water as opposed to overdrawing water from Our River.

Water Conservation and Supply

Over the last decade, numerous planning efforts have taken place in Florida to facilitate water conservation and efficiency practices. Unfortunately, few of the plans and recommendations that have been developed have been implemented and very little funding has been appropriated for conservation.

  1. What will you do to demonstrate leadership on water conservation to ensure that proven reuse and conservation strategies are implemented and water is used more efficiently in Florida?

Make sure I practice them myself and educate others via the Conservation District of them.

Springs Protection

Florida’s springs are unique and iconic natural treasures of our state, with a greater concentration of springs in Florida than in any other region of the world. Approximately eighty-five inventoried springs are located within the St. Johns River watershed, providing 20-30% of the flow of the St. Johns. Unfortunately, many of our springs are in serious decline due to encroaching development, agricultural and urban runoff, groundwater pollution, failing septic tanks, and the reduction in levels of our underground aquifers.

As a result, many springs have experienced significant decreases in flow, water clarity, and fish biomass with alarming increases in nitrate levels and algal blooms. Silver Springs, a National Natural Landmark, is a perfect example of the tragic situation that is taking place. Discharge rates have declined during the period of record from about 800 cubic feet per second (cfs) to less than 400 cfs this year. Fish biomass has decreased by 92%. Nitrates have increased from an average background level of less than 0.05 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to an average above 1 mg/l which represents about a 20- fold increase.

As you can see, Florida’s springs are in trouble.

  1. Would you support a bill, such as the previously-introduced Florida Springs Protection Act, that would establish enhanced protections and more restrictions on development activities within delineated springshed protection zones? If not, why and what would you do, if anything, to protect our imperiled springs?

I have not researched this bill but it sounds like a great idea. Therefore, the simple answer is yes. However, it failed for some reason. I would be interested to research the items that kept it from being passed and see if a modified bill could be introduced and passed, provided it still helps solve the issues our springs face.

Fertilizer Pre-emption Legislation

In recent years, bills have been introduced to exempt persons who hold a limited certification for urban landscape commercial fertilizer application from local ordinances that provide for the use, purchase, and application of fertilizer to urban turf, lawn, and landscape. This would create a “one-size fits all” approach, limiting the ability of local governments to effectively mandate best practices for fertilizer use and adequately protect our diverse waterways. We believe that customized local fertilizer ordinances built on the state model provide local communities with a cost-effective means to limit nutrient pollution.

  1. Will you support legislation that would limit the ability of local governments to customize fertilizer ordinances by requiring exemptions for commercial applicators?

When it comes to environmental regulation, consistency is important. If not, some will lessen regulation to gain industry and economic benefits. However, these areas are not the only to suffer from the ecological impact and others with stiffer regulations still suffer.

Consumptive Use Permit Requirements

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is in the process of overhauling the way that consumptive use permits (CUPs) are issued by the water management districts. CUPs are required by users that withdraw large quantities of water (100,000 gallons or more a day) from groundwater or surface water. This rulemaking effort, referred to as CUPcon, has been undertaken to supposedly streamline the permitting of CUPs and make the process more consistent and efficient.

Some the changes being proposed include:

  • Extending the duration of permits,
  • Reducing the frequency of permit compliance evaluations and water withdrawal quantity reports;
  • Issuing some permits by rule without public notice and scrutiny, and
  • Removing the authority of FDEP & Governing Boards to modify or revoke consumptive use permits.

As our groundwater resources become more limited and the risk of environmental harm and saltwater intrusion increase, we must retain more flexibility, not less, to be able to make timely modifications and adjustments to permits. Because our understanding of our aquifer system is incomplete, we must allow water managers to adapt to advances in our scientific knowledge, to sufficiently monitor permits and their impacts upon groundwater resources, and to adequately respond to unanticipated consequences.

  1. Do you support the FDEP’s proposed changes to the CUP process? Do you think conservation should be a major requirement for CUPs? Please, explain your answer.

Not enough information above to opine. Undecided.

ConservationLand Liquidation

The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) hasinitiated a process to assess the conservation lands that it manages and we own to determine if some properties should be sold.

We are seriously concerned about the potential loss of important conservation lands that help protect our river, provide critical habitat for wildlife, and offer valuable recreational opportunities.

These critical natural resources provide flood control, water storage and treatment, essential habitat and corridors for wildlife, aquifer recharge, stormwater management, timber production, carbon sequestration, air quality benefits, erosion control, ecotourism opportunities, and the enhancement of property values.

  1. Do you think we have enough, too much, or not enough conservation lands? Do you support the liquidation of some of those lands? If so, why?

In general, I support these but have seen where other, similar proposals were exploited for the benefit of those who sell their land for these purposes. This will really need to be scrutinized to prevent such corruption.

1