Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Red Tide of Death

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Jul 1, 2018.

  1. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    14,931
    1,189
    648
    Aug 26, 2008
    House passage of the amendment wouldn’t necessarily mean it will become law.

    A top Senate critic of the sugar program, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, said she’ll make a similar attempt to amend the Senate version of the farm bill, but it will be an uphill climb.

    “It would be a challenge over here due to the position of leadership," because Democratic leaders back the program, Shaheen said.
     
  2. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    14,931
    1,189
    648
    Aug 26, 2008
    and the democratic leadership in the senate supports the sugar subsidy program that keeps big sugar alive and well. both parties are complicit, quit acting like it is only one side and acknowledge the truth. Maybe then, and only then, can we come together and get something done.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. grumpygator77

    grumpygator77 GC Legend

    774
    158
    248
    Nov 26, 2017
    This post makes no sense.
     
  4. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,923
    501
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    Politicians were hoping that drought would have lasted through the election so this would have died down some before Nov.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2018
  5. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,923
    501
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    It sounds like Herbert Hoover got the ball rolling on this east and west water flow because a couple of hurricanes killed thousands of people due to Lake Okeechobee. The system was opened in 1937 but got made much bigger in the 60s.

    My guess is it wasn't as big an issue in the 60s etc. because you didn't have nearly the agricultural runoff you have now that promotes the growth of red tide etc.
     
  6. gatornana

    gatornana Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    46,589
    1,178
    1,793
    Apr 3, 2007
    Even as a kid, I knew our democratic leaders were in big sugar's pocket along with big developers. That said, you can't deny Rick Scott's almost complete reversal of environmental protections of water, springs and wet lands isn't at issue here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    14,931
    1,189
    648
    Aug 26, 2008
    Like I posted previously, I have been designing and permitting land development in SW Florida for 20+ years and water quality requirements and wetland impact mitigation requirements have never been stricter than they are right now. Please show me one rule that has been eliminated or rolled back because all I am aware of are increased regulations and longer delays. I am referring to nutrient loading analysis, flood plain compensation analysis, and wetland scoring criteria for residential, commercial, or industrial development. Example..one project I am working on has a tree that an eagle put a handful of branches in 9 months ago and hasn't returned to since. We are at month 7 trying to get a take permit to remove that tree even though the eagle never completed a nest, hasn't visited the site in 9 months of monitoring once a week, and the pile of branches has never once been used for nesting. 7 month delay on a $12M loan at 8% for a pile of branches less than a mile from another established mating pair. Any biologist with any experience will tell you that eagles will not have nests that close together. A single young male tried to build a nest to attract the female from the mating pair and failed and abandoned the tree. Please do not speak so authoritatively of things you do not have experience with. I could give you another dozen examples of over the top regulatory action I have seen in the last couple of years but something tells me it wouldn't change your mind. Big ag is the major polluter and the only industry that gets away with it hiding behind protecting ma and pa farmer that just don't exist anymore.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. gatornana

    gatornana Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    46,589
    1,178
    1,793
    Apr 3, 2007
    Set partisan attitudes aside and speak with one voice to force our gov and legislature to serious address our water and environmental issues. View environmental issues as one that effects all of us.....not Pub v Dem.

    A couple of years ago, Floridians voted on Amendment 1 to force our Pub gov and legislature to conserve land and water. It was extremely popular across the aisle. Sadly, the Pubs ignored the amendment and spent the money on other things.

    But in the first budget legislators passed following Amendment 1’s approval, they raided $237 million from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to pay for salaries, vehicle purchases, insurance premiums and other operating costs in state agencies that otherwise would have been bankrolled through general tax revenue. They set aside just $50 million to buy environmentally sensitive land. That spurred the environmental groups to file suit.

    In the years since then, as the suit was plodding through the legal process, legislators continued to defy the intent of voters who approved Amendment 1 by diverting hundreds of millions more dollars from the trust fund to agency operating expenses. Even the latest budget, which takes effect July 1, spends at least $160 million from the fund for agency overhead.

    It’s true that legislators have committed hundreds of millions of dollars since Amendment 1 was passed to restore the Everglades and natural springs, and for other environmental projects consistent with the intent of the measure. They have shortchanged land acquisition, however. Last year, they earmarked just $10 million. This year, amid increasing public pressure, they raised funding in that category to $100 million.

    But it’s important to remember that legislators used to allocate $300 million a year to Florida Forever, the state’s signature land-buying program, before they began starving the program a decade ago. And it was against that backdrop of slashed funding that voters gave overwhelming approval to Amendment 1, whose title on the ballot declared that it “dedicates funds to acquire and restore Florida conservation and recreation lands.”

    No more excuses for Florida legislators to ignore voters on land and water conservation
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. gatornana

    gatornana Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    46,589
    1,178
    1,793
    Apr 3, 2007
    Isn't the destruction of an eagle nest under federal law?

    So you're saying all the stuff we read isn't true.
     
  10. Gatormb

    Gatormb GC Hall of Fame

    8,992
    498
    558
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bradenton, Fl
    Thanks. I'll read it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,923
    501
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    The state should have bought that nearly 50k acres of sugar land when it would have been for a reasonable price to get a start on this mess a few years back before that agreement ran out. Big sugar was pretty slick in their campaign against it saying the issue could mostly be solved with river reservoirs and the money was needed to buy other at risk land. There needed to be an approach with both things.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. gatornana

    gatornana Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    46,589
    1,178
    1,793
    Apr 3, 2007
    In 2010, the water management district, at the urging of then-Gov. Charlie Crist, struck a land deal with U.S. Sugar that was billed as a historic opportunity to acquire strategically located property to help the Everglades.

    The district in 2010 paid $197 million to buy 26,800 acres from U.S. Sugar to be used for restoration. The deal also included a 10-year option for the district to buy U.S. Sugar's remaining 153,200 acres.

    "This U.S. Sugar contract was a boondoggle from the day it was signed," said district Board Member James Moran, appointed after 2010 deal was approved. "That was a political decision ... and it was wrong."

    Support for continuing the U.S. Sugar deal faded when Gov. Rick Scott took office. Scott opposed the original U.S. Sugar deal as a candidate in 2010. Now as governor he gets to appoint the water management district's board members.

    Water district rejects buying sugar land for Everglades restoration
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. ursidman

    ursidman GC Hall of Fame

    5,157
    1,748
    483
    Sep 27, 2007
    We passed this amendment with 75% of voters approving it in 2014 and I'm still pissed the Republican controlled legislature has danced and dodged what an overwhelming majority of their constituents told them to do. I had a several email exchanges with Alan Hays -senator from Umatilla, and a Republican, who was chairman of a committee that could have seen that it got done. He told me in no uncertain terms that he did not intend to purchase any land - that the state and federal government already owned enough. I told him that was his personal opinion and asked him what his response was to the fact that this is what a large majority of Floridians wanted. He responded by telling me it wasn't a majority of Floridians only a majority of voters.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  14. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    14,931
    1,189
    648
    Aug 26, 2008
    It was South Florida Water Management comment to require a take permit. Permit is issued by feds but they had no comment as part of their consultation. Even though feds didn't require it the SFWMD environmental reviewer did. Not sure what you are hearing but I an tell you that Volume IV requirements for water management permits have only become stricter in the last 8 years. All of Lee and Collier counties now require that development provide 150% of the water quality treatment and attenuation previously required because all of the receiving waters are considered impaired. Yet they do nothing to big ag that is responsible for the great majority of that impairment. I can also tell you that they scrutinize the nutrient loading analysis much more than in the past and in some cases make ridiculous decisions. We have to do a pre vs post nutrient analysis that involves comparing historical land use to proposed land use. 2000 + acre tract that was farm fields for 40 years prior to being converted to mining 10 years ago. 80% of site still operated as ag fields but since it was permitted for sand/limerick mine with 0 discharge allowed for anything less than 25 year storm SFWMD wanted to treat entire site as 0 discharge so 0 nutrient loading to downstream water body. That makes it impossible to meet pre v post requirement. Totally disregarded 40 years of historical use until lawsuit presented to governing body and project kicked to different reviewer. Real world, real time example.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  15. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    14,931
    1,189
    648
    Aug 26, 2008
    Did you miss the part about US Sigar being able to continue farming the property for another 20 years?

    That deal was a bad deal. Eliminate sugar subsidies and force big ag to meet nutrient removal requirements is a much more effective way to eliminate the problem and would result in a significant devaluation of the property which would provide a much better purchase price

    We don't need to build reservoirs to clean their water, we need to require them to clean their own water the same way that we require development to attenuate and treat their water

    Same for all the cattle ranches in the Kissimmee River basin that ultimately drain into Lake O
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  16. gatornana

    gatornana Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    46,589
    1,178
    1,793
    Apr 3, 2007
    That'll never happen.
     
  17. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    14,931
    1,189
    648
    Aug 26, 2008
    Why? Because both dems and pubs are getting fat on big ag contributions. Open your mind and consider that it might be both parties that are screwing us in return for those fat checks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Nawlens Gator

    Nawlens Gator GC Hall of Fame

    3,920
    25
    243
    Apr 9, 2007
    Gatornana and ursidman, Thanks for sharing your insights on the water pollution problems associated with big Ag and the politicians responsible for fixing it instead lining their pockets with campaign money and who knows what else. These crooks could care less about what the citizens want.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. gatornana

    gatornana Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    46,589
    1,178
    1,793
    Apr 3, 2007
    You do all that work and in the end, big ag/sugar win.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. gatornana

    gatornana Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    46,589
    1,178
    1,793
    Apr 3, 2007
    I said earlier that Dems were in the pocket of big sugar.......but we've been under Pub leadership/majority now for a good 20 years and they've taken it to another level. Scott and the legislature defied the wishes of voters by ignoring Amendment 1.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1