Clean Water Network Florida

Dear friends of Florida's waters:

The legislative season is here again, and it requires a high level of diligence and awareness if the citizens of Florida hope to retain the good laws that we currently have and ward off the new bad legislation that polluters are constantly seeking and that many of our elected officials are all too happy to support.

The attached list of bills is not a comprehensive list of bills that we suggest you keep an eye on, but it includes some of the ones that we consider to be most important for our waters and our ability to have a voice in policy decisions that are being made in Florida.

This will be going on our website very soon and then we will be updating it as often as possible. Please contact us with any information of insights that you think would be helpful to others. AND thank you for any time that you can devote to contacting your legislators about better protection for Florida's waters.

For all of our waters.

• Legislature 2008 Bills (PDF)

From Florida Hometown Democracy:

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED -- WE HAVE ONE MORE CHANCE TO SAVE THE PEOPLE'S BALLOT INITIATIVE!

The Florida Legislature passed SB 900, which will essentially make it impossible for grassroots groups to exercise their constitutional right to organize constitutional ballot initiatives. Governor Crist has publicly stated that he is not sure whether or not he will sign the bill. The Florida Chamber of Commerce is pulling out all the stops - now it is our turn. Dozens of statewide groups, representing over 2 million voters, are joining this effort - we need your help.

If SB 900 had been the law of the land, we would not have smaller class sizes, a state minimum wage, universal Pre-K, Clean Everglades Act or any of the other progressive policies we have been able to enact over the past ten years. Don't lose your rights - don't give all power to the Florida Legislature - call and email the Governor now. Contact the Governor's Office - tell the "People's Governor" to look out for the people, protect their right to amend their constitution and VETO SB 900!

Phone the Governor's Office - 850-488-7146 or 850-488-4441

SB 0444 / HB 0057 - Clean Ocean Act / Gambling Vessels

As of April 4th, this bill was favorable with the Council Substitute by Environment & Natural Resources Council.

This bill creates the “Clean Ocean Act,” Section 376.25, Florida Statutes and it governs the operation of gambling vessels that are operating in coastal waters. Upon definition of several pertinent terms, this bill creates essentially two requirements for gambling vessels: registration with the DEP and the limitation and monitoring of required and prohibited releases, and penalties for violation thereof.

In terms of registration, the bill requires each vessel to register with the DEP annually, prior to the owner or operator being allowed to enter the marine waters of the state during that year. Aside from basic identification information, the registration also includes a description of all waste treatment systems of each vessel including the type, design, operation, and the number and capacity of all storage areas and all holding tanks.

In dealing with releases from the gambling vessels, the bill requires that each port establish a procedure for monitoring and verification of the contents released from each vessel. Additionally, each port is to collect a fee from each vessel to compensation for the disposal of such releases. If any vessel does release any of the prohibited substances, the owner or operator is to immediately notify the DEP of he release including the date, time, volume, and source, as well as a plan for all remedial actions taken to prevent future releases.

Upon violation of the conditions imposed, this bill creates a series of civil penalties, up to $50,000 for each violation, in addition to any other civil penalty imposed for any separate violations not having to do with this section. The amount of the penalty imposed is determined by the DEP upon consideration of all relevant circumstances, including degree and extent of harm, toxicity and volume of the release, past history of violations, and any economic implications.

An interesting feature of this bill is that cruise ships are explicitly excluded from the definitions of “gambling vessels,” as governed by this bill, and operate under a memorandum of understanding with the DEP.

The second section of this bill dictates that the DEP is to request federal agencies to prohibit the release of the stated harmful materials from the gambling vessels within the federal territorial waters off the shores of the state, thereby expanding the bill’s impact.

In terms of a fiscal analysis, the proposed bill is estimated to have little to no revenue creating features for the state or local governments. However, the DEP will face some expenditures in order to implement the procedures outlined herein, including additional staff positions and expenses associated with rulemaking and the implementation of the registration program. Other expenditures may also arise with local governments, or operators of ports, as they are required to establish procedures for verification and monitoring of these releases. However, since the bill does not stipulate how the verification is to be done, it is impossible to estimate the costs of it at this time.

In summary, the sentiments about this bill are perhaps most clearly articulated by its sponsor in saying that,

“The Clean Ocean Act provides guidelines which serve to reduce the increasing amount of unsanitary releases from day-cruise vessels operating from Florida ports. The travel pattern of the vessels unfortunately contributes to increased levels of pollution washing toward our shores. Vessels which operate in this manner should be held accountable as would any other dockside Florida business. The proper disposal of sewage through an approved sewage treatment facility should be treated at the same rate as any other Florida dockside business. Responsibility to our environment while making business profits from our shores should be a part of the business plan of these vessels. The state of Florida should work with its federal partners to remove this type of sewage disposal from all waters off the State of Florida.”

This bill will become effective on July 1, 2007.

Several local governments around Florida are trying to control excess nutrients from being released into their communities' waters. Excess nutrients in our waters are causing harmful algae to grow and multiply in our waters. The fertilizer industry is trying to get legislation passed that will take away your city or county's ability to protect your waters. Here's what the fertilizer industry says about it:

"The fertilizer lobby is upset that “cities and counties are acting independently and pursuing their own agendas” and that “the tide of county and municipal ordinances has not been stemmed.”

The fertilizer industry is now engaged in an ill-conceived and premeditated last minute attempt to preempt cities and counties from implementing sensible fertilizer policies. This effort reeks of desperation on the part of the industry. Thankfully the Florida Association of Counties and the League of Cities are working diligently to oppose this misguided effort by the FFAA. The Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club and the National Sierra Club and Clean Water Network of Florida are also working to support cities and counties across Florida in their efforts to take a measured and intelligent approach to fertilizer management.

The fertilizer industry is going to be attempting fertilizer preemption this session. The attached language provides legislative intent which states as follows:

FERTILIZER INDUSTRY: Local government regulation of fertilizer uses for urban turf and landscape applications is inconsistent with agronomic needs and intrastate commerce;

OUR RESPONSE: While local governments are currently preempted from regulation the contact and labeling of fertilizer, due at least in part to commerce clause considerations, we are not currently prevented from regulating the application of fertilizer.

FERTILIZER INDUSTRY: This proposal implements a task force to develop a statewide standard for fertilizer application and other fertilizer issues. However, it also provides for immediate local government preemption with regard to fertilizer ordinances as follows:

(5) Pending the completion of the Legislature’s review of the task force’s report, and to ensure uniform regulation governing fertilizer use, no county, municipality, or other unit of local government shall have any authority to enact any ordinance, rule, regulation, or other law after March 8, 2007, that prohibits, interferes with, or affects the right to sell or use fertilizer in this state. This subsection shall stand repealed on July 1, 2008, if the Legislature enacts legislation to provide for the comprehensive regulation of fertilizer usage to replace this section.

OUR RESPONSE: As is apparently the trend these days, March 8, 2007 is a date in time which has already passed, so that this would be retroactive in nature. We have not suggested that every city and county have a fertilizer ordinance. That would indeed be difficult for applicators to keep track of. However, local governments have traditionally had the authority to implement stricter standards than the state with regard to the protection of the community’s natural resources.

This is particularly troubling due to county responsibilities under the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. As stormwater permit holders, local governments have the ultimate responsibility for improving Florida’s water quality. Every time an industry sees fit to preempt local government on a water quality issue, they will have less and less ability to carry out their stormwater permit responsibilities, leaving Florida’s impaired waterways in a continued state of impairment.

Contact your state Representative and State Senator today to let them know you do not want the state or the fertilizer industry blocking local efforts to control pollution in our waters.

The big problem with these bills is that DEP almost never takes enforcement action when polluters violate their permits. So, numerous sewer plants, industries, etc. would get automatic permit renewals and other special priviledges in spite of their bad-actor behavior. Please contact your legislators and tell them to vote no on these bills.

GENERAL BILL HB 0297 by Boyd
Florida Incentive-based Permitting Act:

Senate bill by Senator Oelrich: S738 Fla. Incentive-based Permitting Act [RPCC]; Creates 403.0874; amends 161.041, 373.413, 403.087. EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon becoming law.
01/23/07 SENATE Filed
02/08/07 SENATE Referred to Environmental Preservation and Conservation; General Government Appropriations
03/06/07 SENATE Introduced, referred to Environmental Preservation and Conservation; General Government Appropriations -

HB 0297 – Florida Incentive Based Permitting Act 

The last event for this bill was the first reading on March 6th, 2007.  This bill creates the “Florida Incentive-Based Permitting Act,” which establishes a program that creates compliance incentives for certain environmental permitting activities.

For its purpose, this bill seeks to consider an applicant’s history of compliance with the conditions and requirements of permit requirements. Those applicants for permits who have a history of compliance with conditions and requirements are increasingly eligible for new permits, longer duration permits, expedited permit reviews, and shortened renewal processes. Additionally, the bill encourages the cooperation between the DEP and the permit applicants to encourage continued compliance.

The bill defines the applicable terms, including “agency,” “applicant,” “environmental laws,” “regulated activity,” and “site.”

The bill then establishes several levels of “Compliance Incentives,” which are to encourage compliance with the existing rules, and give applicants further incentives to continue meeting the criteria. Level One details the criteria involved in an application for a new permit, and then lays out the incentives accordingly. Among these include an expedited permit review and extending permit length for up to seven years.

Level two incentives are for existing permits and their renewal. If the applicant for permit renewal has any history of non-compliance violations or enforcement problems, they shall not be entitled to receive the incentives enumerated in Level Two. Additionally, if the applicant takes other actions at the site that result in beneficial effects, they shall be entitled to the incentives listed. These beneficial effects include reducing actual or permitted discharges or emissions, reductions in the impacts of activities on public land or natural resources, waste reduction or reuse, implementing a voluntary environmental management system, or other similar actions. If these conditions are met, the Level Two incentives include even longer permits (up to 10 years), fewer routine inspections, short form renewal processes, expedited review for modification of permits and no more than two requests from the Agency for additional information.

Finally, the bill amends the pertinent sections of some existing statutes to include the Incentive-Based Permitting Program into their provisions.

(from Sierra's legislative report of Sunday, March 25th):

XII. Floor fight on Privatization of Toll Roads: HB7033. The floor fight was over sprawl and the toll roads that would sprout up all over. Like the rumored Heartland toll road. Representatives Cusak, Fitzgerald, Randolph, Sands, Seiler, Bucher spoke against the privatization of road building and weakening growth management laws already too prone to allow sprawl damaging many of our communities.

HB 7033 - Transportation

GENERAL BILL by Economic Expansion & Infrastructure Council and Cannon and Aubuchon
Transportation: Revises provisions for agreements by DOT with private entities; authorizes DOT to advance certain projects in Strategic Intermodal System Plan using funds provided by public-private partnerships or private entities; authorizes department to lease toll facilities to private entities; provides that procurements of public-private partnerships are not subject to specified provisions unless they are part of procurement agreement or public-private agreement; provides for disposition of excess toll revenues; removes provision for speed of certain fixed-guideway transportation system; provides for toll rate increases that are tied to certain inflation indicators; provides for increases beyond inflation amounts.

Effective Date: July 1, 2007.

Last Event: Passed; YEAS 74, NAYS 40 on Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:50 PM.  Click here to see how they voted. NO IS THE CORRECT Vote.

From Florida Sierra Club - Clean Water Network of Florida agrees with this analysis.

S1798 GENERAL BILL by Fasano (Identical H 1031)

Economic Dev. Projects/Permitting [RPCC]; requires DEP & WMDs to adopt programs to expedite processing of permits for certain economic development projects. Creates 380.0657.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/01/2007.
02/21/07 SENATE Filed
03/07/07 SENATE Introduced, referred to Environmental Preservation and Conservation; Community Affairs; Commerce; General Government Appropriations -SJ 00117

Status
3/5/09: Comments from Florida Chapter Sierra Club Wetlands Committee member, Rosalie Shaffer:

HB 1031/ SB 1798 Expedited Permitting Process

We oppose this bill.

Requiring agencies to “expedite” permitting for certain projects will actually pressure them to rush approvals for the projects, even if their impacts are considerable, and issues complex.

It will give short shrift to the due process, which, if done as it should be, can take time, and can and should involve consulting with other agencies, organizations and the general public.

The bill does not specify which steps the DEP and WMDs should skip or compress, leaving them open to guesswork, and possible charges of noncompliance if they try to fulfill their missions in a conscientious manner.

The wording of the projects to be expedited is too vague. Under this bill, any project could qualify as a “target industry” since most could be seen by local governments as improving the economy and/or creating jobs. Suppose the “target industry” will fill in large amounts of wetlands? Would that permit processing be expedited? What are the short and long-term effects of pollution runoff/ water diversion / habitat destruction due to expedited permitting?

It is well-known that loss of wetlands causes economic losses, especially to ecology-related tourism. Yet that economic issue is not even being addressed in this bill.

Florida has lost over half of its wetlands. Now is the time that more caution should be used in wetland permitting, not less.

This bill runs counter to a growing consensus about the importance of preserving Florida’s natural resources, an example of which is provided in the Century Commission’s for a Sustainable Florida’s report to the Governor and Legislature issued in January.

The bill is a move in the wrong direction for Florida's future.

PUSH ON TO SLOW FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES
Miami Herald - March 9, 2007
by Beth Reinhard and Gary Fineout

At a time when it's harder than ever for citizens to change the Florida Constitution, stricter rules for getting proposed amendments on the ballot cleared House and Senate committees Thursday.

The bills would place time limits on turning in signatures, and allow people who have signed petitions to remove their names.

Opponents of the measure told the Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections that the proposal would hamper efforts by grassroots organizations on shoestring budgets. An amendment backed by big business last year requires future proposed amendments to garner 60 percent of the vote, not just a majority.

"We see this contributing to a larger trend, a door that is creaking shut on the initiative process," said Brad Ashwell, an advocate with Florida Public Interest Research Group.

Corporate interests spent at least $58 million and as much as $100 million to lobby the Florida Legislature in the past year.

"The effort to restrict the initiative effort is coming from the biggest special interests in the state," said Ben Wilcox, executive director of Common Cause Florida.

Nonsense, said the bill's sponsor, Republican Sen. Bill Posey of Rockledge. He said the measure would prevent aggressive petition gatherers from taking advantage of voters.

"Every constitutional amendment that passes takes rights away from someone or takes money away from someone," he said.

The Senate committee passed the bill 6-3. The House Economic Expansion and Infrastructure Council approved a similar measure 11-2.

Another measure making it harder to run petitions passed the House Ethics and Elections committee. The bill, pushed by Publix Supermarkets and other business groups, would allow stores to kick signature gatherers off their property. It comes on the heels of a Tallahassee court decision that said the grocery chain can bar advocates of petitions to legalize marijuana.

Source: miamiherald.com

GOP SENATOR GETS APPROVAL TO MAKE PETITIONING FOR BALLOT INITIATIVES TOUGHER
Tallahassee Democrat - March 8, 2007
by Bill Cotterell

A Space Coast legislator won party-line approval Thursday for a package to tighten restrictions on gathering petitions for issues going on the Florida ballot.

Several civic organizations - including the League of Women Voters, People for the American Way and Common Cause of Florida - warned that the plan by Sen. Bill Posey, R-Rockledge, would put the public-initiative process out of reach of truly grassroots organizations.

But business interests, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Florida, said Posey's bill would help root out fraud, forgery and misrepresentation in the petition method of amending the constitution.

Posey's bill (SB 900) would require professional canvassers to wear identifying badges so that voters would know whether a petition was pushed by civic-minded volunteers or professional political consultants. All petitions would be stamped with the names and addresses of the persons gathering them, whether they are unpaid volunteers or employees getting paid by the signature.

And voters would be able to revoke their signatures if they learn more about an issue and regret helping to place it on the ballot. Posey said that is important because people sometimes fall for a nice-sounding title on an initiative but later find out they signed for something else entirely.

Posey's interest goes back decades.

In the 1970s, he said, canvassers seeking a public referendum falsely told his mother that he was on their side. He declined to identify the issue or the organization pushing it but said "they were just trying to get in my face" by claiming that his mother endorsed their petition.

"My mother - who, unlike me, is a very unassuming and kind-hearted person - had no way to remove her name from that petition," said Posey.

Common Cause lobbyist Ben Wilcox and attorney Mark Herron, a prominent elections law practitioner in the Capitol, warned that the signature revocation provision would start a whole new "cottage industry" of canvassing companies that torpedo petition campaigns.

Several consultants specialize in rounding up the 611,009 petition cards needed to put a constitutional amendment on Florida's ballot. Herron and Wilcox said allowing revocation would create a new line of work for them, tracking people down and getting them to take back their signatures.

Only rich and powerful industries - not true grassroots civic organizations - could afford that, they said.

"This is a solution in search of a problem," said Wilcox. "The real beneficiary of this bill would be the petition-gathering companies themselves."

But Posey said that in one Santa Rosa County case, petition gatherers were charged with 40 violations of canvassing laws. In another case, he said, a county elections supervisor was surprised to find his own name - which he hadn't signed - on a petition for a referendum.

All three Democrats on the Ethics & Elections Committee, Sens. Gwen Margolis of North Miami Beach, Charlie Justice of St. Petersburg and Nan Rich of Sunrise, voted against Posey's plan. The proposal now goes to the Judiciary Committee for debate.

Source: tallahassee.com