Confusion at SRWMD

Our recent post “DeSantis’ failure to act costs taxpayers money” explained last week’s postponements due to a lack of quorum.  On Wed. Sept. 18, the budget meeting did take place with three board members physically present and others by phone (most of the time) so that a quorum was reached.

Several people with whom we spoke had a negative opinion as to the effectiveness of the phone communication.  There is no assurance that the phone members heard the correct information regarding the vote, nor is the voice on the phone always identified.  Consensus is that this is not a good way to conduct important meetings.

Several speakers questioned the legality of the both the board and the budget meetings.  One contended that the event was not publicized according to law, another pointed out that, since the budget meeting started anew from the beginning, it was not legally continued from last week’s proceedings which did progress to a degree.

District attorney Tommy Reeves was quiet on the issue, and volunteered no direction.  He did briefly respond to a direct question but his short answer did not clarify the  situation.

The question was not settled, but whatever the status of the meetings, we continue to point out that our governor was guilty of inaction since he had had many months to fill this void on the board and did not.  His negligence resulted in wasted actions, wasted taxpayer money and confusion.  We also view this as a reflection of his non-interest in our water problems.

On several occasions we have expressed concern that the dramatic visibility of the water crisis in South Florida, i.e., green goop and dead, rotting animals, would draw attention away from the equally-severe crisis in North Florida’s rivers and springs.  It appears this has happened, since the governor’s immediate action was to target the South Florida Water Management Board, appoint an algae task force, etc. etc.

This we now see was for political show only.  Later actions leave the environment defenseless by supporting toll roads, and not supporting home rule, and so on.

And, we could add, leaving SRWMD  dangling and impotent.

We also point out that he ignored the opportunity and his responsibility to place environmentalists on the board, i.e. someone who regularly attends meetings on the environment, and are members of some group active in preserving the environment, not just those who give lip-service to the issue.

His late action resulted in the reappointment of a pawn broker and a lumberman, neither of whom fits the description of an environmentalist.

Although not on the agenda, the Nestle permit was the topic of several public comments, including those of OSFR members Mike Roth, Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson, John Quarterman, and your historian.

An item which was on the agenda was the renewal of a water permit for Pilgrim’s Pride, long a non-complier with DEP regulations which pipes effluent directly into the Suwannee River.  This company was successfully sued recently by Sierra Club and other groups for over a million dollars.  Their representative was in the audience and verbally confirmed that the company was now fulfilling the Consent Order placed on them.  The board took him at his word and awarded him the permit.

Pilgrim Pride representative.

Comments by OSFR historian Jim Tatum.
-A river is like a life: once taken, it cannot be brought back-