Wetlands Advisory Task Force Meeting: TORTURE! By Geniusofdespair

The only thing worse than going to Lynda Bell Wetlands Advisory Task Force meeting is going to an Army Corps of Engineers meeting when you don't know the acronyms. The Army Corps are all about acronyms. They speak in them and they use hundreds of them at every meeting, such as:

IPR - Independent Peer Review
ITR - Independent Technical Review
LERRDS - Land Easements Relocations Right of Way & Disposal Sites
EDEN - Everglades Depth Estimation Network
EDR - Engineering Documentation Report

Bad Dresser Kerri Barsh

They never explain the acronym so you are lost before you begin. They might say a sentence such as "EDEN has determined the LERRDS and has submitted an EDR with an IPR." And you say to yourself: "Huh?"

At the meeting yesterday, it was not that I was lost...it was that I was so bored I could have torn every hair out of my head. They spent 3 hours discussing the smallest points, it was a bonanza of minutia. One particular woman on the panel was super annoying, parsing every word. She was a lawyer, no surprise. Seemed like she was working on getting concession for clients, not working for the good of the public. Shame on you lady if that is true.

Another Lawyer (from Greenberg Traurig), Rock Mining's Kerri Barsh was on the edge of her seat listening intently, taking reams of notes and texting away. Oh, it would have changed things if I were paid to be there like her. Maybe then I wouldn't have been watching the clock, tick, tick... Why was Barsh there? What do you think readers? Trying to get concessions to benefit super wealthy Rock Miners of course, at our expense.

Ed Swakon - Engaged in the Proceedings

Barsh does have a passion for radical print dresses.

Then there was Ed Swakon, Engineer of choice for developers and rock miners. He is a thorn in the side of every environmentalist. Once at DERM he knows every trick to play against them.  He works for  a rock miner, a big campaign contributor to Lynda Bell's campaign. Ed looked more like me...bored.

I wrote some comments about the meeting...nothing earth shattering, hit read more to see edited version:

 
Wetlands belong to the public. Making changes to accommodate a few is not smart. Much of this meeting is about making changes to enforcement to accommodate a few. Many of the changes requested by Ed Swakon also would benefit few people.  If you consider changes, I think that ALL the people requesting them/supporting them should have full disclosure. There are people on the committee itself that have clients that would benefit from the changes being proposed.

I worry about who is going to police and enforce wetland protection now that the county is cutting budgets. Apparently there is policing/enforcement problems in the 8 1/2 square mile area. Perhaps that should be addressed not changing the public policy. The goal of wetland protection is ensuring we have clean water, not helping a few people living outside the UDB line who have garnered violations, wipe clean those violations.

Our water source is the shallow Biscayne aquifer. We need to protect our drinking water for over 2 million people in Miami Dade County.  As the pink water experiment of a few years back proves (dyed water moved in hours when it was expected it would take days) the aquifer is like a river. It moves quickly, we don't need pollution to our drinking water. The Everglades, I was told by a South Florida Water Management Scientist, has the highest concentration of methylmercury in the world. The fish are not safe to eat because that is the bioaccumulative form of mercury.  Our wetlands not only serve to replenish our drinking water. They also absorb the harmful chemicals we produce. I think if there are problems in the 8 1/2 square mile area they should be addressed on a case by case basis, not changing an entire policy to benefit a few people and rock miners.  An example: to adopt a 5 year statute of limitations on violations, as Ed Swakon is recommending. Is this to benefit a particular client of his?

Because of rock mining we already have had to move our wellfields inland from the coast to the Western area of Miami Dade County. We have salt water intrusion along the coast.

Finally I am also very concerned with the Agriculture designation.  I see over and over, that Agriculture can be changed to other uses more readily. We have such a case in the Ferro property that was just sent to the DCA for review by the County Commission. The applicant is trying to change agriculture to office uses.

As it says on the NRRRD (formerly DERM) website:

"The division's programs reduce impacts to tidal waters and forest, wetland and coastal resources through permitting, plan reviews and compliance monitoring. The permitting process also establishes and enhances these natural resources which in turn protects water quality."

And:

"Wetlands are protected for their inherent ability of directly re-charging and purifying our community's drinking water, providing flood management in low lying areas, and providing important wildlife habitat. Since, 1999, more than 13,000 acres of wetlands impacts have been authorized; however permitting has resulted in more than 21,000 acres being established or enhanced to compensate for this. This demonstrates that with appropriate oversight, smart development can coexist with important preservation goals."