Wetlands agency on the brink

Hillsborough's environmental guardians are a vote from extinction. What would that mean?

By MICHAEL VAN SICKLER, Times Staff Writer
Published August 12, 2007

TAMPA - A push came in 1989 and again in 1996. Each time it failed.

But this year, a drive to wipe out local wetlands regulation in Hillsborough County is, more than ever, closer to succeeding. Commissioners are scheduled to decide the fate of the $2.2-million wetlands division of the county's Environmental Protection Commission on Thursday by voting to keep it, shrink it, or trash it.

Who wants to eliminate the wetlands division, and who wants to save it?

Commissioners Brian Blair, Ken Hagan, Jim Norman and Kevin White voted two months ago to disband the wetlands division and cut 29 jobs. A second vote is needed to make it official. Commissioners say money can be saved if the division is eliminated. The state also protects wetlands, so it's redundant to have the county do it and slow down developers with unnecessary red tape, they say.

Three commissioners -- Rose Ferlita, Al Higginbotham and Mark Sharpe -- dissented, saying the county's tougher rules may do a better job protecting wetlands than the state. Of the three, only Higginbotham sounded reluctant to, in the end, vote to preserve the wetlands division.

What does the EPC do now to protect wetlands?

It requires that development either avoids wetlands or replaces them; delineates where wetlands are; makes recommendations to the county, Tampa, Temple Terrace and Plant City on how to avoid wetlands in development proposals; investigates complaints about wetlands destruction, levying fines against violators that raised about $130,000 last year; oversees mangrove trimmings, which help protect water quality and habitat in Tampa Bay.

Why the fuss over wetlands?

Once considered worthless swampland, wetlands now get respect from not just environmentalists, but developers as well. They store huge amounts of rain and serve as sponges, which help ease flooding. They're home to a vast array of fish, wildlife and plants. They filter out particles in rainwater and stormwater runoff, helping clean the water as it seeps into streams that produce the water we use.

So if wetlands are so great, who wouldn't want to protect them?

Florida's Department of Environmental Protection put it this way in the agency's guide on wetlands: "The nature of wetland benefits are such that the owners of wetlands usually cannot capture the benefits." In other words, only those downstream enjoy its flood control benefits. Wildlife migrate to other far away areas. Its filtering capabilities can't be commercially exploited. "That is why, despite their value, wetlands are being eliminated."

Are they being eliminated?

Depends on whom you ask. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that more than 50 percent of natural wetlands in the continental U.S. have been destroyed. A 2005 special report by the St. Petersburg Times showed through satellite imagery that Florida lost 84,000 acres of wetlands since 1990, not including wetlands lost to farming and mining. But others say wetlands are fine. In 2006, the federal government touted a report saying there was a net gain in wetlands between 1998 and 2004.

It reached this figure by counting artificial wetlands created to replace the ones destroyed, including golf course ponds and ornamental lakes. Environmentalists say it's misleading to equate man-made wetlands with natural ones because it can take years to evaluate the success of a created wetland.

Are artificial wetlands as good as natural ones?

A 2001 scientific study by the National Academies of Science pointed out most efforts to make up for wetland losses end in failure. In Hillsborough, Blair has been the most outspoken commissioner in contending that there hasn't been a loss in wetlands. He regularly cites a report by the county's EPC that says there was a net gain of 627 acres in wetlands between 1985 and 2006. But, like the federal government's 2006 report, that includes artificial wetlands created to replace natural ones.

Who else wants to eliminate the division?

Stephen Dibbs. He's a commercial and residential developer who, until recently, almost single-handedly led a campaign against the wetlands division. Dibbs has been cited, and cleared, for wetland violations dating back to the 1990s. Dibbs, his associates and relatives called for eliminating the wetlands division, saying the state does a better job of protecting wetlands, and the county isn't needed.

So Dibbs is the only one who wants to eliminate the wetlands division?

Not anymore. The Tampa Bay Builders Association once said this wasn't their fight. Now they are regularly meeting with EPC officials to discuss the fate of the wetlands division. The Greater Tampa Association of Realtors also has recently endorsed the elimination of the division.

Who's vouching for the division?

A broad cross-section of neighborhood and environmental groups have rallied to its defense. Former Commissioners Jan Platt, Kathy Castor now in Congress and Ronda Storms (now a state senator). More than 50 residents signed a June 29 letter to Gov. Charlie Crist demanding an investigation of commissioners because of their vote to eliminate the wetlands division.

But if the state already protects wetlands, aren't they overreacting?

The county is tougher in regulating developers. The state doesn't protect wetlands less than half an acre. The county does, by requiring that developers either avoid them or replace them. The state doesn't review projects until the final construction plans are drawn. The county negotiates with developers at the start of a project, a difference that Jadell Kerr, the agency's former wetlands director, says saves more wetlands than anything else. One example of the two approaches is Mosaic Fertilizer and its bid this year for a mining permit. The county required the company preserve more than 200 acres of wetlands the state didn't require.

The EPC's executive director, Rick Garrity, has come up with a compromise to save the division. Is it a good plan?

Garrity says his plan helps save money and makes the process more efficient without sacrificing wetland protections. But it hasn't won many over. It shifts much of the burden to streamline the process to his staff, by putting in deadlines to review projects while cutting four positions. He's adding layers of new bureaucracy, such as an advisory committee and an ombudsmen.

Environmentalists say it's yet another concession to developers to weaken safeguards, but Garrity said he's astounded by complaints of his plan, adding that it improves the process by taking outside advice from those the agency regulates. But Michael Peterson, governmental affairs representative for the Greater Tampa Association of Realtors, said Garrity's compromise doesn't do enough to ease the permitting process: "It still doesn't get rid of duplication."

Michael Van Sickler can be reached at (813) 226-3402 or mvansickler@sptimes.com

Fast Facts:

SEPARATE TRACKS

Developers need permission from state and county agencies before they can build. But the review process to protect wetlands is more intensive at the county. Here are the different stages of development the county and state review.

Hillsborough Environmental Protection Commission

1. Review of plans during zoning request, recommendations only for changes that would save wetlands.

2. Preliminary construction plans, staff approval of treatment of wetlands necessary.

3. Final construction plans, staff approval necessary.

4. Post-construction, fines possible if rules weren't obeyed.

Southwest Florida Water Management District

1. Review of final construction plans, approval of treatment of wetlands necessary. Unlike the EPC, this goes before the board for a vote. Board members are appointed by the governor.

2. Post-construction, fines possible.

[Last modified August 11, 2007, 22:38:42]