Wetlands get reprieve

A permit that would allow 2,000 acres of wetlands to be destroyed is suspended.

By CRAIG PITTMAN, Times Staff Writer
Published December 19, 2007

Critics say they are afraid that the new Panama City airport, which would be built on land owned by the St. Joe Co., could contaminate Burnt Mill Creek north of Panama City. Special report: Vanishing wetlands
	[Douglas R. Clifford | Times (2002)]

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has taken the rare step of suspending a permit allowing destruction of 2,000 acres of wetlands in the Florida Panhandle to make way for a new Panama City airport.

The corps, which regulates the destruction of wetlands nationwide, suspended the permit this month after learning that a federal judge had issued a temporary injunction against building the $330-million project. The injunction was against the Federal Aviation Administration for approving the airport, the first to be built in the United States since Sept. 11.

"We're just trying to be cautious," David Hobbie, the head of the corps' regulatory division in Florida, said Tuesday.

A coalition of environmental groups have joined with fans of Panama City's current airport to sue the FAA. They say federal law on airport sites requires picking the least environmentally damaging alternative.

In this case, that would mean leaving the airport at its current site, said Linda Young of the Clean Water Network.

A federal judge granted their request for a temporary injunction, an indication that their case has at least some merit. The case is set to go to trial next month.

The new airport is supposed to be built on 4,000 acres of land about 20 miles north of Panama City, next door to Pine Log State Forest. The land was donated by the state's biggest private landowner, the St. Joe Co., which has plans for developing the 78,000 acres around the new airport.

Supporters say the new airport would help generate growth in a sparsely settled, economically challenged section of the Panhandle.

Opponents such as the Clean Water Network and the Natural Resources Defense Council dislike it for the same reason, contending it's a taxpayer-funded boondoggle that benefits no one but a big developer.

Airport authority vice chairman Bill Cramer complained that the court-ordered delay "is like grounding the space shuttle at T minus five seconds." St. Joe officials did not respond to a request for comment on the suspension of the wetlands permit Tuesday.

In 2002, St. Joe CEO Peter Rummell said the airport is key to the company's plans for the surrounding countryside: homes, stores, offices, hotels, bars, schools, even a barge port. With no airport, he said, those plans would not come to fruition. However, in recent interviews, St. Joe officials have insisted the airport is not a factor in their development plans.

Construction was just about to begin, said airport executive director Randy Curtis. He said work will continue in the non-wetland areas while awaiting the judge's decision.

The court cleared the airport to begin limited construction in those areas after the airport's attorneys argued that halting the project completely would cost the taxpayers more than $1-million a month and might jeopardize its future.

While the permit is suspended, the Army Corps will also investigate new information regarding plans to create about half of the 7-million cubic yards of fill needed for the airport site by pumping all the water out of the dirt. The corps had approved "de-watering" a minor amount of fill. Environmental groups contend using the process on such a large amount of fill could pollute nearby waterways.

The current Panama City airport has a picturesque setting on the city's waterfront convenient to local pilots. But city, county and state officials say the airport on St. Andrews Bay is vulnerable to hurricane storm surge and the runways are too short to handle big jetliners.

However, critics point out that in a county of 161,000 residents, the current airport is so quiet that the control tower shuts down every night at 10. It offers a dozen daily commercial flights - half the number it had five years ago - which they say make the need for a new airport questionable, especially one that at buildout would be bigger than Tampa International.

In a nonbinding referendum in 2004, Bay County voters rejected the airport relocation proposal 54 percent to 46 percent.

But in September, backers of the new airport got clearance from the FAA to use federal money for the new site, and then the corps issued a permit for destroying the wetlands. Officials broke ground on the project Nov. 1.

Times staff writer Kris Hundley contributed to this report.

[Last modified December 18, 2007, 23:32:43]