April 29, 2011, was Arbor Day, so thank a tree and plant one.
You’re breathing oxygen, right? Well, trees produce oxygen. They are your friend. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1 acre of trees produces 4 tons of oxygen annually. That's enough oxygen to keep 18 people alive for one full year. If breathing wasn’t enough for you, how about the fact that buying and planting a tree will save you money!
For instance, "[p]lanting trees on the west and east sides of your house can reduce air-conditioning costs by as much as 20%," asserts Lorna Vogt, manager of One Million Trees for One Million People, a Salt Lake County, Utah, agency who is endeavoring to plant 1 million trees in 10 years. Additionally, in cooler climates, evergreens can create windbreaks, which can cut heating bills by as much as 30%, claims Vogt.
Now hold on. I know you are excited to get keep breathing and start saving cash, but it is important to remember that “proper tree care starts when you select a tree and that what you do to your tree in its first few years of life will affect its shape, strength, and even its life span.” At the suggestion of the Arbor Day Foundation (www.arborday.org), a nonprofit conservation and education organization, you should follow a few simple steps to ensure your tree gets off on the right foot and keep it healthy throughout its life. Follow the links for more information...
1. Find a Tree
2. Selecting a Healthy Tree
3. Tree Planting
4. The Importance of Mulch
5. Tree Watering
6. When to Prune
7. Keys to Good Tree Pruning
8. Annual Tree Pruning Steps from Planting to Maturity
9. How to Identify Pest and Disease Problems
So, run out to your local nursery and transplant a sapling today. The life you save may just be your own!!
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
States, Power Plants and EPA – Oh My!
The hotly contested global warming case before the Supreme Court this week puts States and environmental groups up against industry. In American Electric Co. v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court must decided if the States can use public nuisance laws in order for a district court to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from the top 5 greenhouse gas producing power plants in the United States. The power plants argued the complexities involved in setting such limits pointed to why the EPA should be responsible for setting emissions and not the court.
Are you asking yourself, “Then where is the EPA in all of this?” Well, in 2007 the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549. U.S. 497, ruled the EPA had the authority
under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. At this time, the EPA has not set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources like the power plants. The EPA, however, has begun the initial process of formulating regulations and enacting a rule, though the process takes a long time to complete. The EPA is not expected to issue power plant emission limits anytime before 2012. If the EPA did set emission limits for stationary sources such as the power plants it would displace the federal common public nuisance law and make the States’ case moot. This would mean the States would not be able to bring the claim under the federal common law.
In considering the EPA’s involvement, Justice Ginsburg was skeptical on whether the Court should ignore the EPA’s “first steps” towards regulations and have the judiciary set what might be conflicting limits. The States’ attorney, Barbara Underwood, responded to Justice Ginsburg’s inquiry that the Supreme Court should not conclude “promises” of federal regulations on carbon emissions in fact displace the federal common law. The Justices determined they would look at if the EPA regulations were imminent.
Despite the Justices conclusion, Underwood’s response may not be unwarranted. Underwood said there were a number of things that could delay and setback the EPA from fulfilling the promised regulation. One possible delay to the “promises” of federal regulation could be a shift in political power in Congress or the White House. In fact, at the beginning of April Senate Democrats barely defeated a Republican-backed bill that would prevent the EPA from “taking any action on climate change.”
Since the 2007 EPA case, which had a 5-4 ruling, two new justices have joined the Court. One of the new justices, Sonia Sotomayor, has recused herself because she served on the Second Circuit when it heard the case in 2009.
Speaking on the global warming case now before the Supreme Court, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said the coalition of states and land trusts “took this action because we cannot stand idly by while carbon dioxide continues to be emitted without any controls.” Soon Mr. Jepsen, along with the rest of the country, will know where the Supreme Court stands.
-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern
Are you asking yourself, “Then where is the EPA in all of this?” Well, in 2007 the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549. U.S. 497, ruled the EPA had the authority
under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. At this time, the EPA has not set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources like the power plants. The EPA, however, has begun the initial process of formulating regulations and enacting a rule, though the process takes a long time to complete. The EPA is not expected to issue power plant emission limits anytime before 2012. If the EPA did set emission limits for stationary sources such as the power plants it would displace the federal common public nuisance law and make the States’ case moot. This would mean the States would not be able to bring the claim under the federal common law.
In considering the EPA’s involvement, Justice Ginsburg was skeptical on whether the Court should ignore the EPA’s “first steps” towards regulations and have the judiciary set what might be conflicting limits. The States’ attorney, Barbara Underwood, responded to Justice Ginsburg’s inquiry that the Supreme Court should not conclude “promises” of federal regulations on carbon emissions in fact displace the federal common law. The Justices determined they would look at if the EPA regulations were imminent.
Despite the Justices conclusion, Underwood’s response may not be unwarranted. Underwood said there were a number of things that could delay and setback the EPA from fulfilling the promised regulation. One possible delay to the “promises” of federal regulation could be a shift in political power in Congress or the White House. In fact, at the beginning of April Senate Democrats barely defeated a Republican-backed bill that would prevent the EPA from “taking any action on climate change.”
Since the 2007 EPA case, which had a 5-4 ruling, two new justices have joined the Court. One of the new justices, Sonia Sotomayor, has recused herself because she served on the Second Circuit when it heard the case in 2009.
Speaking on the global warming case now before the Supreme Court, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said the coalition of states and land trusts “took this action because we cannot stand idly by while carbon dioxide continues to be emitted without any controls.” Soon Mr. Jepsen, along with the rest of the country, will know where the Supreme Court stands.
-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern
Supreme Court Hears Global Warming Case – American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut.
The Supreme Court heard the first set of oral arguments this past Tuesday in the controversial global warming case involving a coalition of states, New York City, and three environmental land trusts (States) against 5 coal-burning power plants. This is the Supreme Court’s only environmental case this term. The central issue in the case is whether the plaintiffs can use public nuisance laws to force the power plants to cut their carbon dioxide emissions. The power plants emit 650 million tons of greenhouse gases per year making them the top emitters in the country and a significant contributor to global warming. The States argued they should be able to use the federal common public nuisance law to seek the reductions and protect their citizens and lands from injuries caused as a result of global warming. The States’ alleged injuries include heat related deaths, increased smog, sea level rise, and destruction of wildlife habitat. The power companies argued the States could not directly trace their injuries to the power plants and further that the States’ desired remedy would not curb the global climate change problem.
The States want the power plants to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 3% for the next ten years. New York Solicitor General and Supreme Court advocate veteran, Barbara Underwood, argued on behalf of the States that the reductions were feasible and would not pass increased electricity costs onto consumers, which the power plants disputed. During her oral argument on the feasibility of reductions, Underwood paused after saying. “That may seem …” and Justice Scalia interjected with, “Implausible is the word you are looking for.”
Indeed the States are up against a skeptical Supreme Court. The justices questioned whether the case would open a floodgate to subsequent litigation against other energy producers. The justices also seemed to doubt whether a district court judge, without expertise or necessarily the resources to set emission standards for the plants, would be acting as a “Super-EPA” in formulating a decision. As part of deciding the case, a district court judge would have to balance the competing interests of impacts on jobs and energy costs against the benefits of public health and reduced environmental damage.
Initially, the States brought the public nuisance case in district court where it was dismissed. The district court ruled the States lacked standing because the case involved policy questions that the court determined were best decided by the executive and legislative branches of government and not the judiciary. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009 overturned the district court’s decision and held the plaintiffs did have standing because public nuisance cases, as part of well-settled torts law, do not involve political questions.
Interestingly, Obama Administration Solicitor General, Neal Katyal has joined the side of the power companies because the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority is named in the dispute. Katyal’s presence has disappointed environmental advocates particularly because the Supreme Court traditionally gives deference to the Solicitor General’s view. The deference given to the Solicitor General’s position has made some believe the Supreme Court will reverse the Second Circuit’s decision and rule against the States.
As of now, it is unclear which way the Supreme Court will decide. What is clear is that this will be a landmark case both for the States and the power companies.
-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern
The States want the power plants to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 3% for the next ten years. New York Solicitor General and Supreme Court advocate veteran, Barbara Underwood, argued on behalf of the States that the reductions were feasible and would not pass increased electricity costs onto consumers, which the power plants disputed. During her oral argument on the feasibility of reductions, Underwood paused after saying. “That may seem …” and Justice Scalia interjected with, “Implausible is the word you are looking for.”
Indeed the States are up against a skeptical Supreme Court. The justices questioned whether the case would open a floodgate to subsequent litigation against other energy producers. The justices also seemed to doubt whether a district court judge, without expertise or necessarily the resources to set emission standards for the plants, would be acting as a “Super-EPA” in formulating a decision. As part of deciding the case, a district court judge would have to balance the competing interests of impacts on jobs and energy costs against the benefits of public health and reduced environmental damage.
Initially, the States brought the public nuisance case in district court where it was dismissed. The district court ruled the States lacked standing because the case involved policy questions that the court determined were best decided by the executive and legislative branches of government and not the judiciary. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009 overturned the district court’s decision and held the plaintiffs did have standing because public nuisance cases, as part of well-settled torts law, do not involve political questions.
Interestingly, Obama Administration Solicitor General, Neal Katyal has joined the side of the power companies because the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority is named in the dispute. Katyal’s presence has disappointed environmental advocates particularly because the Supreme Court traditionally gives deference to the Solicitor General’s view. The deference given to the Solicitor General’s position has made some believe the Supreme Court will reverse the Second Circuit’s decision and rule against the States.
As of now, it is unclear which way the Supreme Court will decide. What is clear is that this will be a landmark case both for the States and the power companies.
-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The Future of Florida's Growth (Mis)Managment?
For those interested in Florida's growth management, and considering our current trends we all should be, you need to keep an eye on House Bill 7207.
The following is from our friends at 1000 Friends of Florida, please visit their webpage for even more information.
Some of the most damaging provisions of HB 7207:
HB 7207 significantly speeds up the review process for local comprehensive plans. While growth management advocates supported the concept as described in SB 1122, that bill included a trade-off that gave citizens a reasonable chance to succeed in legal challenges. This standard did not survive in HB 7207, which also removes the ability of the new Division of Community Development (“DCD”) to intervene in these challenges, even when key state resources are at stake.
By eliminating Rule 9J-5, HB 7207 removes a quarter century of legal decisions supporting the rights of communities to address sprawl, urban service boundaries, and other key planning issues. The elimination of Rule 9J-5 also eradicates numerous rulings upholding the rights of citizens to participate meaningfully in their local planning process.
The new legislation also makes it more difficult for citizens to keep up with changes to their local plans. Under previous law, plan amendments were limited to twice a year. Now the local plans can be amended at any time, the new DCD is not required to comment on the amendments, and the amendments go into effect 31 days later unless challenged.
HB 7207 significantly reduces the home rule ability of local governments. It removes their right to require referenda and/or a supermajority vote on key planning issues.
In a state where one in five homes is vacant, HB 7207 removes requirements that developers show the need for new development or that the new development is financially feasible. In an era of rising gas prices, it removes requirements that new development be energy efficient.
HB 7207 also makes it easier for large-scale development to be approved without careful scrutiny. The new process allows for but does not require DCD review or comments for Sector Plans, Rural Land Stewardship Areas, Areas of Critical State Concern, EAR-based amendments, or plans for new communities. If DCA does choose to review these plans, it has only 45 days to comment, no matter the size of the development or community in question.
The legislation also makes substantive changes to a number of these programs. For example, it gives a four-year extension for DRIs, and exempts mining, industrial, hotel/motel and movie theater categories. It also no longer requires DCA approval to establish a Rural Land Stewardship Area.
Some recent media coverage on this issue:
-Time.com -- Florida Loses Its Mind. Again, May 9, 2011
-St. Augustine Record -- Growth bill set to become law, May 8, 2011
-South Florida Sun-Sentinel -- New growth rules could have big impact in South Florida, May 8, 2011.
-Florida Tribune -- Florida's growth management laws overhauled, May 6, 2011
-Miami Herald -- Passage of growth management bill angers environmentalists, May 6, 2011Sarasota Herald-Tribune -- Growth rules rollback goes to Scott, May 6, 2011
-Andrew Miller, Executive Director
The following is from our friends at 1000 Friends of Florida, please visit their webpage for even more information.
Some of the most damaging provisions of HB 7207:
HB 7207 significantly speeds up the review process for local comprehensive plans. While growth management advocates supported the concept as described in SB 1122, that bill included a trade-off that gave citizens a reasonable chance to succeed in legal challenges. This standard did not survive in HB 7207, which also removes the ability of the new Division of Community Development (“DCD”) to intervene in these challenges, even when key state resources are at stake.
By eliminating Rule 9J-5, HB 7207 removes a quarter century of legal decisions supporting the rights of communities to address sprawl, urban service boundaries, and other key planning issues. The elimination of Rule 9J-5 also eradicates numerous rulings upholding the rights of citizens to participate meaningfully in their local planning process.
The new legislation also makes it more difficult for citizens to keep up with changes to their local plans. Under previous law, plan amendments were limited to twice a year. Now the local plans can be amended at any time, the new DCD is not required to comment on the amendments, and the amendments go into effect 31 days later unless challenged.
HB 7207 significantly reduces the home rule ability of local governments. It removes their right to require referenda and/or a supermajority vote on key planning issues.
In a state where one in five homes is vacant, HB 7207 removes requirements that developers show the need for new development or that the new development is financially feasible. In an era of rising gas prices, it removes requirements that new development be energy efficient.
HB 7207 also makes it easier for large-scale development to be approved without careful scrutiny. The new process allows for but does not require DCD review or comments for Sector Plans, Rural Land Stewardship Areas, Areas of Critical State Concern, EAR-based amendments, or plans for new communities. If DCA does choose to review these plans, it has only 45 days to comment, no matter the size of the development or community in question.
The legislation also makes substantive changes to a number of these programs. For example, it gives a four-year extension for DRIs, and exempts mining, industrial, hotel/motel and movie theater categories. It also no longer requires DCA approval to establish a Rural Land Stewardship Area.
Some recent media coverage on this issue:
-Time.com -- Florida Loses Its Mind. Again, May 9, 2011
-St. Augustine Record -- Growth bill set to become law, May 8, 2011
-South Florida Sun-Sentinel -- New growth rules could have big impact in South Florida, May 8, 2011.
-Florida Tribune -- Florida's growth management laws overhauled, May 6, 2011
-Miami Herald -- Passage of growth management bill angers environmentalists, May 6, 2011Sarasota Herald-Tribune -- Growth rules rollback goes to Scott, May 6, 2011
-Andrew Miller, Executive Director
Friday, April 15, 2011
Rain Rain...Don't Go Away
Living in Florida, it is hard to believe that we are under a water shortage, as it seems that everywhere you look there is a waterway of some sort. However, in order to supply water to more than 90 percent of its booming population, as well as keep its golf courses and residential lawns green, Florida relies on groundwater that is extracted from permeable aquifers underground. Unfortunately the harsh reality is that "Florida's groundwater has been over allocated — not just in South Florida, but all over the state," asserts Cynthia Barnett, author of Mirage: Florida and the Vanishing Water of the Eastern United States. "In addition, we just haven't taken conservation as seriously as other parts of the country," says Barnett, with Floridians pumping groundwater out of our aquifers faster than the state's ample rainfall can refill them. Ultimately, while solutions to quenching the water needs of an increasing human population in Florida are quite difficult, there are simple solutions to meeting the needs of our own front yards, golf courses and the like, which can make a difference. One of these is the rain barrel.
Rain barrels, sometimes referred to as cisterns, are on-site rainwater collection systems by which rainwater can be collected as a valuable resource to irrigate lawns and landscaped areas, while also reducing storm water management costs by easing stress on the public water system and local water supplies. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, for every inch of rain received, about 600 gallons of water can drain from every 1,000-square-foot roof area and into the environment.
In considering irrigation advantages, rainwater is thought to improve the health of your landscaping, lawn and trees, since rainwater is naturally “soft” and devoid of minerals, chlorine and other chemicals found in tap water. However, on the down side, the water pressure will be less than from your outdoor spigot, so a small pump may need to be attached to increase the flow pressure. Furthermore, the general practice is to avoid using the rain barrel water on vegetables and other edible plants, such as herbs for cooking, since roofs may leach pollutants and bacteria that are collected there.
Despite a few shortcomings, another significantly beneficial use of rain barrels is that they may reduce peak volume and velocity of stormwater runoff that reaches our waterways. In most all U.S. communities, rainwater flows over impervious, man-made surfaces such as house roofs and paved roads instead of more natural areas such as forests or grasslands. As a result, when massive Floridian rainstorms dump exponential amounts of water, our sewer systems which carry human and industrial waste become susceptible to overflows and backups creating risks to environmental and human health.
Thus, with growing urbanization in water-scarce areas, including Florida, the increasing water demands for domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural purposes exacerbates the situation. While it may seem like a small step, rain barrels can make a huge impact on the environment and our water consumption as a human population at a low personal cost.
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
Rain barrels, sometimes referred to as cisterns, are on-site rainwater collection systems by which rainwater can be collected as a valuable resource to irrigate lawns and landscaped areas, while also reducing storm water management costs by easing stress on the public water system and local water supplies. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, for every inch of rain received, about 600 gallons of water can drain from every 1,000-square-foot roof area and into the environment.
In considering irrigation advantages, rainwater is thought to improve the health of your landscaping, lawn and trees, since rainwater is naturally “soft” and devoid of minerals, chlorine and other chemicals found in tap water. However, on the down side, the water pressure will be less than from your outdoor spigot, so a small pump may need to be attached to increase the flow pressure. Furthermore, the general practice is to avoid using the rain barrel water on vegetables and other edible plants, such as herbs for cooking, since roofs may leach pollutants and bacteria that are collected there.
Despite a few shortcomings, another significantly beneficial use of rain barrels is that they may reduce peak volume and velocity of stormwater runoff that reaches our waterways. In most all U.S. communities, rainwater flows over impervious, man-made surfaces such as house roofs and paved roads instead of more natural areas such as forests or grasslands. As a result, when massive Floridian rainstorms dump exponential amounts of water, our sewer systems which carry human and industrial waste become susceptible to overflows and backups creating risks to environmental and human health.
Thus, with growing urbanization in water-scarce areas, including Florida, the increasing water demands for domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural purposes exacerbates the situation. While it may seem like a small step, rain barrels can make a huge impact on the environment and our water consumption as a human population at a low personal cost.
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
Sustainable Agriculture – The Future of Food?
So what does sustainable agriculture really mean? Well, it is defined as an “integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will over the long term,” among other things, “enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends…make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources…[and] enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.” This might seem like a lot to take in, but it is not. Stated in a different way, the University of California Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education Program summarizes sustainable agriculture as a meeting of the needs of today without limiting the ability of future generations to meet its needs.
Sustainable agriculture in practice involves responsible management of both natural and human resources. The human resources aspect of responsible management considers the social impacts in the present and future such as consumer health and safety, the conditions for labor workers, and rural community needs. The natural resources aspect involves farming practices that maintain land resources for the long term.
There are groups that promote the use of sustainable agricultural methods to transform our nation’s food system. National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) is a collection of grassroots organizations with a 20-year history. NACS advocates for federal policy reform in order to promote the use of sustainable agriculture and the protection of natural resources and rural communities. The group also works to support research, education, and development of new markets and businesses. NSAC’s goal is to create a food system that is affordable, produced by sustainable agricultural methods, and harvested by local family farmers who receive a fair wage.
Slow Food USA (Slow Food) is another example of a grassroots movement that promotes sustainable agriculture. Its motto is “Good, Clean, and Fair Food.” One of Slow Food’s goals is to “strengthen the connection between the food on our plates and the health of our planet.” Slow Food has 200 chapters across the US. The group is involved with advocacy and public outreach including “identifying, promoting and protecting fruits, vegetables, grains, animal breeds, wild foods, and cooking traditions at risk of disappearance.”
Last week Slow Food and NSAC joined efforts to campaign in Washington D.C. on behalf of sustainable agriculture programs at risk of being cut. Erin Swenson-Klatt, from Slow Food, spoke with congressional representatives to convey the message that sustainable programs “are efficient and effective both at offering greater resources to innovative farmers and at revitalizing rural communities.”
Being a member in organizations like Slow Food and NACS is not the only way to have a say in how our food system works. As a consumer, you have the choice and the power to make an impact that can be felt locally as well as globally. One of the ways to do this is by purchasing your food from local farms and markets. One website that can connect you with grass-fed food is www.eatwild.com. One of the farms featured on the eatwild site is Ashlin Farms. Located in Jacksonville, Ashlin Farms sells only grass-fed, free-range beef. Another great local resource is the Beaches Local Food Network. The group hosts a farmers market every Saturday in Neptune Beach called the Beaches Green Market. By supporting these types of initiatives you are promoting the stewardship of natural and human resources, the goal of sustainable agriculture.
-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern
Sustainable agriculture in practice involves responsible management of both natural and human resources. The human resources aspect of responsible management considers the social impacts in the present and future such as consumer health and safety, the conditions for labor workers, and rural community needs. The natural resources aspect involves farming practices that maintain land resources for the long term.
There are groups that promote the use of sustainable agricultural methods to transform our nation’s food system. National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) is a collection of grassroots organizations with a 20-year history. NACS advocates for federal policy reform in order to promote the use of sustainable agriculture and the protection of natural resources and rural communities. The group also works to support research, education, and development of new markets and businesses. NSAC’s goal is to create a food system that is affordable, produced by sustainable agricultural methods, and harvested by local family farmers who receive a fair wage.
Slow Food USA (Slow Food) is another example of a grassroots movement that promotes sustainable agriculture. Its motto is “Good, Clean, and Fair Food.” One of Slow Food’s goals is to “strengthen the connection between the food on our plates and the health of our planet.” Slow Food has 200 chapters across the US. The group is involved with advocacy and public outreach including “identifying, promoting and protecting fruits, vegetables, grains, animal breeds, wild foods, and cooking traditions at risk of disappearance.”
Last week Slow Food and NSAC joined efforts to campaign in Washington D.C. on behalf of sustainable agriculture programs at risk of being cut. Erin Swenson-Klatt, from Slow Food, spoke with congressional representatives to convey the message that sustainable programs “are efficient and effective both at offering greater resources to innovative farmers and at revitalizing rural communities.”
Being a member in organizations like Slow Food and NACS is not the only way to have a say in how our food system works. As a consumer, you have the choice and the power to make an impact that can be felt locally as well as globally. One of the ways to do this is by purchasing your food from local farms and markets. One website that can connect you with grass-fed food is www.eatwild.com. One of the farms featured on the eatwild site is Ashlin Farms. Located in Jacksonville, Ashlin Farms sells only grass-fed, free-range beef. Another great local resource is the Beaches Local Food Network. The group hosts a farmers market every Saturday in Neptune Beach called the Beaches Green Market. By supporting these types of initiatives you are promoting the stewardship of natural and human resources, the goal of sustainable agriculture.
-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Watch a Kite Fly....But Perhaps Not For Long
Swooping low and silent over Lake Okeechobee is the Everglade Snail Kite (Kite), preparing to select an apple snail from a water lily in its critical habitat. Lake Okeechobee is home to the endangered Kite, despite the fact that from the year 2000 until the present, the freshwater wetland has experienced extreme weather patterns and been subjected to new water management protocols which have created record low water levels for record lengths of time at increased frequencies. Lake Okeechobee now rarely provides suitable habitat for Kite nesting, or even foraging for that matter, causing the Kite population in Florida to decline from about 3000 individuals in the year 2000 to less than 700 today. “Who cares?,” you may ask.
Well, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), touted as providing a “framework to restore, protect and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida,” seems to think it is important. You see, CERP, a partnership comprised of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), has more than 50 performance measures used to assess success in water management for the human population. Only three of these measures rank as “Total System-wide Performance Measures,” and the success of the Everglade Snail Kite is one of them due to its reliance on a properly functioning Everglades ecosystem. Thus, achieving Kite persistence is expected to demonstrate system-wide sustainable restoration, resulting in confidence that needs can be met for the human population.
However, in the month of March 2011, according to the South Florida Water Management District, “the region has received only 47 percent of its historic average rainfall through March 22, or 0.95 inches for a deficit of 1.18 inches,” which “follows the driest October-to-February period in 80 years and a dry season deficit that has reached 7.62 inches as of March 22, 2011.” This is concerning when on considers that “The Big O” is not only the seventh largest freshwater lake in the United States, but also South Florida's backup water supply which is relied upon to replenish drinking water supplies for some communities and tapped for irrigation by sugar cane growers and other farmers. Furthermore, according to the U. S. Census Bureau, Florida's human population will grow by about 12 million people between 2000 and 2030.
So, it seems to follow, if we don’t protect the lake’s traditional water level with higher restrictions and increased conservation, then the federally endangered Everglade Snail Kite (Kite) could be in serious trouble. And where the Kite goes, so may we.
-Tim Nalepka, Legal Intern
Well, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), touted as providing a “framework to restore, protect and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida,” seems to think it is important. You see, CERP, a partnership comprised of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), has more than 50 performance measures used to assess success in water management for the human population. Only three of these measures rank as “Total System-wide Performance Measures,” and the success of the Everglade Snail Kite is one of them due to its reliance on a properly functioning Everglades ecosystem. Thus, achieving Kite persistence is expected to demonstrate system-wide sustainable restoration, resulting in confidence that needs can be met for the human population.
However, in the month of March 2011, according to the South Florida Water Management District, “the region has received only 47 percent of its historic average rainfall through March 22, or 0.95 inches for a deficit of 1.18 inches,” which “follows the driest October-to-February period in 80 years and a dry season deficit that has reached 7.62 inches as of March 22, 2011.” This is concerning when on considers that “The Big O” is not only the seventh largest freshwater lake in the United States, but also South Florida's backup water supply which is relied upon to replenish drinking water supplies for some communities and tapped for irrigation by sugar cane growers and other farmers. Furthermore, according to the U. S. Census Bureau, Florida's human population will grow by about 12 million people between 2000 and 2030.
So, it seems to follow, if we don’t protect the lake’s traditional water level with higher restrictions and increased conservation, then the federally endangered Everglade Snail Kite (Kite) could be in serious trouble. And where the Kite goes, so may we.
-Tim Nalepka, Legal Intern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)