As you read this we are in week seven of the nine week
legislative session. While very little
is definite until session is over on May 2nd, this update will give
you an idea of what’s happening with environmental bills so far this year.
First of all, the legislature is not meeting this week! Since Passover was on Monday and Good Friday
ends the week, there are no committee meetings or floor sessions
scheduled. That means almost all
committees have had their last meeting and starting next week we’ll be in the
“end-game” of the session. Any bill that
hasn’t been heard in at least one of its committees of reference is basically
dead for the year.
For Florida Legislative alerts, join our FLORIDA REPORT. Go to www.sierraclub.org/memberlists?listname=FL-FLORIDA-REPORT (have your membership number available). Or contact the owner of the list at FL-FLORIDA-REPORT-Request@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG.
Issues in this update: budget, fracking, springs bill, bad
environmental regulation bill, DRI bills, renewable energy issues and bad
energy memorials, land application of septage, plastic bags, chemicals of high
concern, coastal management permitting and aquatic preserves, flood insurance,
brownfields, green transportation funding, and reclaimed water.
The “must pass” item for each session is the budget and both
the House and Senate have passed their versions. Now they have to work out the differences
between them and compromise on the final document. Overall, this has been a
somewhat less painful process than in recent years due to an available surplus of
$1.2 billion this year (largely from increased sales tax collections as the
economy emerges from the recession.)
At this point the Senate has more money for the Everglades and Indian River Lagoon while the House has
more for local water projects and for Florida Forever. Both sides have $30 million for the bridging
of Tamiami Trail and money for Springs projects. The Senate has $125 million
vs. the House’s $100 million for petroleum cleanup. The House budget has $100.5 million for local
water projects and the Senate only provides $43.3 million. But the total amounts are not too far apart
and it’s likely it won’t take too long for them to come to agreement.
As of this writing the conference committees that will work
out the differences between the House and Senate environmental budgets have not
been named, but that should happen soon. The committee will be formed of
members from the House and Senate and each chamber will alternate making offers
on the differences between them. When an
offer is accepted it is taken off the table and only the remaining differences
are the subject of further negotiation.
If the committee gets to the point where it can make no further progress,
the remaining differences are “bumped up” to the Appropriations chairs (Sen.
Negron and Rep. McKeel). Any last
sticking points are bumped up to the Speaker of the House and President of the
Senate.
Florida Forever funding: The Senate provides a total of $40
million which is completely dependent on raising the money by selling
non-conservation lands. This is better
than last year’s fiasco which required selling up to $50 million of conservation lands in order to purchase new
conservation lands. DEP went through a
long process of identifying lands that could be surplussed only to find that
the conservation land the state owns is valuable and should not be sold
off. They have finally abandoned that
plan.
However, this year’s requirement of funding further land
purchases by the sale of non-conservation lands does not mean $40 million will
be available to make purchases with. The Cabinet has approved the sale of the
almost 80 acre A.G. Holley Hospital property to a Boca Raton
The House budget for Florida Forever also has the $40
million from the sale of non-conservation lands and adds $15 million for
additional purchases and $15 million for the purchase of conservation easements
to protect rural agricultural land from development for a potential total of
$70 million.
The Senate funding for Everglades
and Indian River Lagoon projects reflects Appropriations Chair Negron’s
concerns about the impact of the Lagoon’s collapse and the subsequent
recommendations of the Select Committee he chaired prior to session.
Biggest bills
Fracking HB 71/ HB 157
by Rep. Rodrigues
These bills would
have required disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking but would
have also provided the industry with a mechanism to keep any chemicals secret
by claiming they were a “trade secret.” Each passed its first committee on party line
votes and HB 71 also passed its second of three committee referrals. But neither had a Senate companion and both
appear to be dead for the year.
Fortunately, Florida
The industry would never allow the disclosure requirement to
pass into law without the trade secrets exemption that allows them to hide what
they’re doing.
Springs SB 1576 / HB 1313
by Sen. Dean / Rep. Brodeur
The Springs bill has gotten a great deal of focus. A group of five Senators: Sens. Dean,
Simmons, Hays, Montford, and Simpson, all recognized that the condition of Florida
1576
provides:
- Funding
- Worst First approach
- Method to address Water Quantity
- Method to address Water Quality –
identify sources of pollution and
requiring action when funding is provided
- Lawn fertilizer
- Agricultural
fertilizer
- Stormwater
- Septic tanks
- Wastewater treatment
facilities
- Some deadlines
- Prohibited activities
- Study and develop new techniques and practices
SB 1576 passed its first two Senate committees unanimously
and still has the opportunity to be heard in Senate Appropriations. The bill has been through numerous iterations
since the fall and many of Sierra Club’s requested amendments have been
adopted.
The House bill however, has not even been heard in its first
committee. As this is written there is
talk of a springs “lite” bill that the House may be willing to take up. We will be keeping a very close eye on any
such legislation. It would be far better
to pass nothing than a bill that will make things worse. Incoming Senate President Gardiner expressed
his support for the intent of the bill as presented on the Senate side and told
the industry lobbyists who were damning the bill with faint praise that they weren’t
going to “study us to death” and they weren’t going to “run out the
clock.” He’ll be President for two years
so we’ll have some leverage to actually get something done.
HB 703 / SB 1464 Environmental
Regulation by Rep. Patronis / Sen. Simpson
Rep. Patronis’s annual omnibus anti-environment regulation
bill ran into difficulty this year – but don’t relax yet.
The original language of HB 703 included a retrospective
gutting of the past ten years of local
ordinances protecting wetlands or springs or addressing stormwater, preempted
local governments’ ability to choose whether a super majority is necessary to
amend a comprehensive plan, allowed for 30 and 50 year comprehensive use
permits for water, reintroduced the preemption of Orange County’s development
regulations by the Ranger Drainage District, and once again extended the
expiration date of building permits (this time for a two year period.)
The bill met with significant push back and Rep. Patronis
agreed to remove some objectionable sections, but there was still nothing to
like in the bill and the companion, SB 1464 by Sen. Simpson was further trimmed
in its first Senate committee. SB 1464 was
amended in its first committee to remove the preemption of comp plan amendments
going back to 2003 and the Ranger Drainage District section. The bill was then scheduled in the Community
Affairs Committee which the sponsor, Sen. Simpson, chairs. There was a long agenda and Sen. Simpson TP’d
(temporarily postponed) his own bill,
Since Community Affairs won’t meet again this year the bill should be
dead.
But (there’s always a “but”…) both HB 703 and SB 1464 passed
their first committees of reference.
Therefore, under the rules, any piece of the bill can now be amended
onto other bills. So we’ll be watching
all the amendments to all the bills to try to head off any attempt to sneak the
really bad provisions into law.
Renewable Energy – SB
922 / SJR 916; HJR 825 / HB 827 by Sen. Brandes and Rep. LaRosa
These linked bills would put a Constitutional amendment on
the November ballot to extend the exemption from ad valorem (property) taxes on
renewable energy improvements to commercial as well as residential properties.
SJR 916 and HJR are the Joint Resolutions that would put the measure on the
ballot and SB 922 and HB 827 are the bills that would implement the
constitutional change as soon as voters adopted it.
The linking of the implementing bill was spurred by the
delay in implementing the ad valorem exemption for residential property which
was adopted by voters in 2008 but wasn’t implemented until last year – five
years later.
Sen. Brandes’ bills made it through their first committees,
but since the House bills have been stopped by Chair Workman who has refused to
put them on the agenda of the Finance & Tax Subcommittee the issue appears
to be dead for the year. Chair Workman
has been quoted saying he’s not opposed to solar, just to subsidizing it. But he apparently has no problem with the subsidies fossil fuel
and nuclear power plants get.
In committees on the Senate side, renewable energy companies
emphasized the importance of being able to sell the power they generate to
third parties. This is a “third rail”
for the utilities that are more concerned about retaining their monopoly status
than their customers. Sen. Latvala
explained to the members that the utilities give a huge amount of money to the
political process and have a lot of influence and cited the Integrity Florida
report as an example of the evidence for his statement: http://www.solarsouthwestflorida.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/215438901-Power-Play-Political-Influence-of-Florida-s-Top-Energy-Corporations-FINAL-1.pdf
SB 372 / HB 241 Developments
of Regional Impact by Sen. Galvano / Rep. Gaetz
Sen. Galvano’s SB 372 would eliminate the regional review
large development projects are supposed to receive if they will affect more
than one jurisdiction. This means one
county could approve a huge development that will cause problems for another
county with no recourse. Worse, the bill
eliminates the requirement that the exemption from the DRI process only apply
within the Urban Service Area (USA).
That exemption was created for two reasons: First, if a development was
being built inside a USA the impact of the urban area was already in place and
neighboring communities were not likely to be severely affected; second, the
requirement that the development be within the USA meant it would not be out in
the natural green spaces of the county creating sprawl.
Fortunately, the House companion bill, HB 241 by Rep. Gaetz
was not heard in its first committee and the Senate bill was TP’d in Community
Affairs last week. This bill could come
back next year.
HB 1113 / SB 1160 Land
Application of Septage by Rep. Edwards / Sen. Evers
In 2010 SB 550 was passed into law. That was the bill that called for septic tank
inspections and evaluations in an attempt to get a handle on the nutrient
pollution they cause. All the inspection
requirements were gutted in SB 1263 in 2012, but one provision survived: the
prohibition on the land application of septage (the stuff pumped out of septic
tanks) by 2016.
Some septic tank pumpout haulers find that wastewater
treatment plants are too small to accept their loads or turn them away for
other reasons. Treated septage can be
taken to landfills, but it must be dewatered first. Despite the ban being on the books since
2010, the requisite infrastructure has not been put in place, and now with the
deadline approaching, the septage has to go somewhere.
HB 1113 and SB 1160 were filed as bills to push the ban on
land application to 2020, but the environmental community has been able to
bring it back to 2017. While this is a
year later than current law, the tradeoff for waiting one year is this: DEP
will head up a study of the impact of land application and the sufficiency of
the Department of Health rules to protect water quality.
A review of the DOH rule shows that it is designed from a
public health perspective, not an environmental one. Septage is raised to a pH of 12 for two hours
(or 12.5 for 30 minutes) before it can be applied to the land. This is fine as far as killing fecal coliform
bacteria but it does nothing about the nitrogen and phosphorous that pollutes
our waters.
Sierra Club has identified a number of financing sources in
statute that can be drawn on to fund the necessary infrastructure. The study is to be completed in time for the
2016 session so a comprehensive bill can be drawn up that eliminates the
technical challenges facing the haulers and the problem of nutrients getting
into the water.
This bill is emblematic of the impact of population growth
and the need for statewide and regional planning to accommodate it. Sadly, the current legislature doesn’t seem
to be getting the message yet.
HM 821 Keystone XL
Pipeline by Rep. Hill
This memorial (essentially a message from the Florida
When Sierra Club testified against the memorial in committee
Rep. Pilon asked about the comparison of spills between pipelines and tankers
in our ports. Research reveals that even
the American Petroleum Institute acknowledges pipelines are responsible for
more oil spilled than tankers and
barges. (See Table 53: http://www.api.org/environment-health-and-safety/clean-water/oil-spill-prevention-and-response/~/media/93371edfb94c4b4d9c6bbc766f0c4a40.ashx
)
Tar sands oil is dirtier than other oils both in terms of
its impact on water and the amount of carbon it releases. Because it tends to
sink as the volatiles evaporate away it is much harder to clean up than oil
that can be “skimmed” off the surface.
Tar sands oil releases more
carbon into the atmosphere because its extraction is highly energy intensive to
release the tarry substance from the sand and to get it to a consistency where
it can be moved through a pipeline.
SB 830 Carryout
Bags by Sen. Bullard
This good bill finally got heard in committee this year for
the first time in a few years. High
School students from Cutler
Bay
The bill would eliminate the current preemption of local
governments’ ability to ban the use of plastic bags and at the same time create
a single model ordinance localities could adopt so businesses would only have
to deal with one set of rules in any place where a plastic bags ordinance was
adopted. (A single one-size-fits-all
model ordinance is acceptable in this instance because there is no need to
address the problem on a watershed by watershed basis as is the case with lawn
fertilizer ordinances.)
One provision of the bill, that paper bags were to be sold
to customers who don’t bring their own bags for ten cents apiece, ran into opposition
from Sens. Abruzzo, Gardiner, and to a degree from Sen. Latvala, who all
labeled the ten cent fee a “tax.” (The
ten cents would be divided between the retailer to defray their costs and the
local school district.)
The Retail Federation and Associated Industries of Florida
both opposed the bill while Sierra Club Florida
Sen. Bullard debated the bill as thoroughly as possible and
in the end asked that it be TP’d. He
promises to bring it back next year.
SB 1180 / HB 991 Chemicals of High Concern by Sen. Sobel
/ Rep. Pritchett
Sen. Sobel was able to get her bill, SB 1180, through two of
its four committees. Rep. Pritchett’s HB
991 was never heard in its first so the bill is done for the year. But it is better positioned for next year.
The bill calls for the Department of Health to publish a
list of between 50 and 100 chemicals that are suspected of causing health
problems for pregnant women and for children when the suspicion is based on
peer reviewed research or government agency findings.
The bill will be back again next year.
HM 1027 / SM 1174 Carbon
Dioxide Emissions from Fossil-fueled Electric Generating Units by Rep. Wood / Sen. Gibson
The utilities have been hard at work around the country getting
state legislatures to adopt similar memorials urging Congress to tell EPA to go
easy on coal burning utilities. (I again
refer you to the Integrity Florida report on utility campaign contributions…)
House sponsor Rep. Wood is a self-described “all-of-the-above”
Republican and his co-sponsor is Democratic Rep. Mia Jones (who was in the
running for the leadership of the House Democrats in the coming two year term)
and the Senate sponsor is Democrat Sen. Audrey Gibson. Both Sen. Gibson and Rep. Jones hail from the
Jacksonville
Both bills have passed all their committees and are ready
for floor votes.
HB 791 / SB 956 Coastal Management by Rep. Renuart / Sen. Bean
This bill was one of only two bills DEP wanted passed this
year and it has two sections, both of which have been amended to make them
better. The first section of the bill is still somewhat problematic in that it
makes permitting easier while we think beach construction should get careful
site and project specific review.
The first section of the bill provides for areawide and
general permits for various activities.
It has been amended to require consultation with FWCC on areawide
permits (to consider and ameliorate impacts on threatened or endangered
species), and to limit work on beachfront swimming pools to only those attached
to single family residences and to limit work on beach armoring (such as sea
walls) to “minor reconstruction” which means it cannot include any expansion or
movement seaward of the original permitted footprint of the armoring.
The second section of the bill deals with accommodations for
visitors to aquatic preserves.
Originally, this section provided for no-bid contracting, but it has
been amended to require the consideration of the qualifications of bidders in
evaluating whether to contract with them or not. This frees the department from having to
accept the lowest bidder, but does not allow them essentially unlimited
discretion and requires transparency via the bidding process. The section has also been amended to require
that approved concessions comply with the ARC approved management plan for the
preserve.
HB 01123 / SB
1094 Aquatic Preserves by Rep. Porter
/ Sen. Dean
This bill designates the
coastal region of Pasco
Aquatic Preserve and the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve (See the map on page 3 of the staff anlysis: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/1094/Analyses/2014s1094.agg.PDF)
Aquatic Preserve and the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve (See the map on page 3 of the staff anlysis: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/1094/Analyses/2014s1094.agg.PDF)
Unfortunately, the legislation includes a provision allowing
marinas. This is provided for in
existing law, but is not included in the language for most Preserves. The language does not allow for dredging for new navigation channels though, only
existing ones.
SB 542 / HB 897 Flood Insurance by Sen. Brandes / Rep.
Hooper
Sierra Club Florida
The original language of SB 542 included two provisions that
were troubling:
1) the Office of Insurance
Regulation (OIR) was prevented from making sure the rates charged for policies
were adequate to cover the risk of payouts.
This could mean an insurance company could come in and undercut on
prices, go belly up if a big storm hit, and the damaged property would be left
on the beach with no funding to remove it or clean it up. (The Florida
2) the bill also provided for
unlimited “consent to write.” Consent to
write is almost always used to allow customers to pay more for a policy than
OIR will approve. But in this instance
it could again have been used to undercharge
leaving the environment damaged by construction where it should not have been
allowed. Further, unlike most consent to
write provisions, the original bill had no cap on the percentage of such
policies that could be issued. (The cap
is generally 5% of residential and 10% of commercial.)
In both cases, the worst damage would be caused by making it
easier to get a mortgage to build close to the ocean because of the
availability of unrealistically inexpensive flood insurance. The bill has been amended to eliminate both
of these problems.
HB 325 / SB 586 Brownfields by Rep. Stone / Sen. Altman
Sierra Club negotiated with the Florida Brownfields
Association over the language of their desired liability protection from property
damage claims. After a number of
back-and-forth emails, they offered language we accepted. Then at the last minute, and without any
notice, a new amendment was introduced that grants a brownfield rehabilitator
liability protection for property damage even if they fail to find and
remediate contamination they should have found, they fail to clean up the
contamination because of incompetence, or if the land use changes (e.g., originally
cleaned up to standards for industrial property but the land use is changed to
residential which has higher standards as small children may be exposed to
contamination.)
Sierra Club Florida
HB 353 / SB 772 Expressway
Authorities by Rep. Nunez / Sen. Garcia
The genesis of this legislation is that the Miami Dade
Expressway Authority (MDX) raised tolls and affected residents want them rolled
back. As part of the bill to “rein in’
the Authority, the ability of MDX to fund green transportation projects was
eliminated.
The bill has been amended to remove the provision affecting
green transportation funding and instead, it provides new ethics standards for
Expressway Authority members.
HB 601 / SB 536 Reclaimed Water by Rep. Ray / Sen. Simpson
This legislation provides for a study and is similar to the
last section of the Springs bill by Sen. Dean (SB 1576.) The concern with the bill as originally filed was that it
called for a “report on the expansion of the beneficial use of reclaimed water,
including stormwater and excess surface water,” This language implied that stormwater and
excess surface water were forms of reclaimed water. The environmental community was able to
convince the sponsors to remove “including” so the study now looks at reclaimed
water, at stormwater, and at excess surface water.
The bill has also been amended to require a minimum of two
public meetings on the design of the study and an opportunity for public
comment prior to the report’s release.
Springs
bill (SB 1576) Overview
1576
provides:
- Funding
- Worst First approach
- Method to address Water Quantity
- Method to address Water Quality –
identify sources of pollution and
requiring action when funding is provided
- Lawn fertilizer
- Agricultural
fertilizer
- Stormwater
- Septic tanks
- Wastewater treatment
facilities
- Some deadlines
- Prohibited activities
- Study and develop new techniques and practices
Section
1
The
bill devotes about 20% of total doc stamp revenues to springs. The funds
are placed into the Ecosystem Management and Restoration TF.
MFLs
Sections
2, 3, and 8
The
WMDs are required to complete MFLs for all covered springs, AND the standard is
changed from "significantly harmful" to "harmful".
Therefore, the MFLs should be set at a considerably higher level than is
currently the case.
Similarly
the requirement for recovery and protection strategies is tied to the
"harm" standard.
The
establishment of MFLs is allowed to be extended to 2020 (because NFWMD has done
nothing and the assumption is that there should be five years of data for the
MFL to be defensible… Of course, the opportunity for delay is available to all
WMDs.)
If a
recovery or prevention strategy is needed the strategy must include a listing
of projects, their costs, and how much the WMD will put up (all but NFWMD and
SRWMD must put up at least 25%.)
Section
4
Short
Title “Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act” and creates a new “Part VIII” of chapter 373.
Section
5
Findings
and intent
Importance of springs
Connection between water quantity
and water quality
Importance of springsheds
Need to act
Intent to establish spring and
aquifer protection program to be administered by DEP
Section
6
Definitions
Department – DEP
Local Government -
county or municipal government whose jurisdiction includes an
Outstanding Florida Spring or its Spring protection and management zone
OSTDS – uses the DOH language
Outstanding Florida Spring – all
historic first magnitude springs and six others
Responsible management entity –
legal entity established to provide localized nutrient management services for
OSTDS or other nutrient sources (at local option)
Spring run
Springshed
Spring vent
Section
7
The
bill requires DEP to delineate both springsheds and "springs protection
and management zones" (SPAMZ). Most of the subsequent impact of the
bill is tied to the SPAMZs.
Water Quality
Section
9
Protection
of water quality
DEP to assess each Outstanding
Florida Spring (OFS) for which an impairment determination has not yet been
made
BMAPs to be established for all
impaired OFS by 7/1/17
Spring Action Plan to be started by
7/1/14 (effective date of bill) for each OFS with a BMAP, in implemented
recovery or prevention strategy, or when any of these is adopted, or when DEP
projects the OFS will be impaired by nutrients within 20 years (borrowing from
the recovery idea for MFLs and applying it to nutrient impairment)
Spring Action Plan (SAP) to be
adopted in one year and updated annually
SAP to include all
projects in BMAP in SPAMZ
All projects in regional
water supply plan in SPAMZ
All projects in recovery
or prevention strategy in SPAMZ
All projects proposed to
or by DEP - These projects will be evaluated to see which best address “Worst
First”
Estimates of nutrient
loading reduction
Maps and legal
descriptions of SPAMZs
The bill requires the
DEP to examine each spring's SPAMZ and to identify and allocate each point
source of pollution and each category of non-point pollution. (This
determination will help in achieving the goal of "Worst First".)
(3)
Requirements (more or less, the guts of
the water quality parts of the bill start here)
(a)
Localities in SPAMZs must meet or exceed the Model Ordinance for
lawn fertilizer (Localities are NOT preempted from adopting more stringent
regulations.)
(b)
Wastewater treatment facilities to file a plan for compliance
(they’ll have to upgrade to AWT) they can delay up to 2 years – they are
required to submit a proposal for funding at least every two years (so they
can’t sit on their hands and do nothing – when the money is available, the plan
must be implemented)
(c)
DEP, DOH, and local governments identify OSTDS and in one year the
local gvts are to develop an OSTDS remediation plan which says which systems
need to be upgraded, which need to connect to sewer, and which need no further
action
(d)
Remedial actions (each project) under this paragraph are not required unless DEP puts up the
full amount requested for the project.
(For OSTDS and small constrained counties DEP puts up 100%. For other projects, they put up 75%) When that funding is provided:
1.
By 7/1/21 WWTF projects are to upgrade to AWT (3 mg /L Total
Nitrogen, expressed as N, on an annual permitted basis)
2.
By 7/1/19 Ag producers are to implement BMPs to achieve pollution
levels established by DEP (DACS is to adopt the rules to implement this)
3.
Within 6 months, local gvts are to start implementing the OSTDS
remediation plan
Section
10
Funding
(1)
All parties are to cooperate and submit project proposals to DEP
in order to receive funding for up to 75% of cost (except for OSTDS and
fiscally constrained counties which get 100%.)
(2)
Doc stamp revenues go into the Ecosystem Management and
Restoration TF. The legislature may use
other sources of revenue to fund projects
(3)
DEP may distribute moneys in the TF to any person who submits an
approved project. Money will also be
given for administrative costs
(4)
Money not needed in the current year is to be deposited to the
credit of the fund and may be invested for the purposes of the bill
(5)
DEP to adopt rules to fund pilot projects for innovative
technologies or practices
(6)
By 12/31/14 DEP to develop and recommend rules to evaluate,
select, and rank submitted projects (per 12 criteria designed to get to Worst
First and “beest bang for the buck)
(7)
Projects not in a Spring Action Plan are not eligible for funding
Section
11
Prohibited
activities in a SPAMZ
No new municipal or industrial
wastewater disposal systems, including rapid infiltration basins, unless they
meet AWT standard or higher if required by DEP
No new OSTDS on lots of less than an
acre (The homebuilders are very unhappy with this and say it amounts to a
moratorium on building – they are very uneasy about what the size and
boundaries of the SPAMZ will be.)
No new facilities for disposal of
hazardous waste
No land application of septage
No CAFOs or intense cattle finishing
and slaughter operations (But this subsection on CAFOS does not apply to those
currently in operation or the expansion of existing ones in the future.)
Section
12
Rules
(1)
DEP to model the evaluation, selection, and ranking process on the
TMDL Water Quality Restoration Grants Rule
(2)
DOH, DACS, and WMDs may adopt rules to administer this part
(3)
(a) DACS is lead agency on reducing agricultural nonpoint sources
and, with DEP, is to study new or revised BMPs – and if necessary to do
rulemaking
(b) DACS to research and develop with IFAS additional
nutrient management tools to be included by rule into revised BMPs
Section
13
Variances
and exemptions
A
person may apply to the appropriate agency or WMD for a variance or exemption
from any requirement of this part. The
variance or exemption may be granted if the agency or WMD receives reasonable
assurance that the individual and cumulative impact will not contribute to
violations of water quality standards, minimum flows, or minimum water levels
in an Outstanding Florida Spring
Section
14
Responsible
management entities (RMEs)
By
3/1/15 DEP is to report on the creation and operation of RMEs – various
management models and their associated costs.
RMEs not to be created without approval by DEP which will ensure they
have policies at least as strict as state law
Section
15
Repeals
381.00651 F.S. (the terrible septic tank bill of 2012 that preempted septic
tank regulations and installed a very low “ceiling”. That was also the bill that gave counties the
ability to opt in or out of septic tank evaluation and inspections – all 19
counties opted out.)
Section
16
Comprehensive
study of nutrient reduction and beneficial use of reclaimed water, stormwater,
and excess surface water with subsequent report.
For Florida Legislative alerts, join our FLORIDA REPORT. Go to www.sierraclub.org/memberlists?listname=FL-FLORIDA-REPORT (have your membership number available). Or contact the owner of the list at FL-FLORIDA-REPORT-Request@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG.
The Report is on the website as well, including archived issues: http://florida.sierraclub.org/Legislative.asp
