Revamped Oversight Of Wetlands Could Get Board Out Of Hot Water

Published: Jul 24, 2007

Make no mistake. If Hillsborough County commissioners vote to eliminate local wetlands protections, the community will lose critical natural resources.

Proponents claim wetlands protection can be left to the state, particularly in these tough budget times.

But the county's rule is tougher than the state's and local regulators take a more comprehensive approach, working with landowners so development plans avoid wetlands altogether if possible.

The local program makes a big difference. After the state approved a phosphate mining plan for southeast Hillsborough, the EPC review resulted in the preservation of an additional 200 acres of wetlands. Last year the county reviewed 446 wetlands permits. The Southwest Florida Water District handled only 166 permits in Hillsborough.

So the community is going to lose a lot of marshes if Commissioners Brian Blair, Jim Norman, Ken Hagan and Kevin White plow ahead with their plan to kill EPC's wetlands division.

And the cost involved for protecting a natural resource that stores water, prevents flooding, reduces erosion and sustains wildlife is small - less than $1 million a year.

Don't be misled by proponents' talk of unnecessary costs or duplication. The goal of those attacking EPC's wetlands jurisdiction is to make it easier to bulldoze marshes. Indeed, a driving force behind the effort is a developer who has long sought to dismantle EPC's wetlands protections that have been in place 22 years.

So the public should watch closely when commissioners meet as the EPC board Thursday. EPC Executive Director Richard Garrity is scheduled to present a revised wetlands protection plan that he hopes will keep commission from killing local protections.

Disgraceful Episode

Last month, in a disgraceful episode, Blair, Norman, Hagan and White voted to eliminate the EPC's wetlands' division without listening to Garrity or the public. Another vote will be needed for the move to be official.

EPC Chairman Blair, who has led the charge against EPC, now says he wants to hear the proposal and that he may change his mind.

He says no final vote will be taken until next month, but the board majority has been known to move abruptly when pushing developers' agenda.

Garrity, under assault by development interests, now finds himself also being attacked by environmentalists for offering some concessions. That's unfair.

The changes he's offering, for the most part, seem sensible and will make the process more efficient and flexible. He'll also eliminate a few positions.

The agency would rank wetlands, focusing its energy and its regulators on the most important tracts. Protections would be eliminated for some "marginal" wetlands, such as cow ponds, but Garrity stresses that the agency historically has approved the destruction of such degraded wetlands anyway.

Under the plan, EPC would coordinate with other state and federal agencies to further streamline the review process. One-stop permitting would be possible in many cases.

The county and the water district would still conduct separate reviews of certain projects, but would better coordinate their efforts.

The EPC staff would consult with a committee of "stakeholders" when revising wetlands rules. An ombudsman would be named to assist landowners, especially small farmers, who need a permit to destroy wetlands.

Less Cumbersome

Yes, some protections might be weakened. The changes would need to be monitored. But environmentalists should not mistake bureaucratic process with resource protection. No one should object if EPC can make things less cumbersome.

And Garrity's proposal would preserve the key parts of the wetlands' rule - including the authority to protect wetlands under a half-acre, which the state does not cover.

It's important to remember that Blair, Norman, Hagan and White have signaled they want to jettison wetlands protections altogether. This plan offers them a legitimate reason to reverse their votes - if their concern is duplication and efficiency.

If Garrity's changes are adopted, local marshlands protections will remain intact. A later, more enlightened board could always strengthen the rule.

But if the wetlands program is killed, reviving it is going to be far more difficult and Hillsborough's resources are going to be lost for years to come.