The next step toward the Hybrid compromise on our local wetlands regulations is a proposed rule change allowing certain exemptions from our local wetlands rules for agriculture.
I’m reminded of this anecdotal conversation between a man and woman:
“Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?”
“Well, I guess I might.”
“Would you sleep with me for five dollars?”
“Sir, what kind of a woman do you take me for?”
“Madam, we have already established that; now we’re merely haggling over the price.”
Once we decide that our wetlands are negotiable, as long as their destruction is for a good cause—like agriculture—then we open the bidding for other “good causes.” Why not schools? Ball parks? Affordable housing? A mixed-use development with new-urbanism features, upscale design, an affordable component and a commercial element bringing high-tech jobs? The developers are already complaining that it’s unfair not to give them whatever exemptions we give the farmers.
The exemption allows agricultural operations to fill wetlands under a quarter-acre in size, with no mitigation, as long as the wetlands they destroy don’t add up to more than a half-acre, cumulatively, on any one site. A quarter-acre is not chump change in the wetland department. At almost 11,000 square feet, it provides important ecological functions. Small isolated wetlands are crucial to the survival of various species of wildlife, and their hydrological benefits are cumulative. Several small wetlands add up to a large amount of flood protection and water filtration.
Commissioners are set to change the rule in just a few weeks. What’s the rush? And why isn’t the new Technical Advisory Committee reviewing this major rule change? One of the things that has set our local wetlands regulations apart from the state’s, for 22 years, is that we protect our small wetlands, and the state doesn’t. Before we start giving these protections away, let’s give the newly formed committee of scientists some time to look this over.
Commissioner Higginbotham has been in the lead on this Ag Exemption, and he should slow this freight train down to avoid the appearance of ramming it through just to hand a political favor to one special interest group. We need more public discussion before rushing to change our county’s wetland regulations that have served us well for over 20 years.
EPC will hold a workshop on the Ag Exemptions, Sept. 24, 6 – 8 p.m., at the Roger P. Stewart Center, near I-75 & MLK. They’ll answer questions and take public input. You can also submit your comments in writing, by October 5, to Andrew Zodrow, of EPC (copy your County Commissioners). Finally, you can have your 3-minute say at the public hearing when the commissioners will decide the matter, Oct. 18, 9:00 a.m., County Center, 2nd floor, in downtown Tampa.
Revisions are still being made in light of public input. I’ve submitted my concerns, addressing some details & consequences of the rule change. You can review the proposal and provide input too.
haggling over the price of wetlands : Celebrity News Corner
2 years ago
[...] FilmwadStaff wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptEPC will hold a workshop on the Ag Exemptions, Sept. 24, 6 – 8 pm, at the Roger P. Stewart Center, near I-75 & MLK. They’ll answer questions and take public input. You can also submit your comments in writing, by October 5, … [...]
GKR
2 years ago
“A Manifesto for a New Environmentalism.”
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070924&s=nordhaus092407
Mariella Smith
2 years ago
Here’s a good example of a large farmer/developer using agricultural exemptions to drain wetlands for development.
Lee Nelson
2 years ago
GKR – that was an interesting read. I remember a few years ago there was a statistic about the cost of the Iraq invasion vs. the cost of buying every American a new hybrid car — at the time it was like 2.5 new cars.
This is all about opportunity costs — and I like how that article addressed the fact that we _do_ benefit from this massive amount of energy consumption we are accustomed to consuming.
Lee Nelson
2 years ago
Oops, meant to add —
Mariella — thanks so much for keeping us SOF readers informed on this all important issue!
GKR
2 years ago
Lee, the article made some very valid points.
Mariella is right, one can always find a reason to build on an undeveloped parcel. But there are often equally valid reasons for building nothing, and keeping the land pristine. This is what the balance of “good growth” is all about.
Imagine if builders and developers (and architects and planners) had to take the Hippocratic Oath before they received their licenses–”First, do no harm”.
tiny...
2 years ago
Blair’s brain is the only wetland that needs development.
tiny...
2 years ago
typo. feel free to stick the “t” in there, Tommy.
Sticks of Fire: a Tampa blog » Blog Archive » Commissioners should not act at wetland hearing Thursday
2 years ago
[...] we were hammering out a deal with farmers to let them out of some of EPC’s local wetland regulations, under certain [...]
Sticks of Fire: a Tampa blog » Blog Archive » destroying wetlands on (so-called) “farm land”
2 years ago
[...] raised many good questions about the proposed Agricultural Exemption to our wetland protections, and we asked our Environmental Protection Commissioners (aka our county [...]