Tag Archives: DOAH

Tabled by SRWMD: Seven Rivers permit until Nestle co-applicant 2020-08-11

On a motion (by Don Quincey) seconded (I think by Virginia Sanchez), with only one dissenting vote (Richard Schwab), the SRWMD board voted to table the Seven Springs permit application for six months, because they want Nestlé to be a co-applicant.

They do not want the permit to go back to DOAH; they want it to come back to SRWMD.

[SRWMD Board and Nestle (Seven Springs) permit map]
SRWMD Board and Nestle (Seven Springs) permit map
SRWMD Governing Board, l-r, Donald J. Quincey, Jr. Vice Chair; Virginia Sanchez; Richard Schwab, Treasurer (voted nay); Gary F. Jones; Charles Keith; Virginia H. Johns, Chair.

Before they voted, they discussed that they were not in any way disparaging the efforts of SRWMD staff. The lack of Nestlé as co-applicant was the primary reason. A secondary reason was the lack of transparency. For example, there had been no public hearing, and while there were supposedly hundreds of people listening, nobody could see them.

Speaking of transparency, I had to ask to find out who made the motion, who seconded, and who voted nay. Fortunately, the staffer taking names during the fifteen minute recess for people to have sign up for public comment knew 2 out of 3. It’s not a very transparent process when the public doesn’t know who did what. Somebody else also asked could each SRWMD board member say who they were, or maybe the chair could.

Plus, the point of the WWALS letter to SRWMD this morning remains: without a SRWMD board member for the Santa Fe River, approval of this permit would be taxation without representation.

It is odd that Nestlé is not already a co-applicant, since in the board packet for today’s meeting there are 12 pages of Nestlé documents, starting with NWNA Water Consumption Estimates. Continue reading

Register to comment: Nestle water withdrawal on SRWMD agenda; staff in favor 2020-08-11

You must register for the webinar and separately register to speak at the SRWMD board meeting 9AM tomorrow morning. And for sound you must call a telephone conferencing number. It’s worth all that to oppose Nestlé’s permit request for more water from the Floridan Aquifer at Ginnie Springs next to the Santa Fe River.

When you register for the webinar:
https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/3310540859352809487

You will see this:

Request Public Comment

Submit a request on the District website: www.srwmd.org/Comments

That takes you here:
https://www.srwmd.org/FormCenter/District-7/Public-Comment-Request-Form-74

That comment registration form asks you for “Agenda Item/Topic*”.

You may want to enter this:

22. Modification of Water Use Permit Application 2-041-218202-3, Seven Springs Water Company Project, Gilchrist County

That’s the agenda item for the Nestlé water withdrawal from Ginnie Springs next to the Santa Fe River.

And for audio, you will need to call 1-888-585-9008, and when prompted enter:
Conference room number: 704-019-452 #

If you think Nestlé’s planned doubling of bottling lines using that water from the already-depleted Florida Aquifer near the too-low Santa Fe River, please sign up for the webinar and to comment, and then call in tomorrow morning!

[Figure 4.2 -- High SPrings Buildout Space Allocation]
Figure 4.2 — High Springs Buildout Space Allocation

See previous post for more information and more ways you can take action.

 -jsq, John S. Quarterman, Suwannee RIVERKEEPER®

You can join this fun and work by becoming a WWALS member today!

Nestle water withdrawal on SRWMD agenda; staff in favor 2020-08-11

Update 2020-08-10: Register to comment: Nestle water withdrawal on SRWMD agenda; staff in favor 2020-08-11

Nestlé water withdrawal from Ginnie Springs next to the Santa Fe River is back on the SRWMD agenda for Tuesday morning, with staff in favor this time. Please speak up now!

[Seven Springs Water Company Project, 2-041-218202-3, August 2020]
Seven Springs Water Company Project, 2-041-218202-3, August 2020
PDF

That’s 9AM, Tuesday, August 11, 2020, online only; see below for how. As near as I can tell, the main difference is the withdrawal request is reduced by 14.58% from 1.1520 million gallons/day to 0.9840 MGD. I still don’t see why a Swiss company should profit from sucking up Floridan Aquifer water to sell us back plastic bottles that we then have to clean up from springs and rivers.

If you don’t think a 14.58% reduction is enough, you can still Continue reading

Nestle permit deleted from SRWMD agenda 2020-03-10

How does Nestlé appeal a decision that hasn’t been made yet? I guess we’re about to find out.

Meanwhile, I plan to go speak anyway, 9AM Tuesday 10 March 2020 at SRWMD HQ in Live Oak. How about you?

For inspiration, see the WWALS videos of the 32 speakers from December.

[Nestle denial pulled from agenda]
Nestle denial pulled from agenda
PDF

Received via email about 4PM today, Monday, March 9, 2020:

March 9, 2020

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT OF AGENDA

NOTICE IS GIVEN that Agenda Item No. 20—BCS Page 61—Authorization to Deny Water Use Permit Renewal Application 2-041-218202-3, Seven Springs Water Company Project, Gilchrist County has been pulled from the agenda.

The Applicant has filed a petition for administrative hearing on this denial and the District has forwarded the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) for consideration by an Administrative Law Judge as required by law.

The District does not have jurisdiction to act on the petition until the administrative process is completed before DOAH and the Administrative Law Judge issues a recommended order. Upon issuance of the recommended order, the Governing Board will re-agenda this item for final agency action.

Suwannee River Water Management District |
www.MySuwanneeRiver.com

A few minutes before, the revised agenda arrived via email. Continue reading

Water amendments passed 2018-11-06

The obvious water constitutional amendments passed resoundingly in both Florida and Georgia.

FL 9 and GA 1, Water Amendments

By well more than the required 60%, Continue reading

Georgia and Florida Constitutional Amendments 2018-11-06

Two Georgia state constitutional amendments are relevant to clean water, of those on the ballot tomorrow in the November 6, 2018, General Election. And in Florida, vote Yes on Florida Amendment 9, to ban offshore oil and gas drilling.

In Georgia I recommend:

  • Yes on 1, the Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Amendment
  • No on 2, appointing instead of electing some judges

Below is why.

Yes on GA 1, Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Amendment

Yes on GA 1

For the title, summary, and detailed constitutional changes, see Continue reading

EPA chooses to believe Sabal Trail’s intent over Sierra Club and WWALS warnings

It looks awful strange when EPA chooses to name and believe Florida Audubon, which agrees with Sabal Trail, but doesn’t even name Sierra Club, when discounting SC’s much larger concerns. Why should EPA, or we, believe Sabal Trail’s “intent” when Sabal Trail’s parent company, Spectra Energy, has repeatedly not even followed federal law or its own corporate procedures?

Addresses Bruce Ritchie, Politico, 16 December 2015, EPA reverses course on several Sabal Trail pipeline issues,

TALLAHASSEE — The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has reversed itself on numerous points in opposition to a proposed natural gas pipeline that would extend from Alabama across Southwest Georgia and North Florida.

In October, the EPA said in a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that it had “very significant concerns” that the proposed route posed a threat to the Floridan Aquifer, the drinking water supply for much of the region. The agency also raised concerns about the pipeline’s impact on wetlands, conservation lands, and minority communities in the region.

But in a Dec. 11 letter sent to the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA’s James D. Giattina said the agency had met with representatives of Sabal Trail Transmission LLC and reviewed the company’s comments sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. As a result, the EPA has come to different conclusions on several issues.

The EPA’s change of heart raises suspicions for Frank Jackalone, senior organizing manager for the Sierra Club in Florida.

Continue reading

WWALS not surprised by pipeline ruling; fights on –WTXL 2015-12-14

“We see no reason to risk local citizens’ property, or taxes, or their drinking water, John S. Quarterman or any part of the ecology for a profit for a company from some other state,” on WTXL in Florida’s state capital, Tallahassee, yesterday.

Brittany Kleinpeter, WTXL, Tallahassee, Florida, 14 December 2015, Environmental Group is Not Surprised by Judge’s Decision, Continue reading

Judge ruled against WWALS in DOAH case: WWALS fights on

The judge’s ruling was disappointing, but not unexpected. He found for the Respondents Sabal Trail and FDEP on every issue, even standing. WWALS and others will fight on for the Suwannee River, for the Floridan Aquifer, and for the property rights of local citizens against this pipeline boondoggle.

Recommendation Indeed, “the project would result in unavoidable temporary and permanent losses of portions of wetlands along the route.” Mitigation somewhere else, not even in the same watershed, is no excuse. Nor does such “mitigation” stop the eminent domain takings of local Florida citizens’ lands, or the bulldozing of a grandmother’s ashes, for the profit of a company from Houston, Texas.

This ruling, with its rather remarkable irregularities, appears to provide additional grounds for appeal beyond those we already knew. The judge repeatedly said in the hearing, and we quoted in the WWALS Proposed Recommended Order, that activities such as boating, swimming, fishing, and scuba diving counted for standing, yet his Order only accepts Continue reading

Deadlines for Sabal Trail comments: Army Corps, FERC, Suwannee County

Due to widespread opposition to Sabal Trail’s invading fracked methane pipeline, the Corps extended its deadline 60 days, and FERC slipped a month. Deadlines coming up this week and next.

This Friday, December 11, 2015:
Deadline to comment to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
The Corps wants comments on cumulative effects, including from local governments and other organizations, as well as individuals. No Corps permit, no pipeline.