HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Miscellaneous_11/27/2002VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300 Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6200 Fax: (561) 575-6203 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MINUTES OF MEETING HELD AT TEQUESTA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING NOVEMBER 279 2002 Call to Order and Roll Call Tequesta Mayor Geraldine A. Genco called the meeting to order, stating this was an informal meeting held to discuss water flow. Present at the meeting were Geraldine A. Genco, Mayor of Tequesta; Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., Tequesta Village Manager; Dave Smith, Ken Adams, Henry Dean, and Chip Raman, South Florida Water Management District; and Leonard Lindahl of the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board. Mayor Genco noted that there were also Village of Tequesta employees present. Discussion Mayor Genco noted that South Florida Water Management wanted to discuss issues on the minimum flow documents. A SFWMD representative explained that minimum flows were established by statute, and priority water bodies such as the Loxahatchee River were required to have levels established at which permanent withdrawals would cause significant damage, and it was important to make a distinction between a standard of significant harm and no harm. No harm was a restoration standard. Significant harm was the point at which withdrawals would cause significant harm. The statute required technical data to be based on the best available data, to be collected, analyzed, and a flow level standard set, with that standard to be reviewed by an independent scientific group; which had been done twice to this point —once last year and once approximately two months ago. Another SFWMD representative commented that the agency was working right now to establish a distinction of withdrawal for minimum flow as applied to consumptive use and another for restoration. Both processes were currently underway. Mayor Genco asked if consumptive use was primary purpose, that is the water supply. Response was it would contribute, and consumptive use included domestic and irrigation. Surface water management was discussed. Mr. Lindahl reported he had met with Mayor Genco for Recycled Paper SFWMD Meeting Minutes November 27, 2002 Page 2 ----------------------------------- breakfast and discussed this matter and he had brought exhibits to demonstrate mile marks for restoration and mile marks for where salinity ratios were unacceptable. At the end of the rather lengthy discussion, Mayor Genco had indicated she was probably comfortable with the 35 c.f.s. as a dry season minimum flow, but was not comfortable with dealing at a 35 c.f.s. level without a commitment from the agencies. Mr. Lindahl explained that SFWMD could not make a commitment for DEP but could make a commitment for their agency that would trigger certain things that would happen with DEP regarding what he had discussed as a recovery plan, to make sure that the minimum flows could be achieved. Secondly, it would take the minimum flow beyond the point of just dealing with that, since Mayor Genco had expressed concern there would be a potential for or future policies from staff or governing boards playing operational games such as operating one day at 35 c.f.s. and then 19 days below that, and then another day at 35 c.f.s. The concern was that this would make the 35 c.f.s. a ceiling, not a floor, and Mayor Genco's thoughts based on what she had heard and seen to that particular point was the 35 c.f.s was not clearly defined as a minimum flow and it would not and could not be accepted as a minimum flow from her perspective unless there was a clear definition of recovery and a commitment to move forward towards restoration, which would involve further commitments on the part of the resource to get to the point that it was desired to achieve. Mr. Lindahl reported he and other governing board members had discussed this with staff, that others were concerned about this same thing, and the draft rule had been structured to deal with minimum flow, with recovery, and with the commitment to move toward defining and achieving restoration. In advance of that, recognizing that this was in the future, SFWMD had taken advantage of current opportunities to expand the contributing drainage basin that would come into the Loxahatchee. SFWMD had already placed on two agendas acquisition of lands in Cypress Creek that were going to enhance the ability to deliver minimum flows and were discussing other acquisitions that would also provide enhancement. Mr. Lindahl explained that based on discussions between SFWMD and others, the minimum flow rule of the Loxahatchee River was an expanded document that included commitment of resources by the agency to achieve future restoration. Comments at the Water Resource Advisory Commission and comments from a Jupiter meeting led Mr. Lindahl to believe that something had changed or Tequesta had not seen what they needed to see; and he wanted to confirm that the understanding at the breakfast was still intact provided the Mayor was comfortable that restoration would occur, with an agency commitment, a way to track it, and a way to be held accountable. Mr. Lindahl requested that as explanations were given that if there was a hole in the SFWMD Meeting Minutes November 27, 2002 Page 3 ----------------------------------- understanding between him and the Mayor that discussion occur so that hole could be bridged at this meeting. Mayor Genco indicated there were many questions —that she did not understand why this document did not address seasonal flows since Florida Statute 373 gave the water management district discretion to institute seasonal flows. Mayor Genco expressed concern that the restoration plan using 35 c.f.s. essentially gave up 1.1 mile of the river, which she understood was given up because there was not adequate documentation as to the habitat of the river at the period of time federal protection was sought. Mayor Genco expressed her opinion that there were sufficient documents, photos, etc., to show that the river had degraded significantly during that time period and she felt SFWUD needed to address this in its minimum flow and should not give up 1.1 miles of restoration. Mayor Genco expressed her opinion that SFWMD had accepted responsibility when they accepted the joint position of unity with DEP to manage and protect that resource and to restore that resource and to use that time frame as their benchmark; and she understood that 35 c.f.s. would not protect or restore that area of the river. Mayor Genco commented she understood the permitting process well enough to understand that they had both a potable and a surface water issue. Once development occurred upstream, the fresh water flow discharged from the development would eventually affect the 35 c.f.s., and the level over 35 c.f.s. that the minimum flood rule addresses would have to be shared. Mayor Genco stated that she felt very strongly that the amount over the 35 c.f.s. that was shared would not address the mandated restoration. SFWMD representatives responded that reservation for seasonal variation was addressed and the 3 5 c.f. s was not intended to be restoration, and the plan was to acquire additional lands to increase the storage in the Loxahatchee basin, and explained the future restoration concept. Mayor Genco indicated that in the last draft she understood that the saltwater barrier was planned to be moved to mile marker 9.1. A SFWMD representative indicated that their agency was committed to spending 7 million dollars to widening canals, extending canals, moving water from the south through the West Palm Beach catchment area, and water was potentially also coming from the north and west. This would provide a means of moving water to the historical watershed, and showed how the M canal connected to the West Palm Beach catchment area which was formerly the Loxahatchee Slough. Areas equivalent to the amount of natural storage areas that had been eliminated over the last 100 years would be restored to provide minimum flow and develop restoration capability for seasonal flows and surplus water to go down through the Northwest Fork. Mr. Lindahl commented something had happened since he had breakfast with Mayor Genco and the time of the meeting at Jupiter, which he would characterize as input to her somewhere SFWMD Meeting Minutes November 27, 2002 Page 4 ----------------------------------- that came across as her being angry at the agency. Mayor Genco commented, "frustrated". Mr. Lindahl commented that without question, the scientists in the water management district were critical in this process; that he did not know what had made her angry and frustrated, but they could go down a list of actions, not lip service, actions, money and implementation that were so focused on addressing the river from both quality and quantity standpoints within a very short time frame. Mr. Lindahl commented it had taken a century to get the river to its present unhealthy condition, and substantial improvements could be made within a 4-5 year period. There was a restoration plan covering the next decade that Mr. Lindahl stated he was confident was going to achieve what he and Mayor Genco had talked about, and she needed to be assured of that. Mayor Genco agreed and stated that her question came down to why SFWMD was giving up restoration on 1.1 miles of river, and why wasn't it saying in the documents that they knew with their modeling, hydrology, and intention, somewhere down the road in order to do real restoration, which should be done, more fresh water would have to be delivered. Mr. Lindahl stated it was addressed. Mr. Lindahl advised that some of the people providing feedback to the Mayor had combined minimum flow and level with restoration and recovery and they were not all the same but were building blocks in the process. Other SFWMD representatives agreed they were not giving up the 1.1 miles of river restoration. Discussion ensued. Mayor Genco agreed with Mr. Lindahl that the c.f.s. rate needed to fluctuate and asked why it was not a conservative figure for minimum flow because it would be a lot easier to lower it than to raise it after the basin was developed, particularly if you were going to using upstream areas as contributories for surface water. A SFWMD representative responded that had been their original proposal but the independent peer review scientists did not agree because they said there was no scientific basis for setting the number at 65. Mayor Genco asked why the best available information for today was being used instead of for the 1980's. Another representative indicated if 65 c.f.s. was used there would be flooding now and 35 c.f.s provided a balance and still protected from salt water; and with 35 c.f.s. there would be flow the equivalent of three years 35 or more c.f.s., where historically there was 35 c.f.s. down to zero --which was where the river really got pounded, and there was enormous value in the 35 c.f.s. Mayor Genco agreed there was some restoration but stated she believed they should follow the federal statute and the benchmark for the restoration had to be based on the information for 1984. Everyone agreed they had the same goals. The Mayor stated, but they knew that using 35 c.f.s would not maintain that. A representative from SFWMD commented they were not going back to 1984 because things had not changed that much, and based SFWMD Meeting Minutes November 27, 2002 Page 5 ----------------------------------- on their study and two independent studies, 35 c.f.s would move that saltwater ledge downstream of that point and would hold it there except in periods of extreme drought. Discussion ensued. One individual commented that everyone was in agreement with the objective and all basically understood the best way to get there but what was missing was the language where the District stated what they were going to accomplish, and suggested a preamble in the MFL rule such aswas used in legislation to state intent if it were legally okay. This would essentially be a roadmap of things for what was intended to be done. Mr. Lindahl indicated he thought a preamble could be added that would provide an overview of what was in the text. Mr. Lindahl commented that there was a constituency in the MFL pool that articulated that MFL equaled restoration and that was just not true, they were two different things. Mr. Lindahl commented that in a preamble statutes and rules could be cited that started with the building block of MFL, went to restoration, and then state the goals. Mayor Genco responded her benchmark was when the river was designated wild and scenic, and if the proposed rule could preserve, restore and maintain the river at that high level when it was wild and scenic and address that that was the goal and intent of the water management system, she believed that was something they could sell it; but if they had to give up part of the river she could not sell it. A representative of SFWM D commented that they were governed by statute which did not say restore to when it was a wild and scenic river. Mayor Genco commented that when the District accepted the responsibility when the river was designated they took an affirmation that was what the District would do. The representative responded that unfortunately whatever the governing board did in 1984, it did not give them powers beyond the statute, and in his opinion all they should do was to set an MFL that would cause no further harm, and stressed that the governing board and senior staff were committed to the restoration that had been described, through a restoration program and not through the MFL statute. Mayor Genco stated she and her constitutients were very concerned about the restoration and that what she had heard today was that SFWMD's benchmark was based on minimum flow levels at what they were today and the District would show intent to do restoration, so her next question was at what level restoration would be done. Discussion ensued. Mayor Genco requested the opportunity to review the preamble language and if she felt it showed the level of restoration she and her constitutients and the public wished to see, then she would be glad to go explain to them what she felt would be accomplished, but she needed to understand it from her perspective and needed to feel that the public was protected. It was decided that a highlighted copy would be delivered to Mayor Genco with a highlighted copy to Mr. Lindahl so they could easily discuss any problems. It SFWMD Meeting Minutes November 27, 2002 Page 6 ----------------------------------- was explained that other agencies were in agreement with SFWM D; however, Mayor Genco advised there was nothing in the public record that showed that and comments she had heard were negative. Mr. Lindahl asked what type of presentation from SFWM D was desired by Mayor Genco at the Village Council meeting of December 6, to which the Mayor responded she could not determine that until she had seen the preamble language. Mayor Genco stated she understood what had been said to her today and she believed their sincerity, but she needed to see a written proposal. The Mayor was assured that she would receive the written proposal in a timely manner. There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned.