Conservative PSJ, US

New!

Toilet Paper Swipes cleans up some of the messes of our little local rag that focuses on PSJ and Canaveral Groves. It is just my way of setting the record straight on certain issues and letting people know that the truth is worth finding; no matter how hard some people work to mislead. So, enjoy this first edition. There will apparently be more, considering the source of the initial information.

Desalination Plant

One local politician -- or should I say "activist"? I know, I'll say "polivist" (a combination of "politician" and "activist") -- says in the January 2005 issue of TP (starting on page 10, finishing on 11),

"An interesting item I found in the St. John's River Water Management District's fiscal year 2004-2005 final budget was funding for 'Begin implementation of Demineralization Concentrate Management Plan!!!"

I have to print a slight correction here. There was a difference in the search results when I searched the internet site's budget and the SJRWMD CD budget I received. I am NOT saying that there is a difference in budgets: I am saying that the search engine worked better on the CD version than on the internet site. When I searched the internet site, I got the first hit on page 73 and no more search results, thus my reaction. However, now that I have the budget on CD, I have three more pages that have the word "demineralization" on them: one of which does have the sentence above -- same wording -- on it. Problem: it still does not refer to the Indian River Desalination Plant Study and it still does not mean that it is a foredrawn conclusion by the SJRWMD that PSJ is going to have one or two desalination plant(s) in it. So, with this slight correction noted, read on to see what the differences are.

Looking at the St. John's River Water Management District's (SJRWMD)fiscal year 2004-2005 final budget I found only one mention similar to this statement in the whole budget when I did the internet search. It was on page 73. Problem: the actual wording of the budget item was:

"Continue implementation of Demineralization Concentrate Management Plan."

"Investigate Indian River Lagoon Salinity levels related to potential seawater demineralization facilities in Northern Brevard County."

The next mention is on their page 79:

"Continue implementation of Demineralization Concentrate Management Plan."

Investigate Indian River Lagoon salinity levels related to potential seawater demineralization facilities in northern Brevard County.

Then there is this little ditty:

"Description: Feasibility of Seawater Demineralization Projects: Seawater desalting technology is continually advancing, and the relative cost of seawater demineralization relative to other alternative water supply sources will likely narrow in the future. The District has completed initial work to identify potential sites for seawater demineralization plants, many of which are located at or near electric power plants. Two sites that may have potential to move forward are located on the Indian River Lagoon in Brevard County. However, although these sites appear promising, there are environmental issues that may limit the yield of these projects. The District is moving forward to evaluate these issues in a cooperative effort with local water supply representatives. This effort is likely to continue at least through FY 2005-2006.

"Justification: Seawater desalting is considered as a general option available to all water supply utilities. However, because of the relative cost and availability of other less expensive options, seawater desalting is not considered among the utility-specific options identified in the District Water Supply Plan. Consultant services are necessary to perform the Feasibility of Seawater Desalting Projects identified in the Water Resource Development Component of the District Water Supply Plan."

Page 89 says:

"Description: 1. Demineralization Concentrate Management Plan Implementation - Ocean Disposal of Concentrate Criteria Assessment: Cooperative study with National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration/Florida Department of Environmental Protection/United States Department of Environmental Protection (NOAA/FDEP/USDEP) evaluating the SJRWMD coastal ocean environmental characteristics for dispersion and disposal of demineralized concentrate and the 90-foot isobath criterion defining the applicability of "open-ocean" regulatory requirements as they relate to demineralized concentrate disposal.

"2. Demineralization Concentrate Management Plan Implementation - Continuing Expert Consultant Services Related to Demineralization: Expert consultant services related to demineralization technology including assistance in related rulemaking support/testimony, and peer review.

"Justification:1. The Demineralization Concentrate Management Plan identified a significant regulatory barrier when permits for ocean disposal of demineralization concentrate are sought. By regulatory definition, open-ocean occurs at the 90-foot isobath. Along the District coastline, the 90-foot isobath lies 14 to 40 miles off the coast, presenting a serious economic obstacle to this method of disposal. This definition was established relative disposal of wastewater effluent. This definitive study is needed to determine if ocean disposal of demineralization concentrate warrants different regulatory requirements from those developed for wastewater effluent ocean disposal.

"2. Expertise in the field of demineralization technology is not present in District staff. Current and recognized expertise in this field is needed for the District to provide credible assistance to regulatory bodies promulgating rules related to demineralization concentrate management and to assess materials related to this field generated by other agencies or special interest groups. Continuing services contracts with contractors recognized and respected for their expertise in this specialized field are effective and cost-efficient."

It's a totally separate issue, a totally different Demineralization Concentrate Management Plan they are referring to when they list the first item, unlike what the local polivist would have you believe. How do I know? I called Mr. James Gross, of the Department of Resource Managment of the SJRWMD and writer of that portion of the budget. He sent me this e-mail statement:

"[T]his is to provide clarification concerning the Indian River Lagoon Salinity Study that is now underway. This project is programmatically associated with our Water Resource Development Work Program and is part of the work for a project named "Feasibility of Seawater Demineralization Projects". The IRL Salinity Study is a closely focused study to look at potential salinity impacts that might result from the operation of one or two proposed desalination plants in the vicinity of Port St. John.

"We also have some related work underway in another project named "Demineralization Concentrate Management Project". One [of] the principal efforts currently underway in this project involves developing the information needed to assess the environmental and regulatory feasibility of discharging demineralization concentrate in the ocean adjacent to the St. Johns River Water Management District. We are working cooperatively with the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Ocean Division, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Miami Florida. We are working with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on this project."

The local polivist is trying to scare you into thinking that the desal plant is a foredrawn conclusion: that the SJRWMD has decided the desal plant is going to happen and they've already budgeted for it! Is it the truth? No, but that is what she would have you believe. Is it a scare tactic? Yes. Absolutely. What other purpose could its inclusion in her article serve? None. She intentionally wants you to think that the desal plant is a done deal. It isn't and Mr. Gross's e-mail proves it.

Just to top it off, notice the next budget item, "Investigate Indian River Lagoon salinity levels related to potential seawater demineralization facilities in northern Brevard County." The SJRWMD doesn't say "seawater" in the first item, but does in the second item. This tells you that the item the polivist wrote about isn't a seawater project, which Mr. Gross's e-mail confirms. Another proof that the polivist is not being up front with you.

I think we can swipe that one clean.

(Note: You can order a free copy of the budget on CD to read at home on your computer; it's a State agency, so it's yours for the asking. See if you can find the exact sentence the polivist quoted.)

* * more * *

Community Overlay

The Community Overlay the polivist wrote of in January 2005's page 11 was not quite up to snuff, either. Consider page 3 of the January 1997 PSJHOA Newsletter, reporting on the first meeting of the PSJ Advisory Board (without correcting grammar, etc.):

"In addition, HOA President, Maureen Rupe gave an update on issues the Homeowner's Association has been working up till now, and she welcomed the Governing board to take over responsibility. Vice-president Mary Tees briefed the PSJ Board on the work the Association has been doing to get a municipal overlay for Port St. John. This overlay would basically set up another boundary around our community to tell everyone that we're thinking of becoming a town someday. Even though it could be twenty years from now, it tells the surrounding areas that we are thinking about it, so back off. The governing board was receptive and voted to take over responsibility to sponsor it."

I happen to have the minutes of the May 6, 1998 PSJ Advisory Board meeting. They read as follows:

"4. PLANNING REPORT: Proposed Amendment to the Port St. John Community Overlay Boundary to correspond to Canaveral Groves Small Area Plan Boundary.
PSJ RECOMMENDATION:
Bill Workman made a motion, seconded by Maureen Rupe, to accept the amendment to the Port St. John Community Overlay Boundary as proposed. VOTE: ALL AYES; MOTION CARRIED."

Consider two months later, page 5, July 1998, TP: "We must establish our borders via a Community Overlay." Mary Tees wrote for the PSJHOA even though from all accounts I have heard, she was very well informed of what the PSJ Advisory Board had been doing. At the August 10, 2004 County Commission meeting, I asked that any and all overlays on PSJ that included all or part of any surrounding communities (specifically the Four Communities: Delespine, Frontenac, Williams Point and Hardeeville) be totally removed from PSJ and the surrounding communities, or that they be adjusted to include exclusively and only the traditional boundaries of PSJ (Bridge, US 1, Kings Hwy. and Fay Lake Park). The polivist spoke in support of my motion but tried to correct me in my facts, saying that the State put the municipal overlay on PSJ while the incorporation study was being done. Wrong. According to State Statute 163, it is the County, or "a citizen's organization" that does that, not the State. So who did both of these to PSJ? According the things written for the past seven years: PSJ4T, the polivist's PAC.

Did you know that, according to the Brevard County Law Library, the law that authorized Community Overlays was rescinded in 1985; thirteen years before the PSJ Community Overlay was done? How did PSJ4T find out about something that had been obsolete for so long, and how can something illegal be put on us by an Advisory Board or PSJ4T? Who allowed that? Who authorized it? They can't authorize it themselves. I had to go to the County and speak before the County Commission to get it removed. Does that tell you anything?

* * more * *

PSJ Advisory Board

The polivist says on page 11, continued on 12, that PSJ residents voted for the PSJ Advisory Board (PSJAB) instead of using the regular planning and zoning board. She says the PSJAB was an elected board, but then,

"the state brought in stricter criteria for elected officials a few years ago and interest waned."

Of course, I beg to differ. "Interest waned" in the PSJAB almost as soon as it was created. Consider:

So, what thinks you? Do you really want the PSJAB to continue as it has been? Do you want a Board whose members say they are "used" instead of feeling they "serve"? Do you want a Board that has a history of breaking the law and being warned by the County that even meeting would be a crime? Do you want a Board that has so few people interested in serving on it that the County is considering taking the number down to five, when it started at nine? Is the PSJAB really serving its purpose, or should the County admit that the PSJAB experiment has failed and chalk it up to experience as it abolishes the Board and deletes its "charter" (for lack of a better word)? Wouldn't that be what is best for PSJ? Contact all five Commissioners as the polivist would have you do; but remember these points and the truth about the PSJAB's history as you do so.

Now, do you think the polivist told you the truth about the PSJAB?

* * End for this month: read next month's exciting issue! * *

Find the TRUTH!