TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Senate Bill Would Limit Counties' Say On Farmlands
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: April 10, 2008
TALLAHASSEE - A bill that critics charge would strip Hillsborough County of its oversight of sensitive wetlands sailed through a Senate committee Wednesday.
It boiled down to a fight between farmers and environmentalists.
Fans of SB 1376, sponsored by Sen. Charles Dean, R-Inverness, said the bill would make agriculture more economically viable for Florida farmers, who increasingly feel pressured to shut down their milking parlors and sell their orange groves as residential growth creeps to rural areas.
A key provision to making farming more affordable, however, is in easing local authority about how farmland is used and how much county officials charge for permits and the like.
Essentially, the bill prohibits county governments from regulating anything farm-related that is already regulated on the state and federal level. It also eliminates a county's authority to enforce its rules that apply to farms.
In Hillsborough County, this means the local Environmental Protection Commission would not be able to set rules about wetlands preservation on agricultural lands, a point of contention with county officials and environmentalists, who pride themselves on the county's relatively strict 20-year history of overseeing wetlands.
About 66 percent of Hillsborough's wetlands lie on agricultural land.
Home to marsh-loving wildlife, wetlands provide a natural water filtration system and are home to some protected species. Hillsborough's wetlands shelter the state's largest breeding colony of roseate spoonbills and 50 percent of the state's nesting white ibis.
"It's actually going to be devastating to Hillsborough because it takes two-thirds of our wetlands out of our control," said Rick Tschantz, general counsel for the county EPC, after the committee meeting.
Committee members voted unanimously to move the bill forward. It has two more committee stops before it hits the Senate floor for a full vote.
To Lutz activist Denise Layne, the bill would make it easier for farmers to turn their land into subdivisions and strip malls, not preserve it for agriculture, because state laws governing wetlands tend to be more lax than the county's.
"They'll be running like the dickens to the state to develop their land," she said.
Two Hillsborough County residents tried to make the case for wetlands preservation at the Senate Agriculture Committee, to no avail.
"Any little small wetlands that we cannot protect is going to affect us all the way down," said Pam Clouston of Lithia, who drove five hours to Tallahassee to testify.
"We fear if you take away local control, we're going to lose our voice," said Kelly Cornelius, also of Lithia.
That local voice, however, has led to too many burdensome regulations for Florida farmers, said Ben Parks, a lobbyist for the Florida Farm Bureau Federation.
He said he understands that environmentalists care about the land, but said farmers do, too.
"We just don't want to be regulated out of business," Parks said.
"We were the original stewards of the land, not the environmentalists."
Reporter Nicola M. White can be reached at (850) 222-8382 or nwhite1@tampatrib.com.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
Reader Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on April 10, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Control of local matters moves farther and farther away from the community.
At what point do the rights of the landowner to do as s/he pleases with the land clash sufficiently with the interests of the rest of the public in conserving irreplaceable resources that it is proper to limit the options of the landowner?
Tough question, but, from my perspective, when the resource dwindles to the point that it impacts the survivablilty of species, it's time to look reallly hard at it.
I also think it may be appropriate, if the government limits the options of the owner, that it compensate for the loss. It's a way to preserve both the resource and the owner's rights to enjoy the fruits of ownership.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ThetaChiGuy20 ) on April 10, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I am glad, farmers need to be more in control of their lands. Last time I checked it was not the farmers pushing for housing and tax cuts to big builders to build up the community, it was the counties. The county government don't want to or ever will work together, it's the city vs rural community and it seems the city always wins. Farmers don't bulldoze over property, they work the land. Think about it farmers want the land to stay as natural as it can be, to supply them and keep them in business, so they take care of the land, and were the first environmentalist. If we followed the farmers lead our environment it would not be in the state it is in now. Majority of our problems started when we went from an agricultural society to industrial society. I am glad to see that we are finally listening to some of our most important people in Florida, our farmers.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Swathslayer ) on April 11, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
This part of the bill has nothing to do with true farmers. It is a device to allow a "farmer" - read developer, that bought the land and threw a few cows or plants on - to prepare the property for development. If I hear again that "farmers were the first environmentalist", I'm going to scream. This is very applicable to our real farmers, but Florida is losing those daily due to development, and this only makes it easier.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( GrammyBoomFire ) on April 12, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
THE CORE ISSUE can be found in the following quote from above ......"It's actually going to be devastating to Hillsborough because it takes two-thirds of our wetlands out of our control," said Rick Tschantz"....... The wetlands referrenced are NOT OURS (the public/governments') property. They physically and legally belong to individuals who purchased them, paid taxes on them, maintained them, and took on the liabilty for them. These are lands that the Federal and State governments transferred ownership to private citizens, usually at a cost of some sort, many years ago. If government nows sees that these lands are necessary for various reasons including the good of the whole, then government should purchase said lands back. Many pristine wetlands are now being valued by various water management authorities at $200,000 + and acre. Private citizens / Farmers should not have to shoulder such a burden or loss by themselves. They have been the caretakers who deserve honorable treatment. Govermental purchase for conservation/preservation is the ONLY fair solution.
Report Inappropriate Comments