Buckeye Technologies

Tennessee's top paid CEOs
The Tennessean - Nashville,TN,USA
Memphis-based pulp maker Buckeye Technologies and National Health Investors, the Murfreesboro-based real estate investment trust, had A's. CBRL Group, ...
See all stories on this topic

---

 http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080601/BUSINESS01/806010365/1003/NEWS01

 

June 1, 2008 Tennessee's CEOs pull in hefty salaries By GETAHN WARD Staff Writer   For 2007, a year in which the typical Tennessee worker saw a modest 3.4 percent increase in base salaries, the chief executives of 50 of the largest Tennessee-based publicly traded companies on average saw double-digit gains in their overall compensation packages. On average, total compensation of the state's top business executives were valued at $3.3 million, up 12.8 percent for the 39 executives for whom year-over-year comparisons are available. The analysis of corporate proxy filings by Redwood Shores, Calif.-based executive compensation research firm Equilar Inc., meanwhile, showed that those gains came in a fiscal year during which shareholders of the 50 companies saw an overall 7.3 percent decline in stock returns, including dividends. The companies, however, saw revenues increase 6.3 percent on average to $2.7 million, though earnings per share fell 9 percent. The gap between executive pay and stock performance comes as shareholder activists seek more of a say in how much the big boss is paid. A regulatory change three years ago that required companies to record the value of stock options as an expense on their income statements also has led to more focus on linking long-term compensation more closely to performance measures. "The scrutiny has increased tenfold," said T.K. Kerstetter, CEO of Board Member Inc., the Brentwood-based publisher of Corporate Board Member magazine. Those factors have "really brought compensation to be much more transparent than it ever has been." Kerstetter said comparing the performance of companies against industry peers is a better way to measure whether chief executives are worth their pay increases than looking at changes in a company's stock price. "There are some CEOs whose stocks have dropped, whose earnings are lower, but who still deserve to be rewarded because they may have done their best management job yet in managing a company in a down cycle and in saving shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars compared to other companies in their same industry," Kerstetter said. "There are also companies where CEOs have gotten increased compensation where it clearly wasn't warranted." James Burton, dean of the College of Business at Middle Tennessee State University and a director of Charlotte, N.C.-based Piedmont Natural Gas, said that management teams sometimes pursue actions that are in a company's best long-term interest but that in the short term could negatively affect both their earnings and performance. Two-thirds get C's, D's An analysis by San Francisco-based proxy advisory firm Glass, Lewis & Co., using 36 measurement points and including comparisons of executive compensation to peers, gave pay-for-performance grades of C's and D's to two-thirds of 40 of the Tennessee public companies. Memphis-based pulp maker Buckeye Technologies and National Health Investors, the Murfreesboro-based real estate investment trust, had A's. CBRL Group, the Lebanon-based restaurant operator, Franklin-based hospital operator Community Health Systems, and drugmaker King Pharmaceuticals of Bristol, Tenn., meanwhile, were all given F's. Glass, Lewis declined to disclose details about its proprietary research methodology, but each company CEO is compared against sector peers, as well as companies with similar-sized revenues. Overall, the $17 million total compensation to Fred Smith, CEO of Memphis-based delivery giant FedEx, was the biggest pay package for fiscal 2007. Michael A. Woodhouse of CBRL, who got $12.1 million in total compensation, and Wayne T. Smith of Community Health, who got $11.9 million, were the two Middle Tennessee executives who made the top five statewide. Wayne Smith's 63 percent increase in total compensation from 2006 came in a year in which investors in Community Health saw a mere 1 percent return. But 2007 also was a year in which Smith engineered a buyout of Plano, Texas-based Triad Hospitals to double Community's size and largely more than double revenues for its recent first quarter. Workers earn fraction Still, most executive pay packages are worth far more than the average $35,375 salary of workers statewide, according to the state's Department of Labor and Workforce Development. For the 50 CEOs on the list, the median total compensation was valued at $1.56 million, up 4.3 percent for companies that have past data available. Comparative data isn't available on some companies because their different fiscal years meant they didn't have to comply in fiscal 2006 with new rules providing more details on pay. In some cases, the amount of total compensation shown in a company's proxy might not be what the CEO actually took home. For instance, Brentwood-based LifePoint Hospitals CEO William F. Carpenter III's 2007 package rose 41 percent to $3.5 million in a year in which the company saw a 12 percent decline in shareholders' return. But 18 percent of that compensation package was related to stock options forfeited because certain criteria under LifePoint's pay-for-performance plan weren't met. A 31 percent rise in Carpenter's salary reflects a smaller base in 2006 before his promotion to CEO and 44 percent of his total package for 2007 involved restricted stock that would vest at the end of 2009 if the company hits certain performance targets, officials said. Similarly, FedEx spokesman Ryan Furby said of the $17 million Smith received in total compensation in fiscal 2007, only about a third of it, or $6.2 million, came in the form of direct payment of salary and incentive compensation. Bonuses fall Among trends in compensation of CEOs of Tennessee's public companies, average bonuses of the 39 executives whose compensation could be compared year over year fell 18.5 percent to $549,785. Alexander Cwirko-Godycki, research manager at Equilar, wasn't surprised because bonuses are often tied directly to short-term performance, which was affected by the stock market's decline during the second half of last year. CEOs might not see any big change in longer-term stock-based compensation in a downturn because that compensation may be tied to three- to five-year goals, which means performance would have to keep falling to create an effect, he added. "It goes to the fact that you have a lot of different pieces in place that explains why overall pay might be going up, while performance isn't so great," Cwirko-Godycki said. Efforts by shareholder advocates to gain a greater say on executive pay include plans by John Chevedden, a Redondo Beach, Calif., retiree, to introduce a proposal at this year's FedEx annual meeting that would put pay packages of executives up to a shareholder vote. "High executive pay — $17 million for Fred Smith — that's what the concern is," Chevedden said, referring to the total compensation package of FedEx's CEO last year. Nationwide, shareholders have passed only a few of such "say on pay" proposals, an outcome that experts said reflects a thinking that executive pay is more of an issue for boards than individual investors. "Shareholders elect directors who are suppose to act in the best interest of the company and shareholders," said Gary Brown, a securities attorney with law firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz in Nashville. "If you're going to micromanage everything that directors do, why have directors?"

.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/28-everything-you-know-about-water-conservation-is-wrong

 

05.28.2008

Everything You Know About Water Conservation Is Wrong

Forget short showers. Worry about the 6,340 gallons of "virtual water" in your leather bag.

by Thomas M. Kostigen

I’ve been mindful of the amount of water I use when making a pot of coffee ever since learning that one-third of the tap water used for drinking in North America is actually used to brew our daily cups of joe—and that if each of us avoided wasting just one cupful of coffee a day, we could save enough water over the course of a year to provide two gallons to every one of the more than 1.1 billion people who don’t have access to freshwater at all.

That is a stark statistic, when as many as 5 million people die unnecessarily each year because of lack of water and water-related illnesses; one-third are under age 5.

So for me that excess cold coffee at the bottom of the pot became a bothersome reminder. But I had never thought beyond that—about how much water it takes to actually grow the coffee. That amount is called virtual water (pdf), and it’s the kind of thing you don’t really consider until someone brings it to your attention: “Do you know how much water it took to make this?” Virtual water is a calculation of the water needed for the production of any product from start to finish.

Here’s how it is figured: It takes about 155 gallons of water on average to grow a pound of wheat. So the virtual water of this pound of wheat is 155 gallons. For a pound of meat, the virtual water is 5 to 10 times higher. There’s a virtual water count for everything. The virtual water footprint of a cup of coffee is 37 gallons; an apple, 19 gallons; a banana, 27; a slice of bread, 10; a sheet of paper, 3; and a pair of leather shoes, 4,400, according to Waterfootprint.org, a Unesco-run (UNESCO - the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Web site providing a calculator for individual and national water use. In fact, virtual water in internationally traded food and products such as these accounts for 15 percent of global water consumption.

Virtual water matters a lot these days because we are in an encroaching global water crisis. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, the world needs to increase its water supply (pdf) for irrigation by 14 to 17 percent by 2030 just to meet its dietary needs. Virtual water is where major savings can accrue.

Proper management and use of the world’s virtual water already save almost 5 percent of the water used annually in global agricultural production, according to Unesco. This follows a simple logic: Places with less water gain access to foods with high water requirements by importing them from areas with high rainfall or substantial water supplies. This allows water-scarce regions to use their own water resources more efficiently for other purposes—and create water savings. For instance, areas of southern China that have more water and are better equipped to grow certain water-intensive agricultural products can send them to northern China. This frees up northern water supplies for other uses, such as drinking and sanitation. Jordan saves 60 to 90 percent of its domestic water supply by importing water-intensive products.

The water savings are even greater than they seem at first. Producing grain and other foods in an arid country like Jordan may require two or three times the water it takes in humid settings in South America or the United States. So the virtual water saved may be three times the amount that was actually necessary to grow the crop in a more appropriate climate. It’s all about being smart with water.

Yet we can be smarter, and need to be.

Right now we lose 30 to 50 percent of the food we grow—and all the virtual water in it—by the time it is ready for consumption, says Daniel Zimmer, executive director of the World Water Council (WWC) in Marseille, France. These losses come in harvesting, production, processing, transportation, and storage. Tossing out leftovers wastes every drop of water it took to grow the food (and think of all the times you don’t ask for a doggie bag). Indeed, the third most common refuse found in landfills is food, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. “Sure, a few liters of water are saved when you take a shorter shower,” Zimmer says. “But hundreds of liters of water are lost when you throw away food. We have to begin to think about our water use differently.”

I like the idea of virtual water because it helps us think about our water use differently without having to make giant, complicated leaps. It puts water into the context it deserves: We use freshwater mostly for agriculture, not for drinking or bathing. Today agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of all water use in the world and up to 95 percent in several developing countries. So it makes sense to first start looking at savings via food production. And when I say savings, I mean efficiencies and better water management, not necessarily avoiding particular food groups altogether—although that isn’t such a bad idea once in a while either. Meat requires 5 to 10 times more water to produce than vegetables do. Swap the two in your diet and you will save up to 750 gallons of water a day. (See “What’s Your Virtual Water IQ?” page 26.)

While thinking about water differently should be a moral imperative, in a world view it comes with controversy. “At the global level, virtual water and the trading of it has geopolitical implications,” the WWC says in a report on the subject (pdf). “It induces dependencies between countries....This can be regarded either as a stimulant for cooperation or as a reason for potential conflict.”

Right now the United States is a water exporter, but population growth, pollution, and lingering drought in vast regions may change that. “As demand grows we are going to have to ask what is it being used for and whether that is a good use of our water,” says Maude Barlow, cofounder of the Blue Planet Project. “One-third of the water in the United States is exported as virtual water when a number of major water systems in the United States are in a catastrophic decline. People may begin to say, ‘Why are we shipping our water away?’”

 

Dominant virtual water exporters in addition to the United States are Canada, Australia, Argentina, and Thailand. Countries with a large net import of virtual water are Japan, Sri Lanka, Italy, South Korea, and the Netherlands. Based on estimated global virtual water trade flows, national virtual water trade balances can be drafted, but getting countries to agree on creating a fair market for water isn’t easy. “Trade arrangements, access to markets, finance, and foreign exchange must all be taken into account,” the WWC says in its report. For poorer countries those are big obstacles.

International companies are also being pitted against one another because of water shortages and competition for existing resources. The food industry, for example, may end up fighting the biofuel industry for access to arable land as the world runs short of water, warns Peter Brabeck, Nestlé’s chairman and chief executive. “We will not find sufficient water to produce all the crops,” he told the Financial Times in February. “There will be a fierce fight for arable land.” But that doesn’t have to be the case.

“Companies like Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and many others particularly like the water footprint concept,” says Arjen Hoekstra, professor of multidisciplinary water management at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. He notes that because many businesses depend on water as a major component for their products, it’s in their best interests to ensure supplies are plentiful to avoid the potential conflicts. “Some companies see the business risks attached to water scarcity and seriously look into how to reduce and offset their water footprint,” Hoekstra adds.

In the end, though, water parity and more supply will come only through increased awareness among individuals, as they will drive the larger interests. “It’s really about education and getting people to see their own water use and their water footprint; we think that is the first step in conservation,” says Scott Cullen, executive director of the nonprofit group Grace (Grass Roots Action Center for the Environment). Along with Food & Water Watch, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Grace has developed a water footprint calculator for a joint program, H2Oconserve.org. Initiatives such as this may lead to further developments, such as labeling the water content of products. This, in turn, may lead to even more water-conscious decision making. “Tastes Great…Less Filling…Less Water”—that type of thinking.

It’s time to ask how we can make better use of our water supplies so that virtual water doesn’t remain the ethereal concept its name suggests. It can be a far bigger source of real-world savings. For my part, I now note waste in different forms. I try to plan or order meals more accurately so I don’t have leftovers, and I try to eat lower down the food chain. In short, I try to do what my mother told me as a child—“Eat your vegetables”—because I now know what went into making them: a lot of water.

Our Very Wet Footprint

The average person on earth has a virtual water footprint of about 328,410 gallons each year; that includes everything used to make the food, clothing, and other water-driven products we consume. In China the average footprint is only 185,412 gallons, while in the United States it is 656,012—the largest on the planet. DISCOVER staffers Missy Adams and Corey Powell measured their water footprints using a questionnaire at Waterfootprint.org (and you can too). Questions ranged from how many showers they take each week to whether the water runs while they brush their teeth; from their food preferences to their income.

Research Editor Missy Adams has a relatively small footprint (see chart below), in part because she’s light on the laundry and quick with a shower and has a diet driven by vegetables, fruits, and sweets.

Executive Editor Corey Powell likes meat in his takeout, and you’re sure to find chicken breasts and beef in his freezer—something to cook up while he’s watering his garden or hosing off his sidewalk in Brooklyn.

VIRTUAL WATER USAGE (annual average per person, in gallons)

World	328,410
United States	656,012
Missy Adams	469,792
Corey Powell	1,047,437

To determine your own virtual water footprint, go to waterfootprint.org.

Where’s the Water

There are 10,460 cubic miles of freshwater available on the planet as a resource each year, and the breakdown of worldwide access to it just isn’t equal. But understanding who has the good stuff and who is in need can allow us to maximize commerce in virtual water, helping balance things out. For instance, Kuwait has essentially no freshwater; its residents live off desalinated seawater, which doesn’t count as a direct resource. South America, on the other hand, has an enormous surplus of freshwater due to rainfall and its ecosystem, so it is a great exporter of virtual water. Source: Worldmapper.org. (All percentages are estimates.)

 

Find out your Virtual Water IQ by taking the DISCOVER quiz.

Subject: "Underhanded, Under Water" Editorial from the Sarasota Herald Tribune urging veto of HB 7059 (sea grass mitigation issue)

 

Underhanded, under water

Don't allow deceptive sea grass legislation to stand

Editorial Opinion of the Sarasota Herald Tribune

Published Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080531/OPINION/805310391/1629/news03

 

Sea grasses play an integral role in the health of coastal areas throughout the world, including Florida.

The submerged grasses provide food for microscopic organisms and shelter for small fish and other marine life. Sediment pollution is trapped by grasses, which also absorb fertilizer nutrients that wash into rivers, creeks and coastal waters -- helping to stifle outbreaks of harmful algae.

So, the Florida Legislature seemed to do the right thing by passing House Bill 7059, legislation that calls for fines of up to $1,000 for boaters whose propellers damage sea grass beds. But it is a deceptive, bad bill that deserves Gov. Charlie Crist's veto.

The problem is a sinister amendment tacked onto House Bill 7059 just before the legislation coasted to approval.

The amendment, sponsored by House member Will Kendrick, a Republican from the Panhandle town of Carrabelle, calls for a sea grass mitigation program, the St. Petersburg Times reported recently. Under the legislation, the governor and Cabinet could approve "sea grass mitigation banks."

The Pensacola News Journal reported Tuesday that means developers could get permission to destroy grass beds if they bought credits from companies that would plant new sea grass beds on state-owned submerged lands.

A veto is warranted for several reasons.

Sea grass beds are important to the places where they exist -- places that should not be destroyed to make way for new marinas and the channel dredging that can come with waterfront development.

Also, environmentalists say it is not clear if sea grass beds can be effectively moved from one place to another. Legislators should have studied that issue before jumping to pass sea grass legislation.

Crist also could send legislators a message that Floridians are tired of deceptive decision-making in Tallahassee. Sea grass mitigation was not discussed in Tallahassee, yet House Bill 7059 would jump-start a mitigation program.

Coral reefs, mangroves and marshes are coastal habitats that get attention from the public and media, said an article 18 months ago in the scholarly journal Bioscience. The two marine scientists who wrote the article said sea grasses, which are just as important, are often ignored.

Rejection of the House bill would give attention where it's due.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Joe Murphy

Florida Director

Gulf Restoration Network

352-583-0870 (office)

813-468-0870 (cell)

Florida Office Address:

34413 Orchid Parkway

Ridge Manor, Fl. 33523

www.healthygulf.org

 

 Agriculture Already Feels Impact of Climate Change

 

A chilling global warming forecast

New reports about climate change should have us all sweating about the future.

Los Angeles Times, June 2, 2008

There's always a new report about global warming, but the one released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with its charts on optimal temperatures for soybeans and peanuts, is downright creepy in its detail. This isn't your usual futuristic fodder, with vague but dire predictions. The USDA report is more frightening because it states matter-of-factly the practical changes in farming, forestry and water that are transforming the landscape now and will do so again over the next few decades.

The Senate is scheduled to vote this week on a sweeping bill that would require carbon emissions to be slashed 70% by mid-century. Its chances for passage are slim; President Bush opposes it, as he has opposed all meaningful attempts to curb global warming, on the grounds that it would harm the economy. He ought to read the USDA study, along with a similar but more comprehensive report released last week by his science advisors, which specifies the effects of global warming and its very real costs.

The USDA analysis points out the quandary we're already in after decades of inaction: The impacts during the next few decades are unavoidable. "Much of this change will be caused by greenhouse gas emissions that have already happened," the report says. In other words, we have to plan for adjusting to climate change, as well as preventing it from spiraling into a crisis in this century and beyond.

Though the report stops short of making recommendations, it implies the need for major shifts in agriculture. And there was some good news, though not as much as the bad. Northern latitudes will experience milder winters -- good for cattle -- and longer growing seasons, but also longer lifetimes for harmful pests. The South might grow too hot for traditional crops such as peanuts and watermelon. The eastern United States will get more rain, but weeds, flourishing in the presence of increased carbon dioxide, will migrate north. Crops that require cold snaps are in trouble.

The prognosis for California is especially discouraging. With a smaller snowpack and less rain, the state will experience longer and more severe droughts. Some crops in the San Joaquin and Salinas valleys might find higher temperatures intolerable, threatening the state's status as a food bowl for the nation. California, though stymied by federal regulators, has led the nation in trying to combat greenhouse gases. But it has been slower to take practical steps to adapt to the warming it can't prevent. The state cannot put off water conservation measures, and with longer and more dangerous fire seasons, it cannot afford to permit increased sprawl into forests and brush areas.

At the national level, the report should awaken the agriculture sector to the disruption ahead. If the farm lobby, which is powerful enough to continually win wasteful subsidies even though they benefit only a tiny minority, were to team up with environmentalists, imagine what they could do to fight climate change.

---

.

 

Coastal condos win staff backing

Gainesville Sun
By Nathan Crabbe
Sun staff writer

Published: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 6:01 a.m.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080603/NEWS/806030308

 

After years of controversy, J. Crayton Pruitt could be getting permission from one agency to move forward with a development in Taylor County.

The Suwannee River Water Management District staff is recommending approval of Pruitt's residential and golf course development proposed near Dekle Beach. The district's board will consider the project June 10.

But there's a catch: The approval would be contingent on Taylor County amending its comprehensive plan.

Pruitt, a retired St. Petersburg heart surgeon and major University of Florida donor, said the approval would be a step forward, but there are other hurdles to clear.

"It's still far from for sure," he said.

The Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary would include 624 condominiums, a 874-room hotel, 280,000 square feet of commercial space and a golf course. The project would be located in an remote part of the coast called called Boggy Bay.

The project was originally called Magnolia Bay and would have included a marina and 36-acre access channel cut through a state seagrass preserve. Advocacy groups and nearly every environmental permitting agency objected, leading to changes to the project's name and scope.

But Joe Murphy, Florida director of the Gulf Restoration Network, said the group continues to have concerns about the revised project. The development would harm one of the last wild coastlines left in the U.S., he said.

"Florida's Nature Coast is an amazing natural treasure," he said. "This is not the place for a project that threatens our coast, even a scaled back version of Magnolia Bay."

The revised project would fill 39 acres of coastal wetlands and indirectly impact another 5.5 acres. In exchange, Pruitt would preserve 230 acres, restore 20.4 acres and create 5.5 acres of wetlands, as well as buy three credits from a wetlands restoration project.

Water management district staff recommended the board approve the project, but construction will be allowed only if Taylor County satisfied Department of Community Affairs' concerns by amending its comprehensive plan.

While the water management district's board typically follows staff recommendations, at least one of the board's nine members is against the plan.

David Flagg, a former state lawmaker and Gainesville mayor-commissioner, won't be able to attend the June 10 meeting because of a family obligation. But he issued a letter of opposition to be read into the record.

"While this is good progress, I still could not vote in favor of what I see as a loss of wetlands," he said.

The Department of Community Affairs has opposed the project for violating the Taylor County comprehensive plan and a state law requiring projects to avoid the irreversible loss of coastal resources.

But in a May 20 letter, DCA Secretary Thomas Pelham said the state would drop its objections if the county approved a comprehensive plan amendment covering the 1,200-acre project area. The amendment would have to follow the law protecting coastal resources and be approved by the department, according to the letter.

Department spokesman John Peck said he condition means the start, not the end, of a process to ensure the plan meets state law. "We still have some major concerns that have not been worked out," he said.

Nathan Crabbe can be reached at 352-338-3176 or crabben@....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Joe Murphy

Florida Director

Gulf Restoration Network

352-583-0870 (office)

813-468-0870 (cell)

Florida Office Address:

34413 Orchid Parkway

Ridge Manor, Fl. 33523

www.healthygulf.org

 

____________________________________________________________

Save Florida's seagrass


Palm Beach Post Editorial

Friday, June 06, 2008

Some things in Tallahassee are inherently bad, and there's no way to
make them good. Among them: last-minute, late-night additions that
turn a good law on its head.

That is what happened with Florida's seagrass bill, which
environmental groups had hoped to celebrate. Now, with the exception
of a few organizations represented by a public relations firm favored
by enviro-unfriendly former Gov. Jeb Bush, the groups that first
favored the legislation are asking Gov. Crist to veto it. He should.




What are these?

House Bill 7059 was supposed to help seagrass beds, which clean water
and nurture marine life, by making it a crime to destroy those that
are in aquatic preserves. But an amendment that Rep. Will Kendrick, R-
Carrabelle, who chairs the Committee on Conservation and State Lands,
added late one night would make it easier for developers to rip out
those seagrass beds simply by writing a check.

The amendment calls for the governor and Cabinet to let private
companies create what are known as seagrass mitigation banks on
state-owned property. The companies could sell "credits" to
developers, who then could wipe out seagrass beds to make way for new
marinas or boat channels. Here's how it would work:

The marina developer writes a check to the mitigation bank. Then, to
build a marina, he destroys the seagrass beds. The food chain also is
destroyed, affecting everything from microscopic shrimp to game fish
and manatees.

Then, supposedly, the state uses the developer's money to plant
seagrass somewhere else. No one knows even whether planting sea grass
elsewhere would work, let alone whether the bed would thrive. Even if
the planting worked, the government's track record on wetlands
mitigation - allowing the destruction of natural wetlands for creation
of man-made wetlands - should make the most trusting soul a skeptic.

The state wetlands mitigation bank that is supposed to compensate for
wetlands destroyed by development has had problems. Man-made wetlands
don't work as well as nature's, and the state lacks the staff to
monitor them. According to a 2006 St. Petersburg Times investigation,
about a quarter of Florida's wetlands mitigation banks got more credit
for saving dry land than for anything that helped restore wetlands.
With that track record, why should the state even consider seagrass
mitigation?

Whenever hurricanes come to Florida, you hear people in power say,
"That's the price of living in paradise." Seagrass beds helped make
Florida the paradise that is being lost. Gov. Crist can stop this
sneak attack on a piece of paradise.

Buckeye Technologies Reports Q3 Profit

From: "Joe Murphy" <joe@...>
To: <joe@...>
Subject: "Environmental Groups Oppose Nature Coast Development" Tallahassee Democrat (Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary / Nature Coast)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:04:03 -0400

Article published Jun 10, 2008

Environmental groups oppose Nature Coast development
By Bruce Ritchie
FLORIDA CAPITAL BUREAU, Tallahassee Democrat

http://www.floridacapitalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080610/CAPITOLNEWS/806100318

Thirty-seven environmental groups on Monday called for denial of a proposed permit for a hotel and condominium development along the Gulf of Mexico in Taylor County in a region called the Nature Coast.

Dr. J. Crayton Pruitt, a St. Petersburg surgeon, proposes 624 condominium units, an 874-rooom hotel, 280,000 square feet of commercial space and a golf course on 1,243 acres. Environmental groups and state agencies have raised concerns about the permit request to fill in or clear 44 acres of wetlands.

Environmental groups, including Audubon of Florida and the Florida Wildlife Federation, want the water district board to reject the request, saying approval would set a bad precedent for the region. The Suwannee River Water Management District board is scheduled to vote on the permit today at City Hall in Live Oak.

"When you are dealing with a place as special as the Nature Coast there can't be any margin for error," said Joe Murphy, Florida director for the Gulf Restoration Network.

The Suwannee River Water Management District staff says Pruitt sought to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands. A consultant working on the project said most of the project is in the uplands away from wetlands.

The proposed Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary would be located between Keaton Beach and Dekle Beach along the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve.

Environmental groups and state agencies last year opposed Pruitt's request to dredge a two-mile channel through the state preserve. Pruitt withdrew the request and scrapped his proposed Magnolia Bay Marina and Resort.

The new project, called the Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary, is touted as an environmentally-sensitive, green development. But the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has asked the developer to back up those claims.

The Florida Department of Community Affairs in February blocked the permit request, saying the project could harm wildlife along the coast. Now, DCA says the permit can be approved but it can't be issued until Taylor County addresses the state's concerns.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Joe Murphy

Florida Director

Gulf Restoration Network

352-583-0870 (office)

813-468-0870 (cell)

Florida Office Address:

34413 Orchid Parkway

Ridge Manor, Fl. 33523

www.healthygulf.org

 

From: "Joe Murphy" <joe@...>
To: <joe@...>
Subject: Good News! Governor Crist to veto Seagrass Bill (CS/HB 7059)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:10:55 -0400

Crist to veto seagrass mitigation bill

Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday morning that he intends to veto a bill that would allow developers to destroy seagrass beds. Crist said he decided to veto the bill "to save the seagrass, of course."

The bill was originally intended to help seagrass beds, creating fines for boaters who damage them. But a last-minute change to the bill created a means for developers to gain permission to destroy seagrass beds through mitigation -- essentially writing a check to replace the damage on public property elsewhere in the state. Many environmentalists who originally pushed for the bill had wound up calling for its veto because of the change.

Posted by Jennifer Liberto at 9:44:51 AM on June 10, 2008 (St. Petersburg Times)

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/06/crist-to-veto-s.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Orlando Sentinel Blog

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/06/crist-to-veto-s.html

Crist to Veto Sea-Grass Bill; Go Easy on Budget

posted by John Kennedy on Jun 10, 2008 11:35:21 AM

Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday that he will veto sea-grass legislation that environmentalists warned could lead to even more waterfront development.

The measure (HB 7059) included $1,000 fines for boaters who damage sea-grass beds with their boat propellers. But a provision pushed into the bill by Rep. Will Kendrick, R-Carrabelle, would also allow developers and other private companies to damage or destroy fragile sea-grass in one location, provided they contributed money to support sea-grass restoration projects elsewhere -- an approach called sea-grass mitigation banking.

Crist said he would veto the legislation, "to protect the sea-grass. Why else?"

The governor drew praise from Earthjustice attorney David Guest, among several environmentalists who had urged him to veto the measure.

"The bill contained a poison pill, inserted by lobbyists, for developers in a late-night meeting without any public discussion, that would have threatened thousands of acres of underwater maring nursery grounds in Florida," Guest said.

While looking to protect sea-grass, Crist also said he was keeping one eye on the state's faltering economy as he prepared for action on the state's $66.2 billion budget, which he expects to sign Wednesday.

Last year, Crist vetoed a record $459 million in hometown programs and projects. But this year's total will prove far less, he said, in part because cutting government spending could send a further shock through an already staggering economy.

"That might be one reason why you see less vetoes this week than you saw last year," Crist said. "Stay tuned."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Miami Herald

Miami Herald.com

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/06/crist-plans-to.html

Crist plans to veto "seagrass" bill, but not much more in budget

Gov. Charlie Crist just said he plans to veto legislation that could have set up a program that could have allowed developers to destroy some seagrass beds as long as they restored seagrasses in other areas.

The problem: No one's sure if the so-called "mitigation" plan for seagrasses will work. Environmentalists are split over the legislation because it had loads of good stuff for wildlife managers. But Crist decided just to end the issue.

"I will veto it," Crist said. Asked why, he said: "to save the seagrass, of course. Why not?"

In other veto news, when Crist takes up the budget Wednesday, he plans few vetoes. He said he not only respects all the cuts the Legislature already signed off on, but also doesn't want to damage the economy more by withholding more spending.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Joe Murphy

Florida Director

Gulf Restoration Network

352-583-0870 (office)

813-468-0870 (cell)

Florida Office Address:

34413 Orchid Parkway

Ridge Manor, Fl. 33523

www.healthygulf.org

 

From: "Joe Murphy" <joe@...>
To: <joe@...>
Subject: "Permit for Nature Coast Development Approved" Tallahassee Democrat (Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary / Nature Coast)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:22:24 -0400

Permit for 'Nature Coast' development approved

Posted 6/10/2008 2:20 PM EDT on tallahassee.com

A permit for a controversial proposed development along Florida’s “Nature Coast” near a state aquatic preserve has been approved by the Suwannee River Water Management District.

The district board voted 7-1 this morning to approve the permit for the Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary, located in Taylor county between Dekle Beach and Keaton Beach. The 1,243-acre project proposed by Dr. J. Crayton Pruitt, a St. Petersburg surgeon, would include 624 condominium units, an 874-rooom hotel, 280,000 square feet of commercial space and a golf course.

Environmental groups and state agencies have raised concerns about the permit request to fill in or clear 44 acres of wetlands and its affect on the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve.

The permit cannot be issued until conditions placed on the permit by those agencies are met, said Jon Dinges, director of resource management at the Suwannee River Water Management District.

-- Bruce Ritchie, Tallahassee Democrat

 

 

Joe Murphy

Florida Director

Gulf Restoration Network

352-583-0870 (office)

813-468-0870 (cell)

Florida Office Address:

34413 Orchid Parkway

Ridge Manor, Fl. 33523

www.healthygulf.org

 

Subject: "Crist to Veto Sea-Grass Bill" (Pensacola News Journal, Jim Ash)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:11:38 -0400

June 10, 2008, Pensacola News Journal Crist to veto sea-grass bill By Jim Ash Florida Capital Bureau Chief http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080610/NEWS01/80610035/1006/NEWS01   TALLAHASSEE -- Environmental groups were breathing easier and at least one lawmaker was miffed after Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday that he will veto a bill that critics warn would devastate the sea grasses that are the life’s blood of the marine habitat. The green lobby originally supported the bill because it subjected careless boaters to a $1,000 fine for destroying the submerged grasses that protect the sandy bottom, filter water and shelter and feed juvenile fish. They quickly reversed course, however, when they learned that a provision quietly added by Rep. Will Kendrick, R-Carrabelle, called for the creation of a sea grass mitigation program that could have given developers more freedom to destroy the aquatic plants in exchange for replanting them elsewhere. “The environmental groups love Charlie Crist and this is the reason why,” said David Guest, a Tallahassee lawyer with Earthjustice. Guest and others complained that they were snookered when Kendrick added the mitigation amendment to the bill at a House Policy & Budget Council meeting on April 15, after an exhausting agenda. Kendrick’s explanation of the amendment lasted only a few seconds. “That just further clarifies sea grasses that’s intended for protection,” Kendrick told the council members at the time. Kendrick said last month that his amendment was available for all to read at the committee meeting before the full House and Senate voted and that he was not trying to deceive anyone. He said he merely wanted to promote a new technology that a Pinellas County company claims can transplant sea grasses -- substrate, roots and all. The company claims that patches could be moved out of high traffic areas and replanted in scarred areas where the beds are dying at an alarming rate. The stakes are high. In the 1950s there were more than 5 million acres of sea grasses along Florida’s coast. That was whittled to 2 million by 2000 - and it continues to decline at the rate of 82 acres a day. Kendrick’s legislation would have given Crist and the Cabinet the authority to approve sea grass mitigation banks by private companies on state-owned submerged lands. Although no plan is in place, the theory could allow developers and government agencies to offset their sea grass destruction by buying credits from companies that restore sea grasses elsewhere. Environmental groups warned that the program would have encouraged marine development and made a bad situation worse. Guest derisively refers to the technology as “hair transplants for the sea.” Kendrick complained Tuesday that he worked with the governor’s Department of Environmental Protection on the development of the mitigation language and only learned about the governor’s concerns through the media. “That is part of the most disappointing thing of all, the lack of communication,” Kendrick said. DEP spokeswoman Sarah Williams said the department supported the measure largely because it gave regulators more power to protect sea grasses with the threat of the $1,000 fine. “We understand that there were other parts of the bill that caused some concern,” she said. Crist expressed reservations about the legislation after opponents flooded government offices with e-mails and letters demanding his veto. Asked again about the legislation on Tuesday by reporters after a Cabinet meeting, Crist appeared to be shooting from the hip. “I’m going to veto it,” he said. “To protect sea grasses.”

 

 

Joe Murphy

Florida Director

Gulf Restoration Network

352-583-0870 (office)

813-468-0870 (cell)

Florida Office Address:

34413 Orchid Parkway

Ridge Manor, Fl. 33523

www.healthygulf.org

 

Subject: "Permit for Nature Coast Development Approved" Tallahassee Democrat (Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary / Nature Coast)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:22:24 -0400

Permit for 'Nature Coast' development approved

Posted 6/10/2008 2:20 PM EDT on tallahassee.com

A permit for a controversial proposed development along Florida’s “Nature Coast” near a state aquatic preserve has been approved by the Suwannee River Water Management District.

The district board voted 7-1 this morning to approve the permit for the Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary, located in Taylor county between Dekle Beach and Keaton Beach. The 1,243-acre project proposed by Dr. J. Crayton Pruitt, a St. Petersburg surgeon, would include 624 condominium units, an 874-rooom hotel, 280,000 square feet of commercial space and a golf course.

Environmental groups and state agencies have raised concerns about the permit request to fill in or clear 44 acres of wetlands and its affect on the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve.

The permit cannot be issued until conditions placed on the permit by those agencies are met, said Jon Dinges, director of resource management at the Suwannee River Water Management District.

-- Bruce Ritchie, Tallahassee Democrat

 

 

Joe Murphy

Florida Director

Gulf Restoration Network

352-583-0870 (office)

813-468-0870 (cell)

Florida Office Address:

34413 Orchid Parkway

Ridge Manor, Fl. 33523

www.healthygulf.org

 

Project near sensitive preserve gets approval

By Craig Pittman, Times staff writer

Published Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:14 PM

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wetlands/article617243.ece#

---

A state agency has approved a St. Petersburg surgeon's controversial development in Taylor County, despite the opposition of several environmental groups concerned about its effect on the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve.

The Suwannee River Water Management District approved Dr. J. Crayton Pruitt's latest plans for what he's now calling the Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary. The plan calls for building 624 condominium units, an 874-room hotel, 280,000 square feet of commercial space and a golf course. The project would be built in Dekle Beach, where in 1993 a massive tidal surge from the no-name storm killed 10 people and destroyed 57 of the 70 houses.

Pruitt's original plan, known as Magnolia Bay, included a marina and a 7-foot-deep channel 2 miles long and 100 feet wide cut through the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve, the state's largest aquatic preserve and one of the largest stretches of uninterrupted sea grass in North America.

However, that plan ran into strong opposition from the state Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the preserve. So Pruitt came up with a revised project that dropped the marina and channel, added a golf course and changed the name of the development to the Reserve at Sweetwater Estuary. The current plan still requires the destruction of 44 acres of wetlands for the golf course and roads, said Pruitt's environmental consultant, Beverly Birkett of Tampa.

In a letter last week the state Department of Community Affairs expressed continuing concerns about "significant wetlands," sinkholes and springs on the property that could be contaminated by runoff from the golf course. The whole project is "a significant level of urban development in an environmentally sensitive area," an agency official wrote.

But the water district board approved destroying the wetlands by a vote of 7-1. Now the only remaining permit needed is a federal one from the Army Corps of Engineers, Birkett said.

 

© 2008 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times

 

 

Joe Murphy

Florida Director

Gulf Restoration Network

352-583-0870 (office)

813-468-0870 (cell)

Florida Office Address:

34413 Orchid Parkway

Ridge Manor, Fl. 33523

www.healthygulf.org

 

 

Grant Peeples

(the BIG loser of the State Song contest)

CD Release Party

Friday the 13th at 8 PM at the American Legion Hall

at Lake Ella

with

Lis and Lon Williamson, Frank Graham, Jon Copps, Carrie Hamby, Shelley Weiss, Scott McArthur, Gordon Scott and Mimi Hearn

Special Guest:  Minie Brattain

8:00 p.m.

 

FHD table and petitioning at the event

Come have some fun!

 

---

/lifestyle/article/8964/print

Featured Affiliate

Big Green Purse

View all the featured contributing content by this source

/lifestyle/article/8964/print

 

From: GLOBE-Net
Published June 11, 2008 08:36 AM

The New Environmentalism

RELATED ARTICLES

• The New Environmentalism -- An ENN Commentary
• Survey: Employees Prefer Environmentally Friendly Practices In The Workplace
• Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage
• New Study: Americans Reach Environmental Turning Point, Companies Need to Catch Up

/lifestyle/article/8964/print

Private innovation is the wellspring of progress on environmental matters. Where once environmental policy inherently mistrusted markets and punishment was pursued more vigorously than progress, today wealth creation, appropriately harnessed, is the main engine of environmental progress. This is the new environmentalism.

 

At first glance one might attribute comments such as these to a marketing giant such as Wal-Mart or an innovative technology company such as GE. In fact, these are the views of non-profit organizations such as the GLOBE Foundation of Canada that promotes innovative approaches to addressing serious environmental challenges.

Whereas traditional environmentalism perceived the free market as an adversary, the new environmentalism recognizes the marketplace as an important mechanism for problem solving through incentives. Recognizing that a healthy environment also leads to a healthy economy, consumers and some business leaders are responding accordingly.

The argument is straight forward. Environmental progress over the long term requires self-propelled environmental protection by government, businesses, and individual private citizens. Environmental entrepreneurship is not likely to occur unless people have the incentives and ability to act as private stewards of the environment. While punishment is needed for those who callously flout environmental law, new environmentalism strikes a balance between punishment and incentives that encourage environmental innovation. 

It's not a new argument but it is an important one. Traditional environmentalism has failed to appreciate the importance of incentives in guiding human action, whereas the New environmentalism focuses on individual decision-making that provides incentives for people to become good environmental stewards.

John Javna, author of the best selling book - 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, makes the same point about the importance of personal values as the core determinants of action - but action that is oriented toward issues.

Such action goes further than simple individual effort.  It harnesses the power of cooperation and community that not only works to change individual personal habits, but also to change society -- laws, business practices, and even values.  This action inspires a sustained, committed effort to solve specific problems, rather than simply encouraging random environmental behaviour.

The new environmentalism requires environmental specialists and individuals to work together to identify practical measures to address key environmental problems. When governments, business, community groups and individuals work together to tackle environmental issues not only are different perspectives and skills brought to the table, greater power can be marshaled to carry out the actions needed to address environmental issues.

The New Environmental Movement

While this may sound Utopian, in fact here is growing evidence that this new environmental paradigm is being widely endorsed and has staying power. A survey conducted for Canada Post by Harris/Decima, a leading research firm, suggests the most notable trend is demographic - that the preoccupation with the environment cuts across generations and gender, region, partisan lines and income groups.

Un­like the past, where environmental movements were largely driven by idealistic young people, the survey found that people of all ages (chief among them women in their 30s and 40s and baby boomers) today are very focused on environmental issues. How people manage their own lives and maintain their own households is the one part of the environmental equation they can control.

High energy prices have also helped defined the "Ëœnew environmentalism' according to the study.  Consumer interest in reducing energy related expenditures and increased attention to energy costs in general serve as an important catalyst for changing public opinion.

More than 80% of participants in the survey said that they, industry, and government were equally responsible to address environmental concerns.  In fact, consumers want businesses to be equal partners in the effort to reduce waste and be more environmentally conscious. They want businesses to take action on environmental matters and wanted products with better environmental credentials, ideally independently verified.

 

More information on the Harris/Decima research program on the New Environmentalism is available here.

 

Originally published in GLOBE-Net — the on-line Guide to the Business of the Environment  - www.globe-net.com

 

 

Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:08:42 -0400

 

Subject: FEDERAL SUIT FILED FOR PETITION JUSTICE IN FLORIDA

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 11, 2008


    FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY (FHD) FILES FEDERAL COURT ACTION
             TO GAIN NOVEMBER 2008 BALLOT ACCESS

    Today FHD (Florida Hometown Democracy) filed a federal court action
in the Southern District of Florida seeking the proper certification of
ballot status for the FHD constitutional amendment.  The suit seeks
placement on the ballot as early as the November 2008 election through a
companion Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed with the action.

    FHD has collected Petitions from over 820,000 people and is seeking
to have FHD  placed on the November 2008 ballot through remedies
provided by the court to the State's mishandling of the petition
process.

   The complaint alleges four main problems caused by the State that
have denied justice to the FHD Petition:

   (1) there is no rational basis for the State's recent change to a
February 1 combined filing and certification deadline, which should be
declared unconstitutional - the remedy is a return to the prior deadline
of August 2008;

   (2) the 68 varying methods that the local Supervisors of Elections
and the State Division of Elections are using for validating signatures
is a violation of equal protection - the remedy is to have all rejected
FHD signatures examined under a uniform standard set by the court;

   (3) the State's new statute allowing businesses to choose which
organizations may come on their property to petition is a violation of
the constitutional right to petition for referenda, and was never
properly obtained by a constitutional amendment -- the remedy is to
strike down the statute; and

   (4) the State must be required to abide by its own statute that says
that an initiative qualifies whenever it submits the valid number of
signatures -- not just every two years at unpredictably varying
deadlines, as the State has acted.

   Supporters of the FHD Petition, including national ballot-access
expert Gary Sinawski, are optimistic that the federal court will object
to what the State and its allies in the development industry have been
doing to the citizens' right to petition their government through the
initiative process, and will redress the balance in favor of the
citizens being able to access the ballot with FHD sooner rather than
later.

   The Florida Hometown Democracy Petition is a citizens'
constitutional initiative that will give communities the ability to stop
runaway growth.  It stipulates that whenever a city or county government
wants to change their State-registered comprehensive land-use plan, the
final step of the planning process will be a ballot vote by citizens to
approve or disapprove the change.   According to Florida Hometown
Petition co-author, Palm Beach attorney Lesley Blackner, elected
officials have been too easily swayed by developers, and polls have
consistently shown that when the FHD measure gets on the ballot, it will
be approved by the required 60% of voters.

    Additional signed Petitions from Florida voters will bolster
the case for FHD's placement on the November 2008 ballot.  "We
invite more Floridians to make history with us", said John Hedrick,
who has been the point person from the Florida Sierra Club for FHD.
"Petitions can be downloaded from FloridaHometownDemocracy.com, then
signed and mailed in", he said, "and contributions to this volunteer
effort are much appreciated."

-END--

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The sponsors of a proposed state constitutional amendment on growth management sued the state in federal court Wednesday to get the citizens initiative on the November ballot.

Florida Hometown Democracy missed a new petition-gathering deadline but the lawsuit, filed in West Palm Beach, argues the Feb. 1 cutoff violates the U.S. Constitution.

There was no rational basis to move up the deadline for citizen initiatives from August where it remains for amendments offered by the Legislature, said Lesley Blackner, who heads Hometown Democracy.

"It deprives people of their right to associate politically," Blackner said. "The state has got to stop this war against citizens' right to amend their constitution."

The Hometown Democracy Amendment would require voter approval for changes in local comprehensive plans that determine how and where cities and counties grow.

Development and business interests oppose the measure, arguing it would harm Florida's economy. They have pushed for measures such as the Feb. 1 deadline, placed on the ballot by the Legislature and approved by voters in 2004, to make to make it more difficult to amend the constitution through the petition process.

Secretary of State Kurt Browning, Florida's top election official, is the defendant in the lawsuit. A spokesman for Browning did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.

The suit also alleges differing standards used by the 67 county supervisors of elections to verify signatures violates the petitioners' equal protection rights.

Hometown Democracy advocates say they have collected more than the 611,009 signatures needed but were denied ballot access because of the early deadline and differing standards.

The Division of Elections, part of Browning's department, counted only 564,558 verified signatures by Feb. 1. Since then the number has increased to 595,368 but that doesn't include 13,182 signatures revoked under a new law.

An appellate court has invalidated the revocation law, passed at the urging of Hometown Democracy opponents, but an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court is likely.

 

for the video, go to:

 

http://www.wtxl.com/Global/story.asp?S=8481482

 

MEMBER CENTER: Create Account | Log In  SITE SEARCH WEB SEARCH BY

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Text Size Chemical in Shower Curtains Could Make You Sick Video Gallery <1> Chemical in Shower Curtains Could Make You Sick 1:54 Add shower curtains to the list of household items that you may want to start looking for the organic version of. The one hanging in your bathroom now could be making you sick. So many of the shower curtains that are in our bathrooms contain something called polyvinyl chloride. You're going to hear more about this and the letters that should be sticking in your mind are PVC. That new shower curtain smell is where the danger is.  A study released today by the Center for Health Environment and Justice says that new shower smell is releasing 100 toxic chemicals into the air into your bathroom. Their called volatile organic compounds and health experts say shower curtains made with PVC carry 16 times more than the healthy amount of volatile compounds that should be in the air that you breathe. What are those toxins doing? The study says they're irritating your respiratory system, damaging your central nervous system, even causing a loss of coordination. "These shower curtains may have a cheap price but, we didn't know they were bad for our bodies until now." The consumer product safety commission is asking that all PVC shower curtains be pulled from store shelves. Some stores are already reacting to this news. Bed Bath and Beyond, JC Penny, Sears, Kmart and Target have all started plans to get these PVC curtains off the market. According to the researchers of this study Walmart has not started their plan, but I can't imagine they're far behind. Bottom line parents, check the packaging. If the product contains PVC, put it back.

and Terms of Service.

Posted on Sun, Jun. 15, 2008 EPA ducks duty to keep water clean By CARL HIAASEN To showcase its long-standing indifference toward the environment, the Bush administration last week announced it will not interfere with Florida's practice of pumping polluted farm water and suburban runoff into the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee. The ruling is the bureaucratic equivalent of an upraised middle digit aimed at all those naive souls who had looked to the government as a protector of our threatened wetlands and aquifers. Snubbing a 2006 court decision, the Environmental Protection Agency says it won't require permits for ''transfers'' of massive volumes of water, no matter how scuzzy that water is. ''Clean water permits should focus on water pollution, not water movement,'' declared Benjamin Grumbles, one of many useless EPA hacks who next year will be out of a job, and not a moment too soon. The agency's reasoning for ducking its responsibility is craven and porous. It claims the federal permit program is designed strictly to stop polluters from trashing waterways -- not to prevent dirty waters from being moved into clean waters by local governments. Extend this lame logic to a personal level. Say someone hands you a bucket of raw sewage. As long as you didn't create the sewage yourself, you'd be free to pour it into a neighbor's swimming pool. Intentionally contaminating healthy water with polluted water -- regardless of the source -- is itself a flagrant act of pollution. Yet the EPA says it can't be bothered with regulating such transfers. The Florida case stems from lawsuits initiated by the Miccosukee Tribe and environmental groups against the South Florida Water Management District, which pumps billions of gallons of water through canals and marshlands. Agricultural pollution Flood control and maintaining adequate urban water supplies are the district's priorities, though it is deeply involved in numerous Everglades restoration projects. For years, Miccosukee leaders have claimed that the agency funnels dangerous amounts of agricultural pollution into tribal waters, in violation of the federal Clean Water Act. State water managers say they need independent authority to move and allocate water for the public good -- or at least, their view of what's in the public good. The board members are political appointees so, not surprisingly, what's good for sugar tycoons, cattle barons and housing developers is often deemed good for the general public. And if that means uncorking crappy water into Lake Okeechobee or the Everglades, so be it. Cattle dung, fertilizers A few years ago, the issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided that a Broward pumping station could operate without a permit. However, the High Court sent the case back to federal court in South Florida to deal with the key pollution questions. In December 2006, in a second case, U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga ruled that by back-pumping billions of gallons of farm effluent into Lake Okeechobee, state water managers were violating the intent of the Clean Water Act. The judge rebuffed the EPA's narrow interpretation of its permitting authority, and she also rejected assertions by the South Florida Water Management District that it would be too costly and complicated to seek federal permission for water transfers. There would be no lawsuits, or debate, if the water being transferred were actually clean. Millions of tons of cattle dung and fertilizer tend to produce unhealthy lakes, rivers and bays. The horrid results of the district's primitive pumping policies are most visibly evident during seasons of heavy rain. As soon as the floodgates of Lake Okeechobee are opened, huge cascades of nutrient-choked water rush into the St. Lucie waterway to the east, and the Caloosahatchee River to the west. Eventually this crud is swept all the way to the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. It's nothing more sophisticated than the deliberate flushing of an enormous, fetid toilet. The EPA says the U.S. government's role should focus on stopping pollution at its source. Of course, if the agency had been doing its job, cane growers and ranchers and municipalities wouldn't have been allowed to drown the Everglades with their filthy runoff for all those decades. The spineless way out Indeed, if the agency had done its job, the Clean Water Act wouldn't be the joke that it is today all around the country. The Miccosukees probably weren't stunned that, under its current leadership, the EPA would take the spineless way out and let Florida continue pumping dirty water wherever it pleases. As the sun sets on the calamitous presidency of George W. Bush, the same government that falsely pledged to help save the Everglades now won't lift a finger to make the state stop contaminating it. We should have expected no more.

---

© 2008 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com