VICTORY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT! –Eliminating Sales Records of Fertilizer lIkely Will Not Happen

Great News!  Since we posted the following post just a couple of hours ago, we have received news from a reliable source that it is very likely that the Dept. of Agriculture will withdraw this rule change proposal.

VICTORY!

fertilizerrulepic
Taken in May in Caloosahatchee canals near Ortona — another area affected by the Lake O releases.

Just recently the FDEP initiated a campaign to allow more poisons and toxins in our drinking water.  Now the Dept.  of Agriculture is in the process of eliminating the requirement of keeping records of the amounts of fertilizer used.  Here is the link to the proposal.

Following is an article in Creative Loafing which gives more information.Scroll

Seriously?!: Amid coastal sliming, Florida may ditch fertilizer rules

Kate Bradshaw

June 29, 2016 10:18 p.m.

Robert Craig White

By now, you’ve probably seen photos and video of what appears to be a slimy, disgusting environmental disaster unfolding in the coastal waters north of Palm Beach.

The green slime invading waterways there is linked to fertilizer use in the sugar fields surrounding Lake Okeechobee. When heavy rains threaten to cause the lake to overflow, officials release fertilizer-ridden lake water into coastal waterways via manmade canals. That fertilizer-rich water feeds harmful algae blooms capable of killing fish and rendering waterways nasty, smelly and green.

One would think public officials would see this as bad, huh?

Not in Rick Scott’s Florida.

While cities and counties in Florida have for years tried to limit fertilizer pollution by banning residential use during the summer rainy season, the state Department of Agriculture seems poised to do something much to the contrary: eliminate a requirement that cities and counties report on how many tons fertilizer are being sold within their boundaries.

So, to put it simply, if this passes, there may soon be no public record of how much fertilizer, an existential threat to the health of the state’s waterways, is being sold in the state. Therefore, fertilizer sales could not be limited — nor could their detriment be quantified.

For a good description of the environmental nightmare that’s happening to our friends in the east right now, check out this Palm Beach Post report. This isn’t closing down an intracoastal dog beach because of too much bacteria. It’s not just a teensy bout of red tide. It’s a fucking disaster.

Or, more politely:

“The slime outbreaks on our South Florida coasts are heartbreaking,” said Earthjustice attorney Alisa Coe in a media release. “These slugs of fertilizer-laden water are coming from Lake Okeechobee. When they pump it to the coasts, you can see what happens. Instead of trying to hide information from the public, the Department of Agriculture ought to be trying to solve this public crisis.”

A public comment period on the changes closed Wednesday, but there is a petition environmental activists are circulating in hope of drawing attention to the issue.

Several weeks back, we wrote about how perhaps the Scott administration is being shortsighted, given that whatever financial benefit they see in doing little to nothing (by not buying up Big Sugar land south of the lake and letting the water filter and flow through the Everglades) will be offset by the huge blow this mess will cause to the tourism industry at a time when the state has been having record-breaking numbers of visitors.

Not that Scott nor his administration seems care what happens to the state after his incumbency ends; in the meantime, he’s raking in the cash.

The News Service of Florida reported Wednesday that his shadowy Let’s Get to Work PAC raised $227,525 in early June.

How much of this came from U.S. Sugar, which probably doesn’t want Big Government telling it how much fertilizer it can use, or making it sell its own land to negate environmental peril?

Glad you asked.

Nearly half of it: $100,000.

And when it comes to the industry’s support of the governor, that’s just the tip of iceberg.

What comes next?

1 Comment

Back to top
Skip to content