Dear Mayor Poe and Commissioners,

The following piece was sent to the Gainesville city commission in 2004 and published in The Alachua Post in March 2005. 

Some information in The Alachua Post article is  dated but it shows the Gainesville commission knew - or should have known - the environmental costs of "biomass."

No one on this commission should be surprised if there is current or planned clearcutting for the GREC/DREGS biomass incinerator.

Yours truly,

Karen Orr

Alachua Post

http://alachuapost.com/

GRU`s Developer Welfare Plan

Karen Orr

GRU`s toxic expansion plans are a forced taxpayer gift to developers. GRU and the City want the expansion because the utility is the cash cow for the City of Gainesville.

The moneys received by manufacturing excess power to sell elsewhere (while we breath the poisons) is to create infrastructure for future mega development. 

The Florida Public Service Commission stated that our energy needs can be supplied by GRU`s existing plant for at least the next 10-12 years. That`s with the current pitiful conservation programs. Even some GRU staff have stated that conservation of 10 percent of existing consumption is a fairly easily obtainable goal.

To lock ourselves into polluting technologies when clean technologies may arise in the interim is idiotic.

GRU and our elected officials ignore the fact that our air quality is horrible NOW. (http://www.scorecard.org) With Florida Rock`s next incinerators, the asphalt plants and other polluters, we`re well on our way to becoming the New Birmingham.

The evils of coal burning, mercury, mountaintop mining etc. are well known to many Alachua County citizens.

On the other hand, the local newspaper has carried little information to counter the biomass promoter`s greenwash campaign. As a result, many well intended people are lost in the smokescreen.

Biomass energy is just the latest greenscam. Fad pollution.

What the biomass incinerator promoters call "waste," is, in fact, topsoil for forests and farms.

The downed trees and limbs from the hurricanes, for example, can be mulched and turned into topsoil on farms. Some of it has been.

Biomass energy demands have already lead to extreme biomass removals from logging sites, leaving little to return to the soils but chemicals and pesticides.

There`s nothing left to slow wind and rain erosions of those soils.

With each harvesting of tree plantations, the size and health of the trees decrease.

Short Rotation Woody Crops for biomass incineration wear out the soils on marginal lands in a short period.

With biomass incineration, local landowners will be increasingly targeted by loggers to clear cut their properties. Poor rural landowners sell off logging rights now for very little money.

Our natural forests are already under severe pressure from the pulp and paper industries and engineered wood products.

Florida Chapter Sierra Club position on biomass production:

"We continue to oppose the development of biomass production as an alternative to solar and wind power. Biomass production depletes the environment by decreasing topsoil, using more water, fertilizer and diesel fuel than it is worth and creates more pollution."

The 2004 Florida Chapter Sierra Club Water Policies are attached in Word Document.

Soil forms an integral part of the environment. All plants depend on it as a reserve of nutrients for a healthy functioning, thus making soil essential for the production of food and other crops, but also for maintaining biodiversity and for the landscape. Major nutrients contained in fertile soil are phosphorous, potassium, nitrogen, calcium, magnesium and sulfur. Dissolved, they are taken up through the roots of plants, incorporated into plant biomass and finally returned to the soil when plants die or shed.

Bioenergy production, both from energy crops and from forest and agricultural residues, can affect the naturally balanced nutrient cycles leading to degradation of soil fertility. Removing nutrients when biomass feedstock is harvested from the field, especially in the case of rapid-growth bioenergy crops and complete removal of agricultural residues, ultimately interrupts the natural process by which decomposing plant matter would replenish soil nutrients and effectively makes the soil less fertile. Adverse affects on the community of micro-organisms responsible for nutrient cycling or chemical and physical changes in the soil causing nutrients to be converted into compounds less usable to plants also contribute to the decreased soil fertility.

Biomass incinerators compete with recycling, and composting programs for materials. Wood can either be recycled and composted, or incinerated -- but not both. It`s an either/or proposition.

When an incinerator is built, recycling and composting options for the lifetime of the incinerator (usually 20 years or more) are foreclosed.

Conversely, when a successful recycling and composting program is instituted, the incinerator is starved. Many incinerator companies require guarantees on the amount of biomass a community must send to an incinerator for that reason.

Once the biomass incineration route is taken, communities are trapped burning up their valuable natural resources.

Recycling wood conserves energy, preserves natural resources, and reduces pollution. Raw materials processing, such as wood pulping, is extremely energy-intensive, and both the generation of energy and the production process itself produce toxic pollution.

Biomass conversion, like all incineration -- is a doomed technology. These processes generate hazardous emissions and toxic ash or residue, are very expensive, compete with recycling programs, and destroy valuable resources.

The Energy Justice Network is an excellent energy resource.

Energy Justice:
http://www.energyjustice.net

The Burning Issues With Biomass
http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/

Incineration Repackaged:
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2002/Incineration-RepackagedJul02.htm

George Monbiot column
Feeding Cars, Not People: The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/

The City of Gainesville must institute good energy conservation programs. The last thing we need is more incineration.

Karen Orr

Florida Chapter Sierra Club

Water and Wetlands Chair

Florida Chapter Sierra Club Comprehensive Water Policy Paper

This comprehensive paper was prepared to delineate water protection issues and the numerous categories that define that protection.

Water is Florida`s most precious natural resource. It is a basic human need, as well as the vital element in all natural ecosystems.

Our water supply belongs to the people. We oppose privatization of our water and any water transfers from one part of the state to another. We oppose decisions about the future of Florida water being determined by a Governor appointed State Water Board Commission.

The Floridan and Biscayne aquifers are major state water sources.

The Biscayne aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for Miami-Dade, Broward and part of Palm Beach County.

MAP- http://capp.water.usgs.gov/aquiferBasics/ext_biscayne.html

The Floridan aquifer underlies most of Florida and is one of the most productive aquifers in the world. It is the sole source of drinking water for a majority of the state. It is a carbonate-rock aquifer with intergranular porosity containing large solution openings.

MAP- http://capp.water.usgs.gov/aquiferBasics/ext_floridan.html

These aquifers are being threatened by pollution and overpumping.

Conservation policies should protect Florida's ground and surface water supplies for future human needs and water needed for natural ecosystems. The rate of water pumping and natural discharges should not exceed the rate of natural recharge. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) should be the authority to establish data showing optimum minimum flows and levels and average flows over time for the water bodies of the state, including aquifers. USGS has determined that saltwater intrusion has been spreading inland, where fresh water tables are lowered by overpumping.

Florida is now populated with 16,713,149 people, a population that has nearly doubled since 1980. There are negative impacts with this tremendous population growth and unbridled rampant development. A major problem is the wasteful use of water. Nearly half of all water used by humans in Florida is for agricultural irrigation. Half the water used for household consumption is for watering lawns and landscaping (USGS 1995 � p. 5, Orlando Sentinel Series on Florida's Water Crisis, April 7, 2002). Excessive groundwater pumping has put lakes, springs and wetlands at risk and increased the threat of sinkholes.

There are many ways to cut the waste of water, such as the use of xeriscape landscaping with native plants, and drip irrigation in agriculture. Reduction in the use of fertilizers and pesticides is also important.

OPPOSE:

We oppose any proposal that would privatize public water and its distribution.

We oppose interbasin water transfers. Water transfers for new developments would deplete water that supports existing ecosystems, and fuel more inappropriate growth in areas that already stressed by overdevelopment.

We oppose a politicized Water Supply Commission that would supercede the authority of the Water Management Districts.

We oppose the further loss of wetlands in Florida. Wetlands are critical to water quality, aquifer recharge and flood control.

We continue to oppose wetland mitigation policies. Wetland mitigation policies and "mitigation banking" encourage wetland filling, do not replace destroyed wetlands and lead to wetland elimination.

We oppose the state's delisting of impaired water bodies to avoid the imposition of EPA-mandated Total Maximum Daily Loads.

We oppose aquifer and springs withdrawals for water bottling plants. The transfer of water robs the existing ecosystem and depletes surface and ground water resources. Water should not be viewed as a private, corporate commodity for profit.

We oppose injection wells. These wells are used to inject industrial waste and partially treated sewage beneath Florida's porous aquifers. Sewage may include fecal coliform dangerous levels of nitrates, pathogen contamination and other toxics that can migrate into private and municipal wells.

(See - http://www.home.earthlink.net/berniew1/damspr2f.htm.)

The Dade County municipal well contamination is a significant example of that failure. The karst geology throughout the state of Florida allows contamination to spread easily.

We continue to oppose the sale of reclaimed water for reuse until and unless proven technologies are used to make it safe enough for return to a potable water treatment facility.

We oppose Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR's). Pumping water that does not meet drinking water standards into the aquifer for highly questionable future use is not acceptable.

We oppose the exemptions to the Clean Water Act awarded to the U.S. Military by the Bush Administration. In some areas of Florid, the U.S. Military is responsible for large toxic dumps that have contaminated local water supplies. They should be required to clean up those dumps.

Other sources that contribute to contamination of local water supplies are: unlined C & D landfills that accept ash from coal plants and solid waste incinerators, sludge spreading sewage lagoons located on dairies and air pollution from power plants and garbage burners.

We oppose the Bush Administration exemptions to the Clean Water Act given to polluting industries in Florida. Toxic emissions from coal burning power plants, pulp mills, and cement plants put high levels of lead, mercury, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, dioxin, dibenzofurans and volatile organic compounds that eventually migrate to our water supplies. Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) should be required to reduce the pollution plume hovering over Florida.

We oppose all exemptions to environmental laws which should be enforced without compromises or negotiated settlements.

We oppose changes to law pertaining to the definition of "water reservation." The water needs of the natural system such as the Everglades, should have priority over uncontrolled, unwanted urban growth.

We oppose future developments where there is insufficient "local" water supply.

We continue to oppose the development of biomass production as an alternative to solar and wind power. Biomass production depletes the environment by decreasing topsoil, using more water, fertilizer and diesel fuel than it is worth and creates more pollution.

SUPPORT

We support the current Water Management District structure and the retention of Florida's Local Sources First rules. Every area should be protected from "water grabs."

We support water conservation measures for every user group.

We support strengthening and full enforcement of all rules promulgated by Federal and State Agencies and local governments to achieve compliance with the Congressional Intent of Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.

We support the preservation and restoration of natural wetlands. Wetlands protect our water quality, quantity, wildlife habitat and prevent flooding. Florida has already lost half its natural wetlands. Many of the remainder have been degraded by pollution and siltation.

We support the establishment of wetland buffers to protect wetlands and provide a transition zone for wildlife habitat.

We support further protection of springs and spring runs by expanding sufficient buffers of land.

We support future regulation of agricultural runoff. For example, Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the dairy industry have failed. Water quality monitoring results over a ten year span have shown an alarming spike in nitrate pollution. Wells in the Suwannee River Basin are showing dangerous levels of nitrates that are three times higher than the acceptable federal limits. Bottled water is now being delivered to residents at the expense of the taxpayers.

We support metering of water use by agriculture, industry and utilities when consumptive use permits are issued. We also support retrofitting current water users with meters.

We support requirements and incentives for agriculture to utilize water-saving irrigation techniques and technologies.

We support continued Development of Regional Impact (DRIs) reports reviewed by all agencies on all projects for impacts to water supplies and water quality in order to ensure protection of aquatic preserves, healthy estuaries and the survival of the endangered manatee.

We support water concurrency in growth management. If the water supply is not there, the development should not be permitted.

We support the use of reclaimed water for irrigating lawns and landscaping only from Advanced Wastewater Treatment facilities.

We support requiring phosphate and limerock corporations being held accountable for their own cleanups, reclamations and restorations. Toxic runoff into water must be prevented.

We support energy conservation state of the art technology in order to reduce the current corporate utilities excessive use of water.

We support legislation that stops the spreading of sludge on farms when pollution limits have been reached.

We support increased funding for Northwest Florida Water Management District to bring that district's resources at balance with other Water Management Districts.

John Swingle
Florida Chapter Chair
[log in to unmask]

Betsy Roberts
Florida Chapter Conservation Chair
[log in to unmask]

Susie Caplowe
Florida Chapter Lobbyist
[log in to unmask]

Karen Orr
Florida Chapter Wetlands and Water Chair
[log in to unmask]

December McSherry
Florida Chapter Agriculture Chair
[log in to unmask]

John Glenn
Safe Drinking Water Chair
[log in to unmask]

http://alachuapost.com/All/3103.html?1075