This year 1000 Friends of Florida joined with our conservation allies to support dedicating a minimum of 25 percent of Water and Land Conservation Amendment dollars to the Florida Forever and Florida Communities Trust programs and increasing funding for the Rural and Family Lands program. In response, tens of thousands of Floridians took action and contacted their legislators urging them to support land conservation funding.
Unfortunately, despite our efforts, House and Senate budget leaders agreed Wednesday afternoon to defund Florida Forever and slash the Department of Environmental Protection Budget by 20 percent (approximately $325 million) from last year as part of 2017 budget negotiations.
Nathaniel Reed, Chairmen Emeritus of 1000 Friends of Florida, told me yesterday evening, "As one of the fathers of the predecessor of Florida Forever I am terribly disappointed that the will of the voters has been ignored by our elected legislative body. Every year that there is no funding for Florida Forever is a lost year for Floridians. We obviously need new leaders with a commitment to Florida's future, which is now left up to the voters."
While we may have lost the battle, this year, the war goes on. The Legislature is still in session and we must continue to make our voices heard. I urge you to call or write your State Representative and Senator and tell them you think defunding Florida Forever and slashing the Department of Environmental Protection budget is the wrong choice for Florida's Future.
Then, request an in-person meeting for next week when they are back home in their Districts. At that meeting, ask your elected representatives to commit to supporting legislation in the 2018 Legislative Session which dedicates a minimum of 25 percent of Water and Land Conservation Amendment dollars to Florida Forever priority projects and the Florida Communities Trust program.
If Scott axes the new 2017-18 budget bill, lawmakers have the option of overriding his veto with a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate.
But budget veto overrides are even rarer than budget vetoes.
Adam Putnam's campaign for governor is piling up money and poised for a formal kickoff next week. But Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran tells The Buzz he won't decide on a run for governor until after the 2018 legislative session ends next March. The Land O'Lakes Republican said this summer he will create a political committee to raise money. But no matter what, the only office he would consider running for is governor. Speculation that he could ultimately decide to run for attorney general or U.S. Senate? Simply wrong. "Those are the only two choices -- governor or not run for office," he said. As Florida House Speaker he should be able to raise big money from companies and individuals with legislative interests, but he at least initially will be raising it for a nebulous purpose.
Leaky Septic Tanks - day after day after day.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, Fla. -
Water quality on the Treasure Coast remains a hot topic locally and nationally but now there are renewed efforts for a closer look at a major contributor to pollution.
"Even if discharges stop completely you're still going to have a problem because there is local contamination that has to be addressed in the long term," say Florida Senator Marco Rubio.
Local contamination, he speaks of, has long been considered a problem but now fresh evidence is stirring up the water in the north fork of the St Lucie River. It is a body of water so pristine at one time that has now become a murky mess.
"It's heartbreaking, it's heartbreaking," says local waterfront resident Suzy Dibartolo.
For 40 years she has lived here watching a slice of paradise slip away. Proactively she sold her boat and stored her kayaks.
"I wouldn't dare go in it, I really wouldn't," she says.
A problem has been seeping quietly from 32,000 backyards in martin county especially those next to the shoreline. Dr. Brian Lapointe of FAU Harbor Branch took hundreds of water samples from the St Lucie River last year and discovered an eye opening revelation.
"We found very high concentrations of fecal bacteria coming from septic tanks," says Lapointe.
He says sewerage is seeping into the river day by day and has been for years. Only now are the effects so devastating. It's a massive issue shadowed by the impact of
Lake Okeechobee discharges which have gained all the bad publicity as of late. Lapointe's evidence proves septic tanks are equally to blame.
"What we've seen is this problem has grown worse year by year to the point now parts of the St Lucie River on the north fork you can't touch the water," says Lapointe.
Data and evidence from his septic tank study were handed over to Martin county. Commissioners have already begun a multimillion dollar solution. Move each community from septic tanks to sewer lines thus eradicating the problem.
"It's a full time job," says Martin County Commissioner Doug Smith.
Smith has been spearheading the massive septic to sewer project which is underway in three areas: North River Shores, Golden Gate and one in Palm City. It costs each homeowner roughly $8,000 and that's cheap considering grants and funds have dropped the price from $15,000. The time it could take to complete could be ten years.
"The river is the key component, if it's not healthy, if it's not clean then people won't come they won't stay," says Smith.
Nor will the wildlife like pelicans, seagulls, manatees and dolphins which have all vanished. A clear sign the future of this water lies in a dark cloudy mess.
"I refuse to give up on it, I love it, this is where I want to stay until they drag me out dead really," says Dibartolo.
To view Dr. Brian Lapointe's study conducted in 2015 which produced samples of water and helped lead to the changes underway,
CLICK HERE.
Central Everglades Planning Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project.
Authorized by Congress
1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on ecosystem restoration improvements for the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) located in Martin, Lee, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida. It is accompanied by the report of the Jacksonville District Engineer and South Atlantic Division Engineer. These reports are in response to Section 601 (b )( 1) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, which approved the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a framework for modifications and operational changes to the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) project that are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other waterrelated needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection. WRDA 2000 identified specific requirements for implementing components of the CERP, including the development of a decision document known as a Project Implementation Report (PIR). The requirements of a PIR are addressed in this report and are subject to review and approval by the Secretary of the Army. Preconstruction engineering and design activities for this project will be continued under the CERP Design Agreement.
2. The proposed
CEPP is comprised of increments of six components of CERP, including the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Storage Reservoir - Phase I, which was conditionally authorized by Section 601 (b)(2)(C)(ii) of WRDA 2000. However, the reporting officers recommend new authorization consistent with Section 601 (d) of WRDA 2000 due to changes in scope and the inclusion of additional CERP components. The reporting officers recommend increments of the following six components of CERP to be integrated with the existing facilities of the C&SF system:
Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs (Component G);
Water Conservation Area (WCA)-3 Decompartmentalization
Sheetflow Enhancement (Components AA and QQ);
S-356 Pump Station Modifications (Component FF); L-31 N Improvements for Seepage Management (Component V);
and Flow to Northwest and Central WCA-3A (Component II).
3. The final PIR and integrated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), developed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), recommends a project that contributes significantly to the ecological goals and objectives of CERP: (1) increasing the spatial extent of natural areas; (2) improving habitat function and quality; and (3) DAEN SUBJECT: Report of the Chief of Engineers, Central Everglades Planning Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project. improving native plant and animal abundance and diversity. In addition, it contributes to the economic values and social well being of the project area by providing recreational opportunities and 17 million gallons of water per day of water supply for residents of the Lower East Coast of Florida. The historical Everglades ecosystem was previously defined by a mosaic of uplands, freshwater marsh, deep water sloughs, and estuarine habitats that supported a diverse community of fish and wildlife. Today nearly all aspects of South Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species that have resulted directly or indirectly from a century of water management for human needs. The PIR/EIS confirms information in the CERP and provides a conceptual plan that evaluated the costs and benefits associated with construction and operation of the Central Everglades components of the CERP. CEPP will help restore the central portion of the Everglades ecosystem towards a state more similar to the historic conditions. T
he project will improve habitat function and quality and improve native plant and animal abundance and species composition and diversity by delivering approximately 210,000 average annual acre feet of additional water to the Everglades.
4. The reporting officers recommend a plan for ecosystem restoration and recreation. The recommended plan would improve the ecological functions of the South Florida environment, including the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries, WCA-2 and WCA- 3, and Everglades National Park (ENP). The CEPP plan includes the following features, listed from north to south in project area: a. The EAA includes a 14,000 acre A-2 flow equalization basin (FEB) and associated distribution, inlet, and outlet structures. Operation of the A-2 FEB would be integrated with the future operation of the State of Florida's Restoration Strategies features, including the A-1 FEB, and the state's existing Stormwater Treatment Area (STA)-2 and STA-3/4 facilities, to deliver new water south. b. WCA-2A and Northern WCA-3A include a 500 cubic feet/second (cfs) gated culvert to deliver water from the L-6 Canal to the remnant L-5 Canal; a 500 cfs gated spillway to deliver water from the remnant L-5 Canal to the western L-5 Canal (during L- 6 diversion operations); a 2,500 cfs gated spillway to deliver water from STA-3/4 to the S-7 Pump Station during peak discharge events (including L-6 diversion operations); approximately 13.6 miles of conveyance improvements to the L-5 Canal; degradation of approximately 2.9 miles of the southern L-4 Levee along the northwest boundary of WCA-3A; a 360 cfs pump station to move water within the L-4 Canal to maintain water supply deliveries to retain the existing functionality of STA-5 and STA-6 and maintain water supply to existing legal users, including the Seminole Tribe of Florida; gated culverts and an associated new canal to deliver water from the Miami Canal (south of the S-8 Pump Station, which pulls water from the L-5 Canal) to the L-4 Canal, along with potential design modifications to the existing S-8 and G-404 pump stations; and 2 DAEN SUBJECT: Report of the Chief of Engineers, Central Everglades Planning Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project. backfill of approximately 13.5 miles of the Miami Canal with construction of tree islands between 1.5 miles south of the S-8 Pump Station and Interstate Highway 1-75. c. Southern WCA-3A, WCA-3B, and the Northern Edge of EN P include a 1, 150 cfs gated spillway adjacent to S-333; a 500 cfs gated culvert in L-67A Levee and an associated 6,000 foot gap in L-67C Levee; a flow way through the western end of WCA- 3B (two 500 cfs gated culverts in L-67 A Levee, removal of approximately 8 miles of L- 67C Levee, removal of approximately 4.3 miles of L-29 Levee, construction of approximately 8.5 miles of new levee in WCA-3B); a 1,230 cfs gated spillway in L-29 Canal; removal of approximately 5.5 miles of the L-67 Extension Levee and backfill of approximately 5.5 miles of the L-67 Extension Canal; removal of approximately 6 miles of Old Tamiami Trail; and removal of spoil mounds along the northwestern side of the L- 67A Canal. d. Eastern Edge of ENP includes a 1,000 cfs pump station and an approximately 4.2-mile long, 35 feet deep tapering seepage barrier cutoff wall along the L-31 N Levee just south of Tamiami Trail. e. Recreational features include gravel parking with boat ramps and trailheads, dry vault toilets, shelters, primitive camping sites, and fishing platforms.
5. The
total project first cost of the recommended plan, based upon October 2014 price levels, is estimated to be $1,951,000,000 rounded to the nearest million. The project first cost for the ecosystem restoration features is estimated to be $1,944,000,000 and for recreation is estimated to be $6,600,000. In accordance with the cost-sharing requirements of Section 601 (e) of WRDA 2000, construction costs for ecosystem restoration are shared 50-50 between the government and non-federal sponsor. Construction costs associated with recreation features are also cost-shared 50-50 in accordance with Section 103 of WRDA 1986, as amended. Additionally, the government is responsible for 100% of cultural resources data recovery costs, up to 1 % of total project costs (see paragraph 18.s). Therefore, in consideration of estimated costs for cultural resources data recovery, the federal cost of the recommended plan would be $976,375,000 and the non-federal cost would be $974,625,000. The estimated lands, easements, right-of-way, and relocation (LERRs) costs for the recommended plan are $37,000,000, of which approximately $31,000,000 is creditable to the government and approximately $6,000,000 are creditable to the non-federal sponsor. Federal funds contributed by Department of Interior (DOI) pursuant to Section 390 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104- 127, 110 Stat. 1022) are credited to the federal share of the project cost pursuant to Section 601 (e)(3) of WRDA 2000. DOI contributed approximately $30,300,000 toward the purchase of the lands associated with the A-2 FEB and FEB Discharge Canal.
6. Although cost sharing of the ecosystem restoration features for this project is governed by Section 601 of WRDA 2000, as amended, cost sharing of the recreation 3 DAEN SUBJECT: Report of the Chief of Engineers, Central Everglades Planning Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project. features is governed by Section 103 of the WRDA 1986, as amended. In particular, in accordance with Section 1030) of WRDA 1986, 100 percent of the cost of Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the recreation features is the non-federal sponsor's responsibility. In addition, section 601 (e)(5)(B) of WRDA 2000, as amended, governs credit for non-federal sponsor design and construction work on the ecosystem restoration features of the project, whereas section 221 (a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)), governs credit for non-federal sponsor design and construction work on the recreation features of the project.
7.
Based on October 2014 price levels, a 50-year period of economic evaluation and a 3.375 percent discount rate, the equivalent annual cost of the proposed project is estimated at $102,600,000, which includes OMRR&R, interest during construction and amortization. The estimated annual costs for restoration OMRR&R are $11,250,000, of which $4, 150,000 is attributed to new CEPP infrastructure; $4,000,000 to flowing water through existing state and C&SF infrastructure; and $3, 100,000 to invasive species management. Post construction monitoring will occur during 10-year cycles for invasive species and performance-based ecological monitoring ($2,700,000 annually for up to 10 years). Permit-related monitoring and monitoring that informs project operations will also be conducted ($2,800,000 annually) and this monitoring will be assessed periodically and revised as needed. The OMRR&R costs for recreation features are estimated at $65,000 and are a 100% non-federal responsibility.
8. As a component of the CERP program, an interagency/interdisciplinary scientific and technical team, formed to ensure that system-wide goals are met, will participate in the annual monitoring to assess system-wide changes. In accordance with Sections 601 (e)(4) and 601 (e)(5)(D) of WRDA 2000, OMRR&R costs and adaptive assessment and monitoring costs for ecosystem restoration will be shared equally between the federal government and the non-federal sponsor. The Project Monitoring Plan was developed assuming that major, ongoing monitoring programs that are not funded by the project would continue to supply data relevant to the Project. The Project Monitoring Plan shall not include items that are already required to be monitored by another federal agency or other entity as part of their regular responsibilities or required by law and shall not include items that are already required to be monitored by the USAGE for other South Florida ecosystem restoration projects. In accordance with Section 1030) of the WRDA 1986, as amended, OMRR&R costs related to recreation features will be funded 100 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. 9. The recommended plan requires the use of several State of Florida facilities constructed and operated pursuant to state permits. The facilities are necessary for the state to meet Clean Water Act requirements as approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and as litigated by the U.S. Department of Justice. Some 4 DAEN SUBJECT: Report of the Chief of Engineers, Central Everglades Planning Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project. of these requirements are currently subject to a Settlement Agreement filed with and overseen by the federal district court. These facilities, as named below and herein after referred to as the "state facilities", are to be used by CEPP until such time as CEPP is deauthorized or it is determined that use of the state facilities are no longer necessary for the purpose of achieving CEPP project purposes. The State of Florida is responsible for OMRR&R of their State Restoration Strategies and Everglades Construction Project facilities. The reporting officers recommend authorization of CEPP with specific statutory language allowing cost share of the OMRR&R for the following state facilities not previously cost shared by the government for construction under the C&SF project or other federal authority, and listed C&SF features that are currently cost shared pursuant to executed Resolutions: Stormwater Treatment Area 2; Stormwater Treatment Area 3/4; Flow Equalization Basin A-1; G-357 Gated Culvert; G-370 Pump Station; G-371 Gated Spillway; G-372 Pump Station; G-404 Pump Station; G-434 Pump Station; G-435 Pump Station; S-6 Pump Station; S-7 Pump Station; S-8 Pump Station; and S-150 Gated Culverts and their corresponding remote-control facilities. All features required for the State Restoration Strategies and the Everglades Construction Project are independent state facilities and are not CEPP components or features. The state facilities will not be incorporated as federal CEPP project features; however, the operation of state facilities is required to ensure that new water made available by CEPP meets water quality standards and achieves CEPP project benefits. a. The state retains sole responsibility for performing operations activities at state facilities pursuant to State Operations Plan, with the exception of the FEB A-1 which will be integrated with FEB A-2 and operated pursuant to a mutually agreed upon water control plan. The joint water control plan for the FEBs will integrate the operation of CEPP and the operation of the state facilities used by CEPP. The state has agreed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) shall have the opportunity to collaborate, review, and comment on the OMRR&R of the state facilities used by CEPP, including updates to optimize operations to achieve federal project purposes. This is intended to ensure continuous achievement of CEPP project purposes and support the federal interest in cost sharing OMRR&R. To the extent applicable, any operational modifications to the state facilities as defined in the PIR/EIS that would impair the usefulness of any USAGE project, including all CEPP and other CERP and C&SF project features, may require a 33 U.S.C. Section 408 permit from the USAGE. b. The aforementioned state facilities and C&SF features will use excess capacity to process "new water" provided by CEPP, which has been estimated to comprise approximately 19% of the total water volume that could flow through these facilities. The reporting officers have assumed that OMRR&R costs are linear with flow volumes and thus the additional increase in OMRR&R costs due to the increased flow volumes will be 19% of the total OMRR&R costs. Consistent with the general CERP authorization for cost sharing OMRR&R (WRDA 2000 Section 601 (e)(4)), the reporting officers recommend authorization of CEPP to contribute 19% of the OMRR&R costs of 5 DAEN SUBJECT: Report of the Chief of Engineers, Central Everglades Planning Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project. the aforementioned state facilities and C&SF features to the extent that OMRR&R activities are directly related to their use for treating "new water". The federal pro-rated share for OMRR&R for the aforementioned facilities used by CEPP is therefore 50% of the 19%, or 9.5% of the total OMRR&R costs. The 19% CEPP cost share will apply to the state facilities and C&SF features listed previously to the extent that OMRR&R activities are directly related to their use for treating "new water". ..
.. more... full report
Zooming over the vast Everglades in a helicopter, it's easy to see how much work is being done to revive the wilted watershed:
Newly restored bends in the Kissimmee River are resurrecting floodplains and wetlands to clean and slow the flow of dirty water running from farms and cities into Lake Okeechobee. Reservoirs are underway east and west of the lake to hold more water. To the south, sprawling treatment areas to scrub pollution from farm runoff water were expanded last year. Of 26 massive culverts needed to shore up the lake's aging dike, 21 are under contract. And new and reconfigured canals began delivering more water in 2016 than ever before to Everglades National Park. To name a few.
But at ground level, the view is far different, with sides squared off in bitter fight over just how much remains to be done, and at what pace.
For the second year in a row, a proposed $2.4 billion reservoir included in original plans and envisioned somewhere in the sugar fields that now dominate the landscape south of the lake is taking center stage. State Senate President Joe Negron, his Treasure Coast constituents repeatedly hammered by dirty water from Lake Okeechobee, and environmentalists want to speed up its construction by years. Gov. Rick Scott and farmers, however, see the reservoir as a job-killing land grab and say efforts should focus north of the lake, where water storage projects are already underway.
The National Academies of Sciences also issued a dismal assessment earlier this year, citing problems that have dogged the $16.4 billion state-federal restoration project almost since its inception in 2000: bureaucratic creep and chronic underfunding.
Of the 68 projects originally envisioned, only six are under construction. None are fully done. At the current pace, the academy reported, fixing the Everglades will take another 100 years.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article130702984.html#storylink=cpy
The IDS maximizes holistic benefits to regional system as early as possible
Ensures continued stream of construction, which provides for steady increase in regional ecosystem benefits
Provides beneficial storage to the Caloosahatchee and St Lucie estuaries while infrastructure that is needed to open up the system for additional flow south is being implemented
Improves conditions and flow through WCA -3 and provides more water to Everglades National Park and Florida Bay as early as possible
Advances projects with the greatest potential to avert ongoing degradation and considers implications of climate change and sea -level rise Ensures additional projects will be ready to continue progress on restoration
Includes most of the planning efforts for projects identified by stakeholders as priorities
Prioritizes planning studies for Lake Okeechobee Watershed and the Western Everglades Consistency with project dependencies and constraints
Maintains 50/50 cost -share
Commitment to complete construction on projects where construction has been initiated
Consistent with project dependencies for moving water south
Modifications to downstream infrastructure, Restoration Strategies, etc.
UPDATE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS® | JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT BUILDING STRONG®
NOTE : The funding shown for FY17 and beyond is only notional, representing approximate funding levels that would be needed to sustain the work displayed in the IDS for any particular FY .
Commentary
The opinions posted on this site are not necessarily those of the site managers or all of our sponsors. Eco-voice can not verify the accuracy of facts asserted in commentaries but does not knowingly post articles which have serious errors. Opinions on environmental topics have a light blue back ground, those on political issues, light yellow. Eco-Voice is 501c3 and does not endorse nor oppose candidates for elective office.
Under federal code, tax-exempt groups known as 501(c)3 public charities must "not participate in, or intervene in [including the publishing or distributing of statements], any political campaign on behalf of [or in opposition to] any candidate for public office."
Comments on postings can be made on our Facebook page under the Digest of the day.
Killing Energy Star: A Popular Program Lands on the Trump Hit List
It is widely regarded as a success - a voluntary program that has been a win-win for industry, consumers, and energy conservation. So why does the Trump administration want to get rid of Energy Star?
Consider
Haiku, a line of sleek, quiet, and smart ceiling fans. Haiku fans can be equipped with temperature and humidity sensors, as well as LED lights, and they can be controlled by a mobile phone, a Nest thermostat, Amazon's Alexa, or a Jawbone fitness tracker, which will turn off a bedroom fan once a user falls asleep. Not incidentally, Haiku fans are energy efficient - they capture the
top nine spots among 423 ceiling fans certified by Energy Star, the federal government's popular energy efficiency program.
The Trump administration wants to shut down
Energy Star, a 25-year-old program run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as part of its plan to slash the EPA budget. While the White House was expected to try to rein in EPA - the agency was a Trump target during the presidential campaign - the move to eliminate Energy Star is surprising. About 16,000 companies and organizations, including Big Ass Solutions, Haiku's parent company, have chosen to participate. Last week, more than 1,000 participants - including major manufacturers such as United Technologies, real estate firms such as CBRE Group and retailers such as Staples -
asked Congress to protect the program.
"We applaud Energy Star," says Jon Bostock, the chief financial officer of Big Ass Solutions and a former manager in General Electric's appliance unit, who knows the program well. "It has pushed brands. It's driven a ton of innovation. It's provided value for the customer."
Based in Lexington, Kentucky, fast-growing Big Ass is the kind of company Trump professes to like. It manufactures industrial, commercial, and residential fans, mostly in the United States, where it employs nearly 900 people. Because Energy Star is voluntary - no company is required to participate, and no consumer is obligated to buy certified products - Bostock says he can't see why the government would want to eliminate it.
He's not alone. "A lot of people have been wondering about that," says Lowell Ungar, senior policy advisor at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a Washington-based nonprofit.
'Why mess with a program that is helping consumers, saving energy, improving air quality, and creating jobs?'
"This is a program that's working," Ungar adds. "People, almost universally, know what it is. They trust the brand. The retailers love it because it enables them to market better products. Why mess with a program than is helping consumers, saving energy, improving air quality, and creating jobs?"
Says Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, which is lobbying to save Energy Star: "It's inexplicable."
Launched in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush, Energy Star sets efficiency standards in more than 70 product categories, including appliances, electronics, and heating, cooling, and lighting equipment. Those standards change over time; the agency strives to set them at a level at which the top 25 percent of products, in terms of energy efficiency, qualify for the blue-and-white Energy Star label. It also certifies commercial office buildings and homes. In its most recent
annual report, the EPA says Energy Star, which costs less than $60 million a year to operate, saved consumers and businesses $31 billion a year on their energy bills. Those numbers are unavoidably fuzzy because it's hard to know whether refrigerators or laptop computers would have become more efficient in the absence of Energy Star.
Still, what's not to like? Maybe it's the idea that Energy Star is a government program. The Trump administration wants to cut 31 percent of EPA's $8-billion budget and 25 percent of its staff. A
leaked March 21 agency memo recommends that EPA prepare to transfer "ownership and implementation of Energy Star to a nongovernmental entity." This reflect the views of free-market think tanks in Washington that have advised the Trump administration to limit government meddling in the economy.
In
an email to the trade publication
Door and Window Market Magazine, Myron Ebell, who headed President Trump's EPA transition team and directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote: "Our view is that Energy Star is good insofar as it's voluntary and not so good that taxpayer dollars are used to run it. One of the reasons that the federal government is so disastrously in debt is that hundreds of special interests have been able to commandeer tax dollars for programs that benefit them. If your industry and others that participate in Energy Star think it's a good program, then I think you should pay for it and run it."
In
a report last year on government energy efficiency programs, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said that energy efficiency should be achieved by "supply, demand, competition and the powerful incentive for families and businesses to get the biggest bang for their buck." The report challenged the cost savings claimed by the EPA and argued that regulating energy efficiency limits consumer choices and hurts the poor. "Ultimately," the report states, "Congress should eliminate all existing federal efficiency regulations for appliances, vehicles and buildings."
Energy Star isn't a set of regulations. It was designed as an alternative to EPA's traditional way of regulating pollution.
Of course, Energy Star isn't a set of regulations. It was expressly designed as an alternative to EPA's traditional way of regulating air and water pollution, according to
Daniel Fiorino, a former EPA official and author of
The New Environmental Regulation, a book that argues for collaborative, flexible approaches to environmental protection.
"The idea [behind Energy Star] was that the EPA can have an effect outside of issuing regulations," Fiorino says. "People saw it as a way to innovatively engage the private sector." Instead of controlling pollution at the point of release - the traditional approach - Energy Star aims to reduce pollution and climate emissions by influencing the design of products and encouraging business and consumers to buy those that require less energy to operate.
At scale, Energy Star helps obviate the need for new power plants. This why utilities have embraced the program: They provided consumers and businesses more than $5 billion in rebates last year for products that met Energy Star standards, according to Noah Horowitz, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's a lot cheaper and better for the environment to invest in energy efficiency than having to build new power plants," he says.
What's more, Energy Star doesn't require the tradeoffs that come with many other efforts to protect the environment. While the economic costs of environmental regulation have been debated for decades,
a National Bureau of Economic Research study using detailed data from thousands of manufacturing plants found that the annual costs of regulating air pollution at the plants added up to roughly $21 billion, about 8.8 percent of manufacturing sector profits - meaning companies had to charge more for the products, pay their workers less, or make less money.
Until very recently, solar and wind power cost more than fossil fuels - meaning that businesses and consumers had to pay more for renewable energy, either directly through their utility bills or indirectly via government subsidies. Despite what some green groups like to claim, environmental protection, and economic growth sometimes do come into conflict.
That's not so with energy efficiency. "Energy efficiency, to me, is a classic win-win-win opportunity," Fiorino says. "Anytime you reduce use of something that costs money, in this case energy, there are economic benefits. There are very clear environmental benefits, both around health-related pollution and climate impacts. Socially, if you can help low-income people live with more reasonable energy budgets, they're better off. And there's evidence that energy efficiency generates employment.
"In principle, how can anybody be against energy efficiency?" he asks.
Properties owned or developed by President Trump in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco have received poor Energy Star ratings.
Notoriously wasteful commercial office buildings also undercut the claim that markets will drive efficiency. "In some cities, the poorest performing buildings can consume up to seven times the energy of the highest-performing buildings for the exact same use," says Cliff Majersik, executive director of the Institute for Market Transformation, a Washington nonprofit. There are many reasons why buildings are inefficient, but the biggest may be that tenants often pay the energy bills, giving landlords little reason to invest in efficiency upgrades. "You have a perfect storm of misaligned incentives," Majersik says.
To remedy that, Energy Star offers building owners a free online tool, called
Portfolio Manager, to track energy and water consumption. "Tenants can now go online and see a listing of which are the most efficient buildings," says Majersik. More than 450,000 commercial properties now work with Energy Star.
Here, though, the program isn't entirely voluntary. State and local laws mean some big cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C., now require owners of larger commercial buildings to disclose their Energy Star scores. The disclosure requirement has brought to light the poor Energy Star ratings for properties owned or developed by President Trump.
CNN reported that 11 of his 15 skyscrapers in New York, Chicago and San Francisco got Energy Star scores below 50 on a scale of 1 to 100, meaning that they are less efficient than most comparable buildings. Manhattan's Mayfair Hotel, which Trump converted into condos, was rated a 1, according to CNN.
Could a nonprofit group like the U.S. Green Building Council, which administers the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) building standards, or the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEE) take over Energy Star, as Myron Ebellsuggests? Both groups say it's more than they can handle. In a blogpost titled "
Don't Tread on Energy Star," Steven Nadel of ACEEE says: "We do not have the public recognition that EPA does, the program budget is more than five times our annual budget, and the liability exposure is too large for us."
None of this is to suggest that Energy Star is problem-free. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office, a federal agency, found that the certification process was
"vulnerable to fraud and abuse" because some companies self-certified their products. Energy Star has been the subject of turf wars between EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy, and some business groups say the agency does a poor job of coordination.
So far, though, no major company or trade group has come out in opposition to Energy Star. Unless that changes, its widespread support should carry the day with Congress and keep it afloat. Rep. Ken Calvert, a California Republican who oversees the EPA budget, last year recommended cutting the agency by 6 percent - far less than Trump's plan. In today's political climate, that would count as a victory for the planet.
Over the past week,
Karenia brevis was observed at background to very low concentrations in four samples collected from Pinellas County; background concentrations in two samples collected from Manatee County; and background to very low concentrations in twelve samples collected from Sarasota County.
Two samples collected from the Northwest Coast (Bay and Gulf counties) contained background concentrations of
K. brevis. Additional samples collected throughout Florida over the past week did not contain
K. brevis.
Slight respiratory irritation was reported at Nokomis (Sarasota County) on 5/5.
Florida's Constitutional Revision Commission is now underway and public meetings have been scheduled statewide. Florida's wildlife, waterways, and remarkable natural areas need you to be their eyes, ears, and VOICES at these hearings!
That's why we need YOU at the meeting next week in Ft. Myers:
And, we've developed red and green signal cards for audience members to agree or disagree with the comments being made by presenters. This makes the experience more interactive and gives the Commissioners the ability to take the temperature in the room when issues are raised. Our partner organization, Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation, will be on-site passing out cards prior to the meeting, so make sure to pick up a set on Wednesday.
For a little background on the CRC process, once every 20 years, a 37-member commission of citizens is created to review Florida's Constitution and propose amendments to the ballot for voter consideration. The Commission for 2017-2018 has been selected and over the next year will travel the state, identifying issues, performing research, and ultimately recommend changes to the Constitution.
Any proposed amendments will appear on the 2018 General Election ballot.
Things are happening very quickly -- even though the rules governing the 2017-2018 CRC process are not yet finalized, the Commission Chair has already scheduled the first round of public meetings. Your participation is critical to make sure our environmental priorities are being represented.
Even if there comes a day when the world completely stops emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, coastal regions and island nations will continue to experience rising sea levels for centuries afterward, according to a new study by researchers at MIT and Simon Fraser University.
In a paper published this week in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers report that warming from short-lived compounds - greenhouse gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons, or hydrofluorocarbons, that linger in the atmosphere for just a year to a few decades - can cause sea levels to rise for hundreds of years after the pollutants have been cleared from the atmosphere.
"If you think of countries like Tuvalu, which are barely above sea level, the question that is looming is how much we can emit before they are doomed. Are they already slated to go under, even if we stopped emitting everything tomorrow?" says co-author Susan Solomon, the Ellen Swallow Richards Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science at MIT. "It's all the more reason why it's important to understand how long climate changes will last, and how much more sea-level rise is already locked in."
Solomon's co-authors are lead author Kirsten Zickfeld of Simon Fraser University and Daniel Gilford, a graduate student in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.
Short stay, long rise
Recent studies by many groups, including Solomon's own, have shown that even if human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide were to stop entirely, their associated atmospheric warming and sea-level rise would continue for more than 1,000 years. These effects - essentially irreversible on human timescales - are due in part to carbon dioxide's residence time: The greenhouse gas can stay in the atmosphere for centuries after it's been emitted from smokestacks and tailpipes.
In contrast to carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons have much shorter lifetimes. However, previous studies have not specified what their long-term effects may be on sea-level rise. To answer this question, Solomon and her colleagues explored a number of climate scenarios using an Earth Systems Model of Intermediate Complexity, or EMIC, a computationally efficient climate model that simulates ocean and atmospheric circulation to project climate changes over decades, centuries and millenia.
With the model, the team calculated both the average global temperature and sea-level rise, in response to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons.
The researchers' estimates for carbon dioxide agreed with others' predictions and showed that, even if the world were to stop emitting carbon dioxide starting in 2050, up to 50 percent of the gas would remain in the atmosphere more than 750 years afterward. Even after carbon dioxide emissions cease, sea-level rise should continue to increase, measuring twice the level of 2050 estimates for 100 years, and four times that value for another 500 years.
The reason, Solomon says, is due to "ocean inertia": As the world warms due to greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide included - waters heat up and expand, causing sea levels to rise. Removing the extra ocean heat caused by even short-lived gases, and consequently lowering sea levels, is an extremely slow process.
"As the heat goes into the ocean, it goes deeper and deeper, giving you continued thermal expansion," Solomon explains. "Then it has to get transferred back to the atmosphere and emitted back into space to cool off, and that's a very slow process of hundreds of years."
Stemming tides
In one particular climate modeling scenario, the team evaluated sea level's response to various methane emissions scenarios, in which the world would continue to emit the gas at current rates, until emissions end entirely in three different years: 2050, 2100 and 2150.
In all three scenarios, methane gas quickly cleared from the atmosphere, and its associated atmospheric warming decreased at a similar rate. However, methane continued to contribute to sea-level rise for centuries afterward. What's more, they found that the longer the world waits to reduce methane emissions, the longer seas will stay elevated.
"Amazingly, a gas with a 10-year lifetime can actually cause enduring sea-level changes," Solomon says. "So you don't just get to stop emitting and have everything go back to a preindustrial state. You are going to live with this for a very long time."
The researchers found one silver lining in their analyses: Curious as to whether past regulations on pollutants have had a significant effect on sea-level rise, the team focused on perhaps the most successful global remediation effort to date - the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty ratified by 197 countries in 1989, that effectively curbed emissions of ozone-depleting compounds worldwide.
Encouragingly, the researchers found that the Montreal Protocol, while designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out pollutants such as chlorofluorocarbons - has also helped stem rising seas. If the Montreal Protocol had not been ratified, and countries had continued to emit chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere, the researchers found that by 2050, the world would have experienced up to an additional 6 inches of sea-level rise.
"Half a foot is pretty significant," Solomon says. "It's yet another tremendous reason why the Montreal Protocol has been a pretty good thing for the planet."
In their paper's conclusion, the researchers point out that efforts to curb global warming should not be expected to reverse high seas quickly, and that longer-term impacts from sea-level rise should be seriously considered: "The primary policy conclusion of this study is that the long-lasting nature of sea-level rise heightens the importance of earlier mitigation actions."
This research was supported, in part, by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and NASA.
I told them the era of thinking the swamp can take care of its water woes with direct rainfall is over.
Its watershed has been crisscrossed with canals and cut off at its many headwaters in several spots. The result is harrowing drops into drought and wildfire running roughshod through the fragile swamp.
The future of the swamp depends on us making good water management decisions to reconnect the swamp with its upstream headwaters and, wherever possible, replumb the legacy canal and levee infrastructure that drains the swamp unnaturally dry. And yes, that could involve pumps, cleaning the water, filling in canals, putting in new culverts.
The swamp and all its flora and fauna deserve
better.
7 Burning Questions: Wildfires & Public Lands
Office of the Secretary
Fire is one of nature's most powerful forces. While fire can be destructive, it can also be rejuvenating and a partner to the stewards of our nation's public lands. Land management agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Forest Service have fire program responsibilities on more than 700 million acres of lands across the country. Working with fire is just part of the job.
Wildland firefighters move through a forested area recently hit by an aerial drop of fire retardant. Photo by Lance Cheung, U.S. Forest Service.
How do wildfires start?
Wildfires can be caused by nature -- mostly due to lightning strikes -- but the vast majority are caused by humans. Research estimates that 90 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by people. Some human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, and intentional acts of arson. It can also be caused unintentionally by heat and sparks from vehicles and equipment. Public education and personal responsibility can greatly reduce the number of wildfires each year. Learn how to enjoy public lands responsibly.
The size of the 2013 fire in Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada could easily be seen at night. Photo by U.S. Forest Service.
How big of a threat are wildfires?
Every year, wildfires burn millions of acres across the country. The annual cost of fighting fires and the value of property destroyed has exceeded $2 billion in recent years. Fires know no borders. As development pushes neighborhoods into natural areas (called Wildland-Urban Interface), the need to protect people and property in this vulnerable area increases. These communities require additional fire prevention strategies and faster fire suppression responses. An increase in funds dedicated to firefighting drains money away from the other priorities of land management agencies.
Over 350 homes were destroyed by the 2013 Black Forest Fire in Colorado. Photo by Master Sgt. Christopher DeWitt, U.S. Air Force.
How do you fight wildfires?
Wildfires have grown in intensity over the years, in part due to increased fuel loads on the ground. Fighting them is a difficult, dangerous, and expensive process, especially when the fires are on steep inclines in mountainous regions. Wildland fire experts have to assess the terrain, weather, fuel, resources, and the size and behavior of the fire. Firefighter and public safety is always the top priority. Firebreaks created at the right locations and targeted water drops from helicopters and airplanes are carefully coordinated to contain and suppress a fire. Large fires can require hundreds of personnel and millions of dollars of equipment. The
National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, is the nation's coordination center for wildland firefighting and is responsible for managing fire responses and resources like "
smokejumpers."
Smokejumpers use aircraft and parachutes to access remote areas to fight wildfires. Photo by Bureau of Land Management.
How do wildfires affect wildlife?
A
nimals, like people, know all the ways in and out of their homes and have a range of reactions to fire. Most animals have the ability to move away from fire if necessary. Birds fly. Land mammals walk and run. Amphibians and reptiles retreat into wet areas and burrow under logs or rocks. Although fire sometimes kills individual animals, it doesn't destroy populations or species. In most fires, the majority of wildlife remain unharmed and many benefit from thinned landscapes and less competition. Learn more about wildlife and prescribed fire.
A deer explores a recently burned area in Florida. Photo by Josh O'Connor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Do invasive plants affect wildfires?
Invasive species can increase the risk of wildfires by taking over areas, throwing off the natural balance, and providing potential blazes with an abundance of fuel. They also threaten native plant and wildlife populations and their habitats, and impact recreational opportunities on public lands. Many invasive plants, insects, and other types of animals, pathogens, and parasites are already well-established within the United States and more are discovered each year. Prevention and removal strategies have been implemented with the cooperation of state, local, and private groups, but the fight continues.
Invasive plants piled together and burned in Oregon. Photo by Bureau of Land Management.
Is fire good for forests and grasslands?
Fire has always been a natural process that is essential to healthy ecological systems. In the early 1900s, land management agencies sought to suppress all fires in an effort to preserve the timber supply. Over the decades, fire exclusion led to more living and dead vegetation on the landscape, increasing the fuel and as a result, the risk of large wildfires in our forests, rangelands, and near communities. To reverse this trend, fire needed to be reintroduced to improve the ecological health and resiliency of our public lands in a safe and controlled manner.
Prescribed fire (also called controlled burning) is an important tool to help reduce wildfire risk to communities and restore natural ecological processes. Expert staff at public lands regularly execute prescribed fires before wildfire season as an important preventative measure.
Before and after photos of a prescribed burn in Shenandoah National Park showing the quick recovery of plants after only three weeks. Photo by National Park Service.
What happens to the landscape after a fire?
After decades of study, we've learned that fires can have positive results. A burned tree is not wasted. It can provide nesting sites for birds, homes for small mammals, and a base for new plants to grow. Burned trees can also be salvaged and sold, along with other forest products, supporting active land management and surrounding communities. When the dead tree begins to decay, it releases nutrients into the soil, enhancing growth of surrounding flora. Fire can also be very damaging to natural areas though. When fires burn too hot the land may become scorched and plant life may struggle to regrow, negatively impacting wildlife and the riparian areas. The benefits or harm derived from fire can vary greatly from one plant community to another. In the United States, all ecosystems have been affected to some degree by fire.
Fireweed is a plant that quickly moves into a recently burned area. Photo by National Park Service.
F
lorida Conservation Coalition (FCC): Senate and House Agree to Slash Environmental Budget & Defund Florida Forever
For Immediate Release: May 4, 2017 Tallahassee, FL - Legislative leaders agreed Wednesday afternoon to defund Florida Forever and slash the Department of Environmental Protection Budget by 20 percent (approximately $325 million) from last year as part of 2017 budget negotiations. In response, FCC Chairman, former Florida Governor and U.S. Senator Bob Graham said, "Florida legislators have made it clear that they don't care about Florida's environment or Florida voters. No one who can see over the horizon to Florida's future should support this budget." In 2014, Floridians overwhelmingly voted for conserving Florida's most important lands. 75% of voters passed a constitutional amendment setting aside dedicated funding every year, for twenty years, for this purpose. For the 2017 - 2018 fiscal year those funds amount to more than $800 million. This year the Florida Conservation Coalition came together publicly in support of dedicating a minimum of 25 percent of Water and Land Conservation Amendment (Amendment One) dollars to the Florida Forever and Florida Communities Trust programs as well as increased funding for the Rural and Family Lands program. To support this goal, FCC member organizations orchestrated a massive statewide campaign urging citizens to contact their elected officials about the importance of funding these vital programs. In addition to the 4.2 million that voted "Yes" in November 2014, tens of thousands of Floridians wrote, called, and emailed their legislators urging them to support funding for Florida Forever. How did Senate and House leaders respond?
They negotiated behind closed doors and agreed to ignore the people of Florida. "Zero. It is inconceivable that the Legislature would deny the will of the people and not fund the most successful environmental program in the country. Environmental decisions should be made based on long-term scientific research, not short-term political priorities," says FCC ViceChairman and Seminole County Commissioner Lee Constantine. Incredibly, the Legislature couldn't find one penny of the $800 million set aside by Amendment One for Florida Forever or Florida Communities Trust. Significant new funding was set aside for Everglades restoration in this year's state budget. But equally pressing conservation needs in every other part of Florida were basically stiffed. Nathaniel Reed, FCC Vice-Chairman said, "As one of the fathers of the predecessor of Florida Forever, I am terribly disappointed that the will of the voters has been ignored by our elected legislative body. Every year that there is no funding for Florida Forever is a lost year for Floridians. We obviously need new leaders with a commitment to Florida's future, which is now left up to the voters." Combined with proposed significant federal budget cuts to environmental programs, this budget leaves Floridians less well-prepared to handle future environmental challenges.
###
The following FCC Steering Committee members endorsed the above statement: Governor Bob Graham, Nathaniel Reed, Commissioner Lee Constantine, Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Conservation Voters Education Fund, Florida Wildlife Federation, 1000 Friends of Florida, Sierra Club Florida, St. Johns Riverkeeper, Trust for Public Land, Craig Diamond, Gary Kuhl, Victoria Tschinkel, Estus Whitfield
About the Florida Conservation Coalition
The Florida Conservation Coalition (FCC) is a coalition of 80 conservation-minded organizations and over two thousand individuals devoted to protecting and conserving Florida's land, fish and wildlife, and water resources. The Coalition was founded in 2011, and is led by former Florida Governor and US Senator Bob Graham (Founder and Chairman) along with former Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Nathaniel Reed (Vice-Chair) and former Florida Senator, Seminole County Commissioner Lee Constantine (Vice-Chair). For more information, visit www.wearefcc.org.
Dear all, starting this week I'm making a few changes. Firstly, our free daily emails will now include direct links to headlines, technical publications, and job postings. Secondly, I created a new
Advanced Search page with more features for searching our archvies. However, search and browsing our archive is now a feature for Pro members only. If you're interested, you can try out a Pro membership free for 30 days (and just $5/month after that)
by clicking here. As always, your feedback is appreciated, so please let me know what you think . Thanks. -Jim.
Moderator's note: Readers/history buffs are invited to send suggestions for this section to the
[email protected] and/or post them to our
Facebook page .
Eco-Voice
The role of a leader is "to help people face reality and to mobilize them to make change". R. Heifetz
Events
Join FPRA Southwest Florida for Non-Profit Day: The Changing Face of Philanthropy
Learn from area experts to take your non-profit organization to the next level of success
FORT MYERS, Fla. (May 4, 2017) - The Southwest Florida Chapter of the Florida Public Relations Association invites public relations professionals, development directors and employees of non-profit organizations to participate in Non-Profit Day: The Changing Face of Philanthropy on May 18. Three local experts will offer their insights into fundraising, development and fostering donor relations to help area non-profits make their organizations even more successful. Non-Profit Day will take place at The Alliance for the Arts from 9 to 11:30 a.m. The cost to attend is $20 or $10 for students. To register, please visit FPRASWFL.org.
Vice President of Development and Communications at the Southwest Florida Community Foundation, Carolyn Rogers, APR, CPRC, will kick off the morning to speak on the topic of "Commonalities and Crossover of Development and Public Relations." Sara Jordan, development manager at PACE Center for Girls, will then speak on "How to Distinguish Your Organization in a Sea of Non-Profits." Finally, Julie Pedretti, FACHE, APR, director of development at NCH Healthcare Foundation, will speak on "Relationship Building and Finding New Donor Prospects."
The Alliance for the Arts is located at 10091 McGregor Blvd. Fort Myers, Fla. 33919. For questions about Non-Profit Day, please contact Kate Walter, MA, APR at [email protected] or call 239.537.2346.
About the Florida Public Relations Association
The Florida Public Relations Association is dedicated to developing public relations practitioners who, through ethical and standardized practices, enhance the public relations profession in Florida. For more information on the Southwest Florida Chapter of the Florida Public Relations Association, visit fpraswfl.org.
The 37th Annual Conference of the Florida Native Plant Society will be held in the heart of Florida, and central to the largest river restoration project in the world! The Kissimmee River restoration, a joint project by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, is designed to restore the complex relationships between land, wildlife, water and climate that were torn apart when the river was channelized in 1962. Before channelization, the river was a haven for native plants and wildlife, but afterwards many species of birds, fish and plants were lost, creating havoc on our economy and our environment. The restoration project to restore the river to its natural path is nearly half complete, and already much of the original flora and fauna have returned and the water quality is improving.
This year's conference addresses those connections that are so important to the Kissimmee River Basin and beyond. What can we learn from the negative impact of the channelization, and the surprisingly quick recovery that has followed the restoration? What more needs to be done? How can the lessons learned in the Kissimmee River Basin be applied to other areas of Florida, the country and the world?
Get the Daily Digest
Don't want to share an email address? The Daily Digest is posted to our Facebook page every morning. Read it there. Please check out the additional stories and comments posted there, and add your comments and share articles and event notices.
Every sale of any item you make on Amazon will result in:
Eco-voice getting 0.5% of the sale!
Here is how: link to smile.amazon.cominstead of amazon.com and log into your account. On the screen on the right you will be able to select a charity. Fill in
Eco-Voice Inc. (case sensitive). Then shop at your leisure.
The next time you shop through smile.amazon.com, the program will remember that you selected Eco-Voice Inc. to receive the donation from Amazon. While individually the donation from smile.amazon.com is small, together it can help us continue our work.
Support Eco-Voice
We need your financial support to keep going. Please make a donation today. Checks can be sent to:
Post Office Box 50161
Fort Myers, FL 33994
Eco-Voice, Inc. has 501c3 status.
Eco-voice is a non-partisan, independent, volunteer-run organization, which endeavors to communicate multiple positions on important environmental issues effecting south Florida. The opinions posted on this site are not necessarily those of the site managers or all of our sponsors. Posts are not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar. Comments on postings can be made on our Facebook page or sent to the moderator,[email protected]m
License to solicit: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES By CALLING TOLL-FREE (800-435-7352) WITHIN THE STATE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.'' REGISTRATION# CH31394. "
