ECUA SIDED WITH FLORIDA'S BIGGEST POLLUTERS

INTRODUCTION

This ECUA Board in February 2013 sided with some of Florida's largest industrial polluters in opposing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's more stringent numerical standards for protecting Florida's most valuable resource--its water.  The Board did so by allowing the ECUA administration to make strategic policy decisions without oversight--a pattern of behavior stretching back to the 1990s.  For this reason, the three incumbents running for re-election should be turned out of office.

In February 2013, the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA), signed a letter along with 57 other "partners and stakeholders" opposing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to put in place a numerical nutrient measure regarding nitrogen and phosphorous to replace the vague narrative standard of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection.  The EPA's nutrient standards would have brought Florida into compliance with the Clean Water Act.  The ECUA had added its support to a letter signed by some of Florida's and the nation's largest industrial polluters.  In the three months prior to the ECUA submitting its comments opposing the EPA's proposed numerical nutrient standard and signing the letter, the ECUA's board of directors, including three incumbents running for re-election--Elvin McCorvey, Vickie Campbell, and Larry Walker--apparently did not discuss ECUA's opposition to the EPA or ECUA signing the letter stocked with industrial polluters.  Proof that no such discussions or questions were raised by the ECUA Board can be found in the official minutes of the November 2012, December 2012, and January 2013 minutes.  That the ECUA administrators and subject matter staff experts did not brief the board and the board did not inquire as to what the ECUA was doing regarding a matter that was not only controversial, but enveloped in lawsuits, is reminiscent of how the ECUA board acted in the 2000s regarding widespread industrial pollution of the county's aquifer.  The Grand Jury found (pdf page 3) that the ECUA administrators made policies on "health and safety issues without oversight from a majority of the members" and the Board "subsequently tacitly approved approved these decisions, relinquishing their responsibilities to their customers and the public."  The culture of the ECUA, despite changing administrators, apparently remains the same, suggesting that only a wholesale replacement of the board with members committed to environmental protection, accessibility, accountability, and transparency is required.

Who were some of the largest industrial polluters that the ECUA sided with in opposing the EPA's more stringent numerical nutrient rules?  They included: American Forest and Paper Association; Association of Florida Community Developers; Associated Industries of Florida; The Fertilizer Group Inc.; Florida Cattlemen's Association; Florida Farm Bureau; Florida Forestry Association; Florida Sugar Cane League; Gulf Citrus Growers Association; Gulf Power Company; Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Pork Producers Council; National Turkey Federation; PotashCorp; Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida; United Egg Producers; U.S. Cattlemen's Association; U.S. Poultry & Egg Association; Virginia Poultry Association; and the Wyoming Ag Business Association.

The purpose of this blog post is to demonstrate that the ECUA's confidence and trust in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was misplaced.  Environmental groups--the last line of defense against industrial environmental pollution--had no confidence in the FL DEP.  This blog post will highlight their commentary.  Governor Scott and the Republican dominated legislature had effectively gutted and neutralized the scientific expertise of the FL DEP.  Moreover, the governor and the legislature had also effectively weakened local health departments.

Subsequently, with the massive discharge of Lake Okeechobee water heavily polluted with nitrogen and phosphorous it has become abundantly clear that political contributions from industrial polluters enables widespread environmental destruction.

THE GUTTING OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH

There is an official Florida website called keepfloridaworking.com that maintains data on departmental budgets.  From that initial page, you can find Governor Scott's previous budgets.  Thus, anyone can verify the figures below taken from the various yearly budget pages, going to a specific agency, and then specific departments.

Overall, the Department of Environmental Protection suffered significantly budget losses and losses of personnel.  The baseline is Governor Crist's 2011-2012 budget.  All subsequent budgets belong to Governor Scott.

In Governor Scott's first budget, "Let's Get to Work," the Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) budget declined from $1.460 Billion to $1.313 Billion, a projected loss of $146 Million and 86 positions.  Similarly, the Department of Health (DH) declined from $2.85 Billion to 2.78 Billion, a loss of $70 Million and 373 positions.

In the second budget, 2013-2014, "Florida Families First," the DEP went from $1.40 Billion to $1.20 Billion and a loss of 116 overall positions.  The DH grew by $32 Million but lost 477 positions.

In the third budget, 2014-2015, "It's Your Money Tax Cut," the DEP gained $111 Million but lost 54 positions.  Health lost $12.8 Million and lost another 327 positions.

In the fourth budget, 2015-2016, "Keep Florida Working," the DEP lost $28 Million and 155 positions.  Health lost $55 Million and lost another 758 positions.

In the fifth budget, 2016-2017, "Florida First," the DEP gained $80 million but lost another 152 positions.  Health lost $36 Million and another 718 positions.

Thus, the overall trend in the Department of Environmental Protection is a loss of positions.  Governor Crist's last budget staffed the DEP at 3,450 positions.  The last budget of Governor Scott projected 2,822 positions, an overall loss of 628 positions, or a drop in 18% of personnel.  Those are not "bureaucrats."  They do not just push paper.  This is a loss of expertise.  This is a loss of institutional memory.

The interpretation of the budget cuts by environmental groups will be covered in the next section because there are lots of budget transfers and cuts in one program and increases in another program, and, then the program that was increased in terms of personnel is cut two years in a row.

Similarly, the personnel losses in the Department of Health have been no less dramatic.  Health went from 17,107 positions under Governor Crist to a projected 13,640 positions under Governor Scott--a loss of 3,467 positions or 20% of personnel.

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS' EVALUATION OF DEP BUDGET CUTS

The EarthJustice environmental group submitted a massive email supporting the EPA's numerical nutrient standard.  Among the reasons for supporting the EPA and opposing the DEP was their observation that the "DEP is firing experienced staffers and replacing them with people who represent polluting industries."  The Florida Native Plant Society's Landscape Committee supported the EPA standard in part because "Governor Rick Scott has methodically fired many FDEP and Water Management District scientists and employees who did their job, followed Florida Statutes and protected the environment. We need the EPA's backing in Florida now more than ever."

The Center for Biological Diversity, one of the country's leading environmental groups, supported the EPA's more stringent numerical nutrient rule in part because "Florida has already reduced the number of monitoring stations in the St. John’s lower basin by 2/3 due to staffing issues.  Florida has delayed setting minimum flows and levels for Wakulla Springs.  Florida rarely does anything to address MFL violations were they do exist. Florida's firing experienced staff from DEP.  There’s nothing in Florida’s management of water resources that suggests it is capable of keeping with Congresses mandate that waters of the U.S. be swimmable, fishable, and free of pollutants" [emphasis added].

Dr. Raymond Bellamy, an orthopedic surgeon and former board member of the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission, told the Palm Beach Post, "'In those days [1980s], the Department was a committed defender of our natural treasures,' he wrote. 'Sadly, that does not seem to be the case in recent administrations.  DEP employees, some of whom are my patients, now all fear for their jobs and are facilitating industry in most cases.  Institutional knowledge has disappeared and aggressive enforcement of regulations is decried.'"

Alan Farago, who writes as gimleteye for the Eye On Miami blog, reported that "One of Gov. Rick Scott’s first acts as governor was to axe the science budget and staff at the state agency charged with protecting fresh water resources in Florida.  By eliminating scientists at the South Florida Water Management District, Scott erased the institutional memory of an agency nominally charged with balancing the needs of people and the environment with the needs of industry.  Specifically, Big Sugar.  Scott appointed members of the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District with no experience or compassion for the environment."

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS LEAD TO ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION

In the wake of repeated algae blooms, manatees dying, seagrass disappearing. coral reefs in their death throes, and Big Sugar pouring fertilizers out of Lake Okeechobee and fouling both coasts of Florida, Florida's mainstream newspapers and bloggers have highlighted that campaign contributions from the state's biggest polluters enabled lax standards, weakened regulations, and increased environmental destruction.

• HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

Miami Herald (June 29, 2016):  "Since October, US Sugar has now given Scott $200,000 in donations for a political committee Scott runs called Let’s Get to Work.  In hitting the $200,000 threshold, US Sugar became one of Scott’s five biggest donors since the start of 2015.  By far the biggest donor to Scott since the start of 2015 remains the Florida Chamber of Commerce, which has donated $790,000 to Scott’s committee. Walt Disney World Parks and Resorts; Floridians for a Stronger Democracy (a political committee with ties to Associated Industries of Florida); and Tampa Bay Lightning owner Jeffrey Vinik have also given $200,000 or more to Let’s Get to Work."

Gainesville Sun (July 6, 2016):  "Since 1998, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the sugar industry has given at least $21 million to Florida political candidates, political action committees and political parties. Big sugar gets what it wants, politicians’ palms are greased, Floridians get more pollution and Florida's reputation is damaged."

Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald (July 11, 2016):  "Between 1994 and 2016, a review of state Division of Elections records by the Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald Tallahassee bureau shows, the sugar industry—led by United States Sugar and Florida Crystals—has steered a whopping $57.8 million in direct and in-kind contributions to state and local political campaigns. (The total does not include federal contributions.)"

GimletEye Miami (March 9, 2016):  "Big Sugar’s pollution of national politics runs deep and strong through both political parties. One Fanjul brother, Pepe, takes the Republicans. The other, Alfie, takes the Democrats. It’s all about making billions and the maximum profit possible by spreading campaign cash like fertilizer across America’s political landscape."

Florida Center for Investigative Reporting (April 3, 2015):  "An analysis of campaign records by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting shows that the utility companies have sunk $12 million into the campaigns of state lawmakers since 2010.... Gov. Rick Scott’s 2014 re-election campaign took in more than $1.1 million from the state’s utility companies.... Half of the money, $6.68 million, went to the Republican Party of Florida. The second-largest recipient of electric company money, the Florida Democratic Party, took in $1.8 million."

Rolling Stone (February 11, 2016):  "The utilities are top political donors in Florida.  Since 2004, the state's four largest IOUs [Investor-Owned Utilities] contributed at least $18 million to state politicians and political committees–a preponderance to Republicans, who now control state government. In addition, since 2007, the companies spent at least $12 million on lobbying, employing an average of one lobbyist for every two legislators in Tallahassee."

Nancy Argenziano, former head of the Florida's Public Service Commission (in Rolling Stone):  "'The legislature is owned by the utilities. To me, it's extremely corrupt. The legislature takes millions from utilities, who make billions from [the decisions of] the PSC. They get what they pay for.'"

• WHO TOOK THE CASH AND ENABLED ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION?

The Florida Times Union (March 8, 2016):  "The main culprit for the pollution in Lake Ockeechobee is Big Sugar.... It’s not surprising that Scott is ignoring the role of Big Sugar since his political action committee—Let’s Get to Work—has enjoyed taking from the deep pockets of Big Sugar as he builds a bank account for a U.S. Senate run in 2018."

The Miami Herald (March 4, 2016):  "Privately, the governor is busy muscling special interests to bankroll his Senate run in 2018.  Some of his biggest donors are the worst polluters of Lake O and the Everglades....Scott’s pals in Big Sugar have been back-pumping dirty water from their cane fields into the lake, which through Friday was being emptied into the St. Lucie River at a rate exceeding 2 billion gallons a day."

GimletEye Miami (March 23, 2016):  "Who is responsible for the tragedy of Florida waters?  Voters who keep returning to office at the county, state and federal level, politicians who are paid to misrepresent the truth.  Voters who elect politicians in the pocket of powerful industries and trade associations that routinely make a mockery of democratic processes: Associated Industries of Florida, run by former Jeb Bush ally Tom Feeney, spewing dark money into negative advertising like algae blooms. The Florida Chamber of Commerce. The Florida Farm Bureau."

Eye On Miami (April 4, 2016):  "Billionaire sugar barons are OK with making South Florida into their sacrifice zone, shifting costs of making cheap sugar onto the backs of taxpayers.  Who else is responsible? Gov. Rick Scott, Ag Secretary Adam Putnam, and legislators like incoming Florida Senate President Joe Negron and chief House mouthpiece for Big Sugar, Matt Caldwell."

Eye On Miami (April 22, 2016):  "What the mainstream press is reluctant to also say: Big Sugar's campaign contributions are at the heart of the silence in Congress.  Meanwhile in Florida, elected officials like Adam Putnam are warning that any legislators who talk to Bullsugar.org will be 'vaporized.'... We are many.  Big Sugar is few."

Treasure Coast Palm (April 29, 2016):  "Rubio has been a staunch supporter of a federal program that provides price supports for the sugar industry and imposes quotas and tariffs on imports.... Rubio has accepted sugar political donations and is close with the Fanjuls, owners of sugar giant Florida Crystals. The family raised funds and helped elect him to the U.S. Senate in 2010."

Eye On Miami (June 29, 2016):  "In the interval, at each and every point in time that the EPA sought to bring Florida back into line on water quality problems, the agency has been attacked by the GOP.  Let's name names: Gov. Rick Scott and his predecessors including Jeb Bush, Agriculture Secretary Adam Putnam and his Republican predecessors, Senate president Joe Negron and his predecessors (Ken Pruitt, John Thrasher), Attorney General Pam Bondi and her predecessors, Representative Matt Caldwell and his predecessors (Jimmy Patronis, Gaston Cantens, Marco Rubio)--all worked overtime on behalf of Lake Okeechobee polluters like Big Sugar and Big Ag interests north of Lake Okeechobee."

Miami Herald (May 16, 2016):  "Late last year, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi joined a lawsuit suing the EPA to stop the Clean Power Plan (CPP) from being enacted.... Bondi claims it’s what the people of Florida want, yet the numbers prove the contrary.... A poll conducted by Bloomberg Philanthropies and Forward Intelligence last week found that 73 percent of Florida voters support the CPP."

Miami Herald (June 2, 2016):  "According to calculations by FollowTheMoney,org, the report says Bondi collected $26,350 from the energy industries in the 2010 and 2014 election cycles. A closer look by the Herald/Times however, shows the figure is much higher - at least $75,000 just for the 2014 cycle.... Bondi's political committee, Justice for All, shows that in her 2014 election alone, she received $50,000 from Florida Power & Light and $25,000 from Sunshine Gas Distributors.... The Florida Chamber of Commerce, for example, for which FPL is a member, gave Bondi $110,000 in her last election and gave another $20,000 this year. Associated Industries of Florida, which also includes FPL as its member, gave her $10,000.  Then there is the Washington-based Republican State Legislative Committee, a political committee formed to collect donations from corporations but shield them from disclosure.  According to OpenSecrets.org, the 527 RSLC gave Bondi a whopping $550,000 in 2014."

Eye On Miami (May 27, 2016):  "In the meantime, newspapers and television news have been largely captured by polluters' advertising budgets and promotion of false equivalencies.... Behind the scenes, US Sugar (owned by the charitable Charles Stuart Mott Foundation) and its Big Sugar twin--Flo-Sun and Florida Crystals (owned by the Billionaire Fanjuls of Coral Gables and Palm Beach)--furiously work to delineate terms of Florida's water policy through mouthpieces like Ag Secretary Adam Putnam."

• GOVERNOR SCOTT'S OVERALL ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY

Florida Politics, Diane Roberts (April 19, 2016):  "Instead, the filthy rich industries helping to bankroll Scott’s 2018 U.S. Senate bid are allowed to continue back-pumping 72 billion gallons of toxic water from Lake Okeechobee into the St. Lucie, the Indian River and out into the Atlantic Ocean as if a giant septic tank had exploded on Florida’s east coast.... Under the Scott regime, DEP has ditched that quaint notion of “protection,” becoming the Department of Environmental Prostitution—or maybe the Department of Environmental Profit.  The water management districts, denuded of their scientists, packed with Scott’s venal appointees, do nothing to upset Big Ag, Big Builder or Big Phosphate."

The Florida Squeeze (April 26, 2016):  "Considering Florida is facing a ticking-time bomb, Scott’s attitude might be more than negligence—it very well could be a concerted effort to destroy the land we have in this state and our fragile ecosystem in the little time we have left.... But now we have to begin to wonder if Scott and his legislative allies are in fact sabotaging the land, looking to reward campaign contributors and political cronies in the little time left before Florida’s ecosystem falls into final disrepair?"

Florida Times Union (July 5, 2016):  "We elected representatives who were in the pockets of the profiteers and put them in charge of the government.  And we let them erase the strides that had been taken several decades ago to better protect the state’s natural resources.  And then we re-elected them, and when they moved on, we elected their clones.... We have a governor who fights clean water rules, who did away with growth management laws, who wants to free businesses from all regulations and who pals around with Big Sugar and happily accepts their cash."

South Florida Sun-Sentinel (July 5, 2016):  "Scott has stacked the five water management district boards with unquestioning allies and told board members to pick directors Scott prefers.... Scott also opposed the Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to issue stronger water-quality rules....  On June 10, U.S. Sugar Corp., made the latest of the company's four $100,000 donations in the last two years to Scott's political action committee, which continues to operate long after the governor's re-election."

Palm Beach Post (May 27, 2016):  "Smart and other critics of the state’s new pro-growth era say that with the state abandoning much of its oversight of major planning, developers have been able to exert powerful influence on local governments, particularly city and county commissions.... At the same time, freshwater springs, concentrated mostly in Central and North Florida, have proved particularly vulnerable to pollutants from nearby development. Such landmark sites as Silver Springs, Wakulla Springs and Fanning Springs are choked by nutrients and algae."

Florida Times Union (May 31, 2016):  "The water management districts have become a developer’s best friend, and the Department of Environmental Protection has turned that agency’s name into a laughable misnomer.  For proof of the latter, look no further than the DEP’s attempt to lower the restrictions on the amount of some cancer-causing chemicals that can go into our waterways.... Developers are happy. Major land owners are happy. Scott is happy.  And the long, long years of Scott’s reign of terror can’t end soon enough."

Orlando Sentinel (July 6, 2016):  "Scott reversed the positive trend of his predecessors.  He reduced regulations and permitting, abolished the Department of Community Affairs, stripped the Department of Environmental Protection of long-term science-based staff, and decimated the budgets and staff of the water management districts.  Oh, and he took lots of money from U.S. Sugar."

Tampa Bay Times (July 15, 2016):  " If a state could declare environmental bankruptcy, Florida today would be in Chapter 11.  The sliming of our waters is a growing public health threat, a deepening environmental crisis, a looming economic disaster and a public relations nightmare.....And the guiding ethos in Tallahassee shifted from a view of natural Florida as a special place to be tended with stewardship, to a view of natural Florida as a commodity to be exploited for profit."

• THE EFFECTS OF GOVERNOR SCOTT'S STRATEGY

Broward-Palm Beach New Times (July 7, 2015):  "According to the data released by PEER—culled from public records requests—in 2014, 234 enforcement cases were opened by DEP.... But in 2010, before Scott settled into the governor's mansion, DEP logged 1,587 new enforcement cases. That means between 2010 and 2014—the governor’s first term in office—there’s been an 85 percent drop-off in the number of environmental enforcement cases."

GimletEye Miami (March 7, 2016) :  "The secret handshakes between the state GOP and Big Sugar concern water policy....  Today in Florida, the GOP’s mismanagement of Florida’s water resources is a silent version of Flint, Michigan.  No issue more clearly connects voter anger at the GOP hierarchy than Big Sugar’s lockdown of politics in Florida."

Florida Politics (May 11, 2016):  "The [environmental] commission 'sets standards and rules that protect Floridians and the environment,' according to its website. 'Most issues … relate to air pollution, water quality and waste management.'... A review of the commission’s meeting schedule for this year shows all of its monthly meetings from January to June have been cancelled.... The former commissioner wasn’t so sure. That person recalls two meetings being called in one two-year stretch."

Orlando Sentinel (August 2, 2016):  "While the state is still reeling from one water crisis, Gov. Rick Scott's ‘environmental’ commission voted to allow higher levels of things like benzene (which can lead to leukemia) and tetrachloroethylene (which has been linked to bladder cancer) into ground water supplies elsewhere.... But Gov. Scott had intentionally left the position empty. This allowed his Environmental Regulations Commission—which hadn't even met in nearly two years—to vote without any pesky environmentalists."

Clean Energy (May 12, 2016):  "Environmental regulators in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama have so far failed to strengthen state policies to at least match EPA’s federal minimum standards for coal ash handling and storage."

Eye On Miami (May 12, 2016):  "Since historic January rainfalls deluged and overwhelmed South Florida, the South Florida Water Management District has launched an unprecedented public relations effort, including direct attacks on critics.... Instead of admitting failure, Florida under Gov. Rick Scott is doubling down; launching unprecedented, coordinated attacks through the South Florida Water Management District at the same time that Big Sugar is flooding the airwaves and newspapers with full page ads.... The District has turned into the propaganda arm of state government."

Tallahassee Democrat (May 19, 2016):  "The Department of Environmental Protection is revising limits on toxic chemicals allowed in surface waters.... Allowable levels of chloroform would rise significantly, though still comparable to EPA guidelines. Arsenic levels would be unchanged—but still 1,000 times higher than the EPA recommends for drinking water. Dozens of toxins on the EPA’s recommended criteria list would remain unregulated.... And the carcinogenic compound benzene would have its limit tripled under the DEP proposal.... 'All this is about is that somebody wants to pollute,' Dr. Lonnie Draper, president of the Florida chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, said of the new limits. 'And in this case, it’s probably the fracking industry.'"
Flamingo Magazine (May 27, 2016):  "When Jeb Bush was governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007, he launched an initiative to save the [Wakulla] springs.... But Governor Rick Scott, determined to cut budgets and taxes, pulled the plug on the initiative shortly after he took office in 2011.... The new policy, passed at last in 2016 and signed by Governor Scott, delighted industry and agriculture. Springs advocates were less than thrilled."

Creative Loafing Tampa Bay (June 29, 2016):  "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 fertilizer companies report to the state Department of Agriculture on how many tons fertilizer they are selling.  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."

Florida Politics (July 6, 2016):  "Why is this water so foul?  Because Scott’s political clients have been allowed to pollute all they please, pumping untreated wastewater into the second-largest freshwater lake in the contiguous 48 states—a lake which also supplies drinking water for millions of Floridians.  Big Sugar—one of the biggest polluters—is a top contributor to Scott’s political committee ‘Let’s Get to Work.’  Cleaning up the water would hit profits."

BEFORE FLINT, PENSACOLA RADIONUCLIDE POISONING

INTRODUCTION

No one expects board members to be experts in chemistry, but we do expect them to have sound moral principles and to exercise good judgement.  We do expect our elected officials to protect the public interest and the common good, not their own bureaucracy or corporate polluters.  When adults and children are being poisoned by radionuclides, we expect our local ECUA to warn us and limit the harm done.  And, in the case of Pensacola’s radium poisoning, Elvin McCorvey, currently running for his sixth term on the ECUA Board, sided with the ECUA administration and failed to tell the truth to Pensacola’s and Gulf Breeze’s ratepayers, even though he and the ECUA Board had been told directly that ECUA’s wells had been contaminated by the toxic plume emanating from the Agrico Chemical Superfund site.  Larry Walker on the ECUA Board at the time is now running for re-election as well.

Even today, decades after the fact, McCorvey cannot tell the public the whole truth.  He cannot tell Escambia County residents that when he was faced with a moral issue of deciding whether he would protect young children and adults from radionuclides in their water, he decided not tell them of the harm; he chose to give them a false sense of security; he chose not to protect them; he chose not to give them an alternative source of water.  He decided to treat ECUA ratepayers--and vulnerable children--like they did not matter.  Elvin McCorvey and Larry Walker do not deserve your vote.

 

The story is rather complicated and involved.  Here, we shall emphasize what the ECUA Board knew and what the Board, including McCorvey, did and did not do.

A TALE OF DECEIT AND COVERUP

The Pensacola News Journal published three front-page stories on September 7, 8, and 9, 2003 (behind paywall).  The three articles, based upon a review of 50,000 pages of public documents, established that “for at least 54 months, between February 1996 and September 2000, more than 10,000 residents in Pensacola and Gulf Breeze were drinking water polluted with radium 226/228 at levels considered unsafe by the federal government.”

The EPA’s standard for radionuclides in drinking water is 5 picocuries per liter.  That standard has not changed since 1977, though in 1991 the EPA announced that it was starting the process to review this standard—though it remained legally in effect.  The Pensacola News Journal wrote that in 1996 the EPA decided not to revise the level of radionuclides upwards and had told public water companies that the radionuclide level would not change.  In 2000, the radionuclides rule was finalized without having changed the permissible Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL).  Thus, at no time did the radionuclide standard change and no deviation from the standard was permitted.

The radium 226/228 was discovered in ECUA wells in February 1996, one year before McCorvey was coming on to the board in January 1997.

In the September 7^th, 2003, article, the PNJ reported: “In August 1997, the Northwest Florida Water Management District, a state agency, told the ECUA board that the Agrico plume had contaminated two of its wells, which provided water to thousands of residents in Pensacola and Gulf Breeze, and appeared to have polluted a third” [emphasis added].  In fact, the City of Pensacola knew in 1958 that one its wells had been contaminated by toxic waste from Agrico Chemical.  In 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey informed the City of Pensacola that Agrico Chemical “could be contaminating as many as ten public wells.”

According to the September 7^th, 2003, article: “In the last five years alone, ECUA has closed two wells—No. 9 and East—because of radium pollution, and the No. 8 well, in part, because of radium.  All these wells are near Agrico and in the path of the known plume.”

In June 1998, the ECUA published a notice in the News Journal that barely informed the public of what was wrong.  Instead, the ECUA notice stated that radium was a “‘naturally occurring radioactive metal’” and a “‘health concern at certain levels of exposure.’”  The notice also stated that “‘although the ECUA well identified in the above [No. 9] notice is technically out of compliance ... there should be little reason for concern.’”

In November 1998, the ECUA began testing its wells for radium 226/228.  At no time did the ECUA inform the public of the results of the radionuclide testing.

The radionuclide levels were shocking.  The water going to Gulf Breeze was 129 times higher than the federal level 5 picocuries per liter.  A second sample registered at 99 times the federal level.  Samples taken from tap water revealed radionuclides 2 times the federal level, according to the Pensacola News Journal.  The victims of radionuclide poisoning included:

•  very young children at “Cordova Park Elementary School; travelers passing through the Pensacola Regional Airport; visitors to the Welcome Center at the foot of the Pensacola Bay Bridge; employees at the offices of the Santa Rosa Island Authority at Pensacola Beach;” and, 10,613 ratepayers in Pensacola and Gulf Breeze drinking poisoned water from their household taps.

In December 1998, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) drafted a consent order that would have required the ECUA to begin a study within 90 days to determine ways to fix the high level of radionuclides and to provide ratepayers an alternative source of water.

Apparently as late as October 1999, the ECUA was still measuring high levels of radionuclides in the drinking water.  Ordered by the FL DEP to inform its customers of the dangers, the ECUA refused, according to the News Journal’s September 8^th article.

The ECUA resisted and refused to provide an alternative source of water for over 10,000 people being poisoned by ECUA.  The Florida Department of Health backed up the ECUA and eventually the FL DEP caved in August 1999 on providing alternative water.  The final consent order, issued in February 2000, had no mandatory timeline to fix the high levels of radionuclides.

In February 2000, the then executive director of the ECUA wrote a letter to the ECUA Board bragging that they were required to do nothing and an unlimited time to do it.  The News Journal quoted from the letter: “‘The requirement to provide an alternate source of water, which was in the original language, has been removed,’ he wrote. ‘Most importantly, this consent order does not require ECUA to commit to any corrective action at this time.’”

Later in February 2000, the ECUA sent a “Update on Radionculides” letter to 10,613 ratepayers that essentially lied to them, telling them that the EPA was considering raising the radionuclide level.  Even if true, the 1977 radionuclide was still legally in force.

In April 2000, according to the Pensacola News Journal article, the “EPA formally announced what it had been telling public utilities and state regulators since 1996—the existing radium standard would remain unchanged.  What’s more, ‘new data and models suggest that radionuclides are much riskier than thought,’ according to the EPA notice.  The new goal: a maximum contaminant level goal of zero for all radionuclides in drinking water.  The message was clear: No level of radium in drinking water was considered acceptable by EPA.”

In July 2001, the ECUA mailed the following information to its ratepayers, according to the News Journal:  “‘Although radium levels in two wells exceed’ the federal standard, ‘both the toxicologists with the Florida Department of Health and our consulting scientists agree that there is no significant increase in short-term or lifetime risk to public health associated with the use and consumption of ECUA water.’”

The News Journal quoted three outside different experts with no apparent financial links to local industry who essentially stated that the ECUA and its Board were misleading its customers, trying to give them a false sense of security, and hiding their near criminal actions.

A toxicologist from Western Michigan University called the ECUA statement “‘baloney.’”  A nuclear physicist and radium expert from the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine stated the ECUA statement was “‘a complete misstatement.’”  An epidemiologist from the University of North Carolina’s School of Public Health stated, “‘To me, that kind of public response is a red flag…. That’s the response of people who want to convince the public, ‘We know everything,’ which we don’t, and that you as a resident are irresponsible to be concerned about your water.’”

On September 30, 2003, 21 days after the News Journal finished publishing its three-part series on the Agrico Chemical Superfund site and radionuclide levels in Pensacola and Gulf Breeze drinking water, at least 50 residents of Pensacola, backed by some City Council members met with ECUA board member McCorvey and head of the Escambia County Health Department John Lanza at the Macedonia Baptist Church.

McCorvey was quoted by the News Journal telling the residents, “‘There has not been any evidence to show that the Agrico (Chemical Co.) plume has contaminated the aquifer.’”

That statement is simply not true and is contradicted by water experts who told the ECUA that it had been contaminated by the toxic plume from Agico Chemical.

As noted above, the City of Pensacola had been told in 1958 that Agrico Chemical had forced the closure of the 12^th Street well and in 1972 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) had told the City that at least ten wells were threatened by Agrico Chemical and those wells needed to be monitored.  In fact, the USGS had reported that contamination levels, including of fluoride, were higher in 1972 than they were in 1958.  The News Journal reported in its September 7^th article that “There’s no evidence in the public record that this [monitoring] was ever done.”

And, McCorvey’s statement is directly contradicted by an August 1997 statement—eight months after McCorvey joined the ECUA Board—delivered directly to the Board by the NW FL Water Management District that “the Agrico plume had contaminated two of its wells, which provided water to thousands of residents in Pensacola and Gulf Breeze, and appeared to have polluted a third,” according to the first of the three-part News Journal articles.  And, the ECUA was aware as early as November 1998 when it began joint testing with the Escambia County Health Department that it was delivering drinking water to Gulf Breeze and Pensacola that was contaminated with radionuclides far above the EPA’s maximum level.

The three Pensacola News Journal articles, based upon reviewing 50,000 pages of public documents, spurred the creation of a Special Grand Jury in November 2003 to investigate the ECUA administrators and board members.  The Special Grand Jury was also investigating Conoco and Agrico Chemical, the last two companies responsible for the Superfund site.  Assistant state attorney Russ Edgar advised the Special Grand Jury.

When the Special Grand Jury’s report was released to the public, the News Journal’s headline for the May 5, 2004, story was: “Grand jury blasts agencies over tainted water supply.”  The News Journal characterized the report as “blistering” and stated that the ECUA is “by far is the agency hardest hit in the grand jury report.”  The Special Grand Jury blamed the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and singled out the top two ECUA administrators for not informing the ECUA Board.

But, of the ECUA Board, the Special Grand Jury observed, “We find ECUA’s former Executive Director and former Science, Technical and Regulatory Administrator made policy decisions on health and safety issues without oversight from a majority of the members of the ECUA Board. A majority of the ECUA Board’s members subsequently tacitly approved these decisions, relinquishing their responsibilities to their customers and the public” (page 3 pdf).

The News Journal wrote that “Edgar confirmed the report is referring to Larry Walker, Bobby Tronu and Elvin McCorvey as the members who relinquished their responsibilities to the public.  Walker and Tronu no longer are on the board; McCorvey has been a member since 1996.”  Actually, Larry Walker returned to the ECUA Board and is running for re-election.

McCorvey told the News Journal, “‘It speaks directly to my actions because I supported recommendations that came to the board based on information we had,’ he [McCorvey] said.  ‘And based on the information we had, our decisions were good decisions…’”  Walker flat-out stated that the ECUA administrators and staff never withheld information from the ECUA Board and that “‘there were no big hidden secrets at ECUA.’”

The bottom line is that there is documentary evidence that the ECUA Board was informed of the radionuclide problems and explicitly or tacitly supported ECUA’s administrators who failed to inform the public of the scope and seriousness of the very high levels of radionuclides in the drinking water, especially drinking water provided to very young children at Cordova Park Elementary School; fought the Florida DEP to inform the public; fought the Florida DEP into not providing an alternative water source; and, then deliberately misinformed the public after the News Journal articles appeared.

McCorvey ran unopposed in 2004 and has never been held publicly accountable for his shameful and borderline illegal actions.

Moreover, Elvin McCorvey is still misleading the public about radionuclides in the ECUA water.

In late May 2016, McCorvey conducted a very friendly interview with the Pensacola Voice.  In response to a question about "chemicals in their water," McCorvey responded with a half-truth:  "'Some of things are naturally occurred.  Rocks give off radium and that’s natural.  It does not come from man (contamination) It’s natural.'"

Yes, radium in rocks is natural.  But, how the radium in the rocks got into ECUA's wells was not natural.  And the level of radium in the water was not only natural, it was downright dangerous to the growing bones of young children.

The September 7, 2003, Pensacola News Journal, explained that the ECUA staff knew this was not natural.  Bernie Dahl at the time was the ECUA's administrator for scientific, technical, and regulatory matters.  The newspaper reported that "handwritten, undated notes by Dahl, written sometime after April 2000, show he knew fluoride measured in ECUA wells was 'from Agrico,' and that high levels of aluminum and manganese were 'most likely from Agrico.'  He also wrote that 'extreme acid from Agrico' could have dislodged the naturally occurring radium 226/228 in underground rocks and released it into the aquifer that supplies Escambia and Santa Rosa counties with their drinking water."

McCorvey, apparently, cannot face the reality that he chose to do something monstrous--to not tell parents that their young children were being poisoned by radium in their school's drinking water, as well as more than 10,000 other ratepayers in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties.

MCCORVEY VOTES IN DISTRICT 4 NOT DISTRICT 3

UPDATE (29 JUNE 2016):  According to the Supervisor of Elections office for Escambia County, on May 20, 2016, Elvin McCorvey changed his voter registration address from 1708 E Scott Street, which is in District 4 (see below), to 201 W Scott Street, which is in District 3.  So, he was elected to represent District 3, somehow registered to vote or found himself registered to vote in District 4, realized his error, and changed his voter registration one month before the closing qualifying deadline.  Is this not unusual?  Does this not call into question his eligibility to represent District 3?  How about all the votes he took on the ECUA Board while living in District 4?  Are those votes legal?  End Update.

UPDATE (29 JUNE 2016, 1451H):  Here is the official response from the Supervisor of Elections for Escambia County:

"According to our records:
Prior to May 29, 2013, Mr. McCorvey was registered to vote at 1770 E Baars Street, Pensacola.
On May 29, 2013, he updated his registration to 1708 E. Scott Street, Pensacola.
On May 20, 2016, he updated his registration to 201 West Scott Street, Pensacola."

In other words, he was registered to vote in District 3 before May 29, 2013.  Then, on May 29, 2013--after he had won re-election to ECUA Board District 3--he registered to vote in District 4, since 1708 E Scott Street is in District 4 (see below).  Then, while still registered to vote in District 4, he filed paperwork with the SOE appointing himself and his ex-wife as deputy treasurer and treasurer, respectively.  While still registered to vote in District 4, he filed candidacy papers with the SOE (see below) to run for re-election in District 3.  And none of this unusual in Escambia County politics. End Update.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: 

According to Florida Statute, Title IX, Chapter 101, Section 101.045(1), "A person is not permitted to vote in any election precinct or district other than the one in which the person has his or her legal residence and in which the person is registered."

According to Chapter 104, Section 104.011(1) on "Election Code Violations, Penalties," "A person who willfully swears or affirms falsely to any oath or affirmation, or willfully procures another person to swear or affirm falsely to an oath or affirmation, in connection with or arising out of voting or elections commits a felony of the third degree."

Elvin McCorvey is attempting to be elected to his sixth term as District 3 representative for the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority Board.

According to candidate information through the EscambiaVotes.com website, his "contact information" is listed as "201 W Scott Street" in Pensacola.

When McCorvey appointed his ex-wife, Joyce McCorvey as his Campaign Treasurer, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street."  When McCorvey appointed himself as Deputy Treasurer, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street."  And, when McCorvey filed his first Campaign Treasurer's Report Summary, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street."

The registered voters at "201 W Scott Street" in Pensacola are Willie F. McCorvey and Margie P. McCorvey.  It is not known what relationship they are to Elvin McCorvey.  They are also registered as taxpayers at that address.  There is no Elvin McCorvey associated with this address in terms of voter registration or property taxes.  This is simply his mail drop for his campaign.

So where exactly is Elvin McCorvey registered to vote?

McCorvey is actually registered to vote in Escambia County at 1708 E Scott Street in Pensacola.  He shares that address with a woman named Modeste M. McCorvey.

According to the voter registration data, that address, 1708 E Scott Street, is actually in County District 4 and School District 4.  In fact, if you query "1708 E Scott Street" on myescambiavotes.com to find your precinct, that is Precinct 41.  According to an official map, Precinct 41 is in District 4.  And, in the Democratic National Committee Vote Builder for Florida, McCorvey resides at 1708 E Scott Street with a Modeste McCorvey.  They both vote at the Bayview Senior Resource Center and they reside in Commission District 4 and School District 4.

In short, while McCorvey is running for ECUA District 3, he resides in and is registered to vote in District 4.  This would make him ineligible to vote in District 3 and to run for office in District 3.

MLK JR: DAY OF REMEMBRANCE: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

"Contamination affects everyone.  It does not discriminate as to who it affects.  If you breathe the air, drink the water, if you have contact with contaminated soil, you will be affected by these chemicals.  But the people who are impacted more by the negative effects are the people of color and low income communities with the least resistance and limited resources.  And these injustices must stop."  Francine Ishmael, executive director, Citizens Against Toxic Exposure, Pensacola, Florida

INTRODUCTION


On April 3, 2016, the ad hoc Committee for Environmental Justice in Escambia County hosted an event in honor of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s live and memory of his assassination forty-eight years ago.  Dr. King was murdered one day after supporting a sanitation workers strike in Memphis.  It is therefore fitting that we dedicate this remembrance day to environmental justice.

The bedrock finding of environmental justice is that communities of color are disproportionately affected negatively by siting decisions for chemical plants, industrial facilities, coal-burning power plants, toxic waste storage facilities, and toxic waste treatment plants.  Health disparities persist between whites, Blacks, and Hispanics even after controlling for income, education, and insurance coverage.  Health disparities between whites and Blacks in Escambia County exist.  There should not be race and class disparities.

In September 2009, the University of West Florida's Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Remediation released its final report, "Assessment of Environmental Pollution and Community Health in Northwest Florida."

One part of the report (page 51 pdf) examined air pollution from three different sources--fine particulate matter (PM), ground level ozone, and air toxics--with the "air quality risk" in that order.  Fine particulate matter was the "greatest" health risk as well as imposing the "highest per person per year [health] costs."  Two of the many chemicals of concern in this category are sulfate and organic carbon, both of which were "large" fractions of the total fine particulate matter.  Using the latest data and sophisticated modeling, the UWF researchers identified four "Risk Zones" in Santa Rosa and Escambia counties.

The Georgia Institute of Technology's preliminary assessment of the health effects of fine particulate matter, ground-level ozone, and air toxics issued in December 2007 noted that "roughly half of the mass is inorganic with sulfate being the largest contributor."  The Georgia researchers also noted that "sulfate is often associated with coal combustion" (page 6 pdf).  The organic fine particulates, both primary and secondary, have multiple unspecified sources.  Thus, the named facility for inorganic sulfates is Gulf Power's coal-burning Crist Plant.  However, the data suggested that sources sulfur dioxide came from Florida (16%), Alabama (24%), and other states (43%), which includes 10% from Tennessee (page 11 pdf).  And, the Institute's researchers calculated that fine particulate matter cost $1,838 in per capita annual health costs while ground level ozone cost $952.  Air toxics cost $1.02 per person per year (page 4 pdf).  Thus, reductions in sulfate particulates would depend upon reductions or eliminations of coal-burning in other states, in addition to Florida.

In other words, fine particulate matter discharged from point-sources imposed additional health risks on individuals and communities, as well as health cost expenditures for individuals and the community.  And, keep in mind that Escambia County can barely afford these extra costs.  The Partnership for a Healthy Community's 2012 "Comprehensive Assessment" reported (page 7 pdf) that of Florida's 67 counties, Escambia County "ranks 18th in total population, but 24th in per capita income, and 63rd in government expenditures for health services."

Risk Zone 4 in Escambia County (page 42 pdf) is "near Cantonment in Escambia County about 10 km northwest of Downtown Pensacola in the vicinity of a large pulp and paper manufacturing operation.... This risk zone partly overlaps with Zip codes 32533 and 32534.  Zip code 32534 has worse rates than its matching Zip codes for some cancer-related causes of mortality in African Americans.  Both Zip codes have worse mortality due to birth defects."  The high risk in this Risk Zone, or Sacrifice Zone, if you will, was due to "methanol, acetaldehyde, benzene and xylene, which are used as chemical solvents in the pulping operation."

The unnamed facility in the UWF report is International Paper, the latest pulp and paper polluter that began in 1941 as the Florida Pulp and Paper Company.  In 1946, it became the St. Regis Paper Company.  In 1984, it was purchased by Champion International, and in 2000 it was bought by International Paper, according to the Friends of Perdido Bay's "A Brief History of Perdido Bay" by Jim Lane.

The UWF study also examined mortality rates from COPD, stroke, and lung cancer (page 59 pdf).  In terms air pollution and death rates, the researchers found that "All the mortality rates are significantly positively associated with proportion blacks, people age 65 or above, poverty rate, and air pollution from both mobile and point sources."  Mobile means vehicular traffic and point sources are specific polluting facilities like International Paper, Gulf Power's coal-burning Crist Plant, and other sources.

In August 2009, the University of West Florida "Integration" study (page 17 pdf), examined the relationship between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) averaged at the census tract level and measurements for "population density, percent whites, percent non-white, poverty rate, industrial employment, and educational attainment."  The researchers found a "spatial relationship exists between the location of TRI sites and two of the variables (i.e. population density and industrial employment) but this does not seem to lead to greater exposure of any racial group to emissions."

Translated into English, it means exposure to toxic releases was linked to living in proximity to a toxic release point and working in a toxic facility or industry.  That it was not linked to "any racial group" means that we--white, Black, Latino, Asian, First Peoples--are all exposed, as long as we live in proximity to the toxic release point.

THE 1999 AND 2004 SPECIAL GRAND JURY REPORTS

How did all this environmental pollution and negative health effects come about in Escambia County?  It would be easy and tempting to dismiss the answers as the work of "radical environmentalists" or dismiss me as a "democratic socialist" because I am on the steering committee of Pensacola for Bernie Sanders.

But, the real, definitive answers came from your neighbors--the ones you go to church with, attend events at the Sanger Theater with, who coach girls soccer or coach Little League baseball, or shop with you or buy goods from your stores.

The answer comes from the 1999 Special Grand Jury for the First Judicial Circuit.  It was the Chief Judge at the request of State Attorney "who found it in the public interest: (1) to inquire into factors that are affecting, or that are likely to affect, the area's air and water quality; and (2) to assess the efforts of regulators in protecting, maintaining, and improving the area's air and water quality" (page 1 pdf).  There are 224 pdf pages in the report.  The Special Grand Jury's report heard "testimony, reviewed documents, and carefully weighed and considered the totality of all the information presented to us.  This involved taking the sworn testimony of more than one hundred witnesses, including scientists, engineers, biologists, chemists, economists, businessmen, government officials, and citizens; reviewing hundreds of maps, diagrams, studies, reports, and records; and weighing and evaluating conflicting information, and the interests, of those involved."

In terms of surface water (page 1 pdf), the Special Grand Jury concluded, "The causes are various, but degradation is the result primarily of discharges by industry (especially the pulp and paper mill and chemical factories), sewage treatment plants, and stormwater runoff."

In terms of ground water supply (page 2 pdf), your empaneled neighbors concluded, "it has been widely contaminated and will be further contaminated.  The causes are several, but they are largely the result of poor controls or practices by industry and business that allowed spills, leaks, or
discharges of toxic pollutants to contaminate the surficial aquifer and many of our drinking water wells, both public and private."

The Special Grand Jury (page 2 pdf) observed that pollution had really economic, social, and health costs that fell on local residents:  "pollution has impaired surface waters, destroyed fish and wildlife habitat, and reduced the number and diversity of aquatic species; pollution has contaminated the groundwater, and many of our public and private wells, which are used for drinking, irrigation, and other needs; air pollution has imposed risks to our health, restricted outdoor activity, and added to the impairment of surface waters.  These circumstances threaten the overall health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community and the natural resources essential to a good quality of life."

The Special Grand Jury (pages 2-3 pdf) found that "regulators in general" and specifically Florida's Department of Environmental Protection "did not" act to protect, maintain, and improve the environment.  In fact, the Grand Jury observed that "Instead of acting to protect, maintain and improve the environment, regulators have done more studies, duplicating previous work. They have substituted studies for action, because studies are less costly, and less controversial, than acting to improve or restore the environment."

Specifically, the "Northwest District of the Department of Environmental Protection failed to properly implement and enforce the environmental laws, rules and regulations. The district office succumbed to political, economic, and other pressures, allowing regulated businesses, industries and individuals to pollute the area's air and water."

In other words, local residents, looking to the Department of Environmental Protection to protect the environment and them, instead found that the Florida DEP allowed aggressive industrial polluters like Champion International and other companies, which created six highly toxic Super Fund sites inside Escambia County, three of which are out of control inside Pensacola (Creosote Works, Escambia Wood, and NAS Pensacola), to pollute for profit with legal and financial impunity.

The 1999 Grand Jury also observed (page 3 pdf) that "local government officials were too often more interested in promoting and protecting the current interests of industry and business, especially the homebuilders, without any attempt to fit those particular interests into a community plan that allows for rational and sustainable development. In doing so, they do not seem interested in conserving or protecting the area's natural resources and have even scoffed at those who do."

In 2004, a second Special Grand Jury focused on ground water contamination and placed specific blame on industry and regulators for allowing contamination to continue without remedial cleanup actions.

The second Grand Jury declared as a matter of found fact (page 1 pdf): "Industry is the principal source of ground water contamination, especially in the southern part of the county, where numerous wells have been contaminated by industrial discharges. The most contaminated industrial sites are the Superfund sites. In Florida, only Dade, Hillsborough and Broward Counties have more Superfund sites than Escambia County.  Although these sites were proposed for clean up years ago, clean up has not occurred at most of them."

The 2004 Grand Jury found that industry had shifted all the costs of environmental cleanup on to the taxpaying public (page 2 pdf)--in a very poor county: "At heavily contaminated sites, such as the Escambia Treating and American Creosote Works sites, the costs of contamination have been shifted to the public because the polluting companies closed their businesses and abandoned their properties. Recently, private suits were brought against the owners of the Escambia Treating and Agrico Superfund sites to recover damages for private property owners from the polluting companies."

And, the Grand Jury further observed (page 3 pdf) that as a result of lawsuits by private citizens, records were uncovered showing that "Conoco, and other companies, delayed efforts to determine the extent of contamination, apparently to minimize financial liability. In addition, records show Conoco, and other companies, avoided responsibility for restoring the soil and ground water by persuading regulators to allow them merely to cover contaminated soil and allow pollutants to flow with the ground water and discharge into Bayou Texar and Pensacola Bay."

Not only did these large corporate polluters severely damage the county's environment and subsequently the health and well-being of nearby residents, as well as imposing costs to cleanup their widespread mess, but the City of Pensacola and Escambia County incurred additional lost revenue and the risk of urban sprawl as sections of the territory were unfit for human habitation (page 3 pdf): "The economic costs associated with soil and ground water contamination involve forcing neighborhoods to close, imposing a well construction moratorium, and removing hundreds of acres of city land from productive use and the tax rolls. The loss of use of the Superfund properties, in the heart of the city, for housing, business, and education likely will involve development of other county property and urban sprawl."

The 2004 Grand Jury report also noted (page 4 pdf) that "Corporate owners of the Agrico site have been able to avoid paying for clean up by using consultants who persuaded government officials to approve the least expensive remedy.  EPA predicts that after 70 years of human inaction, nature will correct the damage done to the ground water; no prediction is made, however, about the effect of natural attenuation on the soil.  Further, the damage to the lives and properties of those individuals injured, and the damage to Escambia County and the City of Pensacola will never be remedied by the EPA natural attenuation plan."

In other words, after contaminating an area in central Pensacola that could be used for housing and shops to generate extra tax revenue, all the Serious People decided that do nothing for 70 years would solve the problem.  That is called Cost-Free/Penalty-Free Pollution.

The 2004 Grand Jury was scathing in its review of the actions of regulators at all levels of government (page 3 pdf):  "We find that local, state, and federal government authorities, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Escambia County Utilities Authority failed, individually or collectively, to: monitor ground water sufficiently; notify customers and the general public of water quality violations at multiple wells in southern Escambia County; restore ground water resources at Superfund sites; and prevent future ground water contamination."

Like the 1999 Grand Jury who found that regulators allowed polluters to study the problem ad infinitum and ad nauseam without accomplishing anything, the 2004 Grand Jury rebuked (page 4 pdf) the Environmental Protection Agency for studying Escambia County's Super Fund sites:  "The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Environmental Protection have not been sufficiently concerned with the health, safety, and welfare responsibilities they bear, or the consequences of their decisions. EPA has failed, after fifteen years, to delineate the extent of the contamination at the Escambia Treating Superfund site. Instead, EPA continues to 'study'' the extent of ground water contamination as a prerequisite to any clean up. Until recently, the health effects of the contamination have been largely ignored by federal and state authorities."

The 1999 Grand Jury report also noticed that because regulatory agencies had failed in their sworn duty to protect citizens from assault by toxic weapons from corporations, that "Citizens' Groups" (page 116 pdf) had been forced to intervene in self-defense.  The Grand Jury noted, "In response to the failure of government to perform its regulatory duties and uphold the public interest with respect to the environment, a number of citizen groups have formed....Friends of the Prairie, Friends of Perdido Bay, Santa Rosa Sound Coalition, Citizens Against Toxic Exposure, Bay Area Resource Council, Escambia County Citizen's Coalition, Citizens Planning Responsibly, and others."

The 1999 Grand Jury report noted (page 4 pdf) that it is up informed and involved citizens to provide local elected officials and regulatory bodies with goals and have them formulate plans.  Said our neighbors, "In our inquiry, we saw that government action must be based on a goal or an objective. Without an ultimate goal, government action is not regulation, but merely work to no end. Perhaps more important, if we, the people, do not set a goal together for our government, then the interests of a few, powerful individuals or groups will do so."

Thus, MLK Jr's Day of Remembrance: Environmental Justice stands in an unbroken line from the 1999 Special Grand Jury report.  Among the groups participating were Friends of Perdido Bay and Citizens Against Toxic Exposure.  They were joined by Earth Ethics/Earth Action, Communities United in Environmental Justice, the Wedgewood Home Owners Association, the Northwest Florida American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (NW FL AFL-CIO), the Florida NAACP Environmental Justice Committee, the Tanyard Neighborhood Association, the National Movement for Human and Civil Rights, and CJ's Street Report.  The Southern Christian Leadership Conference supported but could not participate.  The Pensacola chapter of 350 Action supported the event.

What follows are video presentations of the speakers at the event with a short write-up of key points.

REV DR MLK JR: DAY OF REMEMBRANCE: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Lee PRYOR, NW FL AFL-CIO, master of ceremonies

The NW FL AFL-CIO is proud to sponsor events like this through the years.  The labor movement remains concerned about voter suppression, civil rights violations, Black Lives Matter, toxic environments, and health and safety standards in neighborhoods.

Rev Dr Calvin AVANT, Unity in the Family Minisry, and, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice

Opening prayer
Wedgewood shared the national stage with Flint, Michigan at the latest Deep South Center's conference.

Mayan Dance Introduction

Mayan Blessing Dance

Mayan Thank You to Dr King Jr

Tony McCRAY, Florida NAACP Environmental Justice and Climate Change Committee

Coal plants emit arsenic, lead, other heavy metals, carbon dioxide, and methane.  We face increasing number of storms with increasing severity.  Dillard University (HBCU) recently held a conference on climate change.  Wedgewood and Flint shared the national stage.  Wedgewood is surrounded by 11 landfills.

Francine ISHMAEL, Citizens Against Toxic Exposure (CATE)

CATE was founded by her late mother in 1992.  Their neighborhood is sandwiched between two Super Fund sites.  CATE was responsible for achieving the third largest environmental relocation and first for an African American community.  The EPA moved 358 households and later an additional 50-plus households.  CATE works with the University of West Florida, Florida A&M University, and the University of Florida at Gainesville.

"Contamination affects everyone.  It does not discriminate as to who it affects.  If you breathe the air, drink the water, if you have contact with contaminated soil, you will be affected by these chemicals.  But the people who are impacted more by the negative effects are the people of color and low income communities with the least resistance and limited resources.  And these injustices must stop."  Francine Ishmael, executive director, Citizens Against Toxic Exposure, Pensacola, Florida

Dr. Gloria HORNING, Communities United in Environmental Justice

The Wedgewood Community is fighting 11 landfills plus a concrete crusher that will send silica into the atmosphere near four schools, plus rattle homes at least one mile away.  The county must stop giving permits to dumping grounds.  The NW bureau of the Department of Environmental Protection allowed the Rolling Hills dump to operate 8 straight years while having the 17 violations without being fined.

"It doesn't matter what color you are.  It's going to impact you.  Those landfills are impacting our waterways; its right next to wetlands; and, not enough attention is coming to it.  We fight very hard to keep in the front of everyone....We need your help though.  We need everyone's help."

"We need your voices, so that these communities that were there first can start to live in a new and clean environment."

Judy COOK, Wedgewood Home Owners Association

"I can't breathe."  Has lived in Wedgewood since 1974.  You should drive to Wedgewood after a rain.  We are just trying to live.  Most houses have been paid for.  That's why they can't leave.  They can't afford to buy another house.  Children and adults have sand sores.  "We are sick and tired of being sick and tired."  "Help us in any way you can."

Judy COOK, sings "Amazing Grace"

Dr. James Scaminaci III, CJ's Street Report

I spoke on behalf of Friends of Perdido Bay, headed by Jackie Lane, as a last minute substitute.  She was unable to attend, having missed a connecting flight.  My remarks are only a brief summary of the issues this valiant group has fought over and the array of forces aligned against them.  However, the Introduction above highlighting key points from the 1999 Special Grand Jury provides an excellent overview.

The October 2015 Friends of Perdido Bay newsletter captures the intersection of how economic power, political power, regulatory capture, and environmental destruction.  Essentially, the rigged economic system corrupts the political system and leads to unregulated and unpunished environmental destruction at the expense, in terms of physical health, mental anguish, lost property values, and increased public spending for environmental remediation--the core findings of the 1999 and 2004 Special Grand Jury reports.

Wrote Jackie Lane in October 2015:  "While we have had very little success in cleaning up our bay, we can not say we haven’t tried.  It is unfortunate that we have had to continue to fight for our bay and our property values when we have environmental agencies which are supposed to do this for us. Both environmental agencies in the states of Florida and Alabama, and the EPA are well aware of the damage the paper mill is causing in our bay.  They do nothing because of the influence of money on the political system. Perdido Bay could be a poster child for 'corruption of money' on the political system. More than not doing anything, the environmental agencies have gone out of their way to cover up the damage.... Environmental agencies no longer test for parameters which would show damage to Perdido Bay.... If you don’t look, you don't see the problems.  But, the decline is very obvious to residents who have lived on the bay for many years.  Environmental regulators have 'no skin' in the game other than their jobs, and their jobs depend on their bosses who depend on the
politicians for funding.  That is the way it works."

Marilyn LOWE, Tanyard Neighborhood Association

We lived next door to the sewage plant downtown.  There is still a pumping station.  It is a serious problem.  Our neighborhood has endured this for fifty years, since the 1960s.  We can still smell the sewage in our area.  When there is a flood, you can see the waste in the area.  Residents believe there are still toxins coming out of the ground.  People have gotten sick, had cancer, and died.  Nobody wants to represent us.  We need to send a message to the politicians that they need to listen to us.

"We need someone to care about us instead of pushing it on the back table and making it ok.  We need to tell them it is not ok to come into our communities and set these plants here and toxins coming out of the ground and making people sick."

This morning I learned my son has two percent lead in his body.  We are sick from environmental pollution.

Ellison BENNETT, National Movement for Human and Civil Rights

All members of the national board walked or worked with Rev Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Anybody who lived in Escambia County and say they did not know this was a problem forty years ago is lying."

Everybody should be compensated for their medical bills, and pain and suffering.  We must stand together against the pits and the ECUA regarding the storage tanks on Palafox.  ECUA holds meetings at two o'clock knowing that local people cannot attend.  The entire ECUA board should resign.  They are not serving the people.

"The only way we are going to win this fight is if we stand together."

Mary GUTIERREZ, Earth Ethics/Earth Action, poem

Untitled

I am from my Father the Sun,
My Mother the Earth, from
them I take only my existence
and because of them I am whole.

I stand barefoot on the ground,
nourishing my senses and my soul,
I am one with the earth.

As the wind blows through my hair,
She speaks to me in the softest of tones.
Save me.

I must oblige for I am
the land, the water, the air.
We all are.
Yet we have forgotten
that all things are one.
And that each of us is
brother and sister.
Remember.

There can be no peace when there is injustice.
There can be no love when there is only hate.
There can be no resolution without first conflict.

We must protect what sustains and gives us life.
We must protect each other.

We are strong and courageous,
we always have been and always will be,
it is part of our flesh and bone.
They can never take that away from us.

We are ready to fight to protect
our families, homes, and communities.
Fear us, for the time has come. Fear me.

United we stand to end this legacy of hate and injustice.

We are one and we are taking back what is ours.

Lee PRYOR, Goodbye and Thank You