Stop The Stormwater Utility Fee!

The meeting is Thursday, April 3, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.
in the Government Center Building C in Viera, in the BOCC meeting room on the First Floor.

I want to start with the TRUTH:

11:45 PM 01/03/2013: "A federal judge ruled Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority by trying to regulate water as a pollutant and restricting stormwater flow into a Fairfax County creek.

"'Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it,' said federal judge [sic] Liam O'Grady, who sided with the county and Virginia in the ruling."

I, like most of you, received a letter, on 3/12/2014:

"THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE

"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED STORMWATER UTILITY FEES INCREASE [my bolding]"

First, Why the FEE status, instead of a TAX we'd have to vote on? Making sure they don't have to get our approval? How very convenient.

Second, The letter from Brevard County comes with an immediate threat:

"Failure to pay the fee will cause a tax certificate to be issued pursuant to Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, which may result in a loss of title to the property. [bolding in original]"

Third, It states in paragraph 3:

"The proposed minimum Stormwater Utility Fees for non-exempt property will increase from $2.35 per year to $5.00 per year."

B: If that's the MINIMUM, where is the delineation for the MAXIMUM?

Fourth, Paragraph 5 states:

"The total projected maximum revenue to be collected annually from the Stormwater Utility Fees charged against all non-exempt properties within unincorporated Brevard County is $6,094,137.44, which represents a proposed increase of $2,687,742.07 over the total Stormwater Utility Fee revenues collected for the prior fiscal year."

Fifth, Where is this money going? We see delineated "programs to improve water quality". What, exactly, are those programs, who runs them, and will any environmental groups get the money and do we, the taxpayers and property owners have any say at all in who uses this money and for what means? Do we have a say in what kind of controls they (any environmental groups associated with this FEE) get to put on us with our own money? If not, that is not FREEDOM.

Sixth, ARE THEY INSANE? Now, with Brevard County's economy almost at rock bottom, with people losing their jobs and houses and now working two part time jobs to put food on the table, they want to tax us to take care of BIRDS, FISH AND FLIPPER? REALLY? PUT DIAPERS ON FLIPPER! They put a link to the Government Pricing Index at the bottom of the letter as though that would help sell their ridiculousness. It only proves that prices for EVERYTHING are going UP. I'll ask the question again, ARE THEY INSANE?

Seventh, Why the pretense that this is THEIR -- the BOCC's -- idea? We all know what's happening here. Who is behind this? The Federal Government is behind it.

"The [possible] history behind the coming 'rain tax'

"It all started with the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) which prohibited the discharge of any pollutant to waters of the United States form a 'point source' unless the discharge is authorized by a National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

"A 'point source' is any place that you can say for sure is polluting streams and water supplies such as an industry, business or a sewer system.

"In 1987, the CWA was amended to require implementation of a national program for non-agricultural sources of storm water runoff, because the government said that water quality studies showed that sparse sources of water pollution were also significant causes of pollution. They called these sparse sources of pollutants, 'nonpoint source.'

"A 'nonpoint source' pollution is water pollution that is difficult to trace to a specific discharge point because it comes from many diverse sources. Examples of common nonpoint source pollutants include fertilizers, pesticides, sediments, oils, salts, trace metals, and litter. They come from farms, yards, roofs, construction sites, automobiles, and streets.

"The national program to control these 'nonpoint source' pollutants is being implemented in two phases. Phase I, implemented in 1990, covered medium and large municipal separate storm sewer systems greater than 100,000 persons and 11 categories of industrial activity. Six municipal areas in North Carolina were permitted under Phase I (Raleigh, Durham, Fayetteville, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and Charlotte).

"Phase II rules for small municipalities and construction activity was finalized in December 1999. These Phase II rule are set to be implemented in March 2003. That is when cities and municipalities are supposed to have in place a plan to handle the 'nonpoint source' problem.

"What is the program for handling these problems? It has been determined that each individual city and municipality is supposed to set up their own program.

"How are these projects being funded? This is the critical factor and is where the 'rain tax' may come in, because the federal government is not sending any money with this mandate."

According to Discover The Networks.com:

"With the aid of a $400,000 seed grant from the Ford Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) was established in 1970 by a group of law students and attorneys at the forefront of the environmental movement-most notably, attorneys Gus Speth, Richard Ayres, and Tom Stoel. Another key founder was the environmental activist John Bryson, who, many years later (in 2011-12), would serve as President Barack Obama's commerce secretary. [my red lettering]"

Who is the NRDC? Their Mission Statement says,

"To safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends."

• "One of America's most influential environmentalist groups


• "Responsible for the 1989 Alar hoax


• "Endorsed the Earth Charter, a document blaming capitalism for many of the world's environmental, social, and economic problems


• "Ally of the Corporate Ethics International, an environmental group whose mission is to bring corporations 'under the control of the citizenry'


• "Asserts that 'carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants' -which are by-products of human industrial activity-contribute heavily to potentially catastrophic global warming


• "Contends that "communities of color, which are often poor, are routinely targeted to host facilities that have negative environmental impacts"

"The Council's overriding objective is to 'help create a new way of life for humankind, one that can be sustained indefinitely without fouling or depleting the resources that support all life on Earth.' [my bolding]"

When it comes to creating a new way of life for humankind, they're not just whistling Dixie. Their water goals:

"Water: According to NRDC, 'Changing climate patterns are threatening lakes and rivers, and key sources that we tap for drinking water are being overdrawn or tainted with pollution.' To address these problems, the Council promotes water-efficiency strategies such as stricter efficiency standards for appliances, buildings, and irrigation systems; seeks to defend and strengthen the Clean Water Act; and uses litigation to curtail 'unsustainable water withdrawals that threaten endangered fish species and their habitat.'

...

"Oceans: On the premise that 'years of chronic overfishing, pollution, and habitat destruction have stripped our seas of much of their vitality and productivity,' NRDC strives to 'craf[t] common-sense fishing policies, promot[e] conservation-minded approaches to how fisheries are managed, and enforc[e] and defen[d] laws to stop destructive fishing practices.'"

"'Philanthropic support for NRDC has risen dramatically in recent years, from just over $36 million in 1999 to more than $89 million in 2010. As of 2010, the Council had assets of $181,427,464.' [my bolding]"...

[INCLUDING DONORS:] "'s Open Society Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Prospect Hill Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Scherman Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Turner Foundation", etc.

"When water from rain and melting snow runs off roofs and roads into our rivers, it picks up toxic chemicals, dirt, trash and disease-carrying organisms. Studies show that this stormwater pollution rivals sewage plants and large factories as a source of damaging pollutants in our drinking water and at our beaches."

"Stormwater runoff from roads and highways pollutes and erodes our nation's water bodies, imposing health, financial, and environmental costs on local communities. These costs can be avoided or significantly reduced by ensuring that our roadways incorporate runoff controls that retain stormwater onsite. Green infrastructure, in particular, is an especially effective method for retaining stormwater that also generates a wide range of economic and social benefits beyond improved water quality. To ensure that these benefits are enjoyed by communities across the United States, legislative and administrative decision makers at the federal and state levels should provide incentives and requirements for these controls to be implemented at all road and highway facilities."

""Chapter 4

"FUNDING AND GAINING SUPPORT FOR STORMWATER PROGRAMS

"The best-designed stormwater pollution management plan will flounder without sufficient community support and funding. Community support is often necessary for official government support, although in many of the cases studies the government took the lead and the broader support followed. A major aim of many public education programs (and a critical task for local community and environmental organizations) is to build this political support. An equal emphasis is needed to establish a stable source of funding to keep a program moving forward, once implemented. While the two often go hand-in-hand -- adequate funding almost always requires political support and, conversely, a healthy community consensus on the need for runoff pollution control will generally lead to sufficient funds -- the traditional funding mechanisms available to local governments demand continuous political support, which can be difficult at times. Nonetheless, there are several approaches a municipality can take to establish a dedicated funding source. This chapter describes one of these approaches -- stormwater utilities -- and discusses the authority of local governments to implement them.

"Traditional government funding sources may prove problematic for stormwater pollution program. Grants for water pollution from the federal government are far smaller than in earlier years. Low interest loans from the federal/state revolving loan fund many not be attractive, especially for the non-capital elements of a stormwater pollution program. Allocations from local taxes may be an unreliable means of generating revenue: though essential for ecological and public health reasons, community leaders are hard-pressed to divert adequate funds from general municipal budgets for stormwater pollution control, because the money comes from the same pool as more politically popular uses.

"In light of these difficulties of traditional grant, loan, and tax funding, many local governments have successfully turned to alternative funding strategies. Local governments have funded stormwater pollution measures through charging inspection and permit fees, collecting dedicated contributions from land developers, taxing new development at an increased rate, forming regional stormwater management districts, and creating stormwater utilities. NRDC's research collecting these case studies, as well as work with specific municipalities on water pollution issues, suggests that one of the most effective and equitable funding mechanisms, and yet one of the least well-known, is the use of stormwater pollution utilities that operate stormwater measures entirely through self-funding entities."

And they're trying to place more governmental oversight, regulations and taxes on our SEPTIC TANKS (SAME PAGE):

"A response to one particular stormwater pollution problem -- failing septic systems -- may also be particularly well integrated with stormwater utilities. When properly selected, designed, sited, constructed and maintained, septic systems rarely contribute to water quality impairment. However, since individual property owners are generally responsible for their own septic system upkeep, poor septic system maintenance is a common problem. Many homeowners do not even know where their system is until a problem surfaces (literally). Pollutants generated by improperly maintained septic systems are often a significant source of pathogens in stormwater. A separate septic utility takes this upkeep responsibility from individuals and places it on accountable professional staff.4 Integrating a stormwater utility with a separate septic utility, or including septic system inspection, maintenance, and enforcement as part of a stormwater utility appears to provide important administrative, financial, environmental, and quality-of-life benefits at a very modest cost.

"Other functions that the septic portion of stormwater utilities have provided include siting approval, system design, permitting, pump-outs, and maintenance such as flushing, removal, cleaning, and replacement of system components. The septic portion of the user fees is, in surveyed localities, determined according to the costs of maintenance, water meter readings, or water usage projections."

Quick question: Since a certain PSJ resident is for septic tanks when they don't cost her anything, will she be for or against this FEE? Just asking.

Nationwide, cities have already gone through this. Some have said it isn't mandated:

"Is it required?

"Not really. Although control of stormwater is important to the health of the Corsica and its tributaries, there is no Federal or State requirement that Centreville setup a Stormwater Utility."

In fact, Colorado Springs has already repealed it and Seminole County, FL, has rejected it altogether after stiff opposition:

"The fees have generated stiff opposition in some places. Seminole County [Florida's Seminole County, no less!] commissioners in Florida rejected a fee after 500 people attended a hearing to protest. 'It's a tax on rain,' says anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce, who led a successful effort to have Colorado Springs voters repeal a storm water fee."

In places where it is implemented, people's taxes skyrocket, as we've seen in the letter that ours could as well:

"Starting next year, the county will charge those in unincorporated Adams County a run-off storm water treatment fee from $200 per household to $2,000 or more, depending on the buildings and pavement on their piece of property. Each individual's rate is determined by a 0.00167 per square foot per month formula based on the square footage of 'imperviousness' property owned - land covered by roads, driveways or development.

"'My property taxes on that warehouse and land are $1,700 and change. The new storm water fee is almost $1,700,' Allgeier said. 'So that's almost 100 percent of my real estate taxes. That's unbelievable.'"

Remember, in the letter's headline it states, "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED STORMWATER UTILITY FEE INCREASE [my emphasis]" That means they're pushing this thing as "NOT a TAX". Which means that, technically, they don't really HAVE to get our approval, just as Alabama didn't have to get their citizen's approval:

"Under this United States program, Alabama passed Act No. 95-775, thereby requiring compliance with the 'permitting system.' Every parcel of property is assessed a 'fee' for which a "stormwater runoff permit" is issued - usually to the local government. The amount of the 'fee' is determined by the 'Authority,' and as the 'Authority's' website points out, the 'fee' is not a tax, and therefore, does not require a vote of the people.[4]

"This point should not be overlooked. If the Authority has the right to assess the 'fee' without the approval of the people, they also have the right to raise the amount of the 'fee' at their discretion. The 'fee' generates '$2 million a year' for the Authority[5]. Local municipalities (county & city) receive the 'permit' to allow the discharge of the city/residents' 'stormwater' into the waters that fall under the jurisdictional authority of the United States.[6]"

As I asked earlier, what is the MAXIMUM they can raise it?

While "Average Joe" will be paying for this thing out the ying-yang, the Feds, state governments and environmentalists resist having to pay it left, right and center:

"Updated: 5:12 a.m. Monday, March 1, 2010 Posted: 8:07 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010
"State, feds resist their own stormwater rules AJC investigation: Agencies balk at paying fees Decades after the state imposed storm water rules on local governments in metro Atlanta, it has yet to set such rules for its own highways, university campuses and other properties.

"State and federal agencies have also balked at paying fees to defray local costs of meeting state and federal storm water mandates, a stance that could leave private property owners footing the entire bill for keeping urban runoff out of creeks."

"Government property is exempt from the tax, but religious and nonprofit organizations are subject to it. A bill to exempt nonprofits - including environmental organizations - was proposed but failed."

....

"MarylandReporter.com writes that Senate Republican Leader E.J. Pipkin noted the 'irony of ironies': Environmental groups tried to obtain a exemption from the tax that they themselves were pushing as a means of improving the environment. 'He said that the groups' stance was particularly galling, since much of the money raised through stormwater fees would benefit them by subsidizing conservation projects.'"

"Perhaps the major reason that religious and nonprofit groups were not exempted from the tax is that they tend to own large buildings with expansive parking lots, precisely the types of impervious surfaces that will rake in big bucks for the government. Residential owners are expected to pay about $100 a year to start - a significant but not astronomical amount. Nonresidential owners, by contrast, are likely to be shelling out thousands of simoleons annually.

"'But homeowners are going to pay the rain tax three times,'" observes Gazette columnist Blair Lee. "'Once, on their homes. A second time because commercial leases force tenants [to] pay the landlord's property taxes, which the tenants will, then, pass on to their customers. And a third time as church members or supporters of nonprofit hospitals, private schools and charities.' [my bolding"

....

"All told, Maryland residents will have to cough up an additional $300 million each year because of precipitation on their property, the conservative group Change Maryland estimates.

.....

"All of this is allegedly to comply with a 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decree that the Old Line State reduce storm water runoff so as to shrink nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the Chesapeake Bay at a cost of $14.8 billion. However, as Watchdog Wire points out, 'Virginia fought the EPA storm water mandate arguing that the agency overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act.' Federal judge Liam O'Grady agreed, ruling in January that 'stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it.' Maryland, therefore, could easily slough off the EPA's order if its elected officials were so inclined."

So why is the government exempt but we have to pay for their property as well as ours? Is that the American way? Is it fair? And, although the environmentalist groups fight paying their part of the tax, they will get some of the money it brings in:

"Also, like the carbon pork in Maryland's Maryland's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative law [I divided the link] taxpayer dollars from the rain tax will flow into the hands of the environmental groups that lobbied for the law, for 'outreach' and 'education.' [my bolding]"

"Taxing impervious surfaces is a brilliant environmentalist gimmick for penalizing structures. If you pave your driveway, then you're obstructing the rain and you have to be penalized for it.

"'And, of course, a lot of it will go to "monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces." In other words, hiring more bureaucrats to administer the rain tax program.

"'It can also be spent on "public education and outreach" (whatever that means) and on "grants to nonprofit organizations" (i.e. to the greenies who pushed the tax through the various levels of government).'

"So homeowners are being fined for having roofs overhead with the money being used to create jobs for ecoscammers and funnel money to their groups.

"Wouldn't it be better if we just went to a straight up mafia state like Russia. Then we could dispense with the Rain Taxes and call a shakedown what it is."

Of course, there are other beneficiaries:

"The tax climate forecast for Los Angeles County has turned gloomy. There is an $8 billion annual tax storm that is coming in 18 months. It will rain on every property owner in the county.

"But the tax monies will mainly flow to a few politically connected groups and unions."

Is there any guarantee that the Stormwater Fee will be used on JUST THAT? Not in at least one city:

"Ellicott City, MD, January 24, 2014- It's been inaccurately dubbed a 'rain tax' by its opponents, but the stormwater fees that Maryland's ten most populous jurisdictions are required to charge under the stormwater fee law (House Bill 987) are anything but. Similar to a water or sewer fee, a stormwater fee is actually a user fee charged to property owners for the service of managing the polluted runoff coming from their property. When rain falls on hard surfaces such as roofs, roads and parking lots, it creates stormwater runoff and carries a veritable stew of pollutants such as bacteria, trash, nutrients and sediment with it to nearby streams and rivers. Stormwater fees are used to construct management practices in strategic locations in the landscape to slow down and filter pollutants from runoff in order to provide cleaner water, reduce flooding and erosion, protect infrastructure, and revitalize communities. [my red letters]"

"[R]evitalize communities"? I thought it was an environmental bill. How can an environmental bill "revitalize communities"? Do we have any guarantees in OUR "FEE" notification?

In Champaign, IL, they're using the money to free up their property taxes for other ventures:

"What will the revenue from the stormwater utility fee be used for?
"The City's stormwater utility fee would result in more funding for stormwater capital projects. Specifically, the City's stormwater utility fee would fund stormwater operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation expenditures. Those activities are currently funded by sales and property taxes. If those activities are funded in the future by a stormwater utility fee, then the sales and property taxes would be available for other City needs. Council has indicated these available sales and property taxes would be used for additional stormwater capital projects. [my bolding]"

Did you know that the Federal government gets what is, in effect, a kickback for each of these things implemented? Yep. Check out the NPEDS info:

"9. Stormwater Quality (NPDES Permit Compliance). Approximately, $188,000 is budgeted in the Stormwater Fund annually for the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance activities. NPDES compliance activities improve stormwater quality.

"The City is required to have a NPDES permit for its storm sewer system. To obtain the 5-year NPDES permit, the City had to list activities it planned to complete each year in the following six areas that are referred to by IEPA as minimum control measures.

• "Public Education and Outreach


• "Public Participation and Involvement


• "Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination


• "Construction Site Runoff Control


• "Post Construction Site Runoff Control


• "Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping"

Basically, it's a federal government shakedown of the cities to get money for "environmental" programs and brainwashing children? Sweet. (*sarcasm*)

This is something very few people understand it seems. In Jacksonville, FL, for example, they speak out of both sides of their mouths (so to speak) on their website explaining it (note the red words):

"Why should I pay for rain falling on my property?

"Property owners are not being charged for rain falling on a property, but for the amount of runoff that is discharged into the city's stormwater system when it does rain.

"When rain falls on impervious area, it collect all sorts of pollutants, such as oil, grease, fertilizers and sediments. The amount of pollutants contained in stormwater can be correlated to the amount of impervious area on a property.

"That stormwater - and all the pollutants it collects - eventually makes its way to the city's stormwater management system, which includes the St. Johns River.

"Ultimately, we all have a stake in improving the health of our community's greatest asset. To learn more about the impacts of stormwater runoff, please visit the St. Johns Water Management District's 'Florida's Water' site.

"Why am I getting charged for stormwater when I'm (not) on city sewer (septic)?

"The stormwater fee has nothing to do with potable (drinking) water or wastewater, or whether you're on sewer or have a septic tank.

"Stormwater is rain. The stormwater fee is being charged for the service the city provides in controlling, storing and/or treating the community's stormwater runoff, which is greater coming from developed properties."

Let's remember who these people are:

"The EPA's head, Lisa Jackson, attended the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen where she stated her intention to 'transform' the way the American economy works using her bureaucracy. I was there in the room and heard her say it."

UPDATE:   An additional thought. When a flood happens due to excess rain that's called a disaster and we get tax relief and disaster assistance -- FROM taxpayer funded emergency monies. So how can they tax something that is 1) caused by GOD, 2) also something that you get a TAX RELIEF FOR and 3) already ruled "not a pollutant" by a federal judge? If the BOCC's "logic" held, in the case of a flood, they should RAISE taxes, should they not, considering that it's that much more "stormwater", debris, yard chemicals, etc., going into the Indian River Lagoon? Instead, we get federal, state and who knows what else assistance to deal with the disaster. Someone explain that to me, please.

Also, since when should we be taxed for an act of GOD? GOD causes the rain. GOD causes water to act a certain way. GOD causes gravity to work. Historically, acts of GOD have been exempted from certain things, including payouts on insurance coverages. Now they want to TAX us for an act of GOD? Really?

Then there's the whole "fairness" question. Is it fair of them to make those of us who are behind the coquina ridge who were told years ago that because of that ridge, we were not having an impact on the IRL system PAY for doing something we aren't doing? How fair and American is that?

UPDATE:   Also, check out this Eye On Brevard article and take into consideration what I said back on...

March 1, 2014: 3:27 a.m.   "I received the local pooper-paper (how apprapo) yesterday. I checked out the usual trash inside and found this quote on page five (5): "'We know there are a lot of issues that have built up against our lagoon. Fertilizer, letting cities dump street sewage in the past, not cleaning out baffle boxes, street drains running straight into the water's edge, septic tanks too close and probably even more issues that haven't been found yet, but we need to look at all the issues. So before we start putting diapers on the manatees, pelicans, Flipper and our fish thinking the Indian River Lagoon water problem will go away, we might want to reconsider.' "That's from the usual snit under the heading 'Septic Tanks and the Indian River Lagoon' referencing the blurb I wrote on Feb. 13th. I was commenting on a FL Toady [sic] article that said that man was not the polluter of the Indian River Lagoon, it was animals -- including manatees. Well, apparently that didn't sit (enunciate when you say that!) very well with certain folks. Lah-ti-dah. (Perhaps she thinks that "manatees, pelicans, Flipper and our fish" actually step out of the water for a potty break?) I did some research to see if I could find some more info to back up my belief that it was not humans. What I found was the following:

• Manatees poop a LOT. In 2009 a mile long string of manatee poop washed up on a FL beach and the beach had to be closed for cleaning. I'm not saying that it all came from ONE manatee, but even if there were eight, twelve, or a hundred manatee, that's 5,280 FEET OF MANATEE POOP!


• Manatee can eat 10-15% of their body weight in sea vegetation daily. That's 100 - 150 pounds of sea vegetation daily PER manatee.


• Sea vegetation cleans the water. Not a shocker there.


• Manatees have been protected, and therefore thriving, since the 1970s. An increase in population means an increase in manatees eating sea vegetation.


• In the last 20 years sea grasses have been decimated; of course it's blamed on humans.


• Although it's blamed on humans, we know manatees do the decimating.


• Manatee deaths due to humans is WELL BELOW NATURAL CAUSES. In 2013 85 manatee deaths were directly attributed to humans while 744 were attributable to natural or "other" causes.

Since we know that sea vegetation CLEANS the water and that the manatee are destroying that sea vegetation and that the manatee population has grown in the last forty years since its "endangered" classification, we can see that the unintended consequence of the environmentalist wackos has led to the pollution of the Indian River Lagoon. So while they whine and scream that they need to "protect" it by their own actions they are the reason it is polluted! If they want to have a sustainable earth as they're always screaming for, demanding, etc., why don't they leave things alone? Sixty years ago when the manatee population was used for food we didn't have this problem. But, no. They had to interfere and blame the resulting pollution on YOU. It's not about our alleged polluting, it's about THEM interfering in the first place!

Then there's the fact that she again speaks out of both sides of her mouth. Consider on one of the pages I wrote about her candidacy and the public record of her writings and speaking on the public record at County, City and board meetings, etc.,

PSJ HOA Newsletter, May 1995, Maureen Rupe writes: "'On May 16th, the Brevard County Commission voted unanimously to accept the recommendations of negotiations between our association and Lawyer, Tim Bradley, the Brevard County Attorney, and Florida Dept. of Community Affairs. What this amounts to is monitoring of groundwater in PSJ, installation of an aerobic septic system for new homes, and have a study started by the end of the year. With these, we will be able to basically stop all talk of sewers indefinitely.'"

Remember how often she and PSJ4T used the threat of Titusville or Cocoa FORCING PSJ to hook up to their sewer systems while they were pushing incorporation? Is she FOR septic tanks or AGAINST them? There's another problem with this as well. The coquina ridge that is under the railroad tracks was said, a long time ago, to protect the lagoon from the houses' septic tanks west of the railroad tracks from having an impact on the Indian River Lagoon. Those houses east of the tracks are on a sewer system so their poop doesn't go anywhere near the river. That leaves PSJ homes free and clear of all blame for the poop in the Idian River Lagoon. Don't you wish she would make up her mind as to where she stands on this issue? When it does impact her and her pocket book, she's agin' it; when it doesn't impact her and her pocket book she's for it? Is that the way it works? That's not taking responsibility and being an adult. Perhaps it's not the "manatees, pelicans, Flipper and our fish" who need the diapers?

REMEMBER: The meeting is Thursday, April 3, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in the Government Center Building C in Viera, in the BOCC meeting room on the First Floor.

So is this something the Brevard County Commission should do? If not, ATTEND THE MEETING AND SPEAK AGAINST IT. At the very least write to them and tell them that you DO NOT SUPPORT this FEE. You want them to stop it and you think they're INSANE for coming up with this while our economy is in such dire straits. At the very least e-mail them. Tell them to stop this thing!

Fact Sheet Region 3.pdf

Funding Stormwater.pdf

Yosemite EPA.pdf

Discover The Networks: NRDC information

Don't sit this one out, folks. Just don't.

Linda McKinney

Space Coast Conservative