Crist says he may veto seagrass bill

Gov. Charlie Crist says he's contemplating a veto of a controversial bill on seagrass protection that was altered by Rep. Will Kendrick.

"Possibly. I haven't completely reviewed the bill yet," Crist said. He said a story in the St. Petersburg Times about how Kendrick, R-Carrabelle, altered the bill "gives me pause and I'm reviewing it. I haven't really decided yet."

The bill, CS/HB 7059, is supposed to protect seagrass beds in state aquatic preserves, but Kendrick's amendment says the governor and Cabinet should allow private companies to create sea grass mitigation banks on state-owned land — something that has never been tried before. The companies could sell credits to developers who wanted to wipe out sea grass beds elsewhere along the coast, say for new marinas or new boating channels.

Several environmental groups are calling for Crist to veto the bill because of Kendrick's amendment, but the state Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission both have recommended Crist sign the bill.

--Steve Bousquet and Craig Pittman

Comments

Way to go Craig and Steve. Gotta love it when the Governor gets his insider information from the local paper over morning paper.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Veto the bill, please, Governor.

Paul D. Harvill
Tallahassee

Charlie, please demonstrate that not every GOP is in the pocket of developers and big business. VETO IT!

Kendrick is great. Crist is making the people angry.

doesnt DEP write mitigation langage? is el gubernador taking communist control over state agencies as well?

I suppose when the Big Court says you can't appoint the new judge and the people actually get to decide, you should just pack up your toys and try to louse up someone else's sandbox. Alas, I'm not worried. Kendrick can take him.

Should be a match point for Charlie - Corporate Profits vs. The Green Governor. It's pork - cut it and send it back.

"Possibly. I haven't completely reviewed the bill yet," Crist said.

Chuckism Translation: I have not seen the polls yet.

Governor please veto this bad bill. Over the last several years we have attacked our environment, lessened federal standards on air and water pollution. We are the stewards of this great earth. We are not taking good care of her and we humans are not the only inhabitants. Corporate America and sell out politicians could care less about what we are doing to this place. Please Governor make me proud of my support of you. Please do the right thing.

The governor doesnt ever do the right thing. He does the left thing. Just ask his best friend Gelber.

Do all of you anti-progress folks live in a house you built yourself or are you sellouts to the developers that built them for you?

Try to stay rational even if just a little bit. Your central government bureacracy control streak is coming on a little too strong. If you want to control the property rights buy it and pay the taxes yourself. Otherwise take the bridge back the other way and leave Florida with one less carbon footprint.

And here is another reason why NOTHING SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE ADDED TO A BILL AFTER IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. If you want to add something new, it ought to have to go through the same process. Grow some Charlie and veto this bill. If this 'hasn't been tried before', then we certainly don't need to doing it here.

During down economic times we should do everything possible to stymie economic growth, reduce jobs, and kill tourism. It sounds like a decent compromise.

8:15---You can't "Add" something without if being voted on by the Legislature. Whenever this amendment was filed it had to be voted on. As for not trying something new? I'm glad that attitude isn't shared by all---I'm fairly thankful for all of the great things we have in Florida--because we weren't afraid to try something new.

Veto the bill Charlie. The Bush coattails you've been riding since you passed the bar exam on third try ---------- are being voted out this fall.

We the people are taking our country back from your insider plutocrat friends/mentors.

Come back from the dark side. Don't mess with mother nature.

i'm no expert on this issue, but seems to be a similarity between the seabed mitigation "credits" and the soviet style cap and trade GHG plan that crist is floating - the cap and trade hasn't been tried in FL before either - and where it has been tried, ie europe, it's a failure - why is one bad and the other good?

obviously, given the fact that florida has lost nearly 3 million acres of seagrass in the last 50 years, our current and past strategies to protect this resource aren't working. this is the perfect time to try something new and begin to grow more than we are losing to common events - developers always have to mitigate yet weekend boaters dont...boaters cause more damage than anyone else without recourse, therefore lets start fixing those anyway we can...

Mitigation is merely a bone that the developer-friendly lawmakers throw to environmental minded voters. It is no substitutes for preservation. You can replant seagrass, it sometimes even grows when you do, but you won't get the destroyed ecosystem back for hundreds of years.

Veto it, Governor.

Kendrick, you're scum.

9:37, you sound like you really, really, really want a boat

harness your jealousy and wants and pay attention to the realities of the bill

Posted by: | May 22, 2008 at 12:42 AM:

Seagrass beds are public submerged lands already. No one can "own" what belongs to us already.

In most cases, mitigation is a dismal failure.

And policy makers know this.

11:28 yesterday, I have a boat. And I am paying attention to the language in the Bill. I think making developers and other impactors pay for the restoration of orphaned prop scars is a great idea. the state can't pay for this so somebody needs to...otherwise, they will continue to expand and wipe out larger areas giving us less to protect.

[david flagg]

If the sea grass mitigation language in HB 7059 is so innocent, why wasn't it disclosed in Committee and on the House/Senate floor ? Its seems to circumvent protection of an almost irreplaceable natural resource, sea grass. Veto it Charlie. If in the meantime, there's real justification shown to have such mitigation, there's always next Session.