The following is a letter written by Dr. Burt Eno, Vice-President of Rainbow River Conservation, Inc. to Governor Jeb Bush. Dr. Eno is a tireless advocate for the preservation of the Rainbow, and we applaud his efforts, and hope that Governor Bush will act in favor of saving the river.

\

August 1, 2006

The Honorable Jeb Bush
Governor of Florida
PL 05 The Capitol
400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

Dear Governor Bush:

  Rainbow River Conservation Inc. (RRC) wishes to inform you of the failure of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to protect the Rainbow River from a very harmful development project. At the behest of the Rainbow River Ranch developer the City of Dunnellon put forth a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which threatens to have enormous adverse effects upon the Rainbow River, a river which has been classified as a National Natural Landmark, a Florida Outstanding Waterway, an Aquatic Preserve, and a SWIM water body. RRC’s concerns are summarized below:

1. On January 12, 2006 the DCA issued a “Statement to Find Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance” in view of the Dunnellon proposed amendment. The DCA did a comprehensive examination of the various laws and policies and cited more than 40 separate inconsistencies. Instead of following DCA’s advice to withdraw or substantially modify their amendment, the City of Dunnellon sought to mediate on behalf of the developer.

2. RRC thought that the DCA “Not in Compliance” document would be used as the basis for the mediation hearing on July 13, 2006 but, instead, the document used bore no resemblance to the comprehensive “Not in Compliance” document of the DCA. In fact, the document used in the mediation was virtually identical to the City’s (and the Rainbow River Ranch) original amendment. Few of the numerous and significant issues of non-compliance cited by the DCA were discussed at the mediation hearing. These issues of inconsistencies, with a host of important environmental laws and policies, were the core of the impact of the Rainbow River Ranch project on the Rainbow River, a globally significant natural resource. Instead, the mediation hearing focused on minor issues that were peripheral to the environmental impact of the amendment. What appeared to be a mediation hearing was really a mediation of the developer’s own plan.

3. The hearing staff did not include representatives that were qualified to make decisions about one of Florida’s most significant natural resources. The mediation staff did not include a single natural resource professional, and therefore they did not have knowledge of the volumes of resource documentation and management plans that have been done for the Rainbow River over the last three decades. The only resource professional at the mediation hearing, the Aquatic Preserve manager, was not even consulted during the entire day of meetings. In fact, none of the principal DCA and DEP participants had ever even seen the Rainbow River! RRC strongly believes that Florida’s fourth largest spring, one of the world’s longest spring runs, and a resource that contains the highest diversity of turtles in North America, deserves better. To give only one example of a decision made by the State mediators: they agreed to permit all trees under four inches in diameter within 100 feet of the river to be cut. The result of this seemingly minor decision was to remove virtually all of the forest understory, most of the wildlife habitat, most of the wildlife food sources, much of the bird nesting habitat, and all of the forest reproduction. No knowledgeable resource person would have agreed to such a decision.

4. The DCA was well aware that RRC had petitioned the D.O.A.H. to be included as an intervener, and that the decision had not yet been made by the judge prior to the mediation of July 13th. In fact, RRC was admitted the next day. It was not fair, reasonable, or good public policy to continue with the mediation hearing on July 13th knowing that the RRC petition decision was imminent. The hearing should have been postponed. The mediation hearing of July 13 should be set aside, and all the mediators should participate in a rescheduled mediation hearing that includes all of the interveners. To deny our meaningful participation is to deny due process to the thousands of Florida citizens that RRC represents, and calls into question the fairness of the DCA administered process.

5. RRC has discovered a number of facts that should be investigated before the amendment process progresses any further. For example, the amendment to the Comp Plan presented by the City staff to the Dunnellon City Council, voted on by the Council, and received public comment, was substantially different than the documents sent to the DCA in Tallahassee. The marina did not appear on the plan voted on by the City Council, but did appear on the faxed copy sent to the DCA. After the vote by the City Council, and the public comment, a faxed, altered plan was sent to the DCA. This altered plan was never voted on by the Council, or commented on by the public as required. The altered plan contained many of the elements now being contested by RRC. RRC has documentation which we feel must be investigated before agreeing to any amendment. There are a number of due process issues, too many to go into here, that go to the fairness of the amendment process.

  For the above reasons, the mediation hearing agreement of July 13 should be set aside, begin again, this time including all of the approved interveners, and this time carrying out public duty to consider all of the issues cited in the DCA’s Jan 12, 2006 letter. We further request that anyone representing the State of Florida be required to see the Rainbow River and become familiar with the work of the Florida Springs Task Force, the Rainbow River Management Plan, the SWIM Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the DCA’s own planning documents. This natural treasure deserves the best efforts of everyone involved.

Respectfully yours,


Burton E. Eno, PhD, PE
Vice-President, RRC