Editor’s Desk
We didn’t sit down and plan for this issue to focus on sustainability – it just worked out that way. And with more than 1,000 people moving to Florida each day, it’s clear that fostering sustainable behavior and creating sustainable communities is more important than ever.
While the term “sustainability” has only recently come into vogue, the concept itself is as old as civilization. It simply implies using resources wisely and making a conscious effort to work with nature instead of against or apart from it.
The need to think and act sustainably covers almost everything we do, from fishing to construction to water and energy conservation and the reduce-reuse-recycle mantra that minimizes our personal waste stream. Many of these actions are intertwined, as shown in our cover stories on “green” building and fisheries that have little in common at first glance. Under the surface, however, it’s easy to see the connections.
By design, green buildings minimize air and water pollution, thereby helping to protect critical underwater ecosystems. With an annual economic impact of nearly $9 billion, fisheries help drive Florida’s financial engines, boosting demand for new homes and offices – that we hope will be built using cost-effective green technologies. And the concept of bio-mimicry — borrowing ideas from nature that have stood the test of time – is fostering development of better, safer products that promise to save energy and reduce waste and toxic byproducts.
There are hopeful signs that we’re moving beyond dialogue to action, and that the conversation is broadening to include just about everyone who cares about quality of life. At a February conference in Clearwater, local elected officials were among those wowed by urban designers and architects discussing the economic, environmental and social benefits of green building from Portland to Manhattan, where Bank of America’s new office tower is under construction (see cover story). Pinellas County and the city of Tampa are already taking steps to explore green building further through changes to ordinances, policies and building codes.
Kudos to Sarasota County for leading the way. Commissioner Shannon Staub, a Republican, is one of the region’s most effective voices on green building. Staub has led the commission in the implementation of a number of progressive policies, from fast-track permitting for builders that agree to build “green” to policies dictating that all county buildings meet stringent green-building requirements for energy, air and water conservation.
Almost anyone can make changes in their day-to-day life to make our neighborhoods and region more sustainable, and reap multiple rewards. Water conservation, for instance, benefits the environment but also saves money. Ridesharing, like carpooling or taking the bus, saves money but also minimizes air pollution that threatens the health of Tampa Bay.
Tampa Bay is recognized around the world for successful restoration of water quality and habitat. As a community, we all need to take the next step and set new standards for creating sustainable communities to surround and protect the magnificent estuary that is the region’s namesake.
– Victoria Parsons
Bay’s Course-Charting Began in Early 1960s
Dear Friends:
A former scientific colleague recently sent me a copy of your Winter 2006 paper, including the article, “Charting the Course for the Bay’s Recovery.” He and I are both bewildered by the fact that your research on the subject did not go back far enough to show where the course-charting really began.
In 1962, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established a National Biological Laboratory, on St. Pete Beach in the building next door to the Don CeSar, to conduct research pertaining to man’s mistreatment of estuaries and to propose protective measures to correct the detrimental effects of development on our natural resources, in particular fish stocks and related biota (in 1969, it became a NOAA Laboratory). The laboratory staff was later transferred to Panama City to begin other work.
Our group produced 30 or so major research papers, most of them having to do with fisheries, water quality, benthic productivity, shellfish production, and seagrass transplantation. These publications are well known to the scientific community and most are archived in the Library of Congress. These facts add to our consternation when we notice their absence in your article.
In addition to conducting and publishing research, our scientists had their hands full attending public hearings about questionable development projects being proposed by well-heeled speculators, many of them from out of state, and particularly from Texas. Various “Save our Bay” groups began popping up, all calling upon our scientists and those of the Florida Marine Laboratory of Bayboro to help them protect the bay from indiscriminate development.
We, too, appeared on the scene in the battle proposing the conversion of Old Tampa Bay into a fresh-water lake, and it was our testimony that turned the tide and convinced officials that this indeed was a very bad idea.
The laboratory worked closely with the University of South Florida as it began its development of a school of marine science, hiring student interns and with some of us serving as adjunct professors. It was during this relationship with USF that we became acquainted with William Taft, and together we accomplished a study of Tampa Bay flushing rates.
I have done the best I can helping you look at who the real charters of the Bay’s recovery might have been. I recognize, of course, that those whom you mentioned have seemingly done a good job in following up. Sometimes we fail to delve deeply enough into recent history to be able to acquire all the necessary facts of a matter. It is sometimes good to have someone come along and fill in gaps of knowledge. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share these bits of Tampa Bay research with you.
James E. Sykes,
Director, Former NOAA
Biological Laboratory
“Red Flags” Disputed
Dear Editor,
Your recent article entitled "Hillsborough River Proposal Raises Red Flags" raised concerns for us at Tampa Bay Water, the agency that is studying the Downstream Augmentation Project.
First, the article stated that downstream augmentation would increase nutrient loadings in the Hillsborough River, proliferating the growth of algae and stressing marine life. I can assure you that Tampa Bay Water will not pursue this project if there will be algae growth or marine life problems. Further, the permitting agencies would not allow such consequences either. So this "red flag" is unfounded.
Secondly, the article implied that we would augment the river during summer months when the water is stagnant. This is not true. We would take river water for potable use and augment with reclaimed water only when the river flows are at least 65 million gallons per day (100 cubic feet per second) which is 10 times the current MFL for the river. In other words, this project would take water during high flows of the river, not when the river is stagnant. This "red flag" does not exist.
We appreciate the interest Bay Soundings has shown in this project and look forward to working with you on future stories as the project evolves. Know that Tampa Bay Water is committed to developing this project only if it we can maintain the environmental integrity of the Hillsborough River.
Paula Dye,
Chief Environmental Planner
Tampa Bay Water
| Send us your letters |
| We welcome letters from readers on topics covered in Bay Soundings. The writer’s name, affiliation, address, and telephone number should be included and electronic submission is preferred. Letters may be edited to save space and ensure clarity. Send letters to editor@baysoundings.com. |
Back to Top