It Can Be Very Patchy': Scientists Work to Map Healthy Beaches to Help Beachgoers Avoid Red Tide - Our Santa Fe River

‘It Can Be Very Patchy’:
Scientists Work to Map Healthy
Beaches to Help Beachgoers
Avoid Red Tide

Well, we are past the tipping point because now if we want to
spend the day in the water, instead of checking to see if some
beach is closed, instead we must see which beach is open. This
is because of either red tide, blue algae or sewage spills.

The norm is now polluted instead of swimmable.     Consider most
closed but check and maybe one will be open.

For this we can thank Rick Scott, Ron DeSantis and a series of
DEP leaders and also our water management districts (and some of
their predecessors). Water managers perhaps have less blame
since they do the bidding of DEP, the governor and , ultimately,
the lobbyists.

The people who are supposed to be taking care of our water are
taking care of polluters instead of the water and the reason is
money.

Read the original article here on Tampa Bay 10 News.        The
interactive maps linked below cover all parts of the state, not
just the Tampa area.

Comments by OSFR historian Jim Tatum.
jim.tatum@oursantaferiver.org
– A river is like a life: once taken,
it cannot be brought back © Jim Tatum

‘It Can Be Very Patchy’: Scientists

Work to Map Healthy Beaches to Help
Beachgoers Avoid Red Tide
Author: Adaure Achumba
Published: 8:02 PM EDT July 23, 2021
Updated: 8:02 PM EDT July 23, 2021
SARASOTA COUNTY, Fla. — The weekend has arrived and people have
made plans which include going to the beach.

However, red tide has been getting worse out at some of our
popular beach spots. According to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, red tide is a common name for
Karenia brevis, a harmful algal bloom that kills marine life
when it occurs.

Some people are already feeling the respiratory and itchy-eye
effects and a few have ended up in the ER with more severe side
effects. This has made it unclear for visitors to know where to
go to avoid beaches affected by red tide.
But there is a team effort underway through science and
technology to try and help beachgoers plan better.

RELATED: National Weather Service issues beach hazard statement
over red tide concerns

Mote Marine Lab researchers, Florida Fish and Wildlife and the
Health Department hope making up-to-date beach water conditions
accessible on mobile technology would make a difference.

Alongside their standard sample collection to check for bacteria
levels, environmental scientists from the health department have
been collecting samples to check for red tide cell counts.

“I grabbed a few samples one that we take over to benchmark to
test for bacteria and another sample for Mote Marine,” said
Ricky Montedonico.

Montedonico is based in Sarasota and is part of the team that
check’s the county’s 16 beaches. After he has waded into the
ocean and collected water samples, he puts iodine into the small
bottles and stores them in a cooler of ice.

“This is iodine, I believe it just makes it easier for Mote
Marine to figure out how much red tide is in there,” Montedonico
said.

The samples are then hand-delivered to biologists at the Mote
Marine Lab who check for the presence of red tide toxins which
is what causes all the problems.

The data is then analyzed and the required information is
uploaded to Mote’s website visitbeaches.org and its mobile app.

“This provides the red tide cell counts to citizens so they are
aware of conditions at the beach and for tourists that come to
Florida,” said Devin Burris, a biologist with Mote Marine Lab.

Officials say the “healthy beaches” samples are often the first
time they are able to see when there are elevated red tide cell
counts in our area’s waters.

“Monitoring, in general, is important so we understand when the
bloom occurs. Part of the concern is for early warning so we
know when a bloom might be starting,” said Dr. Vincent Lovko, a
senior scientist with Mote Marine.
Florida Fish and Wildlife also depends on the samples for its
daily and weekly red tide reports….

Crist Unveils Clean Water Plan
That   Calls    for   Tougher
Regulations on Pollution–

Crist may be the first of the new gubernatorial candidates to
push the environment as a platform plank, but certainly not the
last. Finally the environment has become a must-do item, but
campaign promises often go forgotten if the candidate is
elected.    This happened with DeSantis who came into office in
an aura of hope which soon dissipated.   Unfortunately, Charlie
forgot to mention phosphate, a sin made even worse since he was
in Sarasota near Mosaic’s turf. Advocate Andy Mele did not let
that go unnoticed.

Read the original article here in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

Comments by OSFR historian Jim Tatum.
jim.tatum@oursantaferiver.org
– A river is like a life: once taken,
it cannot be brought back © Jim Tatum

Crist unveils clean water plan
that   calls    for   tougher

regulations on pollution
Zac Anderson

Sarasota Herald-Tribune
July 14, 2021

Photo Herald-Tribune

SARASOTA — With Florida’s nagging environmental woes flaring up
to crisis levels in some areas, Democratic candidate for
governor Charlie Crist unveiled a clean water plan Wednesday
that was light on details but promised tougher regulations.

A red tide algae bloom is causing extensive fish kills in the
Tampa Bay area, Florida is experiencing a record number of
manatee deaths and a large blue-green algae bloom covers much of

Lake Okeechobee.

Red tide:Conditions are ripe to get worse

DeSantis:red tide this year ‘not like 2018’ bloom

Crist touched on all three issues Wednesday, but also drew a
rebuke from a prominent local environmentalist about what he
didn’t include in his plan — phosphate mining.

Standing on a deck overlooking Sarasota Bay at Marina Jack,
Crist sped through the elements of his plan in three minutes,
taking jabs at polluting “special interests” and Republican Gov.
Ron DeSantis. He later traveled to Fort Myers for a boat tour.

“We’ve seen this story play out time and time again,” Crist
said. “Politicians look the other way while special interests
run wild, and when something goes wrong, it’s the everyday
Floridians who have to pay the tab.”
Crist’s plan includes some specifics, such as implementing the
recommendations of Florida’s Harmful Algae Bloom Task Forces and
passing a Right to Clean Water constitutional amendment.

In other areas, Crist calls for new regulations limiting
pollution without getting into detail.

“From runoff to sewage and stormwater, Florida needs tough new
rules to protect our fresh water and coastal areas,” Crist’s
plan states.

Crist said Wednesday that “we’re going to finally get serious on
agricultural runoff, wastewater management and defending
critical watersheds.”

Yet one of the biggest recent threats to Florida’s environment —
the legacy of phosphate mining — goes unmentioned in Crist’s
plan, something Sarasota environmental advocate Andy Mele called
a “grave omission.”

“I want to point out that (Crist’s plan) contains zero about
phosphate strip mining, fertilizer production, and the huge
mountains of radioactive waste that are going to continue to
contaminate west Central Florida for hundreds of years,” Mele, a
former Democrat candidate who has worked for the environmental
group Suncoast Waterkeeper, said in an email.
The lack of focus on phosphate is particularly glaring in the
wake of the disaster at the old Piney Point fertilizer plant in
Manatee County, where millions of gallons of contaminated
wastewater sitting atop a phosphogypsum stack discharged into
Tampa Bay.

Asked Wednesday about the threat posed by the other stacks of
phosphate mining waste around the state, Crist said “it’s
something that we need to address, and it’s something that I’m
committed to doing.”

Crist said he would rely on “experts” to address the problem.

“I believe in science so I would defer to science and scientists
to tell us what to do and the best way to address it,” Crist
said.

Crist,    a  St.    Petersburg    congressman     and   former
Republican governor, also criticized DeSantis Wednesday, saying
he has touted environmental protection efforts but failed to
deliver.

“He came in, really, on the promise of doing more about the
environment, but we haven’t seen anything,” Crist said. “And
that’s heartbreaking.”

DeSantis spokesperson Christina Pushaw called Crist’s comment
“patently false” and pointed to the governor’s support for
environmental spending in the state budget.

“When the Governor’s opponents resort to making things up to

criticize him, it only demonstrates that they have no factual
critiques of his policies,” Pushaw said in an email.

Follow Herald-Tribune Political Editor Zac Anderson on Twitter
at    @zacjanderson.       He     can    be     reached     at
zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com

Editorial: the Water Is Under
All of Us OR, Reasons We Must
Educate–

This points out once again the need for education among the
citizens and especially for any leaders who make water rulings.
Unfortunately, we see people in power who make decisions on
water use but lift not a finger to learn about our water, our

springs, our aquifer, our rivers.        Example below being
Commissioner Jeff Kinnard who puts it on a political framework
and ignores completely any facts or information about water
sources.

Incredibly, (or perhaps typically), Kinnard also is a committee
member of: Hernando/Citrus Metropolitan Planning Organization,
Keep Citrus County Beautiful and     the Withlacoochee Regional
Water Supply Authority, and past President Citrus County Coastal
Conservation Association.

Read the original article here in the Citrus County Chronicle.

Editorial: The water is under
all of us
July 22, 2021

CONSERVATION MATTERS
THE ISSUE: County mulls water rules.

OUR OPINION: Watering restriction exemption plea shortsighted.

With 1,000 new residents daily, Florida’s
ballooning population will exceed the continent of
Australia by 2026. Coupled with well over 100
million visitors annually, the demands on our
steadily shrinking water resources make a culture
of conservation essential to the state’s future
water supply.
Nonetheless, some property owners in the Citrus Hills community

of Terra Vista apparently think otherwise.

Understandably taking pride in the appearance of their community
and protective of the investment in their lush, green lawns,
some Terra Vista residents recently pleaded for the county
commission to lift the county’s year-round, once-a-week watering
restriction for their community.

Arguing that the Terra Vista developer encourages maintained
lawns by providing irrigation-only wells to property owners, the
community’s spokespersons asked the commissioners to exempt
Terra Vista’s irrigation wells from the county’s watering
restriction.
Regrettably, their shortsighted plea struck a sympathetic note
with county commissioners Jeff Kinnard and Holly Davis. Both
indicated they would favor exemptions for communities that
receive their irrigation water from a separate permitted well
system with Kinnard noting, “It does not look like we have a
water-use problem. We have a permit issue.”

Jeff
Kinnard

Really?

Water conservation is the principal means by which the water
management districts accomplish their missions of public water
supply and sustainment of water dependent ecosystems with its
most important tool the daily gallons per capita per day
permitted for counties and municipalities.

In this regard, nowhere does water conservation make a greater
difference than reducing the amount of lawn watering. With the

average household irrigation system using more than 3,500
gallons of water per complete cycle, lawn watering twice a week
is a hefty 28,000 gallons of water per month. As such, lawn
watering typically accounts for 50% of the water consumed by
Florida households.

Given the enormous demand of lawn watering on our finite public
water supply and its harmful impact on our complex ecosystems
that are dependent on freshwater to clean pollutants and a
certain water level to function, exempting Terra Vista’s
irrigation wells from the county’s water use restriction would
be tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot.

Foremost, it would be a step backward from the culture of
conservation that has been nurtured for decades to effectively
slow increases in freshwater withdrawals.
Secondly, it would give the appearance of selective enforcement
and, as acknowledged by Commissioners Scott Carnahan and Ronald
Kitchen Jr., likely raise a hue and cry for exemption from
individual homeowners who have permitted irrigation wells.

Although Citrus County is surrounded by natural waterways, the
amount of water under us is directly related to the use of water
for lawns. Thus, unrestricted lawn watering, whether from a
private irrigation well or public utility is a luxury, not a
necessity.

County commissioners, therefore, are urged to reinforce the
message that conservation matters by addressing demand as the
root cause of water overuse — not the protestations of a few who
only see green lawns and not the water under all of us.

Duke Energy ‘All-In’ On Solar
Power. New Florida Solar Farms
Will Install 3-Millionth Solar
Panel

Stew   Lilker
of        the

Columbia
County
Observer

With the large and steady influx in new residents in Florida,
idle land is becoming more and more rare. As industries go,
solar is much more environmentally sound than most, plus it
reduces the need for fossil fuels. In addition, it is land that
will not be used by developers, the single most destructive
industry in Florida.

We welcome more solar, even though we have surprisingly seen
unexpected pushback and Alachua County commissioners even nixed
one site citing “environmental justice” issues.

Our thanks to Stew Lilker and the Columbia County Observer for
permission to re-post this article.

Duke Energy ‘All-In’ On Solar Power.
New Florida Solar Farms Will Install
3-Millionth Solar Panel
Posted July 23, 2021   05:30 am

Photo: Duke Energy   |   Columbia County Observer Graphic

ST. PETERSBURG, FL – On Wednesday, July 21, Duke Energy Florida
announced the locations of its four newest solar power plants –
the latest move in the company’s program to expand its renewable
generation portfolio.

        Columbia Cnty’s Econ. Dev. Dir.
Glenn Hunter:

“Columbia County understands the value of renewable green energy
and tries to attract green industries.

We are happy that we were the home of Duke’s millionth solar
panel and are part of its “Smarter Energy Future.”

We are glad to be part of the program which looks to preserve
the County’s and Florida’s unique environment.”

Duke Energy Florida state president Melissa Seixas said,
“We continue investing in utility-scale solar in Florida because
our customers deserve a cleaner energy future. These solar
plants are the latest milestones in our strategy to deliver
reliable, cost-effective, clean energy to our customers.”

Duke Energy Florida plans to invest an estimated $1 billion in
10 new solar power plants across Florida, including the four
sites announced today.

Construction on the four sites will begin in early 2022 and will
take approximately 9 to 12 months to complete. Construction of
all 10 sites is projected to be finished by late 2024.

Combined, the plants will produce about 750 megawatts (MW) of
new, cost-effective solar power.

The four new sites:
• The Hildreth Solar Power Plant will be built on 635 acres in
Suwannee County, Fla. Once operational, the 74.9-MW facility
will consist of approximately 220,000 single-axis tracking
bifacial solar panels. Its innovative double-sided panel design
is highly efficient and tracks the movement of the sun. The
plant will be capable of effectively producing enough
electricity to power approximately 23,000 average-sized homes at
peak production.

• The Bay Ranch Solar Power Plant will be built on 645 acres in
Bay County, Fla. The 74.9-MW plant will consist of approximately
220,000 single-axis bifacial tracking solar panels that will
produce enough carbon-free energy to effectively power more than
23,000 average-sized homes at peak production. Its innovative
double-sided panel design is highly efficient and tracks the

movement of the sun.

• The Hardeetown Solar Power Plant will be built on 650 acres in
Levy County, Fla. Once operational, the 74.9-MW facility will
consist of approximately 218,000 single-axis bifacial tracking
solar panels. Its double-sided panel design is highly efficient
and tracks the movement of the sun.

• The High Springs Solar Power Plant is proposed to be built on
700 acres in Alachua County, Fla. Once operational, the 74.9-MW
facility will consist of approximately 216,000 single-axis
tracking solar panels. The plant will be capable of effectively
producing enough electricity to power approximately 23,000
average-sized homes at peak production.

$2 Billion Plus Invested
Five-Million Solar Panels by 2024
Duke Energy’s solar generation portfolio represents more than $2
billion of investment, about 1,500-MW of emission-free
generation and approximately five million solar panels in the
ground by 2024.

The company currently has more than 900-MW of solar generation
under construction or in operation in Florida.

Building A Smarter Energy Future®
Duke Energy Florida is a leader in advancing clean energy in
Florida.

Earlier this year, the company announced two other new solar
sites:

• Construction is underway at the Bay Trail Solar Power Plant,
sited on 500 acres in Citrus County, Fla. Once operational, the
74.9-MW facility will consist of approximately 197,000 tracking

bifacial solar panels. Its innovative double-sided panel design
is highly efficient and tracks the movement of the sun.

• The Fort Green Solar Power Plant is being mobilized on 500
acres in Hardee County, Fla. The 74.9-MW plant will consist of
approximately 265,000 bifacial solar panels, utilizing a fixed-
tilt racking system.

Each plant will be capable of effectively producing enough
electricity to power approximately 23,000 average-sized homes at
peak production.

Installation of Three-Millionth Solar Panel
on the Way
Once both sites are finished, the Bay Trail and Fort Green solar
power plants will help Duke Energy Florida complete the
installation of its three-millionth solar panel in Florida.

The Gas Plant That Wasn’t

Crystal River powerplant and export channel into the Gulf.

Mystery and doubt are two words that can be ascribed to this
issue. We have learned that big-money companies, especially in
situations where there may be controversy, competition or
difficulties, often work covertly and this filters on down to
include those public agencies required for completion.    Very
especially to those individuals who may take money or benefits
from the industry’s lobbyists.

Let’s put it this way — we do not trust Strom nor their agents
nor any state agencies who may speak to the issue.

LNG is an unnecessary danger to the public and to the
environment. It is not a “bridge fuel” because, while it may
burn cleaner, its production entails environmental pollution

sufficient to override cleaner burning.

Following is some information from Global Energy Monitor Wiki:

 Project Details
       Owner: Strom, Inc.
       Parent: Two sole stockholders: CEO Michael Lokey and
       President Dean Wallace
       Location: Crystal River (or Starke), Florida, United
       States
       Coordinates: 28.900556, -82.593611 (approximate)
       Capacity: 7 billion cubic feet per year (0.01917 billion

       cubic feet per day)[1]
       Status: Proposed
       Type: Export
       Start Year: Unknown

 Note: mtpa = million tonnes per year; bcfd = billion cubic feet
 per day

 Background
 Strom LNG Terminal is a proposed portable LNG terminal in

 Florida, United States.[1] In February of 2014, Strom asked the
 Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission for an exemption from
 regulatory oversight, arguing that they planned to use portable
 technology for LNG production rather than constructing a
 terminal, and that portable LNG technology is exempt from FERC

 jurisdiction as it is not a terminal. [2] The Office of Fossil
 Energy gave notice that Strom, Inc. filed an application
 seeking long-term multi-contract authorization to export LNG to

 Non Free Trade Agreement countries in May of 2015.[3] Though it

appears Strom’s applications are still active, the status of
 the project is unclear.

Read the original article here in the Tampa Bay Times.

jim.tatum@oursantaferiver.org
– A river is like a life: once taken,
it cannot be brought back © Jim Tatum

The gas plant that wasn’t

A “ghost company” planned to transport
volatile fuel through Port Tampa Bay.
BY MALENA CAROLLO AND JAY CRIDLIN

Wed. July 21, 2021

Times Staff Writers

The Tampa Port Authority’s June board meeting started like
always, with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Then came
the call for public comments.

Most port board meetings feature one or two speakers, if any.
This one had nine, queued up both on Zoom and in person. All had
the same concern: an April report to the U.S. Department of
Energy filed by a fuel company called Strom Inc.

Seven years ago, Strom obtained a license from the federal
government and has quietly pursued a plan to move a fuel called

“liquified natural gas,” or LNG, from a 174-acre facility in
Crystal River to one of Florida’s ports via truck or train. Its
April report indicated that Port Tampa Bay has tentatively
agreed to be its choice.

The fuel is a form of natural gas that is cooled to become a
liquid. It is most often used in countries that don’t have
infrastructure to extract and transport the gas form of the
energy source. Opponents say the fuel can be dangerous to
transport, calling rail shipments “bomb trains,” and should bear
public discussion before a decision is reached to move it
through a city. That’s what prompted the cavalcade of speakers
at the port.

Their questions came as a surprise to port leaders, because as
one official told the speakers: Port Tampa Bay has no agreement
with Strom. It is not negotiating with Strom. And it has no
plans to export liquefied natural gas of any kind.

In fact, much of the information Strom has provided to the
federal government about its efforts to produce and export
liquefied natural gas, the

Tampa Bay Times   found, is outdated by years.

Not only does Strom have no agreement with Port Tampa Bay, it
has no investors or outside backing, no natural gas supplier and
does not own the Crystal River property on which it told the
Department of Energy it plans to start building a production
facility this year.

“It’s kind of like a ghost company,” said Don Taylor, president
of the Economic Development Authority for Citrus County, who
years ago worked with Strom as the company pursued economic
incentives to build in Crystal River. “They just kind of
disappeared, and we never heard from them again.”

In an email to the Tampa Bay Times , Dean Wallace, Strom’s
president and co-founder of its parent company, Glauben Besitz,
LLC, called the discrepancies in its Department of Energy
filings “mistakes” that “will be corrected.”

“Our plans have not been finalized and will not be until we are
fully funded,” Wallace wrote.

That uncertainty is what concerns Michelle Allen, southern
region deputy director for environmental group Food & Water
Watch, which has long monitored the company’s federal filings
and organized the speakers at Port Tampa Bay.

“This has all been so unclear to the public, and that’s really
the problem here,” Allen said. “It called into question exactly
what Strom’s plan is.”

• • •

Liquefied natural gas is often viewed as a “bridge fuel” to
renewable energy sources, according to Fred Millar, an
independent Washington, D.C.-based policy consultant and expert.
That has led to a rush of companies seeking licenses to export
it to fuel-hungry countries such as China, and the Department of
Energy approving scores of applications.

And while it’s typically moved by truck and ship, the federal
government started allowing rail transportation last year. A
single train car can transport double or triple the amount of
fuel that a tanker truck can. The federal government
commissioned a study to examine the safety of this method, which
is currently underway.

Millar, who has frequently spoken about the dangers it can pose,
said the fuel is highly combustible, making it a potential
hazard and even a target for terrorist attacks.

“It is such a concentrated source of energy,” Millar said. “Once
it gets out, it boils furiously into a dense vapor cloud, and
the vapor cloud can then move downwind or downhill.”

Strom was founded in Clearwater in 2013, according to state
business records. It sought to draw natural gas from a nearby
pipeline to an industrial production facility at 6700
Tallahassee Road, just west of N Suncoast Boulevard in Crystal
River. It would liquefy the gas and ship it to buyers in China
and potentially Latin America and the Caribbean beginning in
late 2022, according to its April Department of Energy filing.

In past federal reports, Strom has said it “has had productive
negotiations with Tampa Electric Co.” and was given “very
competitive pricing” to transport the gas to its Crystal River
facility.

But Strom does not own the land at the address it gave the
Department of Energy, and its owner, Steve Lamb, said he hasn’t
been in communication with the company for years.

Likewise, Tampa Electric’s sister company, Peoples Gas, the
largest gas distributor in the state, does not have any current
contract or agreement with Strom, according to spokesperson
Sylvia Vega. Vega said Peoples Gas is not familiar with Strom,
and Tampa Electric itself does not supply gas.

On the other end of Strom’s proposed transportation route, Port
Tampa Bay has been out of touch with Strom for years.

A “non-binding letter of intent” obtained by the Tampa Bay Times
through a public records request shows the port in 2014 agreed
to lease 11 acres of land to Strom for a liquefied natural gas
storage and loading facility. It would export about 1.5 million
gallons of the fuel per day.

The agreement expired when Strom failed to sign a formal lease
with the port within 60 days, as required by the letter. Despite
this, Strom’s April Department of Energy filing still said it
has a “tentative agreement” with the port.

Strom also looked at deals with Port Jacksonville and Port
Manatee. The company told Port Manatee officials it would build
an above-ground pipe from a rail terminus to a storage facility,
and on to a shipping tank, according to emails with port
officials obtained through a public records request.

“They say they are interested in selecting a site within a
month, and to start production of their bulk facility in 90 (to)
120 days, very aggressive indeed,” said Matty Appice, Port
Manatee’s senior director of trade development and sales, wrote
in a 2014 email.

Later in 2016, Strom officials tried to reopen negotiations with
Port Manatee, writing in emails obtained through a public
records request that they would be making a final decision on
the port “in the coming weeks.” Strom never did reach an
agreement with Port Manatee.

Strom’s most extensive negotiations were with Citrus County.
Back in 2014, the company reached a tentative agreement with the
now-dissolved Citrus County Port Authority, and inquired about
potential economic incentives to build there, saying the
facility would “directly create” more than 100 jobs in the
county, with a potential statewide economic impact of more than
$200 billion.

Things stalled when the Citrus County Commission began looking
into which federal agency would have jurisdiction over Strom’s
proposed facility. During that time, Strom failed to pay a
required $24,000 federal filing fee that, among other things,
would have had the federal government determine this.

The project’s location may have been doomed from the start,
however.

In an email obtained through a public records request, Citrus
County administrator Randy Oliver wrote that Duke Energy Florida
was planning a power grid substation near the proposed facility.
“It is not in Duke’s interest to have any kind of” liquefied
natural gas facility nearby, and “the transportation grid and
pipeline configuration do not support this location.”

“I can guarantee that no such facility will be constructed at
that location,” Oliver wrote.

• • •

Any information Strom submits in its semi-annual reports is
required to be the most current information available, according
to a statement from the Department of Energy. If anything
requires correction, it needs to submit that in the subsequent
report, which for Strom would come in October.

While Strom still files those reports twice a year, neither it
nor Glauben Besitz are currently listed as active companies in
Florida. Both were dissolved by the state of Florida in 2019
after they failed to file a required annual report. Strom and
Glauben Besitz no longer occupy any of the addresses they’ve
listed on state business records, including offices in Ybor
City, Tampa’s Rivergate Tower and a home address in Sebring.

The only remaining traces of Strom being active are its
Department of Energy reports. Each is signed by Wallace, the
Strom president.

Through a representative, Wallace declined a phone interview.
But he did answer detailed questions via email.

Wallace characterized Strom as “a very small pre-revenue

company” with no board, investors or financial backing outside
of friends and family.

At one point, Strom had backers with a name familiar to some in
Tampa Bay: Michael Lokey, whose family started Clearwater’s
Lokey Automotive Group. Lokey co-founded Strom and served as its
chief executive, according to state business filings and a
website for the company. His father, Tom Lokey, was involved in
the Citrus County negotiations, representing the “real estate
interests of Strom,” he wrote in a pair of 2015 emails to Citrus
officials.

Wallace said Michael Lokey left the company “a few years ago.”
The younger Lokey did not respond to multiple calls and emails
for comment.

Wallace maintained that Strom still plans to purchase and build
on that 174-acre Crystal River property. His tentative purchase
agreement “does not have a sunset clause” and he plans to
“reengage with the owner on this issue.” He said the timeline
Strom gave in April — pre-production in 2021, full operation by
late 2022 — was “aggressive but accurate.” Now, he said, “we
will update the dates in our next filing,” as well as any
potentially outdated information.

“Building a business,” he said, “is not easy.”

None of this has totally satisfied liquefied natural gas
opponents’ concerns over Strom’s long-standing plans.

On July 13, Food & Water Watch sent an open letter to Port
Authority Chairperson Chad Harrod, Mayor Jane Castor, U.S. Rep.
Kathy Castor and others urging the port to “issue a written
public statement refuting the company’s statements that will
further assure Tampa residents that dangerous (liquefied natural
gas) will not be transported through the city to the port for

export.”

Later that day, port spokesperson Lisa Wolf-Chason reiterated
what port officials said in June.

“Port Tampa Bay staff does not believe that the proposed
transport of (liquefied natural gas) through the port is
feasible in Port Tampa Bay,” Wolf-Chason said in an email, “nor
would it meet regulatory approval … and does not foresee any
such use in the future.”

Wallace, however, is keeping all doors open.

“Until we are fully funded,” he said, “no decision has been
made.”

Contact Malena Carollo at mcarollo@tampabay.com or 727-892-2249.
Follow    @malenacarollo.       Contact    Jay    Cridlin     at
cridlin@tampabay.com or 727-893-8336. Follow @JayCridlin

U.S. House passes PFAS bill
regulating ‘forever chemicals’
in drinking water–

Republican U.S. Reps. Matt Gaetz, Brian Mast and Bill Posey
joined Democrats in voting for the bill. Nice surprise. We
also have expectations for the Senate.    How could they not
support this? Did the lobbyists back away? Run out of funds?

Read the original article here in   the Florida Phoenix.

Comments by OSFR historian Jim Tatum.
jim.tatum@oursantaferiver.org
– A river is like a life: once taken,
it cannot be brought back © Jim Tatum

WASHINGTON—The U.S. House Wednesday passed bipartisan
legislation that would regulate toxic chemicals found in
drinking water, as well as designate two types of those toxic
chemicals as hazardous substances that would spark federal
cleanup standards.

The bill, H.R. 2467, also known as the PFAS Action Act of 2021,
passed 241-183, with 23 Republicans joining Democrats in voting
for it.

In the Florida delegation, Republican U.S. Reps. Matt Gaetz,
Brian Mast and Bill Posey joined Democrats in voting for the
bill.

The legislation would direct EPA to start the regulatory process
for regulating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in
drinking water and making the decision on whether to set
drinking water standards for certain types of PFAS or to
regulate the entire class, which ranges from 5,000 to 7,000
substances.

Rep. Debbie Dingell, (D-Mich.), said on the House floor. “NowC h
almost every American has PFAS coursing through their bloode m
after generations of using the chemicals.”                   ic
                                                             al
                                                             co
                                                             mp
                                                             an
                                                             ie
                                                             s
                                                             su
                                                             ch
                                                             as
                                                             Du
                                                             Po
                                                             nt
                                                             an
                                                             d
                                                             Do
                                                             w
                                                             Ch
                                                             em
                                                             ic
                                                             al
                                                             al

on
g
wi
th
ot
he
r
bu
si
ne
ss
es
us
ed
th
e
so
-
ca
ll
ed
fo
re
ve
r
ch
em
ic
al
s
to
ma
ke
no

ns
ti
ck
co
ok
wa
re
,
wa
te
rp
ro
of
cl
ot
hi
ng
,
Sc
ot
ch
ga
rd
an
d
ot
he
r
co
ns
um
er
pr
od

uc
                                                             ts
                                                             .

Dingell, along with Rep. Fred Upton, (R-Mich.), has worked
to garner bipartisan support for the bill. Similar PFAS
legislation passed the House last year by a 247-159 vote, with
24 Republicans joining Democrats.

That bill then died in a Republican-controlled Senate. Senate
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.), has not publicly stated
whether he will bring the bill passed by the House on Wednesday
to the Senate floor for a vote and there is currently no Senate
version of it.

The Biden administration did issue a statement of administration
policy in support of passage of the House measure.

“Addressing these ‘forever chemicals’ remains one of the most
complex environmental challenges of our day due to the number of
chemicals, the impacts on human health, and the widespread use
of PFAS and their ubiquity in the environment,” the statement
said.

“The Administration looks forward to working with   the Congress
to ensure that these actions are taken in a         thoughtful,
transparent, and timely manner and are supported     by the best
science to restore confidence in our efforts to      protect the
health of the American people.”

Studies have linked PFAS contamination to various health
problems such as high cholesterol, thyroid disease, and
testicular and kidney cancer.

Upton said that while the bill was not perfect, it was a start
to regulating the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.

“It needs to see a number of constructive changes before it
reaches the president’s desk,” he said.

“The Pentagon’s not going to prioritize cleanup of these
military sites until these chemicals are listed as the hazardous
substances that they are,” Dingell said.The Michigan lawmakers
have pushed for two of the most studied PFAS, perfluorooctanoic
acid, or PFOA, and perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, to be
listed as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or the
Superfund law, so that federal cleanup standards can be applied
to military installations that have PFAS contamination.

In Michigan alone, there are at least 10 military bases with
PFAS contamination, but the Department of Defense has been
hesitant to initiate cleanup as it does not have to follow state
law. However, with the Superfund designation, the Department of
Defense would be required to start cleaning up those sites.

Local leaders and community activists have expressed their
frustration with DOD stalling cleanup sites during several
congressional hearings. The Environmental Working Group, a
nonprofit organization that specializes in research and advocacy
work around agriculture, pollutants, and corporate
accountability, has found PFAS contamination in more than 2,800
communities, including 2,411 drinking water systems and 328
military installations across the country.

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, (D-Mich.), said on the House floor
Wednesday that Michiganders “are concerned about increasing
levels of PFAS and other toxic chemicals that we’re continuing
to find in our drinking water.”

House Majority leader Steny Hoyer, (D-Md.), said that every
House lawmaker should be concerned about PFAS contamination.

“It affects my district and every single congressional district
in our country is affected by PFAS,” he said on the House floor.
“The bill ensures that EPA finally takes measures to prevent
future releases of PFAS into our environment and clean them up
where such contamination has occurred.”

Republicans who voted against the bill argued that Congress
should not force EPA to craft regulations, and lawmakers should
let the agency develop standards on its own. They also said that
the bill would burden water utility systems and could leave
those businesses open for possible liability.

States Newsroom has reported that local water utilities
have stepped up their lobbying efforts in the nation’s capital
to push for exemptions from Superfund designation, citing fears
of liability over PFAS contamination in drinking water.

Rep. Tim Walberg, (R-Mich.) also argued that water utilities
would be held liable for Superfund cleanup and that there are
several provisions in the bill that EPA is currently in the
process of completing on its own.

“Make no mistake, I believe this is a serious problem,” he said
on the House floor. “But the bill before us today, although
severely well intended, goes too far. It represents the largest
expansion of regulatory authority at the EPA or perhaps any
federal agency in decades.”

Rep. John Joyce, (R-Penn.), argued that using a hazardous
designation for the chemicals “has the potential to slow down
the cleanup process of PFAS and divert resources from current
high priority public health issues.”

Joyce said that Congress should not interfere and should “let
government agencies do their work.”