Flagler Estates Concerned Citizens, Inc.

To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last--but eat you he will.: Ronald Reagan

Flagler Estates Concerned Citizens, Inc.
Hastings, FL 32145
Administrator@flaglerestatesconcernedcitizens.org

FAQs

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Over the past several months, the FECC has done extensive investigation into the issues that are the basis of the tax assessment escalation. Much of this information was gathered from professionals in public forums. While almost all the information is public record, the names of the sources have not been included. We implore the Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District Board of Supervisors to undertake their own investigation. They owe the community due diligence. Our resources include regional water management experts and engineers, conservation experts, legal and political entities. Many professionals are government related and some are independent.

We have been told that the entire drainage basin has grown. Can such a thing happen?
The Board said the size of the basin had NOT changed. The FERWCD system was draining the same amount of territory it did when it was designed. Short answer NO.
Will the 16-Mile Creek Storm Water Treatment Facility have any direct impact on flooding in FE? It is my understanding that it will use larger box culverts and have a 16 acre holding pond. How rapidly could that fill and, once full, where would water go?
A Stormwater Treatment Facility will treat stormwater. It will not address flooding. The 16 acre retention area will not hold enough water to have hardly any impact on flooding. In fact, it will be pretty ineffective as a treatment facility because it will treat very little run-off at all. The fact is, a retention area should encompass a minimum of 10% of the watershed area it services in order to be effective.
It must be noted that a reference to the fact that Ashley/16 Treatment Facility was only part of a 3 part plan and that, the entire plan should have some positive benefit.
I said that I am not disputing whether the entire plan is a good one. The problem is that the community cannot afford it and that the Road and Drainage District is not equipped or designed to manage a facility of this size. We are seeking more practical solutions to our problems.
The JE& A engineering survey was mentioned. In their Action Plan, some interesting recommendations were made. For example, the HWY. 13 bridge needs to be replaced. It could be engineered in such a manner as to facilitate water out of FE more effectively. This matter keeps getting cut from the budget. A name for contact was given for a SJC rep. who knows about this and other recommendations made by JE&A Action Plan.
They are talking about flood gates that would stop the water from coming in during an event when the tide is up and the water reverses in Deep Creek from the St. John’s River. Would that not cause flooding elsewhere, like in Hastings or HDD?
The idea of flood gates was “LUDICROUS”. If we are talking about any kind of rain event, the retention area would quickly fill and the water would come right over the top of the gates. Maybe they are talking about a dam. They also wondered about the idea of pumping water upstream. Very inefficient and expensive.
Would a mitigation area on the south end of Deep/16 Mile Creek be beneficial to everyone downstream? There are more than 1,900 acres that cannot be used for anything. How does one go about creating such a thing?
A mitigation area on the south end will have very little impact on the flooding situation because FE flooding is more linked to the tidal nature of Deep Creek and the St. John’s River.
FE was built before the retention pond requirement. Does it make sense to encourage residents to voluntarily dig retention areas to help reduce flooding?
MS4 is the requirement that applies now but did not apply when FE was created. This is why it will be more difficult for places like FE to meet TMDL requirements.
Retention ponds are always a good idea, as is routing water different ways to slow the flow to the creek (There was a question about whether the risers built into the FE system had ever been replaced to insure proper function and that they function as designed.)

How much do farmers actually pollute? My research indicates they are highly regulated and are using slow-release nitrogen and no phosphorous fertilizers.
The farmers are heavily regulated and use Best Management Practices. They are “encouraged to adopt voluntary practices in order to earn a ‘presumption of compliance’ status. If they do not, they must justify why and take actions to offset any impacts. They are heavily monitored.
TMDLs. I understand that they will begin to regulate them in 5 years and that IFAS in Hastings has just begun to establish criteria to determine what is “normal”. We are hearing that FE will get fined $10,000 per day if we do not build the Ashley Project.
TMDLs are established and the TMDL regulations are coming and will effect everyone in the tri-county area and will cost everyone a lot of money. To quote the farmer “I’m glad somebody else’s ox is getting gored, for a change.” The implication being that the farmers have been getting gored for quite some time.
The engineer talked about selling phosphorous that is recovered from storm water treatment. Is this a profitable enterprise? Will private business be eager to come in and make money?
There is big money in phosphorous. They mine it in the Lakeland area. The problem is that the process of recovering phosphorous from a treatment facility the size we are talking about would be cost prohibitive and the amount recovered would barely be enough for recycling use. The phosphorous is heavily bound up chemically. We have much iron, calcium and aluminum in our soil.
It was clarified that it was phosphorous credits that would be sold. Again, it would not be enough to have much impact.
Are there other best management practices that could address erosion and pollution issues?
I was referred to IFAS Extension Office.
Do the trees that have grown up by the Highway 13 Bridge impede flow? Is there a remedy for this? What kind of permit would be needed?
If the Highway 13 Bridge project was done, they would clear the area they need to perform the work. They could not think of a reason the area could not be cleared in order to help with flow. A permit may be required but it should not be too difficult to secure.
We were told for years that the Army Corps of Engineers are the only ones who can clear (drag and snag) Deep Creek. Is that true and how do we get them to do it?
There was discussion of doing this years ago. They were not sure about what happened.
A possible solution was suggested that we widen the Creek, which is really a canal. That might upset waterfront owners.
They said there should be no reason we could not return the canal to the original design. A permit may be required but it should not be that hard to do. They noted that it could be expensive and cost millions.
So will the Ashley Outfall Project. The difference is that dredging will actually help alleviate flooding.
It was noted that they would put the dirt in my front yard.
The Army Corps should not need to be involved with the dredging of 16 Mile Creek.
These are issues that were discussed but I am not sure exactly when they occurred during our conversation but, I still think they are noteworthy.
It was agreed that the Ashley/16 Project could possibly show the regulating powers some good will on the compliance front.
The issue of wetlands and the DEP in FE came up. Their recollection was that some FE properties were developed in very inappropriate areas. The DEP got onto SJC about issuing permits when they should not.
I remember the incident that set DEP in motion very well. Buzzy had set up a property on WDC and had put in a drainage pipe directly to the main canal. M.K. told the Board that he could report it to the DEP but they might be opening a big can of worms. They might want to think twice about doing it. The Board decided they would rather “Get Buzzy”.
The report was filed and Pandora’s box opened and the wetlands in FE was born. I must give M.K. credit where credit is due for calling that one.

It must be noted that, during the discussion, a Board member said, if you have a persuasive enough person, they can basically sell a project to just about anyone and make the numbers say whatever they want to support their point of view.

These responses are from another source and is included to further validate information.

Can you verify the existence and availability of the $4000 permit?

I’m not sure to which permit you are referring, but the application fee for an individual environmental resource permit (ERP) is $4,500. A complete copy of our permit fee list can be found at the following link: https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/feelist.jsp. Although the work you described would probably require an individual ERP, the type of ERP required would depend on the specific work proposed in the application.,

Even the FERWCD Board was ready to vote in favor of the box culvert permit but, for some reason, the engineer discouraged the vote. Is there more to the box culvert issue than was presented at the FERWCD meeting?

In order to issue a permit, the SJRWMD would need reasonable assurance that the project would not have any adverse water quality or quantity impacts on areas downstream of FERWCD. Unfortunately, since I was not at the meeting, I’m not sure what was presented, but I would be happy to meet with you to go over any permitting scenarios associated with proposed work within the FERWCD. We would also be happy to meet with you or representatives from FERWCD to discuss what the water quality treatment requirements would be for any specific project and discuss permitting requirements of any smaller versions of the project that may be able to provide flood relief without causing water quality or quantity issues downstream from FERWCD.

The last time we corresponded, you indicated that SJRWMD had NO intention of partnering with the FERWCD on the project in question. Is this still the case?

At the scale of the proposed project proposed in 2008, we wouldn’t consider cost-sharing. The SJRWMD met with Flagler Estates RWCD and St. Johns County staff in August/September and communicated the we would could consider a cost-share effort when a project reached the regional scale (sufficient nutrient reduction) and we requested that St. Johns County take the lead with Flagler Estates RWCD.

Why can't the eroded dirt be retrieved from the drainage canals? This would return the canals closer to their design capacity and eliminate the need to throw additional sediment into the system.

If sediment has built up within the canals, it may be able to be removed to original construction specifications as maintenance with appropriate erosion and sediment control measures. This would depend on the amount of excavation proposed. If the dirt is contaminated, FDEP would make the determination as to how the dirt could be used. Our compliance manager, would be able to set up any required meetings with FERWCD representatives to review any permitting requirements of proposed work within the canals.

Web Hosting by Yahoo!

Flagler Estates Concerned Citizens, Inc.
Hastings, FL 32145
Administrator@flaglerestatesconcernedcitizens.org