Does Gov. Scott deserve to be ‘Red Tide Rick’?
Gov. Rick Scott is trying to stop Florida’s red tide from turning into a blue wave in November.
Democrats have seized on the images of heaps of rotting fish and health warnings at beaches to highlight Scott’s record of slashing funding for water management districts and repealing environmental regulations governing septic tanks.
The red tide — one of the worst to hit Florida in decades — has reached both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts for the first time since the 1990s, closing some South Florida beaches and devastating marine life on the southwest coast.
Now, it’s a major issue in the race for U.S. Senate. Scott is leaving office because of term limits, taking on incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson. Democrats have sought to
brand Scott as “Red Tide Rick,” while Scott’s administration has reiterated that the algae blooms have happened regularly in the past.
Here’s what we know about Scott’s environmental record.
Is Rick Scott to blame for the red tide?
Red tide was observed hundreds of years ago when Spanish explorers first came to Florida, but scientists say pollution from farms, septic tanks and nutrientrich water in Lake Okeechobee could be making the problem worse.
The crisis plaguing Florida’s coasts has been decades in the making, said Stephen Leatherman, a coastal environmental scientist at Florida International University.
“It’s time to pay the piper and clean this stuff up,” said Leatherman, who is known as Dr. Beach for his annual beach rankings. “I can’t blame Rick Scott or Jeb Bush or Bob Graham. I can’t blame any of those people. It’s a long-term problem.”
But Scott’s environmental policies may have contributed.
What is Scott’s environmental record?
Shortly after taking office in 2011, Scott-appointed members of the state’s five water management boards cut their budgets by a collective $700 million. The South Florida Water Management District, the agency that
works on Everglades restoration and advises the Army Corps of Engineers on Lake Okeechobee discharges, had its budget slashed nearly in half, forcing it lay off more than 100 people.
At the time, Scott took credit for the cuts and hailed the reduction as a way to protect the state’s waters in the “most fiscally responsible way possible.” He also signed legislation that capped the amount in property taxes water management districts could collect.
“This property tax cut allows families and businesses to use more of their hard-earned money in the way they see best, rather than having to send it to a government agency,” Scott said in a news release in 2011.
While the average residential taxpayer saved about $20 to $30 a year, environmentalists say the cuts weakened protections for the state’s wetlands, springs and rivers threatened by pollution.
Some of that funding has been restored, but water district budgets are still about $400 million less than when Scott took office, according to an analysis by the fact-checking outfit Politifact.
During his first term, Scott also supported repealing a 2010 law requiring septic tanks to be inspected once every five years. The move saved septic tank owners the cost of the inspection (about $150 to $500), along with the possible expense of replacing a leaky tank. But environmentalists say those leaky tanks are helping fuel algae blooms.
Scott and the Republican-controlled Legislature abolished the Department of Community Affairs, a state agency that reviewed development plans, on the grounds that it produced too much red tape and killed jobs.
Scott has dodged questions on climate change, saying he’s “not a scientist.”
What are Scott’s environmental highlights?
During the first Senate debate in Miramar on Tuesday, Scott defended his environmental record, referencing legislation he signed during his second term that provides $50 million annually to protect springs and $200 million a year for Everglades restoration.
Last year, Scott signed a budget that included $1.7 billion for the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, an increase from $1.4 billion in the previous spending plan. Critics accused Scott of being an “election-year environmentalist.”
How has Scott responded to the red tide?
The governor’s office released a list detailing how Scott has responded to the red tide, which has been plaguing the southwest coast of Florida for about a year.
Scott declared a state of emergency in August, and more than $16 million in state funds have been allocated to help minimize the harmful effects. His office announced Thursday $3 million will go to St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties to address red tide.
The state has also provided $2.2 million to test technologies to mitigate red tide, $1.2 million to assist fish hatcheries and $500,000 to help offset tourism losses.
Critics say that funding is too little, too late.
“(It) will pay people to pick up dead fish off the beach but it is not going to begin to address the underlying problem,” said John Capece, an agricultural engineer with the nonprofit environmental group Calusa Waterkeeper.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates red tide can cause tens of millions of dollars in economic losses.
What about Nelson and the ‘guacamole-thick’ green algae ?
Scott has pointed blame at his opponent, saying Nelson didn’t do enough during his three terms in the Senate to improve the Herbert Hoover Dike that holds back the waters of Lake Okeechobee
Decades of pollution from cattle ranches, farms and neighborhoods as far north as Orlando have fouled the lake, and the guacamole-like, algae-laden water is discharged to the Treasure Coast and the Gulf Coast to relieve pressure on the dike. Scientists say nutrient-rich discharges from the lake could also worsen the red tide.
Scott says he worked with President Donald Trump to secure federal funding for the project, which also will include state funding of $100 million.
But environmentalists point to decades of overdevelopment and lax regulation of agriculture, saying the state never forced farms, cities and other sources of phosphorus to reduce it sufficiently to allow the lake to recover.
While improving the dike could protect Floridians from a breach, environmentalists have questioned whether it will solve the green algae crisis.