Kingfisher Follow-Up - 05/23/13

The city and residents who live along the Kingfisher Canal have struck a deal, agreeing to a package of "ten steps to improve and maintain the overall health of the Kingfisher waterway both visually and systemically." While not all of the steps may be attainable, I'll leave that discussion to the experts and confine my comments to the public-policy issues.

In this regard, it's instructive to see a friendly, collaborative effort between the residents and the city, which led to this agreement. This has not always been the case over the past two or three decades, when the city and citizens were at virtual war over important issues. With respect to the inland canals specifically, prior to 1986, the city took a "hands-off" position. Fort Lauderdale, apparently, was the first coastal city in this area to acknowledge a public interest in maintaining its canals.

Irrespective of canal ownership, the city has a compelling interest in keeping all of the inland waterways which connect to the ICW and Hillsboro Canal in near-perfect condition to the extent practical. This includes navigability, because the ability of adjacent and nearby residents to get their boats up and down the canals is an integral part of their quality of life which should always be a central concern to public officials.

Who Craps in the Kingfisher? - 05/15/13

For decades, people who live along the inland canals — particularly in the Cove section of this city — have complained about dirty water, fecal matter, and accumulation of bottom material which impedes navigation. In 1986, the city launched an ambitious five-year project, which included dredging and longer-term maintenance of the canals, at an estimated cost of $185,000. Jean Robb was mayor at the time.

Inland canals are a feature of South Florida; and while some neighboring towns had already taken over maintenance of the (mostly) privately-owned canals by 1986, for Deerfield Beach, this was a departure from previous practice. City Manager J. Eldon Mariott explained to reporters, "Up to now ... city officials have considered such a problem the responsibility of property owners living next to a clogged canal, unless the city somehow was responsible."

An official of the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) informed us, as a general proposition, "The responsibility for the [inland] canals ... falls either to the City if they are public rights-of-way, or more likely to the homeowners that are located along each waterway. In many instances of private canals along the ICW [Intracoastal Waterway], homeowner groups or organizations will collect special assessments or fees for canal maintenance and improvements." (Email from from Mark Crosley, Assistant Executive Director, Florida Inland Navigation District, to Pam Militello, May 9, 2013.)

Despite the city's efforts, complaints by some residents continued and continue to this day, which could possibly lead to a renewed dredging project funded by city taxpayers.

There are two related but also distinct issues involved in the current controversy: (1) the responsibility of the city to maintain navigability of the canals and (2) the responsibility of the city to maintain water quality.

If the canals are privately owned, then the first issue seems to resolve itself more as a political question than a legal one. A lot of potential voters live along those canals, and the city most likely has the authority to dredge the canals at taxpayer expense.

The second issue is rather more complex, especially if the city plays a major role in polluting the canals.

A study by the Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection (DNRP), issued in Jan. 1998, concluded that the city's storm-water drainage into the Kingfisher Canal may be a source of pollution. The study found elevated levels of nitrates in the canal which could be attributable to the city's outflow pipe at the western end of the canal. Nitrates are a nutrient which can accelerate the growth of algae. This process is called eutrophication, a natural process common in closed-end canals, but a process which can be further accelerated by human activity.

The Kingfisher Canal begins near Federal Highway (close to the Target store). The straight line distance between the western end of the canal and the point where it connects to the Intracoastal is 3,642 feet, or roughly seven-tenths of a mile. The canal is wide enough for small boat navigation.

The Kingfisher Canal (lower part of image) viewed from approximately one-mile altitude. The Tern, also referenced in the DNRP report, is the L-shaped canal in the upper part of the image.

A frequently heard complaint is the appearance of fecal matter in the canal. Sounds disgusting and invokes images of turds floating down the canal, inviting the facetious question in the title of this article. However, the DNRP report offered three more realistic explanations. One is possible cross-contamination of storm-water drainage with raw sewage, a possibility which warranted further investigation. The DNRP identified a couple of possible sources of cross-contamination which were ostensibly corrected.

Another possible explanation is animal waste washed into the canal by rainfall. The report noted this is a common problem in all inland canals in Broward County. There appears to be no practical solution, unless we can potty train the birds and squirrels that inhabit our city.

The "more likely" explanation is that the "fecal matter" which people claim to see in the Kingfisher is not fecal matter. The report concluded: "Reports of fecal matter are more likely due to the presence of algae mats on the canal bottom that are occasionally disrupted by atmospheric conditions. These mats may serve a media for the regeneration of bacteria, cause dissolved oxygen levels to be depressed and foul cooling water intakes of vessels navigating the canal." (DNRP Report p. 11.) The language is slightly butchered, but the bottom line of the report is that no one — not human, anyway — is crapping in the Kingfisher.

Even assuming for purposes of discussion that the city is a factor in water quality in the Kingfisher and other inland canals, it cannot be assumed it is the sole polluter.

According to a University of Florida website, "Septic seepage, lawn fertilizers, pesticides and effluent, and oil and gasoline from boats negatively impact canal water quality. Paved parking lots and streets prevent land areas from absorbing polluted runoff, so pollution-laden rainwaters drain directly into canal systems. Inadequate flushing prevents the canal system from diluting and dispersing pollutants to the receiving waterbody. Contaminants may accumulate on the water surface or build up in the sediment."

Further, it concludes, "Many of the environmental and water quality problems posed by canals are the result of outdated concepts and methods. In the past, canal systems were designed to emphasize advantages for development rather than the ecosystem. Lacking sufficient understanding of Florida's physical, chemical, and ecological environment, canals were quickly constructed as deep, box-like channels with steep sides, not taking into account water circulation, wind patterns, wildlife uses, and the ramifications of excessive or insufficient depth."

Thus, as I read this, water quality may be a recurring problem in inland canal systems, with multiple causes, which complicates the issue of responsibility and who should pay to maintain the canals in this respect.

One thing I think is perfectly clear — even if the ultimate solution is not. The city should not make a decision based on 15-year-old data, that is, the outdated DNRP report. The commission should order up a new water-quality study and move on from there to determine the most practical and fiscally-responsible course of action.

REFERENCES:

The "24-Hour Crisis" - 04/23/13

You've heard the expression, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." This quote is usually ascribed to Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago and former chief of staff to President Obama. The rest of the quote is "And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Jean M. Robb, mayor of Deerfield Beach, used a variant of this political strategy to get her way on the question of 24-hour pier restaurant operations: Create a problem that fits the solution. She's done it in the past in almost the same kind of situation.

The pier restaurant is essentially a burger shack for beach goers and fisherman. The beach and the pier are open all the time. In the olden days, however, the restaurant only operated during the daytime, when most people go on the beach itself to sun and swim. A former restaurant operator considered a dinner menu, but it never came to pass. It's only recently that the city has allowed beer and wine service at the pier restaurant — a move I'm not sure was wise, but it is what it is and not a big issue so far as I'm concerned.

When the commission awarded the contract for the newly-renovated restaurant, the operator asked for permission to run it on a 24-hour basis. No big deal for them, they said, because they need people there overnight anyway to maintain the facility. The commission — this before Robb assumed office — granted the request with the proviso that the permission could be withdrawn if it proved to be a problem.

Now comes Jean Robb. Even before the restaurant opens, she's trying to convince other members of the commission that 24-hour operations will mean trouble with all that traffic and noise. There are already icky things happening on the restaurant deck, she claims. The only voice from the public which expressed concern was the Tiara East condo across and up the street a short distance. This is interesting because a former leader of that very same condo was a big booster of the proposal years ago to build a large banquet-style restaurant on the same site — a noisy proposition for sure.

Now seriously. How much noise will be generated when a fisherman looks for a cup of coffee or a Coke or burger in the middle of the night? The sizzle of the fryolator?

There's not much parking space overnight, so it's hard to imagine a lot of traffic. There won't be a live band playing outside. The restaurant can't serve alcohol at three in the morning. It's not going to be a late-night watering hole. And if there were some people around, maybe there wouldn't be so much hanky-panky up on that deck.

Most likely, these problems are all in Mayor Robb's imagination, or a red herring. The commissioners might have thought so too. They denied Robb's request to cut off around-the-clock restaurant operation before it even started, but promised to revisit the question again.

I've lived near the beach almost, it seems, since God created it. Back in those days — some readers may remember — parking was permitted 24 hours on one section of what we now call Ocean Way, that is, the road that fronts the beach. This was, I suppose, Deerfield's version of Lovers' Lane.

Back in those days also, I did my "power walk" almost every morning at one, two, or three o'clock. I became something of an expert of what went on at the beach in the wee hours. This may seem a little crazy, but I had weird working hours at the time.

What went on? In fact, very little from what I saw. Not many cars parked there overnight or late in the night, but a few did.

In Mar. 1988, then-Mayor Robb started to push for the parking curfew at all metered spots at the beach (meters were installed in 1986), which remains in effect to this day. She claimed there was noise, and gangs of teenagers congregated at the beach during these late hours. I saw or heard nothing of the kind. Okay, there was potential for this. Some adjacent residents, I surmise, didn't want the cars there overnight, so let's make something up that needs fixing.

She's using essentially the same tactic today to shut down the pier restaurant operation overnight. (Preemptive problem solving?)

Of course, there are incidents from time-to-time in the beach area. It's very public at all hours of the day and night and equally accessible to walkers, smoochers, and troublemakers. In the 28 years I've been here, I know of at least three murders. A SWAT team invaded my yard in the darkness of the night a couple of years ago looking for somebody. It scared the hell out me and the cat ran under the bed.

Given the nature of the place, there's bound to be occasional trouble. Unless we could close the area off completely, it's going to happen whether there is or is not a joint flipping a few burgers in the middle of the night.

The commission made the right decision to allow the 24-hour operation on a wait-and-see basis. If there's a problem, which I suspect there won't be, then let's find a solution.

Robb's Big Stick - 04/01/13

Teddy Roosevelt's motto was "Speak softly and carry a Big Stick."

Jean Robb — did you ever notice? — never speaks softly. But she does carry her own version of a Big Stick. She used it at a recent town-hall meeting conducted by one of the city commissioners in his district, with her and another commissioner in attendance.

It's her Porta Gavel.

A person in the audience asked a question about city funding of the summer camp program at Westside Park. After city manager Burgess Hanson explained to the women that funding for this activity was not in the budget, Robb yelled up to the commissioner, "Ben, tell Burgess to put that on the agenda."

After some discussion ensued about the needed money, Mayor Robb opened her bag, pulled out the Porta Gavel, and pounded a special commission meeting to order, declaring that a quorum was present. She deputized a member of the audience as acting city clerk to record the minutes.

She then announced a plan to provide $135,000 to the summer camp program from the city's contingency funds. The vote was two-to-one.

Horrified, the city manager declared the meeting a violation of the Sunshine Law. "Sunshine, Smumshine," the mayor shouted. "I'm in charge now and I'm going to do it anyway."

Okay, maybe it didn't happen exactly this way. But something like it happened at Ben Preston's district meeting on Mar. 12.

This earns Mayor Jean Robb a special place as the butt-end of my annual April Fool's Day article.

Election 2013: Unofficial Vote Count - 03/13/13 (updated)

Here are the vote results of the Mar. 12, 2013 city election, as currently reported by the Broward County Supervisor of Elections:


DISTRICT 3

RICHARD ROSENZWEIG DONNA CAPOBIANCO CARYL BERNER

623 555 201

45.18% 40.25% 14.58%

MAYOR

JEAN ROBB PEGGY NOLAND

2,774 2,747

50.24% 49.76%

According to a Sun-Sentinel report, the mayor's election will be subject to an electronic recount. Some provisional ballots (number not reported) are yet to be counted.

Unless there's a serious error in the count as presently reported, it appears that Deerfield Beach voters have elected (reelected?) its '80's-style former mayor, Jean Robb, to serve as mayor for the next four years.

2013 was the lowest voter turnout in a city-wide election in the last 20 years of election history. 5,521 voted, approximately 13 percent of registered voters. Robb got her biggest boost from Dist. 2 voters, winning or tying in all Dist. 2 precincts east of I-95. She also had a strong showing in Dist. 1 (in fact, a slight majority) and took one precinct in Dist. 3.

(Note: A recount was conducted on Mar. 15 and confirmed the results of the election; data in this report have been updated to reflect the provisional ballots counted.)

I'm sure there is a lot of hand-wringing and jumping-for-joy today in Deerfield Beach. Robb conducted a fundamentally dishonest campaign and propagated Big Lies, exploiting the most disenchanted and, till now, least engaged citizens. The city, clearly, is deeply divided, split almost down the middle. Robb may have inflicted some wounds that may be difficult to heal with her soon-to-be fellow commissioners.

Not to worry, so much, if Jean Robb had a history of conciliation and consensus-building. Unfortunately, it's not the case.

About the only thing we can safely predict: It will be an interesting four years.