The Miami Herald

Posted on Fri, Aug. 18, 2006

FLORIDA CITY

Water shortage may halt housing

Florida City received a warning from the state that it is already using too much water and may not be able to allow new housing developments in the city.

BY CURTIS MORGAN
cmorgan@MiamiHerald.com

The state this week raised a significant new hurdle for a mega-development envisioned along the southern Everglades: water, or rather the lack of it.

The water warning came in a letter state planners sent Tuesday to Florida City, rejecting four housing proposals that would add some 3,000 new residents.

It came the same day a federal judge ruled against environmentalists in a lawsuit aimed at derailing a much larger project, Florida City Commons, that could draw six times more people. Despite that ruling, the latest water-use concerns raised by both regional water managers and state planners indicate the controversial development still faces a long road to approval.

The Commons -- 6,000 homes, shops, schools, a movie theater and hotel proposed for isolated marsh and nursery land in South Miami-Dade County -- is projected to roughly double water demands in Florida City.

That could prove a problem in a city that water managers say already has drawn from the Biscayne Aquifer more than state permits allowed for three years running -- and also has a staggering amount of ''unaccounted for'' water. Until repairs began earlier this year, the city's water system was so antiquated that almost two-thirds of every gallon pumped leaked away before reaching homes.

William Kiriloff, community development director for Florida City, said he was ''a little disappointed'' by the state objections, but also confident the city could resolve concerns raised by the Florida Department of Community Affairs over the small, poor town's long-awaited first wave of new development.

He said some $1.75 million in pipe repairs, bankrolled by state grants, have sharply reduced leaks, conservation efforts have cut use and there were discussions to tap and treat a deeper brackish aquifer to supply long-term growth. But Kiriloff noted the prospects for the Commons seemed less certain.

'BIGGEST HURDLE'

''I think potable water is a major impact for [land owner] Atlantic Civil, but I don't think that's the biggest hurdle,'' Kiriloff said.

He said the biggest would be getting the county to extend its urban development line miles to the south and approve what amounts to a new town on 1,000 acres between Biscayne and Everglades national parks, a project that would nearly triple Florida City's current population of 11,000.

Cynthia Guerra, executive director of The Tropical Audubon Society, said the water warning to Florida City underlined a message state water and environmental managers had given Miami-Dade County in January: Don't plan on tapping more from the Biscayne Aquifer, the primary source of drinking water, and start developing new, more expensive alternatives.

''I think it's a legitimate hurdle,'' she said.

Ed Swakon, an engineering consultant for Atlantic Civil Inc., which has agreed to sell to Lennar Corp., a major home builder, said the companies were working with Florida City and water managers to address the problems by, for example, using treated wastewater for irrigation.

'RED FLAG'

''The water supply is a red flag for Dade County,'' he said. "We understand you have to have the water in order to build . . . If Florida City fails to make the improvement they need, then we're not going to be able to proceed until they do.''

Florida City's leak problem ranked as bad as water managers have seen in years, said John Milliken, water supply planning director for the South Florida Water Management District.

The city doesn't draw a lot of water -- only about 20 percent more than Miami International Airport -- but ''at one point, they were losing more than half their water.'' He said 10 percent is generally considered too high.

He credited leaders with ''aggressively'' working to plug the leaks. Mulliken said the supply issue wasn't an ''insurmountable problem,'' but it would require considerable investment.

The Commons project has become a focal point in the political battle over whether to open new lands by extending the county's development boundary. Environmentalists, as well as neighborhood activists concerned about traffic snarls and sprawl, have won the battle so far, with the County Commission earlier this year rebuffing all but one of a first wave of proposals to move the line.

But U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan, in a decision issued Tuesday, dismissed claims by environmental groups which had filed suit in February to block Atlantic Civil from filling additional wetlands. The groups said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had illegally reinstated Atlantic Civil's permit after temporarily suspending it over concerns about potential development.

The problem, they argued, was that the landowner was using a permit issued for ''low-impact agriculture,'' while simultaneously pursuing separate applications with state and county agencies to build homes on the same site.

The judge noted in his ruling that concerns about development ''may be well-founded,'' but he sided with the Corps, saying the agency had acted properly, agreeing that the development remained too far from certain to represent a significant change in land use. He also found that the landowner has never engaged in any illegal filling and had "remained faithful to the scope of the permit.''

RESPONSE TO RULING

Richard Grosso, an attorney representing the environmentalists, said the ruling was largely on procedural grounds, with the judge finding the challenge premature.

The Corps, Grosso said, already is reviewing a request for a five-year extension to the permit, which expires next week, and could address the development implications. That decision, he said, could put Florida Commons back in court again.

John Shubin, an attorney for Atlantic Civil, praised the judge's ''thoughtful analysis'' and accused environmentalists of trying to spin a flat rejection of their claims.

''It is inconceivable to me how the plaintiffs could come before a federal court, make outlandish claims about the propriety of people's conduct and then discount the effect of the court's ruling when they lose,'' he said.