By unreal reality

July 1, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this

“… several people questioned why the lagoon was not thoroughly evaluated. Florida Department of Environmental Protection officials said the city never made such a request.”

Does anyone else see a major problem with the process? Shouldn’t this permitting process REQUIRE 1, a set of (i.e., >1) recommendations from a known expert in management 2. fully developed impact assessments for SEVERAL of the alternatives 3. a recommendation supported by the research? What kind of crud is this with “well how about this cheap way to do it” as the only one requested?

This seems very very wrong with this process. I can already hear the protest of “but it costs too much to figure all that stuff out!” If you have to get a permit because of what it may do to the environment, it doesn’t follow that the cheapest route is the best. Any dufus can recommend the cheap way — that’s WHY we have a permitting process!! It’s Risk Management 101.

If this kind of inadequate forethought is well enough buried from the publica eye, it could have been “too late to turn back now” kind of scenario… whether it be as early as “we already spent money on the blueprint and hired contractors” or as late as “it’s already piping the stuff out there and we can’t just turn it off now can we?”

If you’re gonna hit a bad risk (like killing the reef), it’ll never be cheaper to turn back than during design or investigation. Some risks should be avoided plain and simple.

But then if you read this, you realize that it doesn’t matter how precious, precarious or priceless something is. Our so-called leaders and those charged with protecting things that we don’t own (and by rights belong to our distant offspring) are willing to risk anything for money NOW… don’t believe it?

“Commissioner Jo-Ann Golden also wants to explore alternatives. She would like to poll residents to see how much more they are willing to pay for an eco-friendly system. ‘We can do anything,’ she said. ‘It’s just a matter of money.’”

C’mon, that’s not the point. They know very well in today’s money-strapped economy, everyone will say $0 more! That doesn’t mean you should pipe the stuff to a reef. Gimme a break.

What about the water reclamation idea?????? Is it a red herring or a viable alternative. So what if it costs, at least it’s sustainable.

By Mike

June 27, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Extend the discharge pipe out beyond the reef where the Gulfstream’s movement will help dilute the brackish discharge water. Don’t further stress the Lake Worth Lagoon.

By Paul

June 27, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

“commissioner Jo-Ann Golden would like to poll residents to see how much more they are willing to pay for an eco-friendly system.”

Uhh.. Its everyones reef, the residents of lake worth don’t get to decide alone wether they polute everyones natural resources.

By rustle

June 27, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

we don’t need a nasty lake to swim in this isn’t New Jersey. #1 PBC has a large water catchment area near the land fills. #2. PBC has thousands of miles of canals that should be reevaluated and redesigned like the catchments for the Kissimee River. We shouldn’t dig another big hole for water to sit there. We boast about being a modern society where most of our infrastructures and disposal methods are outdated and archaic.

By Jersey Jerry

June 27, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

What We need in Palm Beach County is a Reservoir in which to pump the filtered waste Water. We need to dig a Rock Quarry on Farm Land. We can sell the Rock to pay for the digging. We then will have a man made Lake in which to pump the Water. We then can use it as a backup Drinking Water supply. The Lake can be used for recreation such as Non-power Boating. We then could stock it with Fish. We could build more than one Lake for future use.