Some County Policies are costing us millions. Why?

Our County Commission is looking at a 473 million dollar estimate to retrofit the County’s seven old downtown areas, now know as Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs), with water, sewer and drainage facilities. Residents of these CRAs and/or taxpayers will spend these millions replacing wells and the old septic tanks that are leaching effluent and phosphorus into our rivers. We will also spend more for equipment to fight fires in neighborhoods with no fire hydrants. Lack of infrastructure and bad public policy from thirty to forty years ago are now costing our residents dearly.

At the same time our County’s current policies continue to prohibit water and sewer service to residences/projects that happen to be outside of the boundary line, even when there are existing water and sewer lines running through or adjacent to the properties. In the last few months we have seen several new projects approved, but forbidden to hook up to these existing lines. These projects would not have gained a single additional lot/resident had they been allowed to privately, at their sole expense, connect to these water and sewer lines. As a result, a future County Commission will likely have to sit through years of pleading before having to go and retrofit these neighborhoods just as we are doing today. Why?

Most, if not all of our citizens and taxpayers are demanding that our rivers be cleaned up and our environment be protected. Why then are we continuing to add wells and septic systems through a public policy adopted before the County even had a water and sewer utility. Why enforce these archaic policies in areas served by other public or private utilities? Why?

Many CRA residents and taxpayers have had to suffer through two straight years of significant power losses and a lack of running water because they could not use their private wells without electricity. These same folks faced real danger because they also had no fire protection. Why would we put more citizens in this predicament when we have existing utility mains, already paid for, and existing plant capacities available? Why not make use of this existing infrastructure when it benefits everyone to do so?

There are a few very loud opponents of allowing water and sewer service to these new neighborhoods. They point to “boundary breaks”, urban sprawl”, and Browardization” as the reasons for their opposition. But, when the approved new neighborhood is in close proximity to existing water and sewer lines, gets no more density with or without the hook-up, there is no cost to the taxpayers, and it benefits the environment; why not hook them up?

One can make the argument that central utilities can support higher density. However, we think density is, and should be, controlled by Future Land Use Maps. Use of water mains, fire hydrants and safe sewer service should be required where readily available, not prohibited as a way to restrict growth. There is no reason to pay huge sums to retrofit in the future when we could avoid it now at no cost.