Midnight Pass Plan Clashes with Goal
The Sarasota County issue that has created the longest controversy also has created the greatest confusion and misunderstanding. The issue of Midnight Pass has spanned two county administrators, 17 county commissioners and a countless number of newspaper reporters and consultants. As the lone vote against proceeding with a permit request to reopen Midnight Pass, I feel obligated to explain why, as an environmental advocate, I voted not to reopen an inlet that closed, or closed prematurely, at the hand of man.
The vote of Dec. 2, first of all, was not an ideological question about whether to reopen Midnight Pass. It was a vote on whether to proceed with a specific permit proposal to reopen the pass. Erickson Consulting Engineers, a firm hired by the county, designed the Dec. 2 proposal. The vote that day was a question of how, not if. An earlier policy decision that was made regarding specifics about how to reopen Midnight Pass influenced my dissenting vote.
In 1997, the Board of County Commissioners, frustrated with the Midnight Pass issue, asked activists from all sides if they would agree to participate in a professionally mediated forum to find common ground. I was one of those participants. After weeks of intense dialogue and emotional debate, all the participants agreed to a common goal. And while we continued to disagree on many issues, we all signed on to the following:
“Policy Goal: Any pass in the former Midnight Pass area, however reopened, should be a natural pass and the system shall be allowed to respond to natural barrier island processes including shoaling, pass movement, erosion, sea level rise, overwash, etc.”
In July 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted this same policy goal.
The specifics detailed in the Erickson proposal on how Midnight Pass would be opened, are not consistent with the Policy Goal adopted at the mediated forum. The Erickson report states “…maintenance dredging of the initial pass channel would likely be needed to maintain an alignment within a designated location, and thus provide for a fixed lateral position.” This does not describe a “natural pass” that was to be allowed to shoal and move. Neither is it consistent with the report’s historic description of Midnight Pass as one that had a “history of past pass migration and reversals.”
During the Dec. 2 vote, I was in a unique position. I was both a signatory to the mediated forum’s Policy Goal and I was required to vote on the new proposal at hand. As a commissioner, I was free to change policy. We regularly do that during commission meetings and state law actually prohibits one commission from mandating policy for a commission that’s subsequently elected. As a mediation participant, however, I felt I had a commitment to the original Policy Goal.
Politically, it would have been easy to vote with the flow, especially since my lone vote wouldn’t have affected Board policy. It’s possible that those who oppose reopening the pass would have understood the extreme political pressure and why I might have voted with the majority. But I felt compelled to keep my word and my commitment, regardless of any political fallout.
Since the Board has adopted a policy and clear direction, I will not sabotage nor circumvent its efforts. While I may not agree with the Board’s direction, my role and responsibilities as a commissioner are significantly different from the role of an environmental activist. I am now committed to make the open pass scenario as environmentally sensitive and fiscally responsible as possible.