Bob Graham has worn many hats in a long, distinguished public-service career. Florida state legislator. Florida's 38th governor. U.S. senator.
Now, he's donning the white hat ? charging to the rescue of Florida's ailing waterways.
On Saturday, Graham headlined the Speak Up Wekiva rally, concerned with finding solutions to save the badly polluted Wekiwa Springs.
Graham recently met with the Editorial Board to discuss green efforts and other issues. Excerpts follow in today's Front & Center.
Q: Why you chose to take a leadership role in this campaign?
A: 2011 was a disastrous year of the Florida environment. Many of our land and water policies that were 40 years in the making and implementing were eliminated and the capability of the agencies to carry out their response was severely cutback by budget and personnel reduction. So, we came together in the summer of '11 with the commitment that we would stop the bleeding in the 2012 session and then go on the offensive. I think we largely accomplished our 2012 goals ... and now in 2013 we're going to try to do some [aggressive] things, much of which is going to be in the budget and with a heavy focus on springs and streams protection.
Q: There used to be a robust environmental movement in Florida for some years, and then something happened? What do you think happened?
A: Florida up until the 1970s was a commodity to many Floridians. It was something to be used for whatever immediate purposes: if it was land and you wanted water, you dug it up; if it was water and you wanted land, you filled it in. Beginning in the early '70s, under the administration of Claude Kirk ... the state began to change its fundamental values from commodity to treasure. We are privileged to live in a special place, and with that, comes the responsibility of passing it onto future generations. I thought that battle had been fought and won, but it broke out again in 2011. Why did it happen? The recession was a big contributor. People made, I think, the false argument that by regulating the proper use of our water we were in some ways adversely affecting job creation. In my judgment, not only does the environment, but the economy of Florida, depends on our protection of natural resources. But the recession gave cover to that argument that there was competition. I think ... there was a significantly more conservative majority in the state Legislature and Gov. [Rick] Scott is quite conservative, and they saw this as an opportunity to repeal some provisions that people like them hadn't approved of when originally adopted 40 years earlier.
Q: Gov. Scott's latest budget proposal includes $6.5 million for springs restoration. Is that enough?
A: No. The five water management districts were asked to develop budgets for springs and streams protection and that amount was about $112 million. So, the departments ? all of which are under persons appointed by the governor ? have come to a budget that is substantially more than is being recommended.
Q: Gov. Scott's budget also earmarks $75 for Florida Forever. Is that enough?
A: The governor has recommended $75 million for land acquisition, but $50 million of that is derived from the sale of existing land. Now whether that is realistic ? to find that much land which was purchased because of environmental value and contribution to conservation or which can be acquired in the next 15 months ? is questionable..
Q: What grade would you give governor. Scott on environmental causes?
A: I'm going to be generous and give him an incomplete; my hope is that he and those around him responsible for this area have gone through a learning process and are beginning to apply some of that.
Q: Last month the Florida Supreme Court ruled against the lawsuit you filed and found that the Legislature, and not the Board of Governors, has ultimate control over university tuitions. Will this have a negative impact on higher education in Florida?
A: I was disappointed and surprised, frankly. The amendment we wrote followed similar amendments in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, which have had a constitutional body to oversee their university system ? in the case of Michigan, for over 100 years. They have all been granted the authority to set tuition and fees, so we were surprised the court came to a different conclusion. The good news was that the court explicitly said that its ruling was limited to the issue of tuition and fees, and that it was not making any rulings on the other authority that had previously been in the Legislature and that our amendment had as its purpose to transfer to the Board of Governors. Our litigation was constrained to tuition and fees because under the court's ruling on standing, the only standing a group of citizens had was to challenge the portions of the amendment that related to fiscal matters. Our original litigation included the other powers of the Board of Governors, but they were limited to stay within that limited standing. So, we'll see if the Legislature reads the opinion as saying those other powers, such as powers of establish a new university, have now been transferred to the Board of Governors, and that the Legislature no longer has authority to authorize universities, new programs, and other academic activity.
Q: What is the idea behind the proposed Florida Water and Land Legacy constitutional amendment?
A: It would basically commit a certain proportion of the real-estate transfer tax to a state fund limited to purchasing environmental and public-use lands. I think the benefit of that is it would give stability to the program ? it would not depend on the Legislature's willingness to support it on a year-to-year basis. It would be at the scale as we've had in the recent past ? which has been in the range of $200 [million]-$300 million a year. And third, it would depoliticize [the issue]. I think it will result in the public getting what it wants ? a scientifically derived list of priority land acquisition, which in turn will result in our ability to continue purchasing flood plains along our rivers and other initiatives that have played a key role in protecting our water supply.
Q: One of your former colleagues in the Senate, Chuck Hagel, has been nominated for defense secretary but run into strong opposition from Republicans. Do you think he should get the job?
A: Yes. I know Sen. Hagel quite well, and have high regard for him. I think he is, with his experience in Vietnam, would bring a unique, enlisted man's perspective to the Department of Defense. I believe he will be confirmed.
Q: You're former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Would you be supporting John Brennan to be the next CIA director?
A: I would vote for his confirmation. I don't know him as well as I do Hagel, but he's spent his career in intelligence, has a good reputation. What the CIA needs almost as much as anything else is stability. I have counted up, since I left the Senate, which was seven years ago, I think there have five CIA directors. You can't run an organization of that complexity with constant turnover at the top. I would hope Brennan would be confirmed and his performance would justify his staying there for at least four years.
Q: Are you troubled by the Obama administration's response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi?
A: I'm concerned about that situation, yes. From what I know ... it was one of those fog of war situations in a very difficult and remote location where there wasn't a lot of backup capability, with the tragedy of the four Americans losing their lives. But I haven't seen anything that has indicated to me of any conspiracy of incompetence or coverup.
Q: In your book Intelligence Matters, you criticized the Bush Administration's handling of matters leading to 9-11. How would you grade the intelligence apparatus under the Obama administration?
A: I would say during the first term, Panetta was an outstanding intelligence director. .. Petraeus was not there long enough to have much of a record, and of course, left under [trying circumstances]. On a scale of zero to 10, I would give the CIA during the first term of Obama a 9.218.
Q: Your novel, "Keys to the Kingdom," suggests a 9-11 coverup. Are still of a mind that U.S. authorities should reopen an inquiry 9-11? What questions remain unanswered?
A: Yes. I think there are some important aspects that are not just an ,matter of getting the historical record current, but also making current judgments. And the center questions revolve around Saudi Arabia. What was the extent of their involvement? Why were they involved? And why has the United States, through now two administrations, gone to the lengths that it has to disguised the Saudi involvement. I think those are important questions regarding our future involvement with Saudi Arabia.
secret service prostitute rich ross april 20 jennifer love hewitt secret service prostitution 4 20 george zimmerman
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.