FDEP Reports on Toxic Water Discharge - Analyzed

An analysis of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) August 28, 2007 report to the city of Marco Island presents concerns in several areas. As this analysis was being prepared, the FDEP for all practical purposes ordered a halt to all dewatering. This report could explain the FDEP’s rationale for the halting, and details some of the adverse environmental impacts resulting from dumping effluence into the waterways.

To obtain the entire analysis, CLICK HERE.

It is not just a matter of money

By Ed Foster

Two workers have been hospitalized for hydrogen-sulfide inhalation caused by a failure to follow OSHA procedures for working in “confined spaces.” Citizens are complaining of pulmonary illnesses that they suspect are related to the release of hydrogen-sulfide gas. The city acknowledges that hydrogen sulfide is in our underground water and is emitted during the dewatering process needed to install sewer lines on Marco.

How does the city respond? The City’s Public Information Coordinator suggests that windows and doors be sealed with duct tape and that people stay inside during working hours or leave the island entirely. The first two suggestions are ridiculous: dewatering is a 24/7 operation to keep the trenches dry enough to work in. It doesn’t stop when the workers go home and if you seal your house tightly enough so that hydrogen sulfide gas cannot enter, you’ll suffocate for lack of oxygen. Advising residents to leave the island is tantamount to evicting them so the city can dig ditches.

It is time to ask: “Why are we doing this?” Forget the cost for a moment (if you can). Why are we destroying our island to install sewers? Are they necessary? In a word, “no”; they are not necessary. The city has never been able to demonstrate a need for sewers. The city has never been able to show significant pollution that could be correlated with the use of septic systems. The city has garnered “letters of support” from various agencies and has been able to elicit “opinions” from agency heads in favor of sewers, but it has never produced one iota of verifiable scientific evidence that indicates the need for sewers on our island.

Water quality tests have shown negligible levels of fecal coliform in our canals. That which could possibly be related to the use of septic systems amounts to approximately 1% of the state-established safe level for water used for recreational purposes (swimming, fishing, boating, etc.) That certainly does not constitute “pollution.” When test data failed to support the need for sewers, the city halved the water-testing budget which certainly puts the lie to any statement that the STRP was instituted to save us from pollution.

At a city workshop held in March 2006, the head of the Fort Myers DEP confirmed that Marco waters are not polluted. He denied any plan was afoot to force the city to install sewers and agreed that the location of the Marco Island wastewater treatment plant near the mouth of the Marco River and Gulf is far from ideal. A Rookery Bay scientist who examined the data could find no correlation between nitrogen in our canals with the use of septic systems and opined that the nitrogen buildup was coming from fertilizer runoff and grass clippings.

The Federal EPA, and Florida DEP and DOH in Tallahassee support the use of “managed on-site wastewater treatment,” i.e., properly installed and maintained septic systems, and find them safer than central sewers in many instances. The Federal EPA considers central sewers the second most significant polluter of the environment in the United States; only agricultural runoff is worse. The EPA also estimates that more than 850 billion gallons of raw sewage leak from sewer lines each year on its way to the processing plant. Raw sewage overflows into our lakes, rivers and ocean about 40,000 times each year and is responsible for approximately 2,000 beach closures averaging 10 days in duration. Between 1.8 and 3.5 million people become ill each year from swimming in sewage-polluted waters. These are facts, not opinions; you can verify them yourselves.

So why does the council insist upon sewering the island? In my opinion, it is because they cannot admit to having made a mistake. The STRP is primarily the brainchild of an ex-councilor who refused to run for re-election and defend his Frankenstein. He devised the sewer plan and convinced the council it was necessary because the council trusted him. As one councilor told me two years ago, “He was supposed to be our utility expert. We believed him and followed what he said. Now I feel I’m on a freight train and can’t get off.”

It is time this man’s legacy came to an end. The fact that he once worked for an electric utility does not qualify him to render judgment on a sewer utility. It is time the council admitted that it made a mistake, stop this project dead in its tracks, exercise the city’s prerogative to cancel contracts, and work out a plan to minimize the financial damages that are bound to ensue.

People’s lives, people’s quality of life, and the protection of our environment are at stake. We must get off this freight train now!

Ed Foster

Former Chairman of C.A.R.E.S., Inc.

A Good Anniversary

We need to celebrate 10 years of cityhood because it came about by exercising our inalienable right to choose our own destiny. Choosing representatives at a community level is a blessing to be acknowledged.

Good choices or bad choices, only the good matters on this date. When anniversaries are celebrated in our personal lives do we dwell on the bumps in the road, or do we rejoice in the positives and look forward to the road ahead?

A majority voted into office the present and all past city governments. These elected officials have exercised the will of the people as they saw fit. Agree or disagree with what they have done or have failed to do, but do exult in their positives and look forward to the road ahead.

Alice came to a fork in the road.

“Which road do I take?” she asked.

“Where do you want to go?” responded the Cheshire cat.

“I don’t know,” Alice answered.

“Then,” said the cat, “it doesn’t matter.”

Appreciate the positives of what the city has done in ten years, and do look forward to the road ahead in a resplendent area intimately intertwined with nature … because roads like anniversaries do matter.

Important Update to Hydrogen Sulfide Toxicity

A recent study conducted by the University of California at Berkley found that very low exposure to ambient hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) has rather deleterious effects on human health.

"The interviews show that chronic exposure to relatively low levels of hydrogen sulfide can nevertheless take a considerable toll on people’s health."

The study also looked at State Ambient H₂S Regulations and the results are more serious than previously posited by this author. Consider the following graph found in the above noted study:

(click to enlarge image)

As an example of how to read this chart, the state of Montana considers exposure of .05ppm (five hundredths of one part per million, or 5 parts per 100,000,000) of ambient hydrogen sulfide for one hour the most a person can tolerate before their health is appreciably affected.

This study as evidenced in the above noted graph evidences a very serious problem for Marco Islanders. Simply look at the 24 hour mark. There are two states (Massachusetts and Pennsylvania) that for all practical purposes do not allow ANY ambient H₂S for periods of exposure greater than 24 hours.

There are two consequential inferences we make from casually analyzing this chart (and the overall study) as related to us on Marco Island.

First, notice that Florida is missing. Unfortunately without a regulation, it is easy – as we have seen – for city and state governmental operatives to claim that the contamination is within regulations. When there aren’t any regulations, then any level of pollution is acceptable.

But environmental and state authorities need to come out from behind their outdated pretexts to consider recent studies and the regulations in place in other states with regard to this highly dangerous poison.

The second and more pressing observation is that even at exceedingly low levels of H₂S – at levels that are not even barely perceptible by the average human nose – exposure for as little as 3 minutes has been deemed harmful. And yet, here on Marco Island, we have been exposed for many months, 24 hours a day, to higher levels.

Copper Pipe Pitting - State Study

The Interagency Copper Pipe Corrosion Project was initiated in 2000 to study and report on the causes and how to remediate those causes of copper pipe pitting.

In summary, the 2001 final report found that the primary catalyst causing copper pipe pitting is the presence of hydrogen sulfide in the water. The toxic H2S, under certain conditions, reacts with copper pipes to create copper sulfide – a form of copper corrosion. This corrosion, sometimes manifest as “black water” causes the copper pipe pitting.

Nine recommendations were formulated by the participants of the study. The most noteworthy are the following four:

• New permitting rules for new wells – the rules focus on testing for sulfides (this blog’s primary premise for the creation of copper pipe pitting),
• Proposed building code amendments,
• Existing plant upgrades with state-provided funding to minimize the conditions (elements) that cause pipe pitting,
• Financial assistance for homeowners affected.
  

It is unknown if the homeowner’s financial assistance package/information was presented to the affected homeowners. Per the study:

“Local governments should consider [sic] establishment of a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) or municipal service benefit unit (MSBU), pursuant to section 125.01(q) Florida Statutes, to help finance plumbing retrofits in the affected homes.”

Since all of the recommendations were made six years ago, it would be interesting to determine to what extent, if any, the City of Marco Island’s water treatment plant implemented the recommendations.

The entire report can be obtained by CLICKING HERE.

A Penny for your Thoughts ...

A 56oz. glass container was sterilized. The container was then filled with the toxic water being pumped into the waterway beneath the first empty north lot on Twin Oak.

We then placed the following penny (a "before" picture) ...


... in the container.

One hour later ... this is what the penny looks like.
(Note: Per the U.S. Treasury, the penny is copper-plated zinc: 2.5% copper, 97.5% zinc.)

Results from a similar experiment were forwarded to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Their reply? They don't see a problem with the contamination or it's effects as evidenced above. We are not surprised by their answer.

A question: if this is what happens to zinc/copper when exposed for one hour to the toxic water being pumped into our waterways, what do we think is going to happen to marine organisms when exposed to the toxic water 24 hours a day, day after day?

-----
the control: another shiny penny was placed in waterway water obtained from a non-contaminated site. after 2 hours, no difference in the penny was noted.

Wasting $58,000?

The city announced that it will hire an outside firm to the tune of $58,000 to test the air quality surrounding the myriad dewatering projects on the island. We suggest that the results can be inferred today: there is nothing wrong with the air.

We put forth one feasible supposition for affording this prediction.

Today, the process by which the toxic water is now handled is different from when the initial complaints were made to the health practitioners, the EPA, the FDEP and the city.

As evidenced by the myriad videos and pictures, the polluted water was initially being pumped directly into the open – swales, streets, lawns, etc… With the toxic water basically in the open, the hydrogen sulfide easily and readily escaped from the water.

The pumping of the contaminated water onto the streets, swales, lawns, etc… is no longer taking place. As also evidenced by the latest pictures and videos, the contaminated water is being funneled through a near-sealed environment directly into waterways. Vents and grates are sealed, no more open-air dumping, all of the polluted water flows through pipes that lead directly to waterways.

In this process, the hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) is impeded from escaping from the water due to the pressure and flow. If any escapes it is at the point where the water leaves the pipe just above the waterway. Therefore we can surmise that the greatest concentration of hydrogen sulfide does not escape but stays in the water – now in the water of the waterways.

Where the poisonous stink infested entire neighborhoods, the noxious odor is now on and near the area where the toxic water is being dumped into the waterways. Arguably in lesser concentrations given the considerably smaller area by which the hydrogen sulfide can escape.

A casual inspection of the leaking containment areas (notice the ill-placed yellow plastic rims in the pictures) clearly shows the water to be a deep red to murky copper color. We suppose and induce that the hydrogen sulfide is reacting with organics in the water, as well as metals, and creating sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) – ergo the color.

Forgive us for delving into basic chemistry to try to prove a point: notice the difference between H₂S and H₂SO₄ – the difference is O₄ – or four molecules of oxygen. If it is found that the area where the contaminated water is oxygen depleted, then the likelihood of sulfuric acid being “created” in these waterway dumping areas is high.

Without testing the waterways in and near the discharge areas, the premise that there is sulfuric acid is merely a hypothesis.

So … back to the $58,000. It seems to us that this testing is for a problem that has been somewhat obviated.

And not a new turn of events. By the time the city stalls long enough, and the plethora of environmental groups sympathize with us but tell us they can’t do anything about it, and the alphabet-soup bureaucracies are tortured into responding, the problem is migrated. Its like calling your insect control company to complain about termites eating your door, and by the time they show up to do “tests,” your door is gone so they look at you like you’re nuts.

So … can we skip the test, save the $58,000 and just jump to the point where we are once again looked at like we are nuts? (As opposed to the people responsible for contaminating the environment of course.)

NBC News Coverage of Contamination

As aired August 23, 2007 6PM News.


Of interest: watch a couple of guys walking around with what appears to be a volt meter testing the air (forensic analysis of the video shows that the device has a label "Gas Acc..."). The workers claim that there is no hydrogen sulfide because their volt meter-looking device registers zero. But the guys and the reporter can smell it. So the reporter has the presence of mind to call the FDEP - and informs her that if you can smell it, it has to register.

Also of interest: note that where once all of the toxic liquid was being pumped into the open (swales, lawns, streets, etc..), all of that has stopped. All of the vents and injection points are sealed and the toxic liquid is being funneled directly into the waterway. Do you see the guys holding the volt meter looking device where the toxic liquid is being poured into the waterway? No - because they didn't test there - which is where the heaviest concentration of hydrogen sulfide exists presently. Perhaps this doesn't matter since the volt meter looking device doesn't appear to work anyway.

The guys walking around testing the air with the device that apparently does not function properly work for one of the contractors that is pumping the liquid into the environment.

To Councilors Chuck Kiester and Ted Forcht

I want to publicly thank you so very much for your vote Monday in defense of the citizens' right to petition the government on Marco Island. That defense, of course, was doomed to failure even from the moment the first words of the Pledge of Allegiance were uttered to open that meeting.

The irrational determination of your fellow councilors to block the POP petition from reaching the voters won the day but also won the disdain of over three thousand, (3000), Marco Island petitioners and even of POP opponents as well. Americans instinctively recoil at any dictatorial stench.

Every POP supporter, indeed every Marco Islander, will remember both of you for defending the people's right to petition despite your basic disagreement with the proposed Charter amendment. Hopefully, that sense of fairness and integrity will be found in the next City Council's majority. It will difficult, if not impossible, to erase the disgraceful, tyrannical legacy of the present council.

Again, thank you , Councilors Chuck Kiester and Ted Forcht! Your moral courage suggests political hope for Marco Island might yet be attainable.

Russ Colombo, Chairman
Preserve Our Paradise (POP)

The Good, the Bad and the Entertaining

One of the many benefits of a democracy is that we are entreated to the opinions and insights of other people. Unlike dictatorships where all one hears repeatedly is the banality of the ruling elite, in a democracy we get to hear everything – yes, including some banality from the citizenry – which arguably is more entertaining and unquestionably less lethal.

The citizens of a democracy are allowed to make public comments – many being salient, insightful and useful observations and recommendations. That their elected officials actually consider these comments beyond contrasting elements to special interests of ulterior agendas is determinable through observation.

Last night’s city council meeting showed us as much – the people with good insightful comments, the people putting forth political agendas masked as science but transparently revealed as propaganda, the council treading in the unknown, many trying to do what they thought was right, and some councilors clearly forgetting their 5th grade civic and chemistry lessons thereby deciding based on political expediency, ignorance (albeit bliss) and on the comfort of the advice from the worst advice givers.

Here are the highlights:

• The STRP was not accelerated. Nor was it decelerated.
• A councilperson insists that hydrogen sulfide is only a gas.
• Fact: any gas can be diffused in water
• Fact: a “gas” can be a liquid, a solid, even disappear depending on pressure, temperature, etc …
• Fact: not all hydrogen sulfide is released from water
• Fact: water contaminated with diffused hydrogen sulfide is corrosive
• The city manager insists that hydrogen sulfide exists naturally in nature
• Fact: so does uranium, petroleum, arsenic, botulism, mercury, lead, plutonium, iodine …
• Fact: only the highly inconsiderate or the highly naïve pump concentrations of this stuff into the open without regard for public or environmental safety
• The only persons expressing concern for the safety and health of our children is …
• is a man that dislikes children and has no children of his own, while …
• the MOMS that elected the MOM on MOM issues are nowhere to be seen or heard from
• The council opts to wait for “government experts” – the ultimate oxymoron – on the health effects of the dewatering process … despite
• The report from the “government experts” will take “30 or 60 or 90” days
• An MD and a PhD – experts in their fields – have publicly documented the deleterious effects of the watering on human health, marine health, and on the environment
• Two workers have already been seriously injured
• Citizens complaining about the effects of the gas
• A citizen describing his dog’s horrific injuries from having come in contact with the toxic water
• A speaker notes that beer has bubbles but they go away after the container is opened. Oh, and that the marshes off of SR92 in the early morning give off hydrogen sulfide gas.
• Fact: Hydrochloric Acid, Sulfuric Acid, Prussic Acid … all have bubbles – so according to the speaker, we can infer, once the bubbles go away, it is safe to drink Hydrochloric, Sulfuric and Prussic acid.
• Fact: Water has bubbles
• Fact: Any liquid infused with a gas has bubbles
• Fact: Just because the bubbles go away does not make the liquid safe
• Fact: The marshes are not giving off concentrations of hydrogen sulfide
• A councilperson reminisces taking the oath of office and thereby swearing to uphold the law as a pretext to deny the POP petition
• But apparently the oath does not encompass the health of the people or the environment since that same councilperson voted to continue the toxic dumping
• And the most satirically comical moment if it wasn’t so pathetic: Lift stations are being built 3 years before they will be used.
• And a speech from a resident that may have been telepathically conveyed from North Korea: “Letting people vote will undermine the authority of the city council. What the electorate think [sic] should not matter.”
  

Of particular interest was the argument that certain decisions should or should not be made because the next council will invariably cancel the STRP. We find this line of reasoning irrational. All councils should act in the now. Particularly this council. Two reasons: the majority of this council will look for any reason to do the wrong thing so why give them one more reason? Secondly, such rationale is tantamount to wagering. That is all we need – a casino run by the present “staff” management.

The discussion centering on POP was as odd as it was revealing. Based solely on the argument put forth by the city attorney du jour, no citizen initiative will ever make it on the ballot. And here was democracy at its best and at its worst. Two councilors – Messieurs Forcth and Kiester - readily disagreed with the petition but voted to let it go in front of the public. Such courage gives us hope in the knowledge that there are two councilors that know what it means to be an elected representative of a democratic republic. But the other five take the cake. Hiding behind the advice of the worst advice givers ever in the history of the world, the legal advice was negative. Enough said. One councilor went off needing to listen to the advice of “our attorney” (presumably the council’s and not the publics’). Well guess what esteemed councilor, let us make an appointment for you at Tommie Barfield so you can learn invariable for the first time in your life that attorney’s have a disgusting and disreputable reputation for giving advice – as the Dread Scott decision, Jim Crow laws, denying women the right to vote, justifying infanticide, (and many more decisions based on illicit advice) have long demonstrated. It only takes courage and vision and the will to do the right thing that moves this great republic forward, and not by hiding behind the advice of lawyers for the sake of justifying cowardice.

The chill on the democratic process and on citizens’ right to petition their government was furthered when the council decided to “discuss” seeking attorney’s fees from the Recall effort. When one councilor suggested that the council had already tread on this highly illegal maneuver, the caucus responded almost in unison – they will look to seek the attorney’s fees from the “chairman” of the Recall effort, not the petition signers. Do we look that obtuse? Federal courts will not allow such a maneuver: how is any group every going to be formed for the purpose of garnering petitions (a U.S. constitutional right) if the “head” (translation – anyone the governing body does not like) can be sued if the petition fails?

But let’s end on a positive note: a citizen suggested that special headsets be provide for people (like himself) that are hearing impaired. Good idea. And make them available to the council.

Dumping Toxic Fluids into Marco Island Waterway

The unfettered dumping of highly toxic liquid directly into the waterways continues.

Our positions is that it is inconsequential if the city received a permit or not - this is just wrong. Just because it's legal does not make it morally, ethically or intellectually right.

Videos taken August 21, 2007. Click arrows to play ...

Harming Homes, Environment & Health

Title:

Harming Homes, Environment & Health:
Furthering the Hydrogen Sulfide Discussion on Marco Island

This new research furthers the discussion on the health, environmental and economic impact on Marco Island caused by the hydrogen sulfide contamination.

Click Here to Read On-Line OR Click Here to Download the PDF

New Sewer System ...

click on image to enlarge ...

Hurricane Dean

Keep an eye on this one.

Click the link below to watch near real-time visible tracking of the storm.

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/carb/loop-vis.html

City Sponsored Ruse Exposed

Note: A one Coral Aiken-Miller spoke at a city council meeting portraying herself to speak for the board of elections while stating "facts" that would support the council's agenda of extending their term limits. This person is the wife of Jim Miller - the manager of the failed STRP program - a program that will be canceled by the new council. The following is a stark rebuke to this person's statements and representations. Click on image to enlarge.

Copper Pipe Pitting & Hydrogen Sulfide?

There seems to be an appreciable causal relationship.

Areas where there is appreciable amounts of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) have been shown to exhibit a higher propensity of pipe pitting. Consider:

In environments with hydrogen sulfide (H2S) corrosion, the most common types include uniform corrosion, pitting corrosion, corrosion fatigue, sulfide stress cracking, hydrogen blistering, hydrogen embrittlement, and stepwise cracking. For more on the theory and mechanisms for each corrosion type, go to the theory page. ¹

Signs of hydrogen sulfide corrosion is depicted in one example as shallow round pits with etched bottoms.

This phenomenon is actually documented and even has a name - Hydrogen Sulfide Corrosion Cracking (HSCC). Pitting is a known effect of HSCC.² In this study, the introduction of chlorine as a catalyst is documented. Note that our water is highly chlorinated.

It is suggested that university-level chemists and researchers explore this possibility.

=====
References:
1. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. http://octane.nmt.edu/waterquality/corrosion/H2S.htm
2. Effect of Structure and Strength on the Corrosion Resistance of Corrosion-resistant Steels and Alloys in Media Containing Hydrogen Sulfide and Chlorine Ions. Fel`dgandler, E.G. ; Svistunova, T.V.
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=381327

Before, During & After ...

Provided by Juan C.
(click on any image to enlarge)

More Toxic Dangerous H2S

Recorded on Fieldstone on Aug 10, 2007. Note two workers standing in contaminated liquid. Listen to passerby gaging.

Just an FYI ...

click on image to enlarge

Hidden Agendas

By Roger Hall

First, I would like to disclose that I am a candidate for city council. It is my desire to have the elections as soon as possible. Second, the citizens need to know that Coral Aiken-Miller is actually the wife of Jim Miller, the STRP project manager for the city of Marco Island. It is probable that there will no longer be a need for Mr. Miller’s position after the next election. It would seem to be in Mr. and Mrs. Miller’s interest to have the election delayed as long as possible.

When Coral Aiken-Miller made her presentation to the City Council at last Monday’s council meeting none of us knew her relationship and possible bias. Most of us thought she represented the Board of Elections and was asking for more time so the Board of Elections could get their records organized to insure maximum voter turnout. Her presentation was replete with the use of the word “we” and the inference she was working with the Board representing Marco Island.

As a result of her comments and alleged facts, the council moved to continue the motion for a January election date to reconsider the March or November 2008 date. The council has received over 700 e-mails in support of the January date. There has been wide spread opinion from everyone from the Supervisor of Elections to Don Farmer to the NDN supporting the January date. The January date was the result of two months of council discussions. After the July council meeting we all thought the January date was a “done deal”. As the result of the misrepresentations of one woman, all of that was undone.

I commend the city establishment for their selection of Ms. Miller as a spokesperson. She appears very credible and has a great speaking voice. It is unfortunate she not only failed to disclose her possible bias but that the facts she offered, both at the council meeting and in her letter to the editor are not accurate.

The board of elections strongly rejects the representation that they need additional time or the help of Ms. Miller in order to scrub the files in preparation for the next election. In fact they strongly support a January election. Ms. Miller neither represents them nor the city in organizing the voter files.

• The representation that a November election would provide for greater voter turnout is not supported by the facts. A simple review of the board of elections web site which documents the voter turnout percentage since 2001 reflects that the range is between 48% and 51% regardless if it is a mail in ballot or poll ballot. The only anomaly is the June 2007 mail in ballot which was 42%. Most people agree that this was a result of a combination of voter rejection of anything to with the STRP and confusion over a very convoluted ordinance.
  
• The statement that this would give the candidates more time to prepare and present their positions to the voters flies in the face of the fact that there are already four announced candidates, all with their own web sites, that are prepared for an election tomorrow. If the other potential candidates cannot get a campaign organized for a January election they don’t have any business running for council.
  
• The concept that an early November election would provide greater voter turnout by an informed electorate refutes common sense. The campaigning period would be September and October, prime hurricane season and the period when the fewest people are on the island. How many of the snowbirds are here during the first week in November vs the last week in January to cast their vote?
  

Ms. Miller sent an e-mail to the council on August 9, 2007 correcting a number of the misstatements made in her presentation. While this serves to clean up the record, the acknowledgement of those misstatements will never be heard by the citizens. Most telling is her representation that “Again, I do not prefer any opinion or favor any specific choice for a vote date.” One can only assume that Ms. Miller forgot her Letter to the Editor titled “Reasons to Change Council Vote to November” published by the Sun Times on August 8, 2007.

The citizens of Marco Island have lost faith in the credibility of their government. This is a result of years of duplicity and the distortion and manipulation of the facts as well as the attempts of rewriting history by the city and their representatives as evidenced above. The citizens are fed up! I believe the next council will be elected on the basis of honest, representative government committed to serve the people’s agenda, not that of the CM or the developers. Thank you for your time.

Roger Hall
Marco Island

City Contamination Follow-Up

The following is a composite video of three news stories as aired on August 7 (ABC), and August 8 (CBS and ABC) covering the hydrogen sulfide poisoning as a results of the STRP construction.



The following link is to yet another scientific evaluation of this highly dangerous poison (courtesy of John Putnam).

Material Safety Data Sheet

Hydrogen Sulfide - The Facts

The link below is to a research paper providing scientific evidence refuting the city of Marco Island's claim that Hydrogen Sulfide - the gas permeating all STRP construction zones - is "nothing to worry about".

Please read it carefully as it affects your health.

CLICK HERE FORE Hydrogen Sulfide - The Facts" PAPER.

The POP Insurance Policy

We all have insurance – or rather, all of us that are here legally that is. Insurance is seemingly at times a necessary evil. From factors out of our control to the failings of human nature we seek through insurance to mitigate our exposure by simply paying someone else to take on part of the risk for us.

If life was perfect and the universe did not exist through chaos, confusion or randomness we would not need insurance. And in more practical terms, if people did their jobs correctly and if people behaved honestly for the most part we would not need insurance.

There are similar problems with government. They are clearly not perfect, do exist through chaos, confusion and randomness, are unduly influenced and make too many mistakes. So what is one to do when dealing with governments?

Well, we create more laws that at times fuels the chaos, confusion, randomness, influence and mistakes. And at times laws are enacted that stems the tide. If governments would only do what they were elected to do.

Many – yes, many as evidenced by the number of petitions signed – have stated that the Marco Island city council has not done its job when it came to their sworn oath as to the city manager. Since the city council – in near unanimity – ignored the cries of many citizens, these same people took out an insurance policy.

Just like we take out insurance policies against bad storms, and bad neighbors, and bad drivers, citizens have taken out a policy against bad government.

Coming up for consideration in the next council meeting is a new insurance policy – the POP referendum.

This insurance policy simply states that if the city council refuses to act responsibly by managing, controlling, supervising and dictating the will of the people to the city manager, then the citizens will have an opportunity to make such a determination. And if that determination affirms bad government, then the city manager is out.

The criticism of the POP insurance policy has been repeated ad nausea by the Hate Slate, the city apparatchiks, and the usual suspects. Since we’ve all heard them before, no need repeating them here – except one.

Our particular favorite is the one that goes something like this: if the POP insurance goes on the books, no “respectable” “professional” “experienced” “qualified” city manager, or one that belongs to the International City/County Management Association (“ICMA”) will take the city manager job on Marco Island. Ipso facto, we will have to hire the next city manager from a pool of dishonest unprofessional inexperienced nincompoops that don’t belong to some self-aggrandizing clique – and presumably don’t want the $150,000 a year position in soon-to-be-once-again paradise.

If this is true, then why did the city council put us in this unenviable position?

Because this city council thinks that the present city manger has done a great job – that’s why! Yes, that’s right – regardless of the threats, and intimidation, and violation of civil rights, and terms of contracts that go un-enforced, and asbestos dumping, and disruption and contractors that are behind schedule and the ever disappearing $30million - $60million reserves, our esteemed elected officials purport that the city manager has done such a superb performance that the present inhabitant of the position warrants a … bonus!

This brings us back to the insurance policy.

Throughout the history of this great country there has been those that threaten doom and gloom when power is bestowed or restored to the people. Such is the case here with threats that only Mr. Magoos and the Three Stooges types that are not members of the ICMA will apply for the city manager position if the POP insurance policy is instituted.

(That’s ok – Mr. Magoo was honorable, the Three Stooges were well intentioned, and not being part of an club that heralds a code of ethics that it does not enforce is a bonus.)

Throughout the history of this great country, power in the hands of the people rarely (if ever) leads to the predicted apocalypse. Why direct democracy is repeatedly questioned when it has such a stellar track record is truly unfathomable.

So, drive safely. But if you regrettably get into an accident because of some irresponsible driver, then call your insurance company – it’s called prudence.

So, vote intelligently. But if you regrettably get councilpersons that flip-flop on issues or compromise their oath, then invoke your POP policy – it’s called democracy.

But that would be in America – not here on Marco Island.

In yet another farcical denigration of its citizens, the city has rejected the POP petition on the grounds – and this is a quote – “Litzan said the referendum’s language is misleading because it asks the simple question of whether voters approve of the city manager’s performance, but excludes information about the consequences of a ‘NO’ vote.”

Excuse us? Did the city’s sham Septic Tank Replacement Program Bond/Loan Referendum of June 26, 207 detail the consequences of a ‘NO’ vote? No, it did not.

So the city’s referendum got on the ballot without spelling out the consequences of a ‘NO’ vote, but yet they use that pretext to reject the POP petition.

And do you see why we need insurance to guard us from governments like the one now on Marco Island?