Needed: a common sense approach to hazardous materials in the floodplain - An opinion

Submitted by Aaron Bell

August 1, 2016 1:00 a.m.

The Fernandina City Commission will be deciding on potential changes to the city’s comprehensive plan soon. The changes will revise an ill-advised provision in the city’s comp plan that effectively bans the storage of hazardous materials in the floodplain. The words “hazardous materials” sound very frightening, but the reality is they are materials that every one of us comes into contact with on a daily basis.

On its surface, the idea of banning these materials from the floodplain seems like it might be a good idea, but when you consider the implications of such a policy...not so much. When you contemplate the makeup of our city, it should lead any to question how we ever ended up with such a provision in the first place.

We live on a barrier island, so elevation is far from abundant. The entire waterfront of the city is essentially in the floodplain as well as many properties bordering Egan’s creek. If you’ve lived here any amount of time and understand the breadth of the term “hazardous materials,” you should quickly understand just how many of our existing businesses and services are affected by a blanket ban like what currently exists.

While the term hazardous materials sounds scary, we all use them every day. The term is broad and includes everything from the gas in your car, to the cleansers under your sink, to the propane cylinders at city residences and restaurants, to the industrial chemicals used at the mills or the chlorine at the city pool and water treatment plants.

The existing ban is that which was placed in the comprehensive plan some 20 years ago with a blind eye to what currently exists in the floodplain. Our city’s industrial sector is largely located on the working waterfront and many public facilities are also in the floodplain, which means that the ban (if enforced by the city) would include both mills, the port, the city’s wastewater treatment plant, the seafood industry, the city pool, the city marina (gas services) and any restaurant west of 3rd street that has a propane tank.

Supporters of the ban will tell you that those facilities are grandfathered under the ban...so it’s fine. Again, as a concept, that sounds good, but if you understand the implications of grandfathering...not so much. Being grandfathered means that you can never change the aspects of your business or operations that are subject to the law you are grandfathered from.

In this case, those businesses and city services can never change how they store those materials without coming into compliance with the law. Nor can they change their processes to take advantage of new technologies or markets if it would result in the use of a single new hazardous chemical.

If there were actually a pathway for businesses to comply with the law to add chemicals or upgrade facilities, that would be one thing. In this case, particularly if their entire property is in the floodplain, it’s simply not possible to comply. If any of those businesses need to upgrade a tank or expand their business, the current law will not allow them because there is no way that they can come into compliance.

I have faith that our city leaders will act on reason rather than emotion and help ensure that our own shortsighted laws don’t unintentionally hobble our economy or create risk for the city.

The Planning Advisory Board narrowed the scope of the amendment to lift the ban on the mills only. That’s better than nothing, but the Commission may want to consider whether it makes sense to still subject all those other businesses as well as the city facilities (marina, wastewater treatment plant and rec center) to the ban. After all, telling them they are grandfathered will only encourage the use of outdated storage equipment for materials that we should actually be handling with the highest regard for safety.

The vote on the 2nd is just the first step in this process. Following the vote, the city will then amend its land development code to implement the new language that is going into the comprehensive plan. Already, some local activists are proposing a wide array of restrictions, beyond typical mitigation, to be incorporated into the Land Development Code. The problem is, if the city makes the law impossible to comply with, they haven’t fixed anything. This result would have the same negative consequences of enforcing the existing ban.

A balance must be struck with any regulatory matter and the city has to weigh the interests of an activist contingent, many of whom would like to see industry go away, and the broader city population, many of whom depend on our local industries for their livelihoods. Both the Commission and the Planning Advisory Board would do well to ensure they keep their perspective broad and not focus on just the vocal few.

As far as the comp plan provision that’s now before the city, it’s common sense that the city should provide a path for our existing businesses and services to continue to operate responsibly. We all feel the benefits of the boost they provide to the local economy, and it would be shortsighted to allow this ill-advised ban to continue.

Editor's Note:  Fernandina Beach City Commissioners will vote on August 2, for a change to the Comprehensive Plan regarding hazardous material in the flood plain.

Aaron Bell is vice president of Science First, a third generation family owned manufacturing business located in Yulee, Florida.  He is a board member of the Nassau County Economic Development Board and served as its chairman in 2012-2013.