Posted on January 26, 2019
Photo: Circuit Court Judge Andrea McHugh
Complaint sought to stop plan to dig to renourish Lido Key, but another lawsuit remains
SARASOTA — A repeated attempt by a Siesta Key group to curtail the city’s planned dredging of Big Pass to renourish Lido Beach’s disappearing shoreline has been blocked by a judge.
Circuit Court Judge Andrea McHugh on Friday dismissed an amended lawsuit filed in October by the Siesta Key Association alleging the city was required to seek and obtain approval for the project from the Sarasota County Commission as required by environmental chapters of the comprehensive plans of both jurisdictions. McHugh in October granted the city of Sarasota’s motion to dismiss the case, without prejudice, paving the way for the group to file the recently dismissed amended complaint. The October dismissal stated that a local government’s comprehensive plan is not law, according to court documents.
This time around, McHugh dismissed one count with prejudice, meaning the group cannot pursue the issue further. That count attempting to stop the project was dismissed because the city obtained a valid permit for the project from the appropriate issuing agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, according to McHugh’s judgement.
The second count, dismissed without prejudice, requested the court to compel the city to submit the project plans to the Sarasota County Commission for approval to obtain a county permit.
McHugh dismissed the second count because “nowhere do they allege they demanded the city to take such actions,” the Friday ruling states.
It is unclear if the Siesta Key group, which believes the project would harm Siesta Beach, will file another amended complaint on the second count. Siesta Key Association Vice President Catherine Luckner could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
City Manager Tom Barwin praised McHugh’s decision.
“We’re pleased the judge dismissed this case, once again indicating there appears to be no cause of action for lawsuits that keep repeating issues already heard. The renourishment is a vital shoreline protection buffer between the Gulf of Mexico that protects the public infrastructure, property and our local economy,” Barwin said in an email. “We again renew our commitment to working with all interested parties to monitor our shorelines, the environment and boating channels and to monitor the project to unprecedented levels and adjust to even better practices in the future as we all adapt to the threat of rising sea levels.”
The Lido Key Association, which supports the project, was named as a defendant because it intervened in the case.
The project at the heart of the litigation involves dredging up to 1.3 million cubic yards of sand from Big Pass to rebuild parts of critically eroded Lido Beach. The city plans to start the project in September and complete it by the following hurricane season, which begins June 1. The initial renourishment would take 950,000 cubic yards of sand from Big Pass, and subsequent restoration projects would occur every five years, dredging about 500,000 cubic yards each time. The projected cost is $20 million to $22 million and will be funded with local, state and federal funds.
In the meantime, the city has undertaken an emergency renourishment project, which began in November, with completion slated for sometime next month, city officials said. That project will use 150,000 to 200,000 cubic yards of sand from New Pass to rebuild the vanishing shoreline. The project cost of $3.9 million is being shared by the city, Sarasota County, the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The city’s funding portion is approximately $600,000.
Siesta Key Association and another barrier island civic group, Save Our Siesta Sands 2, previously contested the issuance of the project’s permits, but were also unsuccessful. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection in June granted the city of Sarasota a permit to dredge the sand from Big Pass. A final order from DEP Secretary Noah Valenstein followed recommendations issued in May by administrative law Judge Bram D.E. Canter, who ruled the city and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be issued the necessary permits for the project. Both Canter and Valenstein dismissed claims by both groups that the project would negatively affect navigation and cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key.
Save Our Siesta Sands 2 filed a lawsuit in federal court against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Jan. 11 for allegedly violating the law by failing to conduct a vital study to examine the project’s potentially detrimental effects to Siesta Key.
“The potential damage to Siesta Key, its residents and its businesses, as well as all the homes that could be impacted is substantial,” Save Our Siesta Sands 2 Chairman Peter van Roekens told the Herald-Tribune earlier this month. “We believe that there are alternative sources (of sand) that can be used, and we’re concerned that this may be a major problem for Siesta.”
Source: Herald-Tribune
