MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Dive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139 ww miamibecchf.gov RAULJ. AGUILA, City Atoney JIMMY MORALES, City Manager Tel: 3054673:7000, Fox: 305.673.7002 VIA: Courier / Email May 25, 2016 Aminda Marqués Gonzalez Executive Editor Miami Herald 2000 NW 150th Ave Pembroke Pines, FL 33028 rques@miamiherald.com RE: “Miami Beach king tides flush human waste into the bay, study finds” (Article of May 16, 2016) Dear Ms. Gonzalez: The Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach directed us to respond to the Herald’s damaging, misleading depiction of the City in its article of May 16, 2016, titled above. The clear mental picture presented recklessly and incorrectly depicts vile, unsafe water conditions surrounding the City, where swimming or other contact with the water is unsafe for residents and visitors and thereby insinuates that the City is neglecting its environmental duties. This letter outlines the article’s misconstructions. In short, the Herald bases sweeping accusations upon an inadequate “study,” one that ignores deliberate, calculated observations, and shows the City in a false light that is inaccurate and undeserved. We conclude by suggesting a course of action for future cooperation in the interest of a just portrayal of the City. The City’s waters remain swimmable and meet the requirements of our National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The article is an unfair indictment of the City’s approach to combatting sea level rise, which consists of converting an existing gravity-based drainage system to one based on pumps, By falsely drawing a connection between pumps and levels of bacteria, the Herald’s article diminishes the hard work the City has done on behalf of its citizens and visitors to ensure rising sea levels do not overwhelm the thriving community, while preserving and enhancing our local ecosystem. ‘The damage the publication of this article has caused grows as undeservedly unpleasant images of Miami Beach cross the minds of all who would otherwise visit to enjoy its iconic and clean atmosphere,Letter tothe Executive Ector, Mar Herald May 25, 2016. Page 2016 The Article in its Own Words “Miami Beach king tides flush human waste into the bay, study finds Water contained levels of waste well above state levels for swimming Massive pumps that flush floodwater from Miami Beach into Biscayne Bay during seasonal king tides are dumping something else into the bay: human waste A study that looked at tidal floodwater and water discharged from the island's new pumps during the 2014 and 2015 king tides found live fecal bacteria well above state limits, In one case, levels were more than 600 times the limit. While some of the fecal matter was dog waste, scientists found higher levels of human waste that likely enter floodwaters from leaky old sewer lines or septic tanks.” There is no question as to the damaging image this lede conjures. “Human waste.” “Fecal matter.” Did your writers realize fecal coliform bacteria is not human-specific and can also come from warm-blooded animals including dogs, cats, birds, and many other species? Extensive genetic testing not performed in this “study” would be required before any such shocking conclusions could be drawn, Furthermore, any such bacteria very quickly dies once exposed to the sun after hitting open water. Any impact is temporary. Under your headline, there was an old photograph of Taste Bakery, surrounded by flooding, with the following caption: “Miami Beach Officials installed massive pumps to address flooding, pictured here at Flooded Alton Road Ninth Street. But scientists now say pumping stormwater is dumping water laced with high amounts of human waste into the bay.” The article’s photo is from years ago, Because of the City’s new pumps, flooding like this no longer occurs, and nowhere does your writer inform readers of that success or even of the outdated nature of the picture, which, in context, is viewed as showing the City’s streets coated in “high amounts of human waste.” Unfortunately, this article’s report on this “study” casts in the falsest possible light the true scientific status of Miami Beach’s impact on its surrounding waters, an impact that has onlyLater tothe Execute Ectr, Miami Herald May 25,2078 Page Sof improved with the presence of the City’s pumps. The article portrays a situation of heightened human contamination as a condition uniquely or most prominently caused by the stormwater pumps installed by Miami Beach. However, the only real truth revealed by the story reflects that the Herald did not vet the “study” that serves as its foundation. “The “Study” This official-sounding language confuses for readers the actual state of affairs in the bay “At the time, Bricefio and a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Miami began sampling water to determine if the pumped untreated urban water had any impact on the bay. That first year, they found elevated levels of phosphorus, nitrogen and other pollutants that can trigger algae blooms toxic to marine life. To confirm the findings, they returned last year.” Is the Herald aware that Dr, Bricefio tested only on a single day each in 2014 and 2015? Did writer Jenny Staletovich know that Briceiio took samples directly from the mouth of the pumped outfall pipe but not from even 10 feet away? Was it not clear that he did not test any other areas, at any outfalls without pumps, at any locations across the bay, or at any other times or under any other conditions, to serve as controls? Did the reporter reach out to the FIU faculty to see if this data had been peer-reviewed, as would be the best practice? Would the article have been different with this information: Dr. Bricefio solicited over $669,000 from the City of Miami Beach to continue this very “study” after its first year. His proposal was not accepted. The truth is much simpler: there are no known pollutant concentrations coming from Miami Beach beyond those which are found surrounding the outfalls of any major city. In accordance with our NPDES permit, Miami-Dade County’s Division of Environmental Resources Management conducts monthly sampling of Biscayne Bay to monitor physical parameters and pollutant levels. Furthermore, the Department of Health conducts weekly bacteriological sampling offshore from the beaches as part of the Florida Healthy Beaches Program. Both sampling programs track long-term trends through consistent data collection across different seasonal, meteorological, and varied conditions, allowing them to draw scientifically sound conclusions regarding the status of their subject waterbodies. Based on the latest results of these programs, the waters surrounding Miami Beach are suitable for public use,Ltr tothe Executve Etor, Mim Herald May 25, 2016 Poge 4016 including swimming, and there is no evidence that the pumps are contributing to or aggravating the nutrient and bacteria levels in the stormwater. With such an array of information, the City is able to make adjustments with an eye toward prevention that would not be possible with the two-day, single-source attempt at data collection that was inexplicably presented to the Herald's readers, Foundationless “studies” like Dr. Bricefio’s—those that do not take time to deliberately gather evidence and evaluate the truth—should be caught in an editorial filter long before misleading “scientific” information is disseminated to readers. And the City should certainly have been given a true opportunity to refute Dr. Bricefio’s findings beyond a courtesy call the afternoon the article was being written. Given that this data was nearly seven months old, why not give the City a fair opportunity to present the truth? Stormwater does and has always conveyed a variety of contaminants from land to sea. Stormwater pollution is a universal issue, This is a mainstay issue when urban centers are near to any waterway, whether those contaminants flow through runoff or through pumps. “The recent report took a closer look at the water's contents, breaking down findings into fecal matter measured by water regulators and identifying both human and dog waste. At four sites tested in 2015, which included outfall pipes, portable pump discharges and street water, every site had fecal levels above state limits. Along Indian Creek Drive, levels were 622 times as high. In 2014, a storm drain ousfall at 14th Street measured 630 times allowed limits.” We don’t dispute what was found in the water at the mouth of the outflows, but that data, in and of itself, does not provide any proof that the newly installed pumps are contributing to pollution. They simply move water from land to sea, removing what would otherwise be disseminated broadly as runoff through gravity into controlled, concentrated output points. Of course, it is possible to collect data manipulatively to show higher-than-usual levels of contaminants at pumped discharge points, as Dr. Bricefio has done by testing only near pumped outfalls, But there is no factual or even logical basis to blame the pumps simply because they move the water faster. In fact, one could argue that by removing the water more quickly fromLtr tthe Exooutve Ear, Mian Herald May 25, 2016 Pago 5018 our roads and rights-of-way, the water is actually cleaner than if it was left to stagnate in an urban setting surrounded by automobiles. The stormwater runoff coming from Miami Beach is no different from its pre-pump levels. It is likely no different than that which can be found in other coastal communities as far away as San Diego and, importantly, as near as the City of Miami, each of which are responsible for nearly identical contaminant levels, and neither of which represent any current health dangers or breach of environmental standards. If the “study” that formed the basis for this article were thorough enough to test the waters even a few feet away from the mouths of the City’s pumps, the result would have likely been very different. Pollutant concentrations dissipate quickly, and bacteria die when exposed to sunlight—therefore, levels are not at an inflammatory “630 times as high.” Miami Beach's Actual Present and Future The images the article invokes are most offensive to the tireless efforts the City continues to put in on a daily basis to set the pace for cleaner shores and lower ecological impact. he waters of Miami Beach are far from unsafe. From the recent Styrofoam ban and grease trap program to the rigid dumping standards and comprehensive public education programs, the pumps the City is installing to keep it afloat are nothing but the latest in a long line of environmentally forward initiatives that clearly demonstrate a conscious attitude to keep pollutants from entering our waterways. In fact, the City constantly looks to upgrade its system and improve its outputs; the newer pumps, for example, are equipped with vortex structures that help to remove sediment and fine particles before they can make it out into the bay. In short, because of reckless reliance on faulty “science,” this publication has reported a solution as if it were a problem, which unfairly mars the excellent standard the City has reached. This same City has created an aggressive maintenance plan to spend more than $1 million annually cleaning the streets, catch basins, piping, vortexes, and pumping stations to avoid environmental disasters and brace for remarkable storms. This same City continues to reach out to the residents, businesses, and visitors further to help it protect its coastal waters by practicing healthy household habits that keep common pollutants like pesticides, pet waste, food grease, cleaning chemicals, grass clippings, and automotive fluids off the ground and out of stormwater. This same City leads by example and continues to challenge other coastal cities around Miami-Lotter tothe Execute Edltor, Mai Heald May 25, 2016 Page 6of 6 Dade County that also discharge their stormwater into Biscayne Bay to do their part in reducing stormwater pollution to protect this precious resource for generations to come. Because of this misrepresentative article, the City must now expend an incredible amount of time and resources undoing the damage the misleading statements contained within have caused to its reputation. Because of these words, would-be visitors could mistakenly avoid what are some of the most enjoyable swimming waters in the country. Moving Forward This matter is likely to come again before the City Commission at its June 8th meeting. Therefore, we believe it will be in all of our best interests to discuss, as soon as possible in advance of that date, what we believe to be the defi s of the May 16, 2016 article, The City asks to meet with the Herald to have a meaningful discussion for purposes of reconciling our differences on this topic. Hopefully, we can agree on what steps the City and the Herald might take to put City’s situation into a proper context, avoid misleading content in the future, and point the way forward for the Herald, its readers, and the City to cooperatively present the real issues that affect our City and environment. For now, and for the reasons presented above, a retraction of this article is also necessary to alleviate the damage inflicted. These issues affect the bay, South Florida’s waterways, and, in fact, coastal and riparian metropolitan areas across the country, and we want nothing more than to place our shared community in the best possible position to receive information, to act, and to lead by example for the benefit of all for the future. We look forward to hearing from you on this urgent matter. Sincerely, AC Raut J. AGUILA Cry ATTORNEY (805) 673-7470 Ex. 6475 RAULAGUILA@MIAMIBEACHFL.GOV {MY MORALES@MIAMIBEACHEL.Gov