Tag Archives: Crystal River

Authorize selected staff to sign permit applications and inspection reports for FDOT, FDEP, and SWFWMD –Citrus BOCC 2025-09-23

1 Reply

Maybe it’s a coincidence that this move by the Citrus BOCC comes a month after Southworth sold Citrus County sand mine site to state of Florida 2025-08-06.
https://wwals.net/?p=68529

The Citrus County Commissioners approved authorizing seven named staff members to sign permit applications and inspection reports on behalf of the county, with no mention of any further approval by the Commissioners. This authorization is for each of FDOT, FDEP, and SWFWMD, which are exactly the three Florida state agencies that are involved in permitting the huge borrow pit next to the Suncoast Parkway Phase 3A Extension in Citrus County.

I’ve never seen this before, and I go to many county commission meetings in Florida and Georgia, and I watch more counties online. It’s common for counties to put specific items on their agenda to authorize a specific staff member to sign a specific document, but I’ve never seen a blanket authorization like this, especially not for seven different staff for three different agencies.

Further, the listing in the Consent Agenda does not match the actual authorizations later in the board packet, and those authorizations seem to extend the authorization to the actual permits, not just applications.

[Authorize selected staff to sign permit applications, etc., for FDOT, FDEP, and SWFWMD --Citrus BOCC 2025-09-23]
Authorize selected staff to sign permit applications, etc., for FDOT, FDEP, and SWFWMD –Citrus BOCC 2025-09-23

Much background on this proposed sand mine is here:
https://stopthesandminecc.wixsite.com/stopthesandmine

See also the Stop the Sand Mine change.org petition:
https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-sand-mine

This is upstream from Crystal River, south of the Withlacoochee (South) River that flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Local opponents are rightly concerned about local issues.

WWALS is also concerned that this would be another step towards running the Suncoast Parkway north across the Suwannee River.

On its Consent Agenda for September 23, 2025, the Citrus Board of County Commissioners approved item C.12: Continue reading →

Southworth sold Citrus County sand mine site to state of Florida 2025-08-06

4 Replies

Update 2025-09-29: Authorize selected staff to sign permit applications and inspection reports for FDOT, FDEP, and SWFWMD –Citrus BOCC 2025-09-23.

The plot thickens for the proposed sand mine next to the Suncoast Parkway Phase 3A Extension in Citrus County.

The state filed eminent domain proceedings for 50 acres and the owner settled for $3.1 million plus $543,345 in attorney fees, plus $112,000 in experts costs.

[Southworth sold Citrus County sand mine site to state of Florida, 2025-08-06]
Southworth sold Citrus County sand mine site to state of Florida, 2025-08-06

Most everything you need to oppose this humongous borrow pit is here:
https://stopthesandminecc.wixsite.com/stopthesandmine

See also the Stop the Sand Mine change.org petition:
https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-sand-mine

This is upstream from Crystal River, south of the Withlacoochee (South) River that flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Local opponents are rightly concerned about local issues.

WWALS is also concerned that this would be another step towards running the Suncoast Parkway north across the Suwannee River.

The Citrus Insider, August 25, 2025, https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122172452786538075&set=a.122162996816538075,

Southworth settled his eminent domain proceedings with the state. The state now owns the location of the proposed mine. I heard this was the case and why they asked to delay the hearing, but I did not want to put it out without proof (I have a pending records request)

That takes the county out of the process. The state can now move forward with the sand mine if they choose to do so. They would need to follow proper permitting procedures from SWFWMD and other entities.

But county now has no say in what happens to the property.

**update** The eminent domain settlement looks to be for 50 acres right next to the parkway. The mine application was over 250 acres. So there may be more coming.

Continue reading →

Borrow pits proposed within 5 miles of Suncoast Parkway Extension, upstream from Crystal River @ Citrus County Commission 2025-05-27

Update 2025-09-28: Southworth sold Citrus County sand mine site to state of Florida 2025-08-06.

We’ve helped stop the Suncoast Parkway from expanding north across the Suwannee River, all the way to Georgia. But if this Phase 3A Extension happens in Citrus County, northwards becomes likely again. So even if you don’t live there, you may want to help oppose FDEP’s request for the county to allow borrow pits within 5 miles of the parkway path for the duration of the project.

If you do live in Citrus County, such mining could affect your water or air quality, plus noise, traffic, and more development.

[Borrow pits proposed within 5 miles of Suncoast PKWY Ext., upstream from Crystal River @ Citrus BOCC 2025-05-27]
Borrow pits proposed within 5 miles of Suncoast PKWY Ext., upstream from Crystal River @ Citrus BOCC 2025-05-27

Most everything you need is here:
https://stopthesandminecc.wixsite.com/stopthesandmine

That site has email addresses for the County Commissioners and the Land Development Office, ideas on what to write, and how to get more involved.

See also the Stop the Sand Mine change.org petition:
https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-sand-mine

Developers talk to your elected officials all the time. If you want something else, you need to talk to them, too.

Tomorrow at 1:20 PM, the Citrus County Commissioners will consider tossing out their land development code within 5 miles of the Suncoast Parkway Extension for the duration of its construction.

If the Commissioners seriously entertain abdicating their local zoning power because the state of Florida asked them to, presumably they will have to schedule a vote at some later meeting.

Depending on how that goes, there may be a Special Master Hearing on Friday, June 27, 2025 about a Southworth Mine.

If you don’t want disturbance of water flow to Crystal River, noise, dust, unknown particulates, and rampant development, you may want to show up tomorrow, or write or call your County Commissioner, or help organize the opposition.

Citrus BOCC Agenda

Continue reading →

Need Show Cause for NFE Miami LNG, Strom LNG, etc. –WWALS to FERC 2021-07-30

I wondered why we were suddenly getting media inquiries about a letter WWALS sent to FERC two weeks ago. Yesterday FERC got around to posting it. Weirdly for a letter about Florida, in the docket for a Puerto Rico Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) facility. Well, we did cite FERC’s March 2021 Order in that docket as a precedent.

Interestingly, it’s marked:
Non-decisional: No

Does that mean FERC is willing to entertain what we asked? Send SHOW CAUSE letters to all five Florida facilities? Or revoke FERC’s 2015 abdication of oversight over inland LNG export facilities?

As the letter says, we are not fans of FERC. But no FERC environmental oversight turns out to be worse than FERC.

WWALS to FERC 2021-07-30

Accession Number 20210817-4000 as “Comments of WWALS Watershed Coalition re NFE Miami LNG under CP20-466.”

The letter references the 2015 FERC decision that it did not have jurisdiction over inland LNG facilities. That decision is Pivotal LNG, Inc., 151 FERC ¶ 61,006, (2 April 2015). Then-Commissioner Norman Bay dissented, writing in part:

Here, the majority acknowledges that “liquefaction facilities operated by Pivotal and its affiliate … [will] produce liquefied natural gas that [will] ultimately be exported to foreign nations by a third party” and that such foreign sales must be made pursuant to an export license from DOE.5 There can be little doubt, therefore, that the facilities will be involved in the “exportation of natural gas in foreign commerce.”

Until FERC revokes that 2015 abdication of oversight over inland LNG export facilities, the least it can do is to send SHOW CAUSE orders to each such facility demanding to know why it should not be under FERC oversight.

[Need Show Cause; Map of LNG export operations]
Need Show Cause; Map of LNG export operations

Incidentally, FERC Hotline Support replied about Nathaniel Davis: “He no longer works at FERC.” I had to forward the letter to Janel Burdick, the Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement, who is now also Acting Director. Does anybody know what happened to cause that personnel change at FERC? Continue reading →

Ghost company: Strom LNG

A ghost company with no assets, not even an office or the land it claims for its Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) liquefaction facility, no investment, and no business partners. What reporters from Tampa Bay Times found was even worse than what what we found by attending a Port Tampa Bay board meeting: Port Tampa Bay has no agreement with Strom, and wants none. The reporters’ findings take us back to 2014.

Strom Inc. previously listed an Ybor City building as its physical location, which it no longer occupies. Pictured is the building. [ MALENA CAROLLO | Tampa Bay Times ]
Strom Inc. previously listed an Ybor City building as its physical location, which it no longer occupies. Pictured is the building. [ MALENA CAROLLO | Tampa Bay Times ]

Malena Carollo and Jay Cridlin, Tampa Bay Times, 20 July 2021, A company asked to ship gas through Tampa’s port. Then it ‘disappeared.’
A plan to transport liquefied natural gas from Citrus County to Tampa has activists concerned — even though details are scant.

The Tampa Port Authority’s June board meeting started like always, with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Then came the call for public comments.

Most port board meetings feature one or two speakers, if any. This one had nine, queued up both on Zoom and in person. All had the same concern: An April report to the U.S. Department of Energy filed by a fuel company called Strom Inc.

Seven years ago, Strom obtained a license from the federal government and has quietly pursued a plan to move a fuel called “liquified natural gas,” or LNG, from a 174-acre facility in Crystal River to one of Florida’s ports via truck or train. Its April report indicated that Port Tampa Bay has tentatively agreed to be its choice.

The fuel is a form of natural gas that is cooled to become a liquid. It is most often used in countries that don’t have infrastructure to extract and transport the gas form of the energy source. Opponents say the fuel can be dangerous to transport, calling rail shipments “bomb trains,” and should bear public discussion before a decision is reached to move it through a city. That’s what prompted the cavalcade of speakers at the port.

Their questions came as a surprise to port leaders, because as one official told the speakers: Port Tampa Bay has no agreement with Strom. It is not negotiating with Strom. And it has no plans to export liquefied natural gas of any kind.

In fact, much of the information Strom has provided to the federal government about its efforts to produce and export liquefied natural gas, the Tampa Bay Times found, is outdated by years.

Not only does Strom have no agreement with Port Tampa Bay, it has no investors or outside backing, no natural gas supplier and does not own the Crystal River property on which it told the Department of Energy it plans to start building a production facility this year.

“It’s kind of like a ghost company,” said Don Taylor, president of the Economic Development Authority for Citrus County, who years ago worked with Strom as the company pursued economic incentives to build in Crystal River. “They just kind of disappeared, and we never heard from them again.”

There’s much more detail in the article, which is well worth reading.

The reporters even got a response out of the head of Strom, Inc.:

In an email to the Tampa Bay Times, Dean Wallace, Strom’s president and co-founder of its parent company, Glauben Besitz, LLC, called the discrepancies in its Department of Energy filings Continue reading →

Port Tampa Bay has no agreement with Strom LNG, and wants none 2021-06-15

Update 2021-07-21: Ghost company: Strom LNG.

The many speakers against Strom, Inc. exporting LNG through Port Tampa Bay were heard at the Port board meeting yesterday morning. Port staff misunderstood Strom’s filing, but the Principal Counsel made a very strong statement against that or other LNG export or import through Port Tampa Bay.

[Strom, Port Tampa Bay, Attorney and CEO, Panelists]
Strom, Port Tampa Bay, Attorney and CEO, Panelists

In the Port’s own zoom recording, at 01:52:30, Charles E. Klug, Principal Counsel, Port Tampa Bay, said: Continue reading →

Late again: Strom Inc. semi-annual report to DoE FE about Crystal River LNG 2021-04-04

Strom, Inc., is late again, like last year when it didn’t file its April report until June 12, 2020.

[Missing Strom LNG semi-annual report, Port of Tampa, Jamaica and Puerto Rico]
Missing Strom LNG semi-annual report, Port of Tampa, Jamaica and Puerto Rico

This does not bode well for Strom’s Crystal River liquid natural gas (LNG) facilities “to commence commercial operations in the fourth quarter of 2022”, as it promised then and again in its October 2020 report, which it filed on October 26, 2020.

You’d think the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) would send Strom a reminder. But as usual, we may have to do it. And we have questions. Continue reading →

FERC gets inland LNG half right, for Puerto Rico, and maybe more soon 2021-03-18

FERC actually told New Fortress Energy (NFE) it has 180 days to file an application for authorization to operate its Puerto Rico liquid natural gas (LNG) facility. I’m happy to admit I did not expect this.

[FERC Order and WWALS LNG facilty map]
FERC Order and WWALS LNG facilty map

Yet FERC failed to tell NFE to shut down meanwhile: “We also find that allowing operation of the facility to continue during the pendency of an application is in the public interest.” Translation: it would cost a fossil fuel company income.

But the best part is in a concurring letter. Continue reading →

Strom LNG reports late to FE: reverse merger expected 2020-11-01

Update 2021-04-04: Late again: Strom Inc. semi-annual report to DoE FE about Crystal River LNG 2021-04-04.

Apparently Strom Inc. of the long-touted future LNG export operation in Crystal River, Florida, thinks some public company is so desperate for cash that it will let Strom take over its board for money.

“Additionally, Strom, Inc. is actively in early stage negotiations with a third-party entity regarding a reverse-merger and anticipate filing a report upon completion.”

What money? From a “term-sheet agreement” from un-named financiers that Strom has been claiming since at least April 2020. Lots of big talk, little LNG export action. Which is good news for Crystal River and Tampa, since the most likely export route for Strom would be by truck to Port of Tampa.

[Report, Map]
Report, Map

Strom also has big plans for exporting to “China, Latin America, and several Caribbean countries.”

“Specifically, Strom has received specific interest from LNG users in the Bahamas, China, Belize, Panama, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Honduras and is pursuing all qualified leads. These requests for LNG will far exceed Strom’s authorized capacity, and we will explore our options as we execute agreements. In accordance with Ordering Paragraph D of the Order, Strom will file any such long—term contracts with the DOE/FE following their execution.”

Specifically, interest is not a contract.

This is interesting:

“Strom has secured certain preliminary agreements for equipment and has selected AECOM to fill the role of our EPCM for the Project. AECOM is well versed in Oil and Gas and has been involved in a myriad of FERC approved Oil and Gas projects.”

Yes, AECOM was involved in for instance Elba Island LNG in Georgia.

But Strom LNG in Crystal River, FL, is not a FERC-approved project. Back in 2014 when Strom still planned to locate in Starke, FL, Strom filed with FERC for a Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order re Strom, Inc. under CP14-121. But FERC dismissed that request for lack of fee payment. No other FERC docket for Strom has appeared, so apparently Strom has neither FERC approval nor a declaratory order for Strom’s “mobile liquefaction unit be eligible to export LNG with exemption from FERC’s jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.”

As usual, Strom’s report was late. At least, unlike most of its earlier reports, it arrived before a WWALS member had to ask FE where it was.

Strom, Inc., Semi-Annual Report for October 2020

Here’s is Strom’s report, for FE Docket # 14-56-LNG, Order No. 3537. See also the PDF. Continue reading →

The illusion of pipeline invincibility is shattered –WWALS Brief to FERC in Sabal Trail Rehearing

Let’s cut to the chase in the letter we filed with FERC yesterday:

11. Historic new circumstances add up

The sun never set on the British Empire. Until it did.

No one circumstance ended that Empire, but it is easy to point at major events that accelerated its demise, such as the independence of India and the Suez Incident. Its fall started after the illusion of its invincibility was shattered by Gandhi’s campaign of civil disobedience and other events such as World War II.

The illusion of invincibility of the inland colonial empire of pipelines has been shattered by recent court orders about the ACP, DAPL, and others, and especially by the shut down of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the shuttering of the Constitution Pipeline and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. All of those pipelines were expected to be built, and DAPL actually was built before being ordered to shut down and empty. Now the world knows that pipelines are not inevitable.

All these pipeline projects, like Sabal Trail, were opposed by nonviolent protests and political and legal actions. All those methods of opposition, combined with the sea-change in progress to renewable energy, eventually added up to a new and significantly different world than that in which Sabal Trail was permitted or re-permitted.

The shut down of DAPL and the abandonment of ACP as well as the court rejection of tolling orders make it a new world even since FERC’s June 19, 2020, Order granting a rehearing on Sierra Club’s motion.

FERC should initiate a new [Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement] EIS that should take into account Sabal Trail’s own track record of leaks and sinkholes, as well as leaks and accidents from [Liquid Natural Gas] LNG export and LNG transport in rail cars, the speeding demise of fossil fuels as evidenced by record low LNG export prices and bankruptcies of frackers, the court rejections of DAPL, ACP, and tolling orders and how much of Sabal Trail could never have been built through environmental justice communities without tolling orders, the coronavirus pandemic, and the rapid rise of renewable solar, wind, and battery power as evidenced by FPL and Sabal Trail partners Duke and NextEra, as well as by FERC’s own numbers. All of those new and significant circumstances make pipelines such as Sabal Trail toxic stranded assets, dangerous to the bank accounts of their investors, as well as to the environment, justice, and human health.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, WWALS asks FERC to grant Sierra Club’s motion for stay of the Commission’s letter order of April 22, 2020, to halt Sabal Trail Phase II, and to commence a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) taking into account all of the above new and significant circumstances.

[Third-party inspection, recission, stay, SEIS]
Third-party inspection, recission, stay, SEIS

For those who are not familiar with tolling orders, they are basically how, after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) gives federal eminent domain to a private pipeline company, FERC lets that pipeline company take land before any payment to the landowner or even any agreement is reached. Without tolling orders, it’s not clear the FERC will ever get another pipeline built.

Here’s a longer explanation. Continue reading →