Talk:Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Issues
I just removed a well-intended but brief statement regarding potable water supplies. This is a complex topic, not appropriate to an article describing a state agency. Other articles are available that seem more appropriate: List of environmental issues, Resource depletion, Conservation, etc. Tim Ross   (talk)  17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Student7. I wanted you to know why I'm about to rvt your statement, newly added to Florida Department of Environmental Protection about half of Florida's waterways being rated as poor. As far as I know, the statement is true, and you have a reasonable ref for it. I'm reverting it because the DEP article is the wrong place for it. One could stretch things, I suppose, and add a section to the DEP article on "Important findings or decisions", but, really, this sort of information belongs in the state article or some article dealing with the state's environment or waters in general (if there is such an article). Tim Ross  (talk)  13:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The material that was removed was:


 * "In 2009, the department ranked as poor, the quality of more than half of Florida's waterways.(ref)(ref)"


 * This seems to me, fundamental to the entire organization. This is what the organization does. This has huge implications for money transference over the next decade. It is not a trivial issue IMO. Other than saying we couldn't breath the air or the soil is dangerous, what worse could they have done? This is major! Student7 (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, that this information is worthy of being spread around, Student7, but I still don't think it fits very logically into the history section of the FDEP article. My choice would be Environment of Florida. Tim Ross  (talk)  18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, the sentence read:


 * "In 2009, the department ranked as poor, the quality of more than half of Florida's waterways.(ref)(ref) Student7 (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am responding to the request left on my talk page. I agree with Tim Ross that the statement doesn't belong here. It paraphrases a statement from the agency, but doesn't provide as assessment of their effectiveness. It really needs context, because just dropping it in without any explanation of terms, and whether that is an improvement, a decline, or a stable state, makes readers likely to draw inferences that may not be accurate. Without some cited background and context, I would not add it to the Environment of Florida article either. (Full disclosure: I am the primary editor of that article, and I worked hard to make it accurate, fully cited, and NPOV. I'd like to keep it that way.)  Horologium  (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Okay. You win. I lose. I would like to learn something from this, if you don't mind giving lessons!

I infer from the above that the reviewer might, just might, accept a paragraph or two in here that explicitly states, not just points, to a lot of parameters they used to evaluate the rivers.

1) So my first question is: Do you agree that is what he said?

I hate putting WP:UNDUE in any article regardless of length. And IMO, this article is already too short for such gigantic "pronouncements" to say nothing of the fact that the reviewer still might not "like" it after all that (unnecessary) work. (Never mind that the original material was from a WP:RELY source and was not questioned by you.

2) So my next question is, why does this tiny summation issued by the organization itself (and not a critic, for example) require elaborate "justification" as to their research? There is nothing here that implies that it was a top-of-the head pronouncement from some politician.

3) In general, where should important statements and findings made by an organization go? If they can't be coupled with the organization itself?

3a) Forked?

3b) I think you are saying, find some analogous organization and stick it there, maybe? But nothing that an organization does or says may be coupled with that organization? This is a novelty to me. I do not understand why what an organization does or says, fundamental to the organization, cannot be coupled with the organization itself. Why is that?

This sort of thing implies that nothing that an organization does or says can be coupled with that organization. The "state senate 2008-1010" (if there is such and article) would only treat its internal organization and nothing about bills it passed or debated, right? Student7 (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, the problem is that it's a little factoid, dropped in without any context. It's pejorative, because it simply says that the department ranked half of the state's waterways as poor, without discussing the big picture. It's like saying that under Bill Clinton, the Unites States ran a deficit for all of his first term, and most of his second term. It's factually true, but it omits the context that the the four presidents before him never produced a balanced budget, and the two presidents after him have not (nor are they projected to do so), and that as an aggregate, Clinton had the lowest deficits in the past thirty years. Facts are facts, but they need context to avoid being misrepresented.


 * If you include a discussion of the report, which I mentioned in my initial response, it might it appropriate in this article, but your original edit didn't work. Articles cannot be constructed from a series of facts thrown together, and a one-sentence paragraph with no connection to anything else in the article is jarring, to say the least, and does bring the question of undue weight into play. I don't have enough knowledge of the DEP to comment one way or the other, but that edit gave me a distinctly unsavory opinion of the department, which is a classic example of undue weight. It also didn't belong in the history section; if reintroduced, it should be in a separate section, one which doesn't already exist.  Horologium  (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It bothers me that Horolgium is giving the answer here, not the original reverting editor. I don't know (and I doubt) that he agrees with this answer at all. I deliberately shortened the statement to avoid WP:UNDUE. The FDEP is presumably doing it's job, which is to evaluate waterways. I don't see the problem at all. If my job is to evaluate schools and a school system is failing, I have no problem telling them (or the public) this, nor should I have any problem with being quoted on it. This is merely FDEP doing it's job. Does Tim Ross agree that explaining the criteria would help? I don't think he does at all and is simply glad to be rid of the statement in any way and doesn't think that material showing actual performance belongs here or in any existing article. I don't mind expanding it, but I hate to do the work and be outvoted for some other reason. Student7 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, of course, Student7, that this "is merely FDEP doing its job", but that's not actually my point. The quality of water in the state is an important and quite complex issue, and just dropping this kind of extreme "summary" into the article is not at all encyclopedic. Such a significant issue needs and deserves, at the very least, a discussion of cause and trends, of natural and man-made sources, and of several other related issues. Someone looking for that kind of informations is, I think, more likely to go to one of the other articles mentioned above than to FDEP. If you really, really want it there, I would not especially object to a new section addressing, for instance, "Major Actions and Findings" of the FDEP. Tim Ross  (talk)  14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I cannot find the report which was made in 2008, not 2009. It is widely quoted but hidden in FDEP reports somewhere. While it reports poor quality, it has not enforced them most likely due to political pressure. Environmentalists have successfully sued the department to enforce standards. There was an "agreement" which FDEP appealed to a federal court, but the court upheld it. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MWHK_E7g-cwJ:climateofourfuture.org/page/3/+waterways+%22Florida+Department+of+Environmental+Protection%22+has+ranked+more+than+half+of+Florida%27s+waterways+as+poor+waterways&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. The actual report remains well-hidden, which is a bit suspicious in itself. Student7 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not too well hidden, Student7, if it's the 2008 305(b) report ("Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008"), which I suspect is the source. Check here. Tim Ross  (talk)  17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think...
 * page x seems to say that only 1/4 are poor, but 59% of estuaries. This doesn't seem to support the media's analysis. Then page xi seems to say the number of unpolluted bodies is small. So I don't know where the media is getting it's "more than 50% of all waterways" statement from. But they've been saying it quite awhile with no rebuttal from FDEP. So I guess it is in here someplace. The successful environmentalist suit is most likely based on an earlier report anyway and while irrelevant to this report, perhaps gave them encouragement? They must have read it closer than I did! Student7 (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

merge discussion
agree with 's merge proposal (from 2013) to merge the unreferenced stub Bureau of Park Patrol that has no stand alone quality with this site.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806002334/http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/ to http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Piney Point Incident
I'm following this subject and suggest the inclusion of a sub-section for the 4/25/21 Piney Point Incident, and a mention of the incident on the History sub-section. Supporting points:


 * The incident is a current event addressing an environmental crisis that the FDEP website has listed as their top priority.


 * Governor DeSantis has declared a state of emergency due to the contamination leak discovery, and HRK, the embattled holding company that owns the site is alleged to be ultimately responsible.

I've already suggested same-topic edits for the Piney Point Phosphate Plant article, which has a sub-section for the incident. Xin Jing (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disturbed usage of microphone 🎤 that is being used for stalking
Crime 🎤 microphone being used against citizen help Report location Dayton Ohio to traveler State of Florida 70.60.56.30 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)