Dredge project fiasco more than one person's responsibility

The issue: Cost overruns, delays in completing Hernando Beach dredge project.

Our opinion: Better planning, management and communication required by all stakeholders.

The current dilemma that Hernando County faces regarding the dredge of the Hernando Beach channel requires some retrospective investigation.

To begin with, this is not the first time this county has applied for permits to accomplish a dredge project. More than 20 years ago the county had the same problems with the same channel that was filling in. It had to be dredged, including a 1,200-foot extension that was part of the project. The same conditions that existed then exist today. A number of permits had to be obtained and it was a time-consuming process that had to be followed.

Interesting, the same issues that were present then are present now. Why then are we facing the same problems that we faced in the past?

Water quality and clarity and sea grass beds were major issues that were overcome and dealt with. In fact, in 1983 the county invited the help of a University of South Florida team that was conducting a federal Sea Grant Project study of the coast of west-central Florida from Pasco to Wakulla County. (Report No. 79 Florida Sea Grant.) Associate Professor Albert C. Hine was the lead investigator and author of the report. There were issues of turbidity that were studied by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to assist Hernando County.

The point is that there was a sufficient library of information from the not-too-distant past that should have helped our staff and county commission to be prepared for all the requirements and nuances that would be placed in their way. That wasn't the case and now we see the county in danger of losing $7.7 million in state grant funds to help pay for the dredge project.

The project got off to a bad start after county commissioners selected and agreed to a site to dump spoil from the dredge and then changed their minds and selected a new site.

That not only cost the county time, but it was an expensive settlement with the first site owners, who had a valid contract with the county. There is plenty of blame to pass around, including the county commission for poor decision-making right from the beginning.

Questions of sea grass and turbidity were major issues more than 20 years ago, and they are still major issues today, but somehow they were not addressed in the original proposal documents for this new dredge.

That is a major fault of this dredge fiasco.

We have huge costs over the original budget and huge delays that could cause the county to lose the state grant and cost the taxpayers a boatload of money. These problems fall on many shoulders and not just one individual. Surely, a lack of continuity of our county administrators was also a major contributor on the negative side of this issue, but not the deciding factor.

More questions are being asked and they should be: Why was the scope of work that was in the request for bids so inadequate?

Were there any flaws in the bidding process or the change orders? Why was there such a lack of communication between all parties?

Holding those responsible for the huge over-budget cost increases of about $800,000 and major delays is important to ensure better performance in the future, but the most important aspect is to get this project moving and do it right so we don't lose the grant money.

Time is ticking away and now we can't see how this project can finish on schedule. If we don't complete the project on time or get an extension from the state, we could lose the grant and our community will suffer.

It's the county commission's responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.