Mariana Aziz, environmental policy specialist for Miami Waterkeeper, told the Biscayne Bay Watershed Management Advisory Board on Oct. 3 that recent budget language and a reorganization “stripped” permitting authority away from Durham and moved it to Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER).

The public commentators said the change was enacted via the county budget and that the reorganization reduced what had been a standalone regulatory office into a “policy office.” At the meeting, several speakers urged the advisory board to request a clear, public explanation from county administration about who will hold specific permitting and enforcement powers under chapter 24 and the budget ordinance.

Why it matters: The speakers said Durham historically functioned as an independent local environmental regulator that issued and enforced permits under chapter 24, managed wetlands and mangroves, and could require environmental studies and testing. They warned that if permitting and enforcement are separated across agencies without written processes and accountability, environmental protections for Biscayne Bay could suffer.

Members of Miami Waterkeeper pressed the board with a long list of operational questions: which director will have authority to issue or suspend development permits; whether Durham (sometimes referred to in public materials as DERM) will retain authority to require environmental impact statements or to issue notices of violation; which office will investigate and prosecute chapter 24 complaints; and whether enforcement and permitting will be siloed so that different offices issue permits and carry out compliance inspections.

“From decades, Durham was the most respected local environmental agency … The term director historically had independent authority to grant, deny or condition permits,” Mariana Aziz said. Jessica Ganim, an environmental policy analyst with Miami Waterkeeper, described the process that led to the change as lacking transparency: “A reorganization of environmental permitting…should not happen through last minute language in the budget.” Adriana Gonzales Fernandez, Miami Waterkeeper’s science and research director, asked specifically whether references in county code that once named the Durham director for certain actions now name the RER director.

Rachel Silverstein, executive director and waterkeeper at Miami Waterkeeper, asked the advisory board to demand performance metrics from the administration so the public can evaluate whether the reorganization preserves environmental standards. “We need clear metrics…including but not limited to the number of violations resolved, the number of notices of violation issued, water quality and pollution, acres of seagrass lost,” Silverstein said, recommending the board request metrics at least every six months.

Board reaction and next steps: Chair Commissioner Mickey Steinberg acknowledged the public comments and said Durham was not on the written agenda for the Oct. 3 meeting, but that she could add the topic to a future agenda. A county attorney present told the board the environmental requirements in chapter 24 were not amended as part of the reorganization; the chair asked staff to collect more information and return to the board for a fuller discussion.

No formal change in county code or a vote on permitting authority was recorded at the Oct. 3 meeting. The advisory board’s next steps, as stated in the meeting, are to seek written clarifications from the administration on the specific powers assigned by the budget ordinance and to place the topic on a future board agenda for more extensive review.

The advisory board’s discussion distinguished between public comment (the speakers’ concerns and questions), staff assurances that chapter 24 has not been amended, and the board chair’s direction to request further information from the county administration.

Contacts and sources: Public comments at the meeting came from multiple Miami Waterkeeper staff and volunteers who identified themselves by name and role; the county attorney’s brief response at the meeting addressed legal text but did not provide a department-level organizational chart or a process flow. The advisory board requested that administration provide written answers to the specific operational questions raised by the speakers.

Looking ahead: Advisory board members and members of the public said they expect the board to receive a written explanation from the administration before a formal vote or ordinance change, and they asked the board to use its oversight role to monitor outcomes under any new structure.