Last Update 12/11/25 12:05 P.M.
Stop the Sand Mine
With a discontinuous clay layer, the surficial sands and the Floridan limestone aquifer function as one connected system. So when the ground was excavated deeply, the aquifer water rose directly into the pit from below.
Volume on/off
12/7/25 FDOT/ Political /Mike Arnold Rebuttal
Groundwater Breach, Not Stormwater: The Facts Behind the October 24th Excavation Collapse
It’s hard to find much truth in Mike Arnold’s Citrus Chronicle article, “State: Flooded Excavator was working in a permitted stormwater pond, not unapproved borrow pit,” published December 4, 2025. Mr. Arnold did not even identify the Southworth sand mine location correctly. (See SWFWMD inspector map.) The actual site is on the right side of the SunCoast, only a few hundred feet from the excavation and ground-collapse incident. Mr. Arnold also repeats the claim that a “SWFWMD inspector… found no signs of illicit digging at the unpermitted borrow pit.” Yet these are the only detailed comments made by the inspector:
• “Was unable to find signs of construction activity on the borrow pit parcel, or related to the borrow pit.”
• “The excavator ‘hole’ was within the SunCoast Parkway permit area and is related to pond 3-3B.”
• “Photos in relation to the ‘excavator hole’ in question. Water was not blue or clear. Location on map shows the photos in relation to the borrow pit permit area.”
These minimal observations, with no analysis and no professional conclusions, are not evidence of anything. Yet the article presents them as if they resolve the groundwater breach.
That’s the entire detailed report on this incident, along with five total pictures, three showing a large hole filled with water, with not a soul or any machinery on site. There are no findings, no conclusions, and no analysis in the report. Even more concerning, the inspector who wrote it is not qualified to evaluate a groundwater breach. After speaking at length with a SWFWMD representative, we were told directly that this inspector has no hydrogeological background and is not an engineer of any kind. In other words, he was not equipped to determine whether this incident involved groundwater, stormwater, or aquifer exposure.
Why, then, did SWFWMD send an unqualified inspector on a Saturday, more than two weeks after the collapse, when no contractors were present, no one could be questioned, and all equipment had already been removed? Why was no qualified hydrologist or engineer sent immediately after the excavator became submerged? These decisions raise serious red flags.
The incident occurred on October 24th, and the excavator remained underwater until November 4th. Yet the very agencies responsible for protecting our water did not appear on site until long after the fact, when there was virtually nothing left to observe. This delay, combined with the lack of qualified evaluation, only reinforces our concern that agencies may be attempting to mislead the public about what actually happened.
What concerns us even more is that the Chronicle article now reflects almost word for word the same narrative several of our elected officials have been repeating publicly. When a newspaper prints incomplete or inaccurate information, and that information mirrors the talking points used by political leaders, the public is left with the false impression that the groundwater breach has been properly investigated and explained. It has not. Instead, the article reinforces a version of events that minimizes the seriousness of what occurred and overlooks key technical facts that state agencies themselves have documented.
This is why we believe it is essential that our elected officials receive the full, accurate record of what happened, not the simplified version presented in the Chronicle.
Martinez Tarokh, spokesperson for SWFWMD, stated that, “the water surge that overtook the machine was not a groundwater blowout, but the result of work within an approved stormwater pond footprint.”
But stormwater cannot surge upward from the bottom of a 10–20 ft pit with no rainfall. The conditions described by SWFWMD are physically inconsistent with what occurred on October 24th.
FACTS:
• There was no rainfall during or before the collapse.
• FDOT’s own accident photos show water rising from the bottom of the excavation, not flowing in from the sides.
• The excavation walls show sloughing and collapse, consistent with groundwater inflow under hydraulic pressure.
• The pit filled — and has remained full for weeks, even without rain.
• FDOT requested a NEW WELL three days after the accident, approximately 650 feet away.
New wells are installed for groundwater monitoring, water quality evaluation, or drawdown assessment after incidents involving potential aquifer impacts. In a karst aquifer, this may indicate concern about preferential flow paths or new hydraulic connections.
We are also concerned by the presence of tankers drawing water from this well. SWFWMD told us no Water Use Permit exists for this withdrawal, and we are confirming this information.
• Juan Cardenas, P.E., Superior Construction project manager, confirmed in writing that the excavation filled with groundwater after the excavator became stuck.
This was “expected,” he wrote, because the excavation bottom was at elevation 0’ to -1’, while the groundwater table in that area is typically between 3’ and 4’.
This means the digging penetrated below the local water table, allowing groundwater to flow directly into the pit — a clear hydrological interaction, not a stormwater event.
While Stop the Sand Mine understands that the long-range plan for this location is that it will eventually be a “drainage basin,” it is not plausible that the October 24th excavation was part of a “stormwater pond footprint,” as SWFWMD’s spokesperson claimed. A pond footprint is not a pond, and nothing about this excavation matches the characteristics of a stormwater facility.
In reality, FDOT was not excavating a stormwater pond or drainage basin at this location. The evidence is clear:
• A legitimate drainage basin does not have vertical walls 10–20 feet deep; it has gentle 3:1 or 4:1 slopes. The 10–20 ft walls were documented by the Citrus County Department of Health.
• There was no stormwater infrastructure present.
• There was no pond liner, no berm, no embankment, and no preparation for water storage.
• The land was dry upland sand prior to excavation, not a partially developed stormwater facility.
• The photos taken do not resemble a drainage basin under construction.
For these reasons, we reject the misleading narrative being put out by FDOT, SWFWMD, and political leaders who have repeated these claims without verifying the facts.
Stop the Sand Mine does not dispute that the incident occurred within FDOT’s right of way and under the existing SunCoast permit for that corridor.
However, FDOT is not operating at the “higher standard” it frequently claims in public statements. FDOT has repeatedly stated — including in the 2024 SEIR report — that a federal 404 Water Permit was “obtained.”
This is not true.
FDOT does not have a 404 permit.
FDOT has a No Permit Required (NPR) letter.
That NPR letter allowed FDOT to bypass the only federal regulatory process that would have evaluated impacts to the aquifer, springs, groundwater, and wetlands. As a result, FDOT is now moving forward with plans that would destroy Wetland H, with zero aquifer or groundwater analysis required.
And Wetland H is just the beginning. More than 70 acres of wetlands along SunCoast Parkway Sections 3A and 3B are being dismissed as “isolated” and “non-jurisdictional,” meaning they receive no federal protection at all, despite their location within an Outstanding Florida Spring Priority Focus Area.
The SWFWMD spokesperson quoted in the Chronicle stated, “We found no evidence of water quality contamination and confirmed that the construction was authorized under the SunCoast permit,” and further announced that the District would “not prepare a formal report beyond the photo documentation" The entire SWFWMD response consists of five sentences and five photos, three of a deep water-filled pit with 10–20 ft vertical walls, and two simply showing its location. That is not a meaningful investigation into a groundwater breach.
Even more concerning, why is SWFWMD ‘coordinating with the Florida Turnpike Authority (FTE)’ at all? SWFWMD or FDEP should be the independent oversight body for an incident involving potential aquifer exposure. SWFWMD is the agency responsible for overseeing the ERP for the sand mine and for “investigating” the excavation incident. It does not seem appropriate for the regulatory agency to be coordinating with FDOT or FTE, the very entities whose excavation activity triggered the groundwater breach.
Neither agency appeared on site within days of the collapse; instead, weeks later they issued minimal documentation that does little more than appease public concern.
We still have no answers on the water samples:
• Why haven’t the water samples been released publicly by any agency?
• Why were they reportedly not shared with the Citrus County Department of Health?
• Why were samples collected by the contractor, rather than by an independent agency, as FDEP acknowledged?
Without transparency on when, where, and how these samples were collected, the public cannot have any confidence that they came from the incident site at all. The pattern is deeply troubling. Instead of enforcing environmental protections, agencies and elected officials appear to be bending over backwards to shield FDOT/FTE from scrutiny, rather than protecting our water, springs, and aquifer.
Stop the Sand Mine maintains that every appropriate avenue of evaluation must be undertaken for the Southworth sand mine property, including a full review of the excavation and ground-collapse incident that occurred in the same general location. FDOT continues to pursue acquisition of this property with taxpayer funds despite numerous documented red flags in its own technical assessments. Moving forward with the purchase under these conditions represents a misuse of public resources and exposes taxpayers to significant future liabilities.
The Test Lab borings are FDOT documents, collected for FDOT construction, to evaluate FDOT’s only intended sand-use/borrow pit, as confirmed to us by project manager Anil Sharma. The sand mine site is identified under FDOT Project ID 442764-2 — the SunCoast Parkway project number commonly used for the 3A section. We were also told by Mr. Sharma that FDOT did not evaluate any alternative sand sources and that the excess sand from the prior SunCoast phase had already been sold off. If FDOT truly faces a sand shortage, why was that surplus not retained for future phases? And when did FDOT enter the sand-mining business at all? This appears far outside the agency’s intended scope.
FDOT’s Test Lab borings were drilled within a few hundred feet of the October 24 excavation/ground-collapse incident, directly adjacent to the location where FDOT contractors struck groundwater and the pit filled from the bottom up. What people need to understand is this:
With a discontinuous clay layer in this area, the surficial sands and the Floridan limestone aquifer function as one connected system.
It is because of FDOT’s Test Lab borings and the conclusions in the Test Lab report, as well as the CES piezometer measurements and the analysis in the CES report, that we know the clay layer in this area is discontinuous or non-confining, and that subsurface voids are present. When the excavator dug down approximately 20 feet (as documented by the Department of Health), it opened an unconfined zone, allowing the pit to fill from the bottom up. All of these documented findings confirm that the excavation intersected a groundwater system already proven to be in hydraulic continuity with the Upper Floridan Aquifer. This was an aquifer breach, not stormwater and not a ‘stormwater pond footprint’ event.
FDOT’s own Test Lab borings and reports document the same unstable, karst-prone subsurface conditions beneath both the October 24 excavation/ground-collapse location and the Southworth/Crystal River borrow pit site. Once FDOT chose to incorporate the sand mine property into the SunCoast Parkway project, these findings became directly relevant to evaluating public risk. FDOT’s data must now be used to answer critical questions:
• How does excavation in this area interact with the aquifer?
• What groundwater pathways lead from this location into Kings Bay and Crystal River?
• How quickly could contamination travel through this first-magnitude spring system?
This entire area is designated as an Outstanding Florida Spring (OFS) Priority Focus Area (PFA), a classification reserved for the most vulnerable parts of the Floridan Aquifer, where groundwater and spring flow are directly connected. This is not speculation; it is the definition provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
And most importantly:
FDOT’s Test Lab reports and the CES piezometer data both confirm this hydrologic connection.
FDOT has directly informed us that they are in the process of purchasing the Southworth property. Because of this, FDOT can no longer claim that the site is independently owned or unrelated to their activities; in fact, FDOT’s own technical data predicted exactly the kind of excavation and groundwater collapse that occurred there. FDOT has been involved with this property for an extended period, and if they intend to use it for construction materials, then the hydrogeologic reports from the sand mine area, particularly those documenting groundwater exposure, collapse, or aquifer breach, are unquestionably relevant. Taxpayer dollars will be used to acquire this site, and FDOT continues to tell the public that it is held to a “higher standard” for protecting our springs and aquifer. Every available avenue of evaluating both the property and the collapse incident must therefore be fully explored, especially given the numerous warning signs. FDOT’s own Test Lab report cautioned them clearly:
“The site is underlain by limestone bedrock that is susceptible to dissolution and the subsequent development of karst features such as voids and sinkholes in the natural soil overburden… internal soil erosion and ground subsidence could affect mine expansion. It is not possible to eliminate future sinkhole-related problems, the owner must understand and accept this risk.”
Floridians should not be forced to finance a high-risk borrow pit that endangers our springs, our aquifer, our water supply, and our community. We deserve transparency; we deserve science-based decision-making; and we deserve to know that our state agencies are following the law, not finding ways around it.
Stop the Sand Mine Committee
Colleen Farmer Chair 518-637-6829
Tony Ayo Co-Chair
David Bishop Vice-Chair
Stopthesandmine.com
Stop FDOT from wasting taxpayer money to buy, build, or operate a sand mine in Citrus County.
Protect Kings Bay, our aquifer, and our Springs!
The Southworth property can no longer be dismissed as a “private borrow pit” seeking its own Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and unrelated to the Suncoast Parkway. FDOT and the Florida Turnpike Enterprise(FTE) have been directly involved with this land as a primary sand source for the Suncoast Parkway expansion, and at the October open house, FDOT publicly confirmed that they are purchasing this property. Even based on conservative estimates, we believe this acquisition could approach $22 million or more — a cost borne by Florida taxpayers.
Why FDOT’s Proposed Purchase of the Southworth Sand Mine / Borrow Pit Is Not a Responsible Use of Public Funds
1. FDOT’s Own Geotechnical Warning: Documented Karst and Sinkhole Risk at the Southworth Site.
Our taxpayer dollars will be spent on a borrow pit that FDOT had closely evaluated for the Sun Coast Highway and that report issued a warning to FDOT of karst instability:
“The site is underlain by limestone bedrock that is susceptible to dissolution and the subsequent development of karst features such as voids and sinkholes in the natural soil overburden. …internal soil erosion and ground subsidence could affect mine expansion. It is not possible to eliminate future sinkhole-related problems — the owner must understand and accept this risk.”
2. Wetland H is a spring/spring seep
Wetland H is part of an approximately two-mile wetland system on this property. Wetland H scored 9 out of 10 in all categories of its Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) evaluation. UMAM is Florida’s standardized method for assessing the ecological functions of wetlands to determine impacts and required mitigation. The assessor also acknowledged that Wetland H provides important groundwater recharge functions.
The high scores of this wetland indicate optimal ecological condition and full wetland function!
A local Floridian had this to say about Wetland H: Keep in mind, having grown up in Florida, when you wade into shallow ponds, in hot months, the water is like bath water, very warm. It’s especially warm since we’ve had months in the 90’s, and no rain in our area for over 3 weeks. As I waded in, the water was extremely cold, telling this Floridian I had indeed stumbled into the spring that was always talked about being there. Despite no rain, the ground was heavily saturated for a great distance in every direction. Vegetation was vibrant green, and traces of animals coming and going for a water source were obvious. The water was incredibly clear and fresh, no stagnation or sulfur-type odors, meaning this water was being replenished, i.e. spring-fed. The surrounding ground is relatively flat, and the lack of rain eliminates any question of this being run off from higher grounds.
We believe based on these reports Wetland H is a spring or a spring seep.
3. FDOT Bypassed Federal Aquifer and Wetland Protections
FDOT is not adhering to a higher standard as they like to tell the public. Without a 404 Water Permit—and relying only on a No Permit Required letter—FDOT is moving forward to destroy Wetland H with zero aquifer, spring, or groundwater evaluation. The No Permit Required letter allowed FDOT to eliminate the only federal process that would have protected our aquifer, springs, and water. This same destruction will occur to more than 70 acres of wetlands along Suncoast Parkway Sections 3A and 3B, because every single wetland in this area has been labeled as isolated and non-jurisdictional.
4. FDOT’s Boring Data and the Collapse Show One Connected Aquifer System.
FDOT’s own Test Lab geotechnical investigation completed in March 2025, took 35 borings on the Southworth property and delivered a report addressed to Juan Cardenas, P.E., Project Manager, Superior Construction. The report states clearly and unambiguously:
“The purpose of the exploration was to evaluate the encountered subsurface conditions to identify depths of select fill for use on FDOT projects, specifically as fill during construction of the nearby Suncoast Parkway.”
The borings, maps, and report sheets are labeled with:
• “State of Florida Department of Transportation – Future Borrow Pit”
• FDOT Project ID: 442764-2 This is Suncoast Parkway ID often used for the 3A section.
These are FDOT documents, collected for FDOT construction, to evaluate FDOT’s only intended borrow pit. Anil Sharma, Senior Project Manager confirmed this at the October 9th FDOT Open House when he told us directly they did not look for any other sources for the sand they needed.
The location of the FDOT borings does matter:
These borings were taken within a few hundred feet of the October 24 excavation /ground collapse incident, directly adjacent to where FDOT contractors struck groundwater and caused a pit to fill from the bottom up. What people need to understand is with:
No protective clay layer, the surficial sands and the Floridan limestone aquifer act as one connected system.
It is because of FDOT’s Test Lab borings, Creative Environment Solutions piezometer data, the absence of any clay confining layer, documented voids, and the bottom-up filling of the pit that demonstrates the excavation intersected a groundwater system already proven in this area to be in hydraulic continuity with the Upper Floridan Aquifer. This was an aquifer breach, not stormwater.
State agencies and elected officials can no longer continue to ignore this reality:
The subsurface conditions documented by FDOT Test Lab describe the same karst grounds under both the excavation/ground collapse site and the Southworth/Crystal River Borrow pit site. When the State wants to use this land and these borings for Suncoast Parkway construction, then this same data must be used to understand:
• How excavation interacts with our aquifer
• How groundwater pathways connect to Kings Bay and Crystal River
• How quickly contamination could spread in this first-magnitude Outstanding Florida Spring Priority Focus Area
The State cannot rely on the Southworth property for construction material yet pretend the same site’s hydrogeology is irrelevant when the groundwater is exposed, when a collapse occurs, or when aquifer protection rules apply.
This is one connected system
one connected project and
one connected risk to our springs, aquifer, and our community.
5. FDOT does not have a §404 Water Permit
A §404 Water Permit is the cornerstone of wetland and water resource protection. It is the only permit process that requires:
• Hydrologic and hydrogeologic analysis
• Aquifer–spring connectivity review
• Groundwater modeling
• OFS/PFA protection review
• EPA and U.S. Army Corps oversight
• Selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
All of this is necessary to keep aquifers and springs, especially in Priority Focus Areas, Safe.
However, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) issued a No Permit Required (NPR) letter for the excavated site, the surrounding area, and the Suncoast Parkway 3A and 3B segments. FDOT documented that they “obtained a 404 permit,” but a No Permit Required letter is not a permit, and it does not provide:
– aquifer protection
– hydrogeologic evaluation
– groundwater modeling
– spring impact review
– federal oversight
FDOT treated the No Permit Required letter as if it were a §404 Water Permit, effectively eliminating the only federal process that would have addressed the very excavator scenario that just occurred. Essentially, FDOT found a workaround to a federal requirement and was guided by FDEP to obtain a No Permit Required determination instead of a real permit.
This is not a minor misunderstanding; it goes to the heart of spring and aquifer protection in the Kings Bay Outstanding Florida Spring Priority Focus Area.
The public deserves clarity, and the record needs to show:
FDOT did not obtain a §404 permit.
They proceeded under an NPR letter, which carries none of the protections required to safeguard our wetlands, groundwater, or aquifer system.
We do want to clarify the record, as we have confirmed that the excavation incident did occur in FDOT’s Right-of-Way (ROW) area, and the ROW area does have an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)
Closing Statement
FDOT is asking Florida taxpayers to fund the purchase, development, and operation of a sand mine in one of the most hydrogeologically vulnerable areas in the state—an area FDOT already knows contains karst, voids, shallow groundwater, spring-fed wetlands, and direct hydraulic connection to the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Their own borings, their own contractors, their own collapse incident, and their own public statements confirm this.
Yet FDOT continues to move forward without a §404 Water Permit, without federal oversight, without groundwater modeling, and without any of the protections required for the Kings Bay Outstanding Florida Spring Priority Focus Area. By relying on a No Permit Required letter, FDOT bypassed the only regulatory process designed to prevent the exact type of aquifer breach that occurred on October 24. This is not responsible planning, responsible environmental practice, or responsible use of public funds.
Floridians should not be forced to finance a high-risk borrow pit that endangers our springs, our aquifer, our water supply, and our community. We deserve transparency, we deserve science-based decision-making, and we deserve to know that state agencies are following the law—not finding ways around it.
For all of these reasons, we urge FDOT and FTE to halt any planned purchase of the Southworth sand mine/borrow pit, reevaluate the environmental risks under a proper §404 review, and protect Kings Bay, Crystal River, and Citrus County before irreversible harm is done.
Stop FDOT from wasting taxpayer money.
Protect our springs, our aquifer, and our community.
Red circle above shows location of Excavator Incident and water levels found at each boring sample.
Apparent disregard and disrespect of this once Pristine Priority Focus Area. This site is connected to our drinking water and feeds Kings Bay as well. Where $$$,$$$ has been spent on clean up.
Ariel view of excavator incident location - appears to be a breach of the Spring/Aquifer as water continues to rise and fall with the Aquifer. Clearly not a case of water "Runoff".
Conveyor submerged in what appears to be a spring/aquifer breach, not water run-off. If there was standing water on this site it would have filled the pit as it was dug. It appears the pit was dug and then filled with water from the bottom when the Spring/Aquifer was penetrated. Exactly what the scientific data and research showed would happen and will continue to happen in this PFA.
Water appears to have entered this site from the bottom of the excavation site, Not conceivable as water run off, as claimed by FDOT. Surrounding soils and excavated sand piles show no evidence of water runoff.
The Excavator sat submerged in the breached Spring/Aquifer from 10/24/ 25 until 11/4/25, (11 Days later) after possible contamination from fuels and oils. The water level remains consistent despite claims made by FDOT that it is water runoff, but that is not likely especially during a period of little to no rain.
FDOT Misled the Public and
Subverted the Process in the Southworth Borrow Pit Deal
Citrus County residents fighting the proposed Southworth borrow pit say Florida’s Department of Transportation (FDOT) misled the public about its plans to purchase and mine the Southworth site. What officials called a “new review” had already been underway 8 months ago. FDOT continues to work behind the scenes to advance a denied mine project, and is now poised to purchase and spend millions of taxpayer funds on this land riddled with sinkhole and aquifer risks. The full timeline and documentation are presented below.
The Public Was Told One Thing, The Record Shows Another
At an October 9, 2025 FDOT open house, officials told residents that evaluation of the Southworth site was just beginning and would take 30–60 days. FDOT claimed it had no prior material information on the property.
But records prove otherwise:
• March 3, 2025 – FDOT’s consultant TestLab submitted a report addressed directly to FDOT, stating:
“This report explains our understanding of the project and provides a description of the site, the subsurface conditions encountered and presents our conclusions regarding depths of
select fill for Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) purposes/projects.”
The detailed report of the Southworth borrow pit warns the site is underlain by limestone bedrock that is susceptible to dissolution, karst terrain, sinkhole risk, and direct aquifer
connection — exactly the vulnerabilities residents have warning about.
• April 18, 2025 – A TestLab report addressed to Mr. Southworth was filed in the ERP record. The maps in the report were for FDOT, and the property was already labeled a “Future Borrow
Pit.” This raised questions whether FDOT was quietly helping advance Southworth’s ERP application.
• August 11, 2025 – The March 3 FDOT-addressed report surfaced publicly for the first time in the ERP file. Until then, the public had no access to it. Residents say it was buried among
multiple uploads.
⸻
August 12, 2025 – County Attorney Announces Eminent
Domain Before It Was Filed
On the morning of the BOCC land-use hearing, the applicant’s attorney requested a last-minute continuance, forcing the County to cancel the hearing.
After the meeting, County Attorney Denise Dymond Lyn told several individuals that the State had taken the property by eminent domain. She made this statement before FDOT had actually filed paperwork (filed the next day, August 13). She also never clarified which parcel was taken, leaving the public to believe the borrow pit itself had been seized.
In residents’ view, this was no accident. On May 27, 2025, FDOT District 7 Secretary Justin Hall had already told the BOCC that FDOT had the authority to take the property by eminent domain.
Lyn's premature statement appeared to confirm that warning and left the impression that the fight was already over.
The reality: the eminent domain filing applied only to adjacent parcels, not the borrow pit. But residents had no way of confirming this for weeks. During that time, the Southworth ERP continued to advance under a private applicant — even though the land-use change was canceled and never rescheduled.
Key Question: Is it even legal for the Southworth ERP to continue advancing when the land-use change it depends on has no date to be continued or heard?
⸻
June 27, 2025 – Special Master Finds Project Violates
County Policy
On June 27, 2025, the Citrus County Special Master recommended denial of the Southworth mine/borrow pit, citing Policy 17.13.4 because the site cannot be restored to its pre-mining type, nature, and function (the applicant’s own expert testified it would become a lake, not a reclaimed system).
This local finding is pivotal: a project that cannot meet County restoration policy also undercuts ERP consistency under F.A.C. 62-330.301 (public interest/compliance), making subsequent
efforts to advance the ERP or state purchase even more problematic.
____
September 23, 2025 – Procedural Loophole: A Shift From
Denial to Purchase
On September 23, 2025, Citrus County quietly adopted Resolutions 2025-070 through 072, authorizing unelected staff to sign permits and agreements with FDOT, SWFWMD, and FDEP —
without public hearings, without BOCC approval, and without the County Seal.
These sweeping resolutions were passed with little public notice of their implications. They empowered staff to execute “any and all instruments in connection” with permits, certifications, or approvals involving these three agencies — even for controversial or legally unresolved projects.
The timing is critical. Just weeks earlier, the August 12 BOCC hearing on the Southworth land-use change had been canceled under confusing circumstances, initially leaving the public with the impression the project was over. In reality, the ERP was still active under a private applicant — when the resolutions were passed citizens were highly concerned that the resolutions now provided a new pathway for coordination to continue behind the scenes.
By September, neighbors had already seen FDOT and Turnpike Enterprise staff on or near the Southworth property. At the October 9 open house, FDOT’s Teresa Driskell went further,
stating the ERP was “set to be approved.” That statement raised an obvious question: if the Southworth ERP was on track, why did FDOT need to buy the property at all?
Residents believe the answer is simple:
Southworth, the County, and FDOT all realized the land-use change could never survive
public opposition or legal challenge. Eminent domain bought time, while a private sale was arranged for the rest. The BOCC resolutions created the cover needed to finalize it — without
BOCC votes, without transparency, and without public scrutiny. This sequence of events is outrageous. Instead of transparency, it appears FDOT, SWFWMD, FDEP, and Citrus County all played a role in shifting this project behind closed doors. What should have been an open decision about one of Citrus County’s most sensitive aquifer recharge zones was handled in a way that silenced opposition, avoided responsibility, and eroded public trust.
October 10 Open House Raises More Questions Than Answers
At the October 10 FDOT open house, residents were well prepared and pressed the agency on critical issues: the spring and spring-seep misclassified as “Wetland H,” the hydrogeological connection to the aquifer, how much sand is actually needed, and why the Phase 2 surplus was sold off rather than reserved for Phase 3A — among many other questions.
Instead of clear answers, residents say they were shuffled from table to table — told one person could only answer about “construction,” another about “environmental,” another about
“procurement.” No one could give a full, accountable response.
When residents asked who made the decision to purchase the Southworth property, they were told only that “they” had made the decision — “a board or a group” — but no one could name
who “they” actually were.
A few things did become clear:
• FDOT has never purchased another borrow pit along the Suncoast Parkway.
• FDOT admitted it did not look at any alternative locations; the Southworth site was chosen simply because it was said to be the “most convenient” for trucking sand.
• There was a documented sand surplus in Phase 2, and FDOT allowed contractors to sell that material off. Why wasn’t it reserved for Phase 3A if there was such a shortage?
• Residents also asked: what do the mass diagrams and cut/fill calculations for Phase 3A show?
Instead of answers, residents were told multiple times — and shown diagrams — that FDOT was now in a “30–60 day review” of the property because they supposedly “did not have any
detailed information yet.”
The contradiction is glaring: FDOT said in October they were “just beginning” to evaluate the Southworth property, but the agency had already been in possession of very detailed
geotechnical reports since March.
FDOT’s Duty to Bid and Justify Purchases Florida law and FDOT’s own rules require transparency when taxpayer money is on the line:
• Florida Statutes, Chapter 287 requires competitive bidding for state contracts above certain thresholds, unless specifically exempt.
• FDOT Procurement Policy Manual requires competitive solicitation (Invitation to Bid, RFP, or ITN) for any purchase over $35,000 unless exempt.
• FDOT Right-of-Way Manual / Land Acquisition requires land purchases to be supported by independent appraisals and clear justification of the price. If FDOT is purchasing the Southworth property without a competitive process, without demonstrating a sand shortage, and without comparative analysis of alternatives, that raises two major red flags:
1. Procurement Transparency – Are statutory requirements for competitive solicitation being bypassed?
2. Valuation Justification – Even if this is treated strictly as a land acquisition, where is the appraisal and public purpose justification?
At the May 27, 2025 BOCC meeting, FDOT District 7 Secretary Justin Hall told commissioners that contractors had “been able to source the material” and that he “personally thinks the issue’s been addressed.”This statement undercuts the entire premise of a new borrow pit, if the material need was already met, why is FDOT paying out what residents moderately estimate could be a $22 million taxpayer-funded purchase for this site?
For residents, this raises a simple but urgent question:
How are we supposed to know what is true from FDOT? In May, the agency said there was no shortage. In October, it told the public there was. When answers change depending on the audience, accountability is lost.
FDOT’s own published policies make this contradiction even sharper.
The agency’s procurement and sustainability commitments emphasize transparency, environmental stewardship, and responsible investment of public resources.
Yet those principles appear ignored in the Southworth acquisition:
• Sustainability Commitments: FDOT’s Office of Environmental Management states: “FDOT shall prioritize avoidance of impacts to natural resources and promote mitigation hierarchy principles to minimize long-term environmental damage.”
Choosing a site in a FEMA floodplain, a Priority Focus Area for the Kings Bay Outstanding Florida Spring, and with documented karst risks directly contradicts this mandate.
• Public Trust: The Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) calls for “efficient and responsible investment of public resources.” Yet this transaction lacks public disclosure of purchase price, justification of sand need, or updated environmental review.
_____
Why This Site Is the Wrong Place to Take Sand FDOT’s own consultant has already acknowledged the unavoidable risks of digging here. In its March 3, 2025 geotechnical report, TestLab warned:
“The site is underlain by limestone bedrock that is susceptible to dissolution and the subsequent development of karst features such as voids and sinkholes… It is not possible to investigate or design to completely eliminate the possibility of future sinkhole related problems."
In any event, the Owner must understand and accept this risk.”Despite this, FDOT is moving to purchase a 344-acre borrow pit located in one of Florida’s most environmentally sensitive regions — an Outstanding Florida Spring Priority Focus Area (OFS/PFA), a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) zone, and a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area. Excavation here would cut directly into groundwater, destroy a spring-fed wetland, and drop the pit up to 10 feet below FEMA’s flood line with no flood protections in place. The Citrus County Special Master has already ruled the site cannot be restored under local policy. Residents stress that the aquifer risks will be more fully addressed separately, but even on the facts already in FDOT’s possession, this site is clearly unsuitable. Proceeding anyway not only ignores Florida’s spring protection laws — it undermines decades of restoration work and millions of dollars already invested to save Kings Bay.
_______
Southworth’s Long History with State Agencies Residents also question whether Southworth’s history with state agencies helped smooth the way:
• His company, Concrete Impressions of Florida, Inc. (CGC1518861), has worked with FDOT for more than 40 years and advertises its “favorable and valuable relationship with FDOT and its districts.”
• In 2021, SWFWMD purchased a 589-acre “Southworth Tract” in
the Weekiwachee Preserve directly from George Southworth.
(Hernando Sun, Dec. 15, 2021) These are not isolated transactions — they show a long pattern of state agencies doing business with George Southworth. His company openly touts its “favorable and valuable relationship” with FDOT, and in 2021 SWFWMD paid to acquire nearly 600 acres from him for conservation. Residents argue this history matters because it raises the possibility of insider access and preferential treatment. The question is no longer whether Southworth had an easier path — but whether FDOT and other agencies are now bending rules, inflating prices, and bypassing oversight to help a long-time contractor and land seller.
Bottom Line
• FDOT possessed a detailed borrow pit site report months
earlier but told the public in October that review was “just
beginning.”• The County Attorney announced eminent domain before it was
legally filed, misleading residents.
• The Special Master already ruled the site violates County restoration policy and cannot be reclaimed.
• BOCC resolutions eliminated transparency, allowing coordination outside of public view for behind-the-scenes coordination between FDOT, SWFWMD, FDEP, and Citrus County staff.
• FDOT’s own leadership (Justin Hall May 27, 2025) stated there was no need for more sand — undercutting the entire justification for a new borrow pit, but later FDOT stated the opposite.
• Taxpayers now face what could be a multi-million dollar purchase in a floodplain for land riddled with sinkhole risk, aquifer vulnerability, and floodplain hazards.
• Southworth’s long history of lucrative transactions with state agencies raises troubling questions of favoritism and insider access.
Closing Statement
Residents say this site is too environmentally fragile, too procedurally flawed, and too dangerous to the aquifer and springs to justify any public investment. What should have
been a transparent, science-based process has instead become a case study in how State agencies and the County subverted public oversight. We believe FDOT, SWFWMD, FDEP,
and Citrus County must be held accountable for their role in pushing this deal forward behind closed doors at the expense of both taxpayers and one of Florida’s most vulnerable
spring systems.
*Location Clarification – November 2025:
Recent review of FDOT right-of-way mapping (September 2023) and Citrus County Property Appraiser data indicates that the excavation site lies at or near the shared boundary between FDOT’s right-of-way and property listed under the George L. Southworth Revocable Trust.
We continue to verify boundary details as records are updated, but the environmental concerns remain unchanged: this work occurred within the Kings Bay Springshed, a floodplain and aquifer-sensitive zone, without a corresponding Environmental Resource Permit (ERP).
Use the social media links to share with friends and neighbors
GET IN TOUCH
For inquiries or to show your support, and to get on our mailing list, feel free to reach out to us. Together, we can make a difference.
OUR CAUSE
Our Water, Our Springs, Our Future. Say No to the Sand Mine.
If you mine here, you will change the water table. If you change the water table, you change the springs. If you change the springs, you change Crystal River, Kings Bay, and the manatee habitat — forever
AWARENESS CAMPAIGN
Our awareness campaign aims to educate the public about the negative impacts the Sand Mine will have on our Equestrian Community.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Engage with us through events, social media, and community activities to amplify our voices and protect our shared environment.
ADVOCACY EFFORTS
Our advocacy work involves interacting with local authorities and raising awareness to halt the approval of the harmful Sand Mine project.