Stop the Sand Mine

Unpermitted Excavation and False Permit Claim by FDOT

Threatens Kings Bay Springs

Florida Department of Transportation began excavation in the Kings Bay Springshed without a required Environmental Resource Permit while falsely claiming a federal Clean Water Act permit that never existed.

Who We Are

All statements below are based on publicly available records, official correspondence, and field documentation obtained by residents. This summary is provided for informational and public-interest purposes.

We are Stop the Sand Mine.

We are speaking out because when the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) bypasses rules and laws for the Suncoast Parkway, that same disregard extends to its actions near the proposed Southworth Sand Mine.

FDOT has gone beyond mis-filing paperwork. Available records indicate the excavation occurred along the boundary of FDOT’s right-of-way near 4526 N. Bennis Point, an area that Citrus County’s property records still list under the George L. Southworth Revocable Trust. * FDOT documents, however, identify the same area as a possible right-of-way (ROW) location. The site lies directly at the border of the Southworth sand mine property.

If this excavation does fall on Southworth property, an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) would be required and the Southworth ERP has not yet been approved.

Summary Overview

Records show the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) advanced Suncoast Parkway 2 Segment 3A using a line in its State Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) re-evaluation that reads:

“State 404 Permit – Obtained 05/10/2023.”

On that date, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) actually issued a No Permit Required (NPR) determination not a Clean Water Act §404 permit.

Treating a No Permit Required determination as a permit bypassed the environmental review, mitigation, and public-notice requirements that the law mandates to protect wetlands, springs, and groundwater.

Meanwhile, new borings (2025) and a documented equipment-submersion incident indicate shallow groundwater, spring influence, and flood-risk conditions inside the Crystal River–Kings Bay Outstanding Florida Spring (OFS) Priority Focus Area.

Six Key Findings

1. Permit that never existed

• The SEIR (Aug 2 2024) lists a state §404 permit as “obtained” on May 10 2023.

The record for that date is an FDEP No Permit Required letter stating the activity “does not require a permit or other authorization under the State 404 Program.”

By labeling that letter as a “permit obtained,” FDOT sidestepped the Clean Water Act process and avoided the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) analysis, §401 water-quality certification, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) coordination, and public-notice requirements.

2. Jurisdiction built on outdated and incomplete evidence

• FDEP’s 2023 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) verification relied on a 2009 U.S. Army Corps “Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD)” that classified every wetland in Segments 3A and 3B as isolated or non-federal.

That AJD was fourteen years old, well beyond the normal five-year validity window under 33 C.F.R. §331.8 and should have been re-evaluated.

Relying on it ignored current field evidence showing spring-fed seeps, groundwater discharge, and inter-connected wetlands linked to the Crystal River, Kings Bay basin.

3. Hydrogeology contradicts the paperwork

• FDOT’s 2025 borings show groundwater lies only about two to four feet below the surface, with limestone immediately beneath conditions typical of karst terrain where sinkholes form and the aquifer is directly exposed.

A separate 2025 hydrogeological report by Creative Environmental Solutions (CES) prepared for the Southworth Borrow Pit confirms that the surficial and Floridan aquifers are hydraulically connected because the clay layers between them are discontinuous or absent.

Field measurements recorded water tables as shallow as 8 to 25 feet below the surface, corresponding to the same pressure levels as the Floridan aquifer, demonstrating that excavation or dewatering here would directly affect the regional groundwater feeding Crystal River and Kings Bay.

4. Karst risk flagged by FDOT’s own consultant and ignored

• TestLab (March 2025) warned the site is underlain by limestone “susceptible to dissolution and the subsequent development of karst features such as voids and sinkholes,” concluding that “the Owner must understand and accept this risk.”

Despite this, FDOT told us it is in the process of purchasing the Southworth borrow pit spending taxpayer dollars on site preparation inside the Outstanding Florida Spring Priority Focus Area.

Its own documents show this is not a sound or defensible purchase.

5. On-the-ground incident indicates aquifer exposure

• The excavation incident near the Southworth site wasn’t speculation... it was observed and documented through multiple photos, witness accounts, and field data.

The excavator was working on an adjacent property just slightly west of the proposed mine site, close enough to encounter the same hydrogeologic conditions. It sank into a pit that filled from the bottom up with groundwater, not rainwater.

• The pit remains filled weeks later, showing persistent groundwater inflow, not temporary stormwater accumulation.

The excavation area appeared roughly 17 feet below grade with steep vertical sand walls, far steeper than any permitted stormwater pond (which would have 3:1 or 4:1 slope ratios). There was no stormwater infrastructure, turbidity barrier, or erosion control in place.

• Heavy equipment, including excavators and haul trucks typical of borrow-pit operations were seen lined up onsite, indicating active material removal, not permitted drainage work.

In plain terms, the water table here is simply too high for FDOT to be digging. What’s happening is not a “stormwater feature” but a direct breach of the aquifer — the same risk FDOT’s own consultant, TestLab, Inc., warned about months earlier in TestLab’s March 2025 report.

“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.”

6. No ERP, No Ownership, No Accountability

• No Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) has been issued for the property where the excavation incident occurred, yet FDOT equipment and contractors have clearly disturbed the land, creating a deep pit with exposed groundwater directly connected to the underlying Floridan Aquifer the same system that feeds Crystal River and Kings Bay.

• Citrus County GIS records identify the parcel (4526 N Bennis Point) as privately owned by the George L. Southworth Revocable Trust. There is no indication of a recorded public easement or authorization for FDOT construction activity.

• The site borders the Southworth Sand Mine property—the same area FDOT intends to purchase for a borrow pit, illustrating a broader pattern of acting first and seeking permission later.

Scale of Impact (to the resource and the community)

• Wetlands: More than 70 acres across Segments 3A and 3B have been cleared, filled, or destroyed, eliminating critical filtration and wildlife habitat that protect Kings Bay’s water clarity.

• Floodplains: Loss of natural storage near FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas, where base-flood elevations average about 9 to 13 feet above sea level, increases local flooding risk and reduces the landscape’s capacity to absorb heavy rainfall.

• Springshed and Aquifer: The entire construction corridor lies within the Crystal River–Kings Bay Outstanding Florida Spring Priority Focus Area (OFS PFA) a critical recharge and spring-flow zone. Excavation through sand and limestone here creates direct pathways for sediment, fuel, and pollutants to enter the Floridan Aquifer, the source of Crystal River and Kings Bay.

• Community Impact: What happens underground shows up on the surface. Any aquifer contamination, turbidity, or sinkhole collapse here would directly degrade the Crystal River/Kings Bay ecosystem, the foundation of local tourism, manatee habitat, and Citrus County’s economy. Over $60 million in public funds have been invested to restore these waters, and this unpermitted excavation places that investment at risk.

Why It Matters – Clean Water Act, ERP, and Local Economy

The impacts described above don’t stop at the construction zone, they reach directly into the Kings Bay and Crystal River ecosystem, which is the foundation of Citrus County’s identity and economy. Over $60 million in state and federal restoration funding has been invested to protect these waters, the manatees that depend on them, and the tourism industry they support.

FDOT’s excavation without an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and its false §404 permit record jeopardize those gains. If aquifer contamination or sinkhole collapse occurs here, taxpayers will shoulder the cost twice, first for cleanup, and again for rebuilding damaged infrastructure.

Tourism, property values, and the image of Crystal River as The Manatee Capital of the World all depend on maintaining clear, spring-fed water. When the agencies meant to protect that water ignore their own rules, public trust and local livelihoods are at risk.

Policy and Legal Concerns

• Clean Water Act §§ 404 and 401: A No Permit Required letter is not a permit. Proceeding on that basis circumvents federal safeguards and public review.

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) / Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): Splitting Segments 3A and 3B (segmentation) hides the combined effects on connected wetlands and groundwater that a full review would reveal.

Even if FDOT avoided federal highway funding in earlier phases,

NEPA still applies when:

1. A federal permit (such as a §404 authorization) is part of the project, or

2. The project affects federally protected resources such as Outstanding Florida Springs or endangered species.

By claiming a §404 permit in its own SEIR, FDOT triggered federal jurisdiction and a NEPA review obligation.

• Floodplain standards (EO 11988 / NFIP 44 CFR 60.3): Excavation below the base-flood elevation without compensatory storage violates federal policy and increases local flood risk.

• Public trust and accuracy: Recording a non-existent permit as “obtained” is a material misrepresentation under Florida law (§403.161, F.S.) and federal recordkeeping standards (18 U.S.C. §1001). It undermines the integrity of environmental records and public confidence in state infrastructure projects.

Documents Available to the Public (We will be adding these to our website as able)

• SEIR page showing “State 404 Permit – Obtained 05/10/2023.”

• FDEP No Permit Required letter (May 10 2023).

• FDEP Waters of the United States package (field reviews Feb 23 and Apr 14 2023; CWE approval Apr 19 2023).

• TestLab report (March 2025) with karst/sinkhole passage and boring logs.

• Clark Hull technical memo (Oct 22 2024) and spring verification (Sept 21 2025).

• Photo set of the submersion site.

• FEMA floodplain panels and Priority Focus Area (go to the site for your own look up)

FDOT treated a ‘No-Permit-Required’ letter as if it were a Clean Water Act §404 permit and pushed construction through a spring Priority Focus Area. Their own borings and consultant warn of karst and a shallow aquifer. When the paperwork says ‘permit obtained’ but the field shows water seeping up from below and filling the pit, federal oversight isn’t optional—it’s required.

Stop the Sand Mine Committee (Citrus County, Florida)

Volume on/off

Statement from the Stop the Sand Mine Committee

Excavation Incident Near Southworth Property Raises Aquifer Concerns

Contact: stopthesandminecc@gmail.com

Background

Residents and nearby observers have reported that a large excavator became submerged during excavation activity near the area of the planned FDOT Suncoast Parkway right-of-way and the proposed Southworth Borrow Pit.

Photographs and accounts provided to our Committee show the equipment resting in what was reported to be a rapidly flooded pit, where the operator had to swim out, and a large crane was later brought in to remove the submerged machine several days to a week later.

An elected official has stated publicly that FDOT, the Turnpike Authority, and SWFWMD described the work as “stormwater pond construction,” asserting that “no breach of the aquifer occurred.”

We appreciate the update, but based on the physical evidence and the known hydrogeology of this area, that explanation does not appear consistent with what occurred.

Observed Conditions shown in the Excavation Photographs:

• Displays steep vertical sand walls, not the sloped design (3:1 or 4:1) required for permitted stormwater ponds.

• Lacks visible inlet/outlet structures, erosion controls, or stabilization materials that standard drainage features require.

• Shows immediate flooding from below, submerging heavy equipment to its cab, behavior typical of a groundwater breach, not surface runoff.

These conditions are consistent with sand removal or unpermitted deep excavation, not with a controlled pond construction.

Hydrological Implications

• The water’s rapid rise to ground level indicates a very shallow water table, estimated at 2–4 feet below grade, consistent with prior SWFWMD boring data.

• The fine, clean sand visible in the photos suggests direct connection to the surficial aquiferand minimal confining material separating it from the Upper Floridan Aquifer.

• The site lies within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area and an Outstanding Florida Springs Priority Focus Area (Crystal River / Kings Bay) — zones recognized for high groundwater sensitivity and recharge.

Excavation in such areas creates a direct pathway for fuel, hydraulic fluid, and sediment to enter the groundwater system. Once that connection occurs, inflow is immediate, as clearly shown in the photographs.

Equipment and Environmental Risk

The submerged machine appears to be a Doosan hydraulic excavator used for large-scale grading and sand loading.

Such equipment is not designed for immersion; water exposure typically destroys the engine, hydraulic, and electrical systems, and even small leaks of fuel or oil can contaminate significant volumes of groundwater.

This outcome reinforces that the aquifer is extremely close to the surface and that this area is unsuitable for deep excavation or borrow-pit mining.

Public Accountability

The Committee calls on FDOT, the Turnpike Authority, and SWFWMD to:

1. Release all inspection notes, photos, and findings from their site visit.

2. Clarify under what permit this excavation occurred and what design plans were approved.

3. Confirm what actions have been taken to test surrounding groundwater for contamination.

Until that information is made public, the visual and hydrological evidence strongly suggests that the aquifer was exposed and that this event demonstrates the serious environmental risks of mining or deep excavation in this flood-prone, spring-connected region.

Closing Statement

The Stop the Sand Mine Committee remains committed to transparent, science-based evaluation of all activities affecting the Kings Bay / Crystal River aquifer system.

We urge state agencies and local officials to treat this incident as a warning: when you dig here, you are digging directly into Florida’s drinking-water source.

Stop the Sand Mine Committee

Colleen Farmer Chair

Tony Ayo Co-Chair

David Bishop Vice Chair

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:

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.

Please click here and sign our petition to Stop The Sand Mine