Florida's Bottled Water
Use of the Three Sisters Springs for private profiteering has rightly met with public outcry.
The bottled water industry eyes the spring water resources of Florida as a source of private
profit to the detriment of Floridians' valued privilege to enjoy these natural "bowls of
liquid light". The law of the land prescribes that the water, both over sovereign lands and
elsewhere does not belong to any land owner but is held in trust for all the people by the state and
by the nation. To take the water from springs or underground supplies and sell it back to the owners
at a profit to some international conglomerate, appears to many to be immoral. Albeit, some may wish
to contribute to a corporation's profits for the convenience or status of drinking from a bottle,
but the strength of outcry would indicate that this is not the view of all those citizens having an
ownership stake in the commodity.
A world drinking water shortage is attracting increasing attention.
In Florida, not only do the springs enrich the lives of residents and
visitors a like, they contribute to the natural water supply system
that supports the state's ever growing population. Fortunately,
public and political attention is being focused on the springs, concurrent
with this boom in bottled water consumption. Increasingly, though,
the citizens receive the water that the springs deliver from the aquifer
from a bottle as well as from a tap.
Rights to water both over and under land may only be conveyed to others when manifestly in the
public interest to meet certain demand, or other wise when not contrary to the public interest. The
water management districts (WMD) are specifically authorized to issue consumptive use permits on
behalf of the public trust.
Consumptive Use Permitting
Headed by governing boards with members appointed by the Florida governor, the WMDs are
responsible for "planning and water resource development," including the issuance of
consumptive use permits (CUPs). Each district has conditions that applicants must meet in order to
obtain their permit. In the Southwest Water Management District, for instance, permit applicants
must demonstrate that the water use is reasonable and beneficial, is in the public interest, and
will not interfere with any existing legal use of water, by providing reasonable assurances, on both
an individual and a cumulative basis, that the water use:
- Is necessary to fulfill a certain reasonable demand (which
posits the question when is it reasonable to have bottled as opposed
to faucet supply);
- Will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including
both surface and ground waters;
- Will not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish
and wildlife or other natural resource;
- Will comply with the provision of 4.3 of the Basis of Review described in Rule 40D-2.091, F.A.C.;
- Will utilize the lowest water quality the Applicant has the ability to use;
- Will not significantly induce saline water intrusion;
- Will not cause pollution of the aquifer;
- Will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of application;
- Will not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal;
- Will utilize local water resources to the greatest extent practicable;
- Will incorporate water conservation measures (which posits the conservation of overall
supplies within the laws governing such supplies);
- Will incorporate reuse measures to the greatest extent practicable;
- Will not cause water to go to waste; and
- Will not otherwise be harmful to water resources within the District.
Minimum Flows and Levels
A statute mandating the Water Management Districts to establish minimum flows and levels for each
surface water and aquifer within their jurisdiction was passed into state law in 1972.
A minimum flow is the flow for a surface waterbody that is the boundary
at which any further withdrawals from the waterbody would result in
significant harm to the water resources or ecology of the area. A minimum
level, for aquifer groundwater and surface water, is the level at which
any further withdrawals would result in significant harm to the area's
water resources. The "significant
harm" standard of the statute is the one notable distinction with
previous enactments using simply "harm", and begs the interpretation
of what is "significant". Note that
one feature frequently overlooked in setting MFLs concerns the stream
velocity below which algae form and bloom more readily, as nutrient cocktail
loads abide with algae over a longer period and algal elements find it
more easy to remain in contact with a benthic substrate.
Considering minimum flows and levels (MFLs), the spin of the title
sounds fine. It seems as if MFLs protect too much water being taken
from our water resources. However, at a meeting of September 19th,
2007, a speaker proclaimed that MFLs would allow water to be taken
from watershed and springshed areas in times of surplus, meaning when
MFL levels are naturally exceeded by heavier rains in season, to be
pumped into a couple of off - line reservoirs to be used as supply
in times of drought. Furthermore, as MFLs for Citrus County are not
yet set, his consultancy would set "proxy"
(fake) levels so that planning could proceed (gaining false traction
for their prognostications).
What was not said was, that once residing in any man made reservoir,
that water would not be protected by the Local Sources First doctrine
but be available to anyone as an alternative water source (AWS) for
them. Moreover, the reservoir water would be exposed to evaporation
back into the atmosphere, instead of being part underground, to join
the seventy percent of rainfall which already regularly returns to
the atmosphere by evaporation and plant transpiration. The off take
would also lower the aquifer head to reduce the sovereignty spring
outflows to the detriment of our coastal rivers which contribute millions
of dollars to the County's economy. River water quality would
also degrade with increased algae bloom and increased salt water intrusion.
Furthermore, a setting of a MFL does not take account of future development
already sanctioned at the time the MFL is set. According to the WRWSA
legal advisor, fifty thousand homes are already platted in Citrus County
and not yet built. The major retail and housing developments contemplated
in Citrus County will act as magnets to attract sales of those platted
sites as well as those featured in the development proposals. Growth
of fifty thousand homes in The Villages within the SJRWMD is calling
for seven million gallons per day from AWS by 2025, the similar amount
required for Citrus County growth does not show in the calculations,
to say nothing of the three million gallons of fresh water per day
reportedly required to scrub pollution from the existing Crystal River
power plant emissions.
Various factors for determining MFLs are enumerated in the Florida
Administrative Code. These include recreation in and on the water;
fish and wildlife habitats, including fish passage; estuarine resources (sea
grass health as nurture for commercial and recreational fishing);
transfer of detrital material; maintenance of freshwater storage and
supply; aesthetic and scenic attributes; filtration and absorption
of nutrients and other pollutants; sediment loads; water quality; and
navigation.
Threats
Threats to these spring waters include careless use of fertilizer
and pesticides for agriculture, landscaping, and golf courses; other
pollutants in contaminated stormwater runoff; livestock waste; development
in high aquifer recharge areas; leaking septic and underground storage
tanks; silt buildup and sedimentation that blocks spring flow; and
over pumping of the aquifer for consumptive use of the water. These
threats affect both water quality and water quantity.
Negative effects on human health concentrate much attention on qualitative threats. In response,
government agencies and other research bodies have developed various Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for many of the activities that degrade water quality. The effects of these BMPs often take a long
time before any benefit is felt in water quality from the springs. Quantitative issues have proven
to be the more difficult to combat. On the whole, Florida has struggled with water supply and use
issues since the late 1950s through the present, with no sustaining answer in sight. Bottled water
has become a significant factor in these policy debates as degradation has become more prevalent due
to over pumping for consumptive use and the effect of drought upon aquifer levels and head pressures.
Public water utilities have historically dominated the arena and will continue to do so as
Florida's population grows and older urban centers look to rural communities to provide a quick
fix for their increasingly inadequate water supplies. But that makes the question of bottling spring
water all the more imperative. It is difficult enough to plan and manage equable clean water
supplies without intervention of those seeking supplies under the radar, so to speak, or for private
profit.
Spring Water defined
According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "water derived
from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the
surface of the earth" may be labeled as "spring
water". The FDA further mandates that: Spring water shall be collected
only at the spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation
feeding the spring. There shall be a natural force causing the water
to flow to the surface through a natural orifice... Spring water collected
with the use of an external force shall be from the same underground
stratum as the spring, as shown by a measurable hydraulic connection
using a hydrogeologically valid method between the bore hole and the
natural spring, and shall have all the physical properties, before treatment,
and be of the same composition and quality, as the water that flows naturally
to the surface of the earth. If spring water is collected with the use
of an external force, water must continue to flow naturally to the surface
of the earth through the spring's natural orifice.
Conclusion
Citizens form coalitions or speak as individuals before decision makers.
Local governments block industry development through denying special
use permits, administrative review, and by courting state-funded land
acquisition. The Water Management Districts use standards set forth
in the Florida Administrative Code to judge the Consumptive Use Permit
applications of the industry. But this piecemeal fashion of response
deals with only one conflict at a time, reactively and not proactively,
where the public interest awaits plans and programs which assure sustainable
supplies of clean water now and for the future.
As global climate change occurs, adverse effects may well become increasingly magnified.
Withdrawals for the bottling industry complicate an already serious sustainable water supply
situation.
|
