" Text Size A A A | Collapse All

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Gets Grant To Plan Park AT Head Of Wacissa
The Wacissa River, it seems, is suddenly very much in the public eye. This time, however, the news was relatively positive.

Show story

Dec. 10, 2010By Laz Aleman
ECB Publishing
laz@embarqmail.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wacissa River, it seems, is suddenly very much in the public eye. This time, however, the news was relatively positive.

On Thursday morning, Dec. 2, consultant engineer Scott Sheffield, with Preble-Rish Inc., informed commissioners that Jefferson County had been awarded a $36,970 grant from the Florida Boating Improvement Program (FBIP) for a project identified as the Wacissa River Head Landing.

Sheffield said the county should receive the money sometime in January or February. He said his office was wait-


ing receipt of the grant agreement and related paperwork, which was being held up in Atlanta for unknown reasons.

Per the explanation that Sheffield and County Coordinator Roy Schleicher offered, the money will be used to begin drawing plans for the development of what county officials envision will one day be a world-class park at the head of the Wacissa and a gateway to the river, which they see as a draw for ecotourism.

Schleicher said the money would allow professionals to begin putting on paper what until now is largely conceptual and exits only in people's minds.

Per the letter that Sheffield received from FBIP Program Administrator Tim Woody, with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the project funding is being supplied in part or whole by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which may explain the holdup in Atlanta.

"Based on the score that the application received and its ranking among the other applications, I am pleased to inform you that the project Wacissa River Head Landing has been awarded funding in the amount of $36,970," Woody wrote in the notification letter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Of Nestle Wacissa River Dominates Lawmakers' Hearing
Although not in its entirety, the issue of Nestle Waters North America and its designs on the Wacissa River dominated a large portion of the legislative delegation's hearing on Monday evening, Dec. 6, with all four lawmakers offering assurances that they would closely monitor the situation and possibly even introduce legislation to affect the outcome.

Show story

Dec. 10, 2010By Laz Aleman
ECB Publishing
laz@embarqmail.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Left, Representative Leonard Bembry talks with Economic Development Director Julie Conley about rural infrastructure funding following Monday's hearing. Although not in its entirety, the issue of Nestle Waters North America and its designs on the Wacissa River dominated a large portion of the legislative delegation's hearing on Monday evening, Dec. 6, with all four lawmakers offering assurances that they would closely monitor the situation and possibly even introduce legislation to affect the outcome.

Indeed, with the exception of the typical local concerns and priorities voiced by elected and other officials of the city, county and school district, the hearing's greatest emphasis was on Nestle Waters and the Wacissa River.

Undoubtedly anticipating the topic, all four lawmakers alluded to the issue in their opening remarks and offered statements vouching for their interest and commitment to safeguarding and preserving the region's natural resources and the general environment.

"I can assure you that you're talking to the choir," said Senator Charles Dean, who will chair the environmental preservation and conservation committee in the coming session.

"You have a friend in me," said Representative Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda, who has twice previously introduced legislation to tax bottled waters and plans to reintroduce the legislation again in the coming session.

Senator Bill Montford and Representative Leonard Bembry likewise expressed support for protection and preservation of the region's natural resources. But they cautioned that opponents of the bottling operation must remain politically active and engaged in the legislative process if they expected their efforts to prove successful.

Following the delegation's opening remarks, Economic Development Director Julie Conley, speaking as a member of the Jefferson Legislative Committee, welcomed the lawmakers and presented each with a copy of the official booklet detailing the community's priority projects.

Changing hats, Conley asked on behalf of the Economic Development Council that the lawmakers ensure adequate funding in the coming session for rural infrastructure projects.

Roland Brumbley next addressed the delegation, followed by Bill Brooks and Lisa Hayes, all speaking on Nestlé Water and the Wacissa River.

Brumbley asked the legislators do whatever they could to keep "foreign for-profit companies out of our county." He said drawing million of gallons of water from the Wacissa River would threaten the fish and wildlife, as well as lowering wells in the area and potentially creating sinkholes. What's more, the county would reap no benefits from the project, he said.

"I'm here to ask if you will consider some legislation to limit the mining of our water from our state by foreign companies for profit," Brumbley said. "Nestlé Waters' home base is in Sweden. Why should they take something free and sell it for profit? We need to shut them down. If you tax the water in a bottle, it can stop them...Right now, we get no benefits. All we get is hurt. We're asking for your help, not next year but now. Nestlé Waters is already running wide open with their lawyers and public relations people. They're gathering the data and ammunition to apply for a permit."

Dean assured Brumbley and the several other Nestlé Waters opponents in the audience that the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) had not issued the company a consumptive water permit.

"I assure you that we will work closely with the district," Dean said. "Your issue is not unique. It's an issue that we have in several counties. It's a serious issue and we will be monitoring it throughout. I want to make sure that we don't set a precedent that we'll be sorry about."

Bembry was equally supportive.

"Natural resources is a large part of what we have in District 10," Bembry said. "We won't let anybody sell our natural resources for profit. I would be surprised if a permit is issued, but it has to be seen what will happen. I assure you that I will be very plugged into the process and active in protecting what we have in Jefferson County."

Rehwinkel Vasilinda said the issue was likewise extremely important to her.

"It makes no sense to me to allow a company to draw water from our aquifer and sell it for a profit," Rehwinkel Vasilinda said, adding that she had previously introduced legislation to tax bottled water and would do so again in the coming session.

"You have my pledge," she said.

Added Montford, "We don't let people cut our timber and sell it for profit, and the same should apply to water."

But he told opponents of the enterprise that they needed to make their presence felt on the Hill, meaning the state capitol.

"You've got to do your part in Tallahassee," Montford said. "When the other side comes to Tallahassee, you've got to come there also and make your feelings known."

Brooks, a retired helicopter paramedics and former Jefferson County Planning Commission member, called himself a relative newcomer, having lived only 30 years in the county. Yet he had been blessed to marry into a family that owned a large tract alongside the Wacissa River, he said.

Brooks talked of his connection to the river, and of his having had the pleasure of introducing his son to hunting and fishing. He called the Nestlé Waters project a bad business decision, in that the community would be giving away a finite resource without knowing what the future held in store.

"We seemed to be trapped in an illusion that we're separate from the environment," Brooks said. "Here in north Florida, we know how important the environment is, but much of the population of Florida has lost this connection. Nestlé Waters is an international corporation. It doesn't care about this county, the state or the United States. It cares only about its stakeholders."

He called the campaign against drinking tap water a bill of goods that the water bottling companies had sold to the public. "There is nothing wrong with tap water," Brooks said. But he noted that legislators' task was bigger than simply stopping the water bottling companies.

"If it's not Nestlé's, it will be South Florida waning our water," Brooks said. "What we need to realize is that we can't continue to sustain the lifestyle that we've had in the past...Don't sell our resources for a bag of beads and blankets."

Hayes, for her part, asked that legislators require of Nestlé Waters a series of conditions, including a study on the project's environmental impact, its job creation potential, its impact on the rural infrastructure, and its impact on the aquifer. "

"SRWMD Head Clarifies Issues Relative To Nestlé
Concerning remarks attributed to him at a recent Jefferson County Commission meeting to the effect that local officials ultimately would decide the fate of a water bottling operation on the Wacissa River, David Still, executive director of the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD), last week clarified his meaning.

Show story

Dec. 04, 2010By Laz Aleman
ECB Publishing
laz@embarqmail.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning remarks attributed to him at a recent Jefferson County Commission meeting to the effect that local officials ultimately would decide the fate of a water bottling operation on the Wacissa River, David Still, executive director of the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD), last week clarified his meaning.

Still told the Journal on Tuesday, Nov. 23, that what he had tried to impress on the group of concerned citizens who had met with him earlier in the week was that the land zoning and water permit issues that would determine the fate of the bottling operation were parallel processes that could occur simultaneously.

"Normally, the applicant will meet our rules," Still said. "If that's the case, it's up to the county to make the land-use decision."

He noted that in Gilchrist County, the SRWMD had issued the water use permit for a bottling oper--ation, but then the Gilchrist County Commission had killed the project with a zoning change.

Being that the two processes were parallel and independent, it was sometimes the case that an applicant would seek the zoning change prior to approaching the district for a water use permit, Still said.

In was also sometimes the case that an applicant would then attempt to use the zoning change approval to argue that the project was okay and so the district should approve the water use permit; or vice versa, use the water use permit to argue that the county should therefore approve the zoning, he said.

In the case of the district, such arguments didn't hold water, insofar as convincing the staff to rule one way or the other on the water use permit, Still said, reiterating that the permit was issued strictly on the basis of the scientific data.

Still took slight issue with the representation that the permitting process typically took about 18 months. He said the district could issue a permit as soon as 90 days, depending on the completeness of the application. In those instances where the permit took longer, it was often because the application lacked completeness or specificity and the district had to request additional information, he said.

As for the factors dictating his staff's recommendation for approval or denial of a permit, Still said these factors resided strictly within the scientific data. But he conceded that the SRWMD governing board, which ultimately decides such issues, could choose to accept, reject or amend the staff's recommendation.

Still differed from a view printed in the Tallahassee Democrat that in the case of the Madison bottling facility, the SRWMD scientists had recommended that Nestlé Waters be allowed to extract 400,000 gallons a day from Blue Springs and the SRWMD governing board had upped it 1.46 million gallons daily for political and other reasons.

Still said the way he remembered it, Nestlé Waters had acquired an existing agricultural permit that was for 400,000 gallons a day and the company had asked that the board modify that volume to 1.46 million gallons to make it viable for a bottling operation. He said to his recollection, the SRWMD staff had had nothing to do with the 400,000 gallons.

In a Nov. 7 piece titled My View in the Democrat, Andy Opel, an associate professor in the School of Communication at Florida State University, wrote in part that "In response to Nestlé's initial pumping application, the scientist at this (SRWMD) office recommended reducing the amount of water Nestlé could extract from 1.46 million gallons a day to 400,000, over concerns for the local environment."

"In January 2003, Nestlé sought to override the decision by appealing to the water district's governing board, whose members had been appointed by then Gov. Jeb Bush," Opel wrote. "Nestlé promised to invest $100 million in Madison County and create 300 jobs only if it could pump the original 1.46 million gallons a day. The board agreed to Nestlé demands, overriding the recommendation of the state scientists charged with safeguarding Florida's water.""