Water transfer plan a risky idea

December 16, 2003

This op-ed appeared in The Gainesville Sun Nov. 16.

By: K. Anderson Crooks

K. Anderson Crooks, a public relations instructor and administrator at the University of Florida, previously served as the chief communications officer for Florida’s largest water utility company.

The state water supply commission proposed by the Florida Council of 100 is a leaky dinghy getting swamped by a tempest. In its report, the private association recommended that Florida needs to have an overarching “water supply commission” that the council’s water taskforce chair, Lee Arnold, said would “plan, coordinate and advocate” water policies on “both sides of the I-4 corridor.”

As Florida Senate Natural Resources Committee hearings continue on the subject – the next one is set for next Thursday (Nov. 20) in Chiefland — the image of a Mason-Dixon Line for Florida’s most precious natural resource is proving troubling.

While any reasonable person would agree that statewide water coordination is a good idea, Florida already has numerous watchdog organizations established to regulate water security and consumption. In fact, the Council of 100’s own report makes clear that the water management districts and other agencies already in place do an excellent job … in all but one respect. They are not organized to mandate transportation of water resources from one region to another. This is critical. A statewide board, by contrast, could act unilaterally to move water from place to place – without forging public consensus

Mr. Arnold, in a letter to the Gainesville Sun, stated, “local agencies incorrectly believe they own the water in their area.” In other words, North Florida residents have no more rights to their own local water resources than, say, a Palm Beach-based developer. Today, regionally-based water management districts and other local government entities instinctively protect their own water supplies, but, if Mr. Arnold’s vision of a statewide board is realized, regional protection and leverage simply goes down the drain.

With an infinite supply of cheap water in the north, developers and other mass consumers in Central and South Florida will lose all incentive for developing alternative water supply strategies and technologies. This quick fix both cheats North Florida of valuable water reserves and South Florida of sustainable long-term solutions.

The council’s report says the council examined water regulation structures of other states including California, Rhode Island and Hawaii. The issues of the latter two states are not remotely comparable with Florida. California? The problems created by Southern California’s insatiable thirst for water are well-documented, particularly their interstate squabble with neighbors regarding their over-consumption of the Colorado River water supply.

Perhaps the council would have been wiser to expand its investigation overseas. Great Britain, for example, provides an object lesson in how not to promote a water redistribution program. In the mid-1990s, the Conservative party government of John Major attempted to impose a new water management structure on Scotland, ultimately vacillating between a privatization scheme and various forms of quasi-governmental organizations. Since the Conservative government down south in London failed to provide convincing reasons for their actions, the Scots became suspicious. Assuming the worse, they were infuriated that their water resources could end up being controlled by outsiders – exactly paralleling the concerns of North Florida.

As one Scottish protester told me, “This is not the government’s water – it is a gift from God to the Scottish people.”

As a result of a grassroots uprising by the Scots, regional politicians attempted to distance themselves from the scheme, but even so, members of the Conservative party were defeated in every Scottish council election. Quickly, the political momentum carried south to England and Wales, and the Conservatives were soon driven from power. Although the Conservative government’s water system restructuring plans had some merit, they failed miserably in their PR campaign to explain why change was necessary.

The Council of 100 and its supporters may meet a similar fate. While the council is non-partisan in theory, the imposition of a statewide water supply board could only occur with the wishes of the state Republican Party structure – a party whose favorable alignment in the Florida Senate and House owes quite a bit to support in North Florida. However, the voters of North Florida would understandably blame any great north-to-south water giveaway on the Republican leadership. Already, we are seeing local activities coalesce to oppose the Council’s proposed scheme and a flurry of articles strongly questioning the wisdom of the proposal in state newspapers.

North Florida Republicans may be well advised to back away from endorsing the state water supply commission – or at the very least provide their constituents with better assurances and more compelling reasons for its adoption.

To political supporters of the state water supply commission the disaster of the “water wars” of Great Britain provides a warning: “Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.”