Rick Scott’s restless ambition likely will cause him to run for U.S. Senator in 2016 or 2018. Regardless, his term as governor will end with the inauguration of a new governor in January 2019. If Adam Putnam, the current Commissioner of Agriculture, runs for governor as predicted-and wins-what would be his key water policies?
To his credit, Putnam frequently includes in his speeches a section on the importance of effective water policies. Last Friday, for example, he repeated his call for a “unifed” set of water policies and promised that with the right policies, Florida can have “lush lawns and great golf courses and conserve water.” We can have it all.
He appears not to have objected to Scott’s assaults on the water management districts. Five years ago, Putnam was forecasting a shortfall of two billion gallons of water a day by 2025. Nowadays, he thinks it will be more like a billion gallons a day by 2030. This dramatic reduction in the water supply problem seems not to have affected his speeches.
In regard to water quality, Putnam was a strong opponent of EPA pressuring Florida to adopt numeric nutrient criteria for water. He also joined the chorus of opposition to the EPA “Waters of the United States” rule. He proposes to divert Land and Water amendment money to buy vehicles and for state forest road repairs.
Although the Commissioner routinely calls for far-sighted water planning, his own Department of Agriculture’s “Strategic Plan” summary is out-of-date and lacks any specific deadlines for task accomplishments. His “Office of Energy” Annual Report somehow fails to include the words “climate change,” “global warming,” “Deepwater Horizon,” and “offshore.” That report also refers to “growing” demand for energy in Florida but includes no statistics in support of such a trend. According to the Energy Information Administration, fossil fuel use in Florida actually was about the same in 2014 as in 2000.
It is too early to predict what kind of a “water policy” governor that Commissioner Putnam might be. On the evidence to date, he might not be all that different from the current governor.
It is more than odd that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection highlights on its home page a “Performance Dashboard” with not a single measure corresponding to key “Water Management Performance Measures” used by the five water management districts. The WMDs report on fundamental performance measures that FDEP does not utilize on a statewide basis, including:
- Per capita water use
- Residential per capita water use
- Percentage of surface waters with healthy nutrient levels
- Percentage of surface waters with healthy biological condition
- Improving, degrading and stable trends in nitrate concentrations in springs
- Total acres of wetlands or other surface waters authorized by Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to be impacted and the number of acres required to be created, enhanced, restored and preserved
Instead, the FDEP “Dashboard” reports mostly on secondary and administrative measures, like the amount of money loaned, permit process times, insurance premiums, “customer surveys,” etc. That doesn’t tell us whether Florida’s water environment is getting better or worse.
Patricia Nelson Limerick‘s 2012 book on Denver water supply holds fascination, even for the Florida experience. A Ditch in Time goes deeply into Denver water issues (like the precedent-setting demise of the proposed Two Forks dam) but also provides many general lessons.
The book disputes some dominant generalizations about Western water management, whose influence reaches into Florida water discussions. Marc Reisner’s Cadillac Desert, for example, is a great book but the notion of a centralized “hydraulic empire” was overstated in the book when published in 1987 and is even less true today (due in part to Reisner’s influence!). Another example: Modern scholarship provides an alternative to the traditional stories of corrupt Western water deals portrayed in the movie Chinatown.
Perhaps of most Florida interest is the final chapter, “Turning Hindsight into Foresight: Denver Water as a Parable.” Five “Mistaken Assumptions” and “Better Assumptions” are offered for consideration. Each of them is explained carefully and could stir thinking for analogous Florida circumstances. Two excerpts:
Mistaken Assumption Number 1: The supply of water and the rate of population growth and residential development are inherently and inevitably intertwined. To increase population growth and residential land development, add water. To limit population growth and residential land development, stop adding water. Thus, agencies like Denver Water could control growth if their leaders would face up to their responsibilities.
Better Assumption Number 1: Water is only one factor in population growth and not always the most important one. Controlling water does not necessarily translate into authority over growth.
Mistaken Assumption Number 3: In opinions on and judgments of competing demands for water, use for farms and ranches carries a greater ethical integrity and is more justifiable than the use of water for environmentally parasitic cities and suburbs.
Better Assumption Number 3: There are many good reasons to reject old appraisals of the distribution of virtue and the corresponding allocation of water between rural and urban areas and to search instead for the ties that link the well-being of both domains.
Worth thinking about. After all, there is a Florida River in Colorado.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection still defends the idea of raising more revenues within the state park system, even though that system already raises more than two-thirds of expenditures (far above the national average). It is obvious that picking on Florida park financing doesn’t make much sense. Particularly since other state water programs are almost entirely funded by general revenue dollars.
For example, both the Environmental Resource Permitting program (run by both FDEP and the water management districts) and the Water Use Permitting Programs (primarily WMDs) raise less than a quarter of their expenses from permit fees. The same low level is true for water quality discharge permitting. For none of those programs, however, is FDEP requesting that general tax contributions be decreased and that the Legislature increase fees on permittees.
The focus should be much broader than park financing. Let’s look at all water-related programs and not just state parks. Until other programs reach the self-funding level of state parks, we know that focusing only on parks is not about how to finance parks but how to single them out for attack.
With the staff shakeup yesterday at SFWMD, four of the five water management districts now have executive directors that previously worked in Rick Scott’s office or in his Department of Environmental Protection. (The only exception (for now?) is the Southwest Florida Water Management District.) This fealty to the governor is unprecedented in Florida’s water management history. Florida’s regional water boards have willingly surrendered much of their independence.