Wakulla Government Commission Votes to Approve Funds for Research on Future Water Use in Wakulla County
Written by Publisher, Wakulla.com Tuesday, 06 February 2007 21:34
Commission Votes 3 -2 to Approve Funds for Research on Future Water Use in Wakulla County
Commissioner Ed Brimner made a presentation to the board concerning the proposed water bottling plant during the Commissioner’s Discussion Items portion of the February 5 BOCC meeting. He began by saying that a vote against the plant would be the easy thing to do and would be widely popular among the citizens of Wakulla County. “After studying all the available research and facts, I believe with proper oversight that a water bottling plant would not be bad for Wakulla County’s environment, and could be extremely good for our economy and our future. I’m not against any individual or company making a lot of money in Wakulla County,” said Brimner. “However, before any water is bottled or sold, Wakulla County must have a mechanism in place to protect our assets. I also believe water is a public asset, and I believe all the citizens should benefit from any sale of this asset. It’s not about the High’s and it’s not about the proposed bottled water plant. The real issue that is coming before us in the future is about all future water use in Wakulla County.”
Brimner noted that Wakulla County has the staff to address the simple issue of the proposed bottled water plant land use category that is coming before the planning and zoning commission soon. “However, Wakulla County does not have the staff or the expertise to address revenue sharing or control and oversight of bottling plants,” said Brimner Brimner added that the bottled water plant proposal that is going to be brought before the Board on March 5 has been well thought out and well funded, with some of the best attorneys and public relations people working on it. He suggested that Wakulla County is working at a huge disadvantage, and should hire their own unbiased experts to research the issue before any decision is made concerning the bottling plant. He then made a motion to authorize County Administrator Ben Pingree to spend up to $20,000 to hire the expertise to provide the BOCC with unbiased recommendations and proposals on if and how we should proceed with a water bottling land use change.
“Again, I don’t think a water bottling plant is bad for this county,” said Brimner. “I don’t think that taking 70,000 or even 140,000 gallons of water a day out of the aquifer is bad for this county. I am concerned that if we don’t have some sort of local process in place, that once we turn that spigot on there are going to be 50 water bottling plant applications in Wakulla County. We’ve got to have something in place that will allow us to control things before we turn this on and the only way to do that is to get some unbiased expertise either by the local emotional belief that all water sales are bad or by the folks who are proposing this water bottling plant, and the only way to do that is to hire somebody from the outside.”
Commissioner Maxie Lawhon commented that after everything Commissioner Brimner had said, he felt the only thing the commission could control would be the revenue sharing. “It’s not going to be up to us how many bottling companies come in here,” said Lawhon. “The state has told us that that is their decision.” Lawhon added that he did not think it was right for Brimner to make a motion on the issue at this time because it had been added to the agenda as a discussion item only.
Chairman Brian Langton agreed with Lawhon, noting that the topic was supposed to be presented as a discussion item. “I supposed you could make a motion, but I don’t think it would be the best thing to do,” said Langston.
Brimner: I do think we can make a motion on this tonight.
Commissioner Howard Kessler stated that he took issue with some of the things that Commissioner Brimner had said. “I have to have air and I have to have water and I have to have food,” said Kessler. “Once you start this thing, if we don’t have a mechanism to shut it off once it starts then we won’t be able to do so. Without that mechanism in place then the thing to do is to hold off and vote no until we do have something in place. I agree that we should not move forward with this until we have a mechanism in place.”
Chairman Langston restated the motion on the floor, with was to authorize County Administrator Ben Pingree to spend up to $20,000 to hire expertise to provide unbiased recommendations and proposals on if and how the Board should proceed.
Commissioner Lawhon seconded the motion for discussion purposes. He then asked Commissioner Brimner how he came up with a figure of $20,000. Commissioner Brimner stated that it was simply a starting point to give Pingree the ability to go out and talk to some environmental law firms and other experts. “Commissioner Kessler is absolutely correct that there is no way we should go forth with any of this unless we have ironclad controls in place,” said Brimner. “I believe that with the potential for revenue sharing; if we spend $100,000 on a professional group to come in and advise us and give us recommendations , and if they tell us there is no way to control this and recommend that we don’t go forward, then it’s the best $100,000 dollars we have ever spent to save our water. But if they come back and say there is a way to control this, and if we can profit share, or enter into a public/private partnership, and as a result we make $2 million a year, then again it’s the best $100,000 we ever spent. Either way, unless we get some unbiased expertise in here to tell us what is best for Wakulla County, then all the folks who don’t do anything because they are afraid all of our water is going to be sold are correct.”
County Administrator Ben Pingree stated that there is clearly a huge issue that is going to hit the commission on the first meeting of March. “If this issue is framed as a simple land development use change, then we have the capacity to effectively deal with this,” said Pingree. “If this commission is going to construe this as the larger issue about what should the county’s role be in water bottling from this point forward, and what should our role be in negotiating with the High family in particular in this case, or anybody else, then this is my perspective. If we are going to negotiate, then I will need some direction from the board at that point in time. I would also request the ability to bring in our own expertise to help negotiate on behalf of you if you want to get into an agreement with them, or if you want to take this on yourselves. If you don’t, then enough said.”
Commissioner Kessler agreed with Commissioner Lawhon’s earlier statement. “If this Board permits water bottling in this county or the transport of water in this county, we do not control that anymore,” said Kessler. “That becomes totally in the hands of the Northwest Water Management. Once those permits are out there, before those permits are reduced everybody else in the community is on water restrictions because that industry is going to bepumping. Once that starts, we do not have any say in how much water is going to leave the county.”
Commissioner Brimner noted that other communities have had this problem, which is why he felt experts were needed to prevent Wakulla County grom getting into the same situation.
“I believe the High’s have wells that can pump a million gallons a day, and they will certainly pump 70,000 gallons a day,” said Brimner. “They have come to us in good faith and said they want to build a water bottling plant in Wakulla County instead of trucking the water to Madison.”
Brimner added that he had been told by a law firm that Mr. High and his family could start pumping out water right now and start trucking it to Madison. “But they are not doing that because I think they are trying to do the right thing for Wakulla County,” said Brimner, “and I appreciate that. But I want to do the right thing for the citizens. I’m convinced that the High’s also want to do the right thing for the citizens. It is incumbent for this board to have experts who can meet with their experts. If we approach the Highs, they have got the finest attorneys and the finest public relations firm; they are prepared to negotiate with us. But it is like David and Goliath except we don’t even have a sling shot.”
Commissioner Kessler asked Brimner if he was saying that his perspective is making the best deal and getting the best amount of money for the county.
“No,” clarified Brimner. “My point is getting a firm to come in and tell us if we can protect our asset, and if we can protect the asset, then make the best deal for us that we can.”
Wakulla County citizen Victor Lambou noted that he had heard the discussion by Mr. Bimner and was a little confused . “I understood you to say that you think the bottling plant is going to be good for Wakulla County and that their proposal is a very good proposal,” said Lambou. “The only thing you are worried about is the cost sharing of the economics when you negotiate. It seems like you are prejudicing yourself before you even hear the thing come up. It seems like you ought to excuse yourself when the thing comes up because you’ve already said where you stand.”
Brimner stated that as a Board member it was his job to have an opinion.
County Attorney Ron Mowrey commented that the matter of the water bottling plant was going to come before the Board at a later date. “You should not be talking specifically about the High’s project,” said Mowrey. “You will have to recuse yourself from participating if you continue. To continue is dangerous. We should not discuss this particular poject. To do so is to violate some property rights and we could be in jeopardy over that.”
Commissioner Brimner responded that his proposal was not about any particular project. “I am talking about future water use in Wakulla county. It’s not about the High’s project specifically.”
Victor Lambou stated that he had heard Commissioner Brimner use the High’s name a lot during the discussion. “I think you are prejudicing yourself,” said Lambou. “Why are you bringing this up at all? You should prepare to talk about this when you actually go into the hearing about it.”
Wakulla County citizen ChuckHess stated that the tragedy of the commons is the idea that people will always exploit the resources for their benefit at the cost of the public. “The big issue is the water and protecting our groundwater for the community,” said Hess. “We are going to continue to set wells and pump more and more water. We need to make sure before anything is done that minimum flows are set. That includes the groundwater and all our species. Our estuaries are created and fed by our freshwater runoff. How big an industry is our ecotourism and our fishing as compared to the High’s water bottling plant? This is a real issue and I agree with Ed that we need our own experts. You need to be interviewing and finding people who can give you answers without a biased opinion.”
Wakulla County resident John Trice commented that if the county was going into the bottled water business, then the county ought to be getting the majority of the money. “It should be split with the citizens of the county.”
The motion passed with a three to two vote. Commissioners Kessler and Langston were opposed.
County Attorney Ron Mowrey commented that he was the lawyer who was on board who affected the agreement with the City of Tallahassee sprayfield. “It was not some outside law firm, and I wish Mr. Brimner had contacted me,” said Mowrey. “I’m happy to suggest some other people you may need but I know the law, the law’s not an issue. If you want to talk a business plan of some sort, then that’s another matter. I certainly hope I’ll be involved in whatever we try to do to protect this county.”
This article originally published on February 7, 2007.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
You need to login or register to post comments.
Discuss this item on the forums. (0 posts)