What is the Florida legislature up to, besides gambling? ... by gimleteye

HB 1101 by Representative Goodson and its compantion bill SB 1362 by Senator Hays would redefine the present boundary line between privately owned land and public land in and along the State's rivers, lakes and streams. The public needs to engage with legislators to push back against these awful bills. Doesn't the Florida legislature have anything to do, other than harm? Then there is HB 639 that removes the water within control of a domestic wastewater treatment plant (in the pipes) from Water Management Districts. It thereby makes the reclaimed water something the utility “owns” (in that they have complete discretion as to how to dispose of it) instead of the normal Florida concept of water being a public resource that no one owns, but is permitted to use.


The tide boundary line is known as the "Ordinary High Water Line". The effect of this legislation would be a lowering of the elevation of the Ordinary high Water Line, moving the ownership boundary of private lands further towards or into the water and shrinkage of acreage currently in public ownership.

Think of what you do when you take a walk on a beach. Usually you walk between the low water mark and the high water line on the sand. With this change, if property rights now extend down to the low water mark, you would be trespassing the minute you walk off a public beach. Or forced to pay admission. Or given a ticket. If you are a sport fisherman, hunter, birdwatcher, kayaker or airboat enthusiast, it would mean that someday soon when headed to your favorite place you may encounter a barbed wire fence and "No Trespassing" sign blocking your way.

This bill would result in huge transfers of publicly owned land along the State's rivers, lakes and streams into private ownership and amount to the loss of thousands of acres of land that now belong to all the people of Florida.

These bills are not in the best interest of ordinary Floridians or visitors to our State.

Representative Goodson and Senator Hays need to be contacted Right Now and urged to drop these special-interest bills that trade the beauty and health of our public lands for potentially hazardous development. This is privitization of Florida's public lands, rivers and lakes, pure and simple. If these bills win passage, you lose part of Florida.

The following is from Sierra Club:

ALERT Land Grab and Water Grab Bills up in House Wednesday ALERT

1103 High Water Mark 639 Reclaimed Water Two bad bills will be heard Tuesday at 12:30 in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee. Please urge a NO vote on both bills.

HB 1103 - Ordinary High-Water Mark for Navigable, Nontidal Waterbodies by Rep. Goodson, Tom would define the term “ordinary high-water mark” in a way that would put half a million acres of public land in danger of being privatized.

Changing the definition of this term would affect laws and rules dealing with navigation, wetlands protection, sovereign lands, flowage, land acquisition, and even some species protection laws and programs. HB 1103 has an identical Senate companion: Sen. Hays’ SB 1362.

 HB 639 - Reclaimed Water by Rep. Young, Dana D. removes reclaimed water from the definition of “water” or “waters in the state”. The effect of this bill is to give water utilities complete control over where and to whom reclaimed water is allocated or sold. This could lead to the end of local sources first, transfer of water from one region to another, and denial of reclaimed water to environmental needs or existing reasonable-beneficial users. HB 639 has an identical Senate companion: Sen. Garcia’s SB 1086.

Please contact members of the committee and urge them to vote NO on both of these bad bills. Their offices will be closed on Monday for the holiday, so make your calls early on Tuesday. (The committee meeting is scheduled for 12:30.) Emails can be sent immediately. Please put Oppose 639 (Reclaimed Water) and 1103 (High-Water Mark) in your subject line.

House Agriculture and Natural Resources 2012 Representatives County Delegations Capitol Phone Email Address

Rep. Jim Boyd Hillsborough, Manatee (850) 488-4086 jim.boyd@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Dwight M. Bullard (D) Miami-Dade (850) 488-5430 dwight.bullard@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Rachel Burgin Hillsborough (850) 488-9910 rachel.burgin@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Matt Caldwell (VICE. CHAIR) Lee (850) 488-1541 matt.caldwell@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Steve Crisafulli (CHAIR) Brevard, Orange (850) 488-4669 steve.crisafulli@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Luis R. Garcia, Jr. (L) Miami-Dade (850) 488-9930 luis.garcia@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Rich Glorioso Hillsborough, Pasco (850) 488-0807 rich.glorioso@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Tom Goodson (BILL SPONSOR HB 1103) Brevard, Indian River (850) 488-3006 tom.goodson@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Shawn Harrison Hillsborough, Pasco (850) 488-3087 shawn.harrison@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Steven M. ''Steve'' Perman Broward, Martin, Okeechobee, Palm Beach, St. Lucie (850) 488-5588
steve.perman@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Ray Pilon Manatee, Sarasota (850) 488-7754 ray.pilon@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Elizabeth W. Porter Alachua, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Suwannee (850) 488-9835 elizabeth.porter@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel-Vasilinda Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon (850) 488-0965 michelle.rehwinkel@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Franklin Sands Broward (850) 488-0590 franklin.sands@myfloridahouse.gov
Rep. Jimmie T. Smith (J) Citrus, Hernando, Levy (850) 488-0805 jimmie.smith@myfloridahouse.gov

HB 1103 (High-Water Mark bill) Talking Points (see below for talking points on HB 639 Reclaimed Water) This bill should be called the Low-Water Mark bill because it is designed to shift Florida’s long term policy (and the result of Florida Supreme Court decisions) to making this a low-water state. What’s at stake: Florida’s Constitution (Article X, SECTION 11. Sovereignty lands) provides that the lands under the state’s navigable waters are held in trust for all the people and that private use of those lands must not be contrary to the public interest. This bill would shrink publicly held land by defining the boundary (the “ordinary high-water mark”) in such a way as to exclude consideration of where the water is during the high water season. The people of Florida could lose half a million acres. Navigable waters include shallow water right out to the banks of a water body, not just the main channel. Therefore, all the land beneath all the waters of “navigable water” is sovereignty land and is held in trust for the public. If you canoe, hunt, fish, or just enjoy walking in nature, the impact of this bill could cut you off from rivers, lakes, or wetland areas you’ve always visited in the past. You could find your familiar pathways cut off by fences and no trespassing signs if this bill passes.

Tricks in the bill Defines “ordinary agricultural crop” to include plants or vegetation from gardens (radishes would qualify – more on them in a moment). Later in the bill, the ordinary high-water mark is said to be where the presence of the water on the land is sufficient to destroy its value for agricultural purposes. Therefore, a crop of radishes harvested in as few as 22 days (like the Cherry Belle variety e.g.) would establish the land as not being unsuitable for agriculture and hence, above the high water mark and eligible for claim as private land. [http://urbanext.illinois.edu/veggies/radish.cfm]) Defines “freshet” as “a flood or overflowing of a river by means of rain, melted snow, or an inundation of water.” which excludes the usual meaning of “a great rise or overflowing of a stream caused by heavy rains or melted snow” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freshet and thereby effectively eliminates the impact of heavy rain on determining the high water mark. (Florida has lots of heavy rain – in fact, it might be said to be an ordinary occurrence.) Defines “Ordinary high-water mark” as “the highest reach of a navigable, nontidal waterbody as it usually exists when in its ordinary condition and is not the highest reach of such waterbody during the high water season or in times of freshets.” This definition excludes the ordinary high water mark during the high water season and limits it to the low water season. It’s tantamount to choosing a site for a house on the low end of a sloped property and ignoring the fact that during one season of the year it’s under water because for nine months out of the year, the low end is dry.

HB 639 Reclaimed Water Talking Points HB 639 removes the water within control of a domestic wastewater treatment plant (in the pipes) from Water Management Districts. It thereby makes the reclaimed water something the utility “owns” (in that they have complete discretion as to how to dispose of it) instead of the normal Florida concept of water being a public resource that no one owns, but is permitted to use. Paragraph (2)(b) says that if reclaimed water is available, the district may require the use of that reclaimed water. But they may not require a permit for the reclaimed water. (This is consistent with the rest of the bill which vests control of users in the WMDs but disallows any control of providers by the WMDs.) Prohibiting a WMD from requiring a permit for the use of reclaimed water removes it from the realm of being a public resource. The bill also provides that reclaimed water projects are available for taxpayer funding, even though public control over the “product” is lost. The bill would put the water still in the pipe at the disposal of the reuse facility. The assertion that the reclaimed water will eventually be returned to “waters in the state” is true in most cases, but not to the point. The point is whether where it is returned is the appropriate place. The gist of our concern with the bill is the abdication of the state’s right to having a final say as to the most reasonable and beneficial use of reclaimed water. Utilities’ concerns about WMDs making them use reclaimed water in ways that take unfair advantage of their ratepayer’s investment can be addressed without upending Florida’s well established water law that allows permits for use, but does not allow for ownership of the public resource.