Water bottlers should pay more for siphoning groundwater that would otherwise flow through Florida’s springs, but that alone won’t reverse their decline.
Bills filed in the Florida Legislature would tax bottling companies on each gallon withdrawn from state waters such as the aquifer and springs. One proposal, House Bill 861/Senate Bill 1112, would charge water bottlers a tax of 12.5 cents per gallon, which would go into a trust fund for stormwater management and wastewater treatment projects.
“They should pay no differently than the other bottlers like Coke and Pepsi. That’s where I got the 12.5 cents — I just want parity with other bottlers,” Sen. Annette Taddeo, a Miami Democrat who introduced the legislation, told The Sun. “Obviously, (soft drink bottlers) are getting water from municipalities, but they are paying for it.”
Other bills would create a lower fee and more oversight for bottlers. Senate Bill 1098 would assess a fee of 5 cents per gallon on water extracted for the production of bottled water, while Senate Bill 1096 would require the state to monitor water-withdrawal permits filed by bottling companies.
The measures come as Seven Springs Water Co. is seeking approval of a permit to allow more than 1.15 million gallons of water per day to be withdrawn out of Ginnie Springs in Gilchrist County. Seven Springs pays just a one-time $115 for the permit and sells the water for an undisclosed amount to Nestle Waters North America, which is expanding its water-bottling plant there.
The Suwannee River Water Management District last week received two petitions, including one signed by about 384,000 people worldwide, urging it to reject the permit. Nestle and Seven Springs officials argue, including in a guest column in The Sun today, that they have a vested interest in protecting the water supply.
“As stewards of the property, we know that threats exist, but they don’t come from bottled water,” wrote Seven Springs Vice President Risa Wray, whose family owns the recreational area and campgrounds around Ginnie Springs.
Certainly there are threats to the water supply in the region other than bottled water. Agricultural users in particular use large amounts of water, while also contributing nutrient pollution to the groundwater from animal waste and fertilizer.
A tax on water bottlers wouldn’t fix that problem, especially if the revenue wasn’t spent on curtailing these problems. Given the unlikelihood of the Republican-controlled Legislature approving any new taxes, one alternative would be requiring water bottlers such as Nestle to buy out other large-scale water permits as long as that would cause a net reduction in withdrawals.
After all, the water management district has already determined the Santa Fe River is beyond the point of significant harm due to the reduction in flow from springs such as Ginnie that feed into it. Until groundwater withdrawals are reduced, no amount of taxes are going to save these springs.
The Gainesville Sun
This article originally appeared on Crestview News Bulletin: Guest editorial: Tax won’t save overdrawn springs