Times writer Craig Pittman's reporting of the actions taken by Tampa Bay Water on Dec. 16 misstated the tone of the discussion and failed to capture the underlying importance of the vote, taken on future water supply projects.
Tampa Bay Water Board, by its actions last week, rejected the staff's recommendation regarding future water supply projects and chose the most costly of the available future water supply options without fully exploring the permit feasibility of less costly alternatives. I appreciate and understand the necessity of a regional water supply authority. As mayor, I am also sensitive to the fact that, since entering into the Tampa Bay Water partnership in 1998, St. Petersburg's raw cost of water has gone up by 1,000 percent, necessitating multiyear double-digit rate increases to our residents.
Pinellas County Commissioner Bob Stewart and I voted to support TBW's staff recommendation to continue to explore five future water supply alternatives for meeting the needs of the residents of the region. Those six board members who live in Hillsborough and Pasco counties, where the growth and development are driving the demand for additional water sources, voted to remove two projects from their home counties. They were joined by one member from the Pinellas County Commission. The vote came at a time when the meeting room was filled with residents brought in to advocate the removal of the Hillsborough and Pasco projects.
Pittman, in his article, stated that I "lost an effort to block" a second desalination plant in Pinellas Park. I thank the Times for since retracting the statement and acknowledging it was untrue. In fact, I advocated keeping all five options, including the Pinellas Park desalination plant, on the table for continued review and analysis.
I believe as policymakers we have an obligation to select water projects which cause the least adverse environmental impact and result in the lowest costs to citizens. That is, in fact, the standard for selection of projects which was adopted unanimously by the TBW Board.
Over the life of the projects the extra costs which could result from TBW's recent board decision are in the tens of millions of dollars, or more.
With the exception of the city of Tampa, all member governments will equally bear the cost of this decision. Tampa will not significantly bear this cost since, at the time TBW came together, Tampa was the only member government permitted to keep its existing water supply. As a result, Tampa only buys water from TBW when its less expensive supply is insufficient to meet its needs. Nevertheless, even Tampa residents will bear a portion, albeit much smaller, of the unnecessary cost increases.
Pittman attempted to characterize the vote in terms of winners and losers; however, truly no one "won" the vote. Those who lost are the poor, those on fixed incomes and all TBW users, whose water rates may be increased unnecessarily because TBW's board closed options before performing a complete scientific and environmental review.
I will continue to resist quick, less informed decisions and look toward long-term solutions that balance the water needs of our region with cost and environmental protection.
