Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Preserve resources can be used with regional impact in mind

There have been a number of letters and e-mails published expressing outrage and criticism of the proposal to withdraw water from an old well field that is now in the Brooker Creek Preserve in northern Pinellas County.

The real issue is: "Was the county correct to combine land purchased by the Utilities Department rate-payers for water-supply needs with land purchased by taxpayers for environmental resource values into an environmental land-management area and call it a preserve, when the Utilities Department would continue to make use of its property for water-supply projects?"

The land ownership is generally represented as follows: Utilities, 44 percent; county lands, 32 percent; Southwest Florida Water Management District lands, 20 percent; and Progress Energy, 2 percent. Approximately 600,000 residents, most of whom reside in 18 municipalities, paid for the Utilities lands in their water bills. This land must be for the water-supply needs of these citizens first. Water projects can be built consistent with the goals of the preserve to the greatest extent possible. If the Utilities property cannot be used for water-supply projects for the benefit of the rate-payers, then these citizens should be reimbursed for the value of the property. At today's land prices of $40,000 per acre, that would be $144-million, or $240 for each resident served. I do not think that is possible or necessary.

Some options are (1) to change the designation for the preserve to Environmental Land Management Area , (2) remove the Utilities lands from the preserve, (3) a combination of (1) and (2), or (4) leave things as they are and have a little more understanding of the uses and needs of the various property interests that make this an environmental treasure.

A second issue is: "Is it responsible to make use of Utilities Department local resources on our land in the preserve that would have no significant environmental impact in order to reduce the importation of potable resources that are causing environmental impacts in other counties?"

We receive 67-million gallons of water per day from water-supply facilities in Pasco and Hillsborough counties. Those facilities are so large that some environmental impacts are unavoidable. As responsible partners in regional water solutions, we have reduced our potable-water demand on these facilities through use of reclaimed water and conservation. We can expand our reclaimed-water system farther in the north county service area if we supply the East Lake Woodlands golf courses 294,000 gallons per day on an annual average. This would allow us to permanently reduce more potable-water demand on the regional system. The supply of water to the golf courses would be during the annual dry period only and would be limited to 1.008-million gallons per day for peak monthly use. The impact on the water table is .5 to 2.6 inches over less than 40 acres of the department's 3,600 acres. There will be no harmful impacts at this low level of withdrawal.

If we are credible stewards of our environmental resources, we must manage them to reduce environmental impacts that we contribute to, whether they are in Pinellas, Pasco or Hillsborough counties.

Pick Talley, director, Pinellas County Utilities, Clearwater

Pinellas residents have been duped

Re: A delicate balance of nature, resources, May 21.

The article in Sunday's paper on Brooker Creek Preserve was a cruel trick.

First, I thought the word "preserve" meant to keep something unsullied. I thought a preserve was land set aside to be kept forever. I was wrong. It means let the public think they have something preserved until the county needs it.

Second, I thought the public owned Brooker Creek. We don't. We own the right to manage it, to build hiking trails and bird blinds, to build a first-class education center, to run nature programs, but we don't own the land. Like the folks in the mobile home parks, we can get booted out any time Pinellas Utilities wants the water. It can build blending plants, and storage areas, and can pump water from the shallow underground reserves of potable water out of the preserve at the driest time of the year to a nearby golf course.

So, residents of Pinellas, we have been duped. Something we thought was grand (and Sunday's pictures and the accompanying article show its true beauty) is not truly ours for keeps. It is only to play with until some utility or special interest needs something. I don't know what we can do to stop it.

Jane Williams, Clearwater

The fox watching the chicken coop

Re: Developers help write wildlife assessments, May 12.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been outsourcing the job of assessing the environmental effects of development projects to the people who are responsible for the harm. The Fish and Wildlife Service tried to alleviate concerns by saying that the developers are not performing the entire task. Fish and Wildlife does the species assessment, while the developers determine the impact the project will have on the species.

It seems to me that the developers are doing the most important part. Talk about the fox watching the chicken coop. This is yet another example of the government's inability to manage our ever-depleting natural environment.

People of this state are concerned about the continued destruction of our wildlife resources, yet development giants continue to influence bureaucracy. The people should be outraged that their hard-earned tax dollars are going to the Fish and Wildlife Service, while the service gives its most important responsibilities to the people it is supposed to be protecting the environment from.

Something must change if we and our children are going to preserve a beautiful Florida environment.

Drew Petrimoulx, Tampa

Too much information

Re: Racial slur, vandalism, stolen car shock family, May 18.

While I was saddened to hear about the hate crime that happened to the Boyd family, I think that the St. Petersburg Times placed an even worse one on them by airing unnecessary information.

Why do we need to know about the couple's arrests in the past? They were victims in this situation, but for some reason we have to know about their past, as if this had something to do with the hate crime. Just because information is out there and the public has a right to know, doesn't make it right.

Wendy Owen, Pinellas Park

A turning of the tables

Re: TV reporter calls talk with racist a blunder.

I find it ironic that when the tables are turned on the media they would rather refuse to participate, as the St. Petersburg Times admitted to in this May 20 story.

I don't really believe the National Vanguard's position that the Anti-Defamation League controls most of the media, but the idea makes for interesting reading. All David Daugherty did was present questions to Don Germaise and then fit the answers to suit his forum, something the media have been doing for years!

Chris Watson, Spring Hill

Not just any English will do

With all the talk about making English the national language, I would like to make one suggestion: Let us make correct English the national language. A law like this would make it illegal for most of the politicians in Washington, D.C., to open their mouths.

Dan A. Sparks, Redington Beach

[Last modified May 25, 2006, 05:36:07]