top of page

A Spring of Corporate Influence

ginnie.JPG

Ginnie Springs has been a popular attraction in Florida since 1976. Scuba divers, snorkelers, tubers, and campers still frequently visit the springs 45 years later.

 

“I’ve been diving there for probably the past ten years of my life,” said University of Tampa entrepreneurship major, Drew McDougall. “I’ve been diving in a lot of places around the world, and nothing is as unique as this pristine spring water.” 

 

A water pumping permit along with a deal between Nestle Waters and the owners of the spring may tarnish that pristine image. It’s a deal that would pump nearly 1.2 million gallons a day out of Ginnie Springs, and one that springs advocates say is being swayed by corporate influence through legal and scientific processes.

 

“Florida law and rules have certain boxes you have to check to get a permit,” said Florida Springs Council Executive Director, Ryan Smart, “Two of those boxes are that whoever is using the water is on the permit and that the permit is in the public interest.”

 

Attorneys with the Florida Springs Council are challenging the Suwannee River Water Management District’s decision to renew the pumping permit for two main reasons.

 

First, Nestle’s name is not listed on the renewed permit. With no name on the permit, the district cannot enforce its rules on Nestle.

 

Second, the permit does not seem to be in the public interest. 20,000 letters have been written to the District about the issue. About 97% of the reviewed letters were opposing the permit, according to Smart. 

 

“The people are saying no, that [a] multinational corporation coming in and making tons of money is not in our local interest,” said Smart.

 

The Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 expresses that all water supply developments or projects should align with public interest. However, public interest is not explicitly defined.

 

Even with laws set in place, larger entities influencing the District’s decision does not seem to be uncommon.

 

“If you’re in an industry that’s got lawyers the District will give you a permit, 100% they never turn them down,” said Florida Springs Institute Director, Robert Knight.

 

An article by Business Insider said, “Increasingly, corporations are not just investing in direct lobbying, but also in think tanks and academic research and op-eds and panel discussions in order to shape the intellectual environment of Washington.”

 

That corporate influence of scientific information has also spread to Ginnie Springs.

 

With the renewal of the permit, Nestle created a model to show the effects of pumping on the surrounding wetlands of the spring.

 

The model showed that more pumping would only decrease the flow of the connecting river by 8% in comparison to Knight’s own study that calculated a 20% flow reduction.

 

According to University of Tampa business law professor, Giles Hertz, it is typical for government boards to review possible environmental impacts before granting a permit.

 

However, according to Knight, the Nestle model is the only science the District did for the permit.

 

As a former professor at The University of Florida, Knight has taught and worked with some of the scientists now working for the state. These scientists are working with the data that will show any environmental impacts that pumping has on the springs and surrounding river flow.

 

“I’m trying to get those scientists to admit that the actual data in the analyses…show that the flows through the river are way beyond the point of harm already,” said Knight. “They are reestablishing the minimum fallen level to say that there’s more water in the Santa Fe River than the last time.”

 

The District’s website explains that the current minimum flow level was determined because the Santa Fe River, which flows into Ginnie and its surrounding springs was labeled as “in recovery.” This means that actions were deemed necessary to maintain healthy river and springs ecosystems.

 

“Administrative agencies that control environmental issues like that… they’re going to get a variety of data and any data can be manipulated to carry a narrative,” said Hertz. “If they’re only getting information from one source then the information is probably biased.”

 

Knight views the District’s acceptance of the model differently.

 

“They [the District] think that any proposed solutions to these problems are politically damaging,” said Knight. "It’s an impossible job for the politicians because their support is clearly the people that are making these problems real, they’re not supported by the public.”

 

Currently, the District is still debating action on the appeal of the permit renewal.

 

“We have to choose who’s [water usage] we want to restrict first,” said Smart. “Is it going to be asking people to take shorter showers, is it going to be telling agriculture they can’t grow food, or is it going to be telling a giant multinational water bottle corporation that you can’t have our water for free right now. I think that’s an obvious choice.”

 

To view multiple statements Nestle has made about the permit, visit: https://www.nestle-watersna.com/nestle-water-news/statements/ginnie-springs-florida-seven-springs-permit-renewal

bottom of page