OCT 03 '9 06:O2PM SCLDF-FLORIDA P.2/3
SIERRA CLUB LEGAL
DEFENSE FUND, INC.
The Law Firm for the Environmental Movement,
Sumir. Mr erMSa. d Maalm ni S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Tallahazsee, Florida 3?oi (o904) 68i-oox FAX (o904) 68r- 0020
P.O. Box x329, TallahascS Florida 3z3o EMail: email@example.com
To: Estus Whitfield
Executive Office of the Governor
Prom: Ansley Samson
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc...
.DATE October 3, 1996
Re: Comments bn Agenda for Water Supply Development
We suggest the following changes to the proposed four-page:agenda
that you distributed at our September 30,. 1996, meeting.
In Section I.A(1) (a), we suggest specifying that any discussion
regarding the use of public lands for water, supply projects
should be specific about what species of public land is proposed
for use (e.g., state sovereignty lands would be inappropriate for.
We strongly support the discussion included in Sections I:A(i)(b)
Sand I.A(1)(c).regarding-water conservation as a means of
increasing water supply..
In Section I.A(l)(d), we suggest adding.discussion'regarding
development of reuse sources-and the possibility of preferring
such reuse sources .to new sources.
We support.discuss.ion of sustainability.of ecosystems in the
context of water supply development -- Section I.A(3) (b). We
further suggest including discussion of water quality issues in
the context of supply development.
Currently Section II.A.(1) suggests three specific long-term
funding mechanisms. Of these, only water use fees are a
realistic.means of funding water supply development. Moreover,
no discussion:of the possibility of impact fees is highlighted --
SBozeman, Mo.nina De vcr. Colorado Honolulu, Hawaii .Junw Al ik New Orlean, Louisiana
san Francisco. California Smattle, Wahingtoa 'Washington, D.C.
OCT 03 '96 06:03PM SCLDF-FLORIDA F'-;
the only other feasible way of:raising funds. We thus suggest
deleting II.A(l)(a) and II.A.(1)(c), and adding a reference to
discussion of impact fees.
We do not believe that this group should discuss the possibility
of interjurisdictional water transfers -- specifically.alluded to
in II.A(2)(c) and II.C(l-)(c). Such discussion-would require
significant additional time and resources to understand
adequately environmental consequences.
.Finally, we suggest that Section II.C should be moved,to precede
discussion of funding,(currently Section II.A). A discussion of
how much water costs,' or should cost, and who should pay for
water, logically precedes a discussion of how to generate money
to pay for water supply development.