During a House committee hearing this week, Sierra Club lobbyist Dave Cullen opposed a measure that would prevent local governments from enacting policies designed to reduce climate change by restricting fossil fuels.

Bill sponsor Josie Tomkow, who lives on a family ranch in northern Polk County, responded that living on a ranch makes here “an original environmentalist,” supposedly implying no one should lecture her on the environmental demerits of her proposed legislation.

This is a variant of the sometimes quoted cliché that states “farmers were the first environmentalists.”

I have no idea who first came up with this talking point.

It’s time to set the record straight.

Farms and ranches of any type are created by removing native vegetation and introducing exotic animals and plants as a way to make a living. That’s just the way it is and always has been.

Some farmers and ranchers do an admirable job of responsibly managing what’s left of the natural landscape on their property. Some do not. Farms and ranches do provide ample green space, but sometimes it is by default rather than by design.

In Florida, farmers’ environmental record is not inspiring.

The Florida panther wouldn’t be endangered and the red wolf wouldn’t be missing from Florida’s wild lands if they hadn’t been persecuted by ranchers.

The Kissimmee River and a good part of the Everglades basin would probably not have been ditched as extensively as it was if not for the political pressure of the agriculture lobby.

The state’s water pollution laws would probably be stronger than they are except for pushback by some agriculture interests.

Finally, if you want to look for an original environmentalist, try Alexander von Humboldt, who was credited with being the first scientists to observe than human activity can seriously damage ecosystems.

The Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Governing Board voted unanimously today to delay further funding for projects sought by the Polk Regional Water Cooperative until Polk officials settle a pending legal dispute over proposed water rules, better define their proposed projects and commit to their share of project funding.

Staff members told the board they expect to have the issues resolved by May, when they are scheduled to provide an update at the May 25 regular meeting.

The dispute involves a proposal by the Central Florida Water Initiative to enact a rule that will limit future permitted withdrawals from the Upper Floridan Aquifer to prevent further damage to lakes, rivers and wetlands from overconsumption.

Nine of the 16 local governments that have challenged the CFWI’s proposed rule are members of the Polk cooperative, including the Polk County Commission. They argue the permit restrictions threaten local economic development and their ability to deal with future growth.

Swiftmud Deputy General Counsel Chris Tumminia said the current challenges differed from the earlier dispute over allocation of water in the Peace River when PRWC officials acknowledged groundwater will be limited and they needed alternative supplies, such as surface water.

“Now they’re arguing they don’t need groundwater limitations and expect to get increases (in their permits); it’s completely contradictory,” he said.

He said a tentative settlement has been reached—details were still being worked out and are not public—that would end the challenge if it is approved.

Stephen James, the cooperative’s project director, told board members the settlement will allow temporary allocations from the Upper Floridan Aquifer while they develop alternative supplies.

The primary alternative supply involves drilling wells into the Lower Floridan Aquifer, which will require the water to be treated similar to what occurs at a coastal desalination plant before it can be used for drinking.

The cooperative has a permit from the South Florida Water Management District to pump up to 30 million gallons a day from a network of wells in the Lake Walkinwater area east of Lake Wales, Swiftmud Executive Director Brian Armstrong told board members.

The measures Armstrong recommended and the board approved including having signed and approved settlement agreements to end the rule challenge, obtaining a clearer definition of the size and scope of the cooperative’s projects for which it is seeking Swiftmud funding and having assurance there are adequate funding partners to complete the projects.

This issues will also be discussed at the next cooperative meeting, which will occur April 28 in Winter Haven.

Tuesday’s decision and t he proposed settlement agreements appear to prevent what some observers considered an opening battle in a regional water war reminiscent of the disputes that occurred in the Tampa Bay area decades ago.

The proposed CFWI rule affects not only Polk County, but also major water users in Lake, Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties.

The CFWI was established as the result of a joint effort that began in 2006 to head off a similar water war in the Orlando area.

Mosaic is seeking permits for a 121-acre expansion of the gypsum stack at its New Wales plant and a modification of the reactivated 319-acre stack at its Green Bay plant.

This comes at a time when Sierra and other environmental groups have launched a campaign to seek stronger federal oversight of this waste byproduct of fertilizer manufacturing.

Phosphogypsum is required to be stored in stacks that look like small hills across the landscape. The material is slightly radioactive and contains a number of chemical elements such as arsenic, lead and chromium that can contaminate groundwater.

The stacks have been the site of some catastrophic accidents involving sinkholes that sent waste to the Florida aquifer and spills that threatened local rivers and bays.

The push for stronger oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is intended to recognize the hazardous components contained in these stacks and their potential health and environmental threats.

This not solely a Florida issue. These stacks exist in other states, particularly Louisiana.

To get a full picture of the issue, what Sierra and other groups are seeking to accomplish and more, go to phosphogypsumfreeamerica.org .

Cooperation appears to be at risk at the Polk Regional Water Cooperative.

This probably should not surprise anyone who has been following water policy issues for any amount of time.

Everything was great when all you had to do was to agree to get together to get money from the Southwest Florida Water Management District to conduct alternative water supply studies and to meet some local funding deadlines.

That all changed in recent months.

Member governments begin balking at paying for multi-million-dollar projects involving deep wells, desalination plants and pipelines hey claimed wouldn’t help their constituents even though it might contribute to the general project’s goals.

Some local governments announced plans to develop alternative water supplies on their own, or at least try to.

Others criticized the PRWC staff and consultants for pursuing projects in their service area without consulting them.

Then last month the state issued proposed rules that would limit further water withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer. A number of local governments have filed legal challenges that will be considered at an upcoming weeks-long administrative hearing.

And that’s just the lead up to Wednesday’s PRWC board meeting.

Next week Swiftmud’s Governing Board will discuss whether to continue funding the cooperative’s work now that many of its members are challenging the new state rule that Swiftmud officials were involved in drafing.

Meanwhile, a Florida Senate committee filed a bill this week that would ratify the proposed water rules for now and require reports in a few years on how much of a hardship the rule presented to public and private permit holders.

Local officials are opposing that legislation, claiming it cuts off their due -process legal challenge rights.

The staff analysis of the bill points out that everyone was warned this was coming 10 years ago and had ample to prepare if they were so inclined.

This is a developing saga, a lot of which will depend on whether the proposed legislation goes anywhere and what the outcome to the challenges turns out to be.

Stay tuned.

If you enjoy braving the crowds at Circle B Bar Reserve or enjoy the solitude that allows you to hear an Eastern bluebird sing or enjoy pineland wildflowers at Sumica, you can thank a small group of local environmental activists who put together a visionary grassroots tax referendum in 1994 to save the best of what was left of Polk’s special places.

The referendum barely passed in the face of indifference to outright hostility by county leaders and an active campaign by some conservatives. Meanwhile, a county sponsored tax proposal on an earlier ballot that year to raise taxes to finance more development-related infrastructure went down in flames.

This history lesson, which came to mind during a conversation with a local newspaper executive, is relevant in connection with the ongoing fight to get state officials to honor voter intent to appropriate funds for conservation purchases as voters directed them in a constitutional amendment approved in 2014 and the fourth attempt in 30 years to persuade Polk County voters to increase local sales tax to pay for road projects.

That’s because the last transportation-related tax increase that occurred in Polk County came at the expense of the voter-approved tax increase to buy environmental lands.

The environmental lands tax was authorized for 20 years. When 20 years came and went, the Polk County Commission didn’t end the tax. Instead they reallocated the property tax levy to pay for roadwork and other day-to-day county growth-related operating expenses. Voters didn’t get a say in the matter.

The troubling part of this tale is that commissioners had no trouble deciding conservation funding to expire, but brushed aside the idea that the accompanying tax increase should expire.

This, of course, was all totally legal even though it raised public integrity issues because of the fiscal sleight-of-hand that was involved. The same goes for the Florida Legislature’s refusal to properly fund the Florida Forever program, though a legal ruling in that dispute is still pending.

Fast forward to today.

The $1.3 billion list of so-called road capacity projects includes $170 million to realign and extend Deen Still Road from one side of the Green Swamp Area of Critical Concern to the other to accommodate increased truck traffic. That traffic boom has occurred since Polk County decided to pave the formerly unpaved road network when the area was more rural and sparsely developed. There’s an open question about whether any of these road improvements comply with the settlement agreement with the state that was part of a drawn-out battle between Polk County and state planning officials over how intensely development would be allowed in the Green Swamp.

Ironically, the tentative proposed route of the new road may cut through the southern end of Colt Creek State Park, part of whose purchase was financed by money from the Polk County Environmental Lands Program.

Another interesting historical footnote is that Colt Creek State Park is certainly in the Green Swamp, but does not lie in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern because the former owner, Charlie Mack Overstreet, had enough political influence in Tallahassee when the boundaries were approved in 1974 to exclude his ranch.

Solar farms appear to be becoming the dominant land use in Chicora, a community founded in the 19^th century in southwestern Polk County.

Tuesday the Polk County Commission voted 3-2 to approve a proposal by Tampa Electric to add two more parcels to the two parcels already approved for solar farms. The solar farms are part of TECO’s move to increase its green energy footprint in this part of Florida.

The controversy wasn’t over the merits of solar power, but the fact that one of the solar farm tracts is right in the middle of the community on the site of a former citrus grove.

Residents argued the facility is an unwelcome intrusion that changes the character of their community.

TECO officials and their consultants responded that the solar farm would be a much less intensive land use in terms of traffic, noise and water use than any alternative.

During the hearing TECO officials did agree to relocate the barbed-wire-topped security fences deeper into their property and buffer the fence and the solar complex with a thick planting of cedar trees. In response to residents’ complaints about the esthetics. TECO officials also promised to work with the community toward their application to obtain a historic designation for the community.

The vote came during the first week of the 2021 session of the Florida Legislature during which legislation has been proposed to pre-empt local officials’ ability to decide on the location of solar farms as long as they’re in agriculturally zoned areas of the county. The legislation also doubles the size of solar farms allowed to be exempted from state power plant siting regulations.

One of sites for proposed solar farm within Chicora community in rural Polk

Tuesday the Polk County Commission will hear an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a request by Tampa Electric to get approval to expand its solar farms in the Chicora community in southwest Polk.

Whatever the hearing’s outcome turns out to be, pending legislation being considered this year in Tallahassee will take away commissioners’ discretion on future solar farms in rural areas if the bill passes and becomes law.

The legislation, HB 761, would double the size of solar farms that can be developed without going through the Florida Power Plant Siting Act and allow them by right in any agriculturally zoned property.

Although Sierra supports the expansion of solar and other green energy sources, the effects on farmers and rural homeowners could be potentially significant.

The is also one of a quartet of proposed bills that seek to wrest local control over energy policy and the siting of energy infrastructure and place all of it the hands of the Legislature and the lobbyists.

The Chicora case is interesting because the residents aren’t even TECO customers. They are served by the Peace River Electric Cooperative.

Although the solar farm itself will be visually buffered by a line of trees, residents object to the prison-like security fence around the site, which was formerly occupied by a citrus grove.