Florida Springs Council Comments on Draft Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and Associated Priority Springs Recovery Strategy
- Chloe Dougherty
- Aug 22
- 12 min read
On August 8, 2025, the Florida Springs Council submitted our comments on the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River Minimum Flows and Levels Recovery Strategy.
Background:
Minimum Flows and Levels are the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of an area. DEP or the water management districts are required by the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act to develop and adopt a recovery strategy where MFLs are being violated and significant harm is occurring.
Santa Fe Recovery Plan:
The plan relies heavily on one project to pump treated wastewater from Jacksonville to the Santa Fe River Basin to recharge the aquifer. The project is estimated to cost well over $1 billion and lacks a clear funding source.
FSC’s analysis:
While FSC supports the project, we are concerned about relying on any one project alone for recovery. If the plan works as proposed, the Santa Fe will continue to experience significant harm for a generation until the project is complete, meaning many springs advocates will never see or experience a healthy Santa Fe River or Ichetucknee River in their lifetimes.
Comment letter:
The Florida Springs Council (FSC) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization representing fifty member organizations and thousands of individual supporters working for the restoration and protection of Florida’s springs, rivers, and the Floridan Aquifer. FSC has a significant stake in, and commitment to, the health of the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers as evidenced by our long-standing advocacy and legal challenges to protect these critical springfed rivers. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the 2025 draft Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers
(LSFIR) and Associated Priority Springs Recovery Strategy (draft Recovery Strategy).
Before addressing the draft Recovery Strategy, we must reiterate our great concern and continued objection to the proposed 2020 LSFIR and Priority Springs Minimum Flows and Levels (MFL). As we asserted in our 2020 letter, “the draft MFL fails to meet the statutory requirements under 373.042, is not protective of the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers, and will result in significant harm to Outstanding Florida Springs.” Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, requires the adoption of an MFL for each Outstanding Florida Spring. The proposed MFL, which is conditioned upon flows monitored in the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers, objectively fails to meet this statutory requirement. As Dr. Sam Upchurch, a noted expert in the field of hydrogeology, concluded in his peer review of the proposed MFL, “The basis document concludes that the priority springs are protected by the riverine MFLs. This conclusion is problematic given the relatively small contribution of individual springs...” Dr. Upchurch finds that the proposed riverine MFLs “shows little understanding of specific springs and resurgences,” and “(does) not adequately protect the springs.”
At the time the draft MFL was proposed, more than five and a half years ago, the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) and Department of Environmental Protection (Department) contended that there was insufficient data to develop MFLs for the Outstanding Florida Springs of the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. We assume, during the more than five years that have passed, the agencies have collected the necessary data to develop a statutorily valid MFL.
We continue to believe the MFLs must be reevaluated based on flows at Outstanding Florida Springs as required by statute. After more than five years of delay, and with the Districts and Department on the clock to achieve MFL compliance, it would be unwise and irresponsible to move ahead with a non-compliant MFL that will likely not survive court scrutiny based on a plain reading of statute.
Recovery Strategy Global Comments & FSC Recommendations
FSC has been involved in the draft LSFIR MFL and Recovery Strategy for more than five years. During that time we have testified at multiple workshops; provided written comments on at least three prior occasions; provided a “mark-up” of the 2024 Recovery Strategy as requested by Department staff; met in person with Department staff on at least three occasions; and conducted webinars and workshops for our members and the public. Despite these considerable efforts, the current draft Recovery Strategy is significantly less achievable, less protective of the springs and rivers, and less fiscally responsible than the previous draft.
In our prior comment letter, we applauded the Department for improving the draft Recovery Strategy by including:
a prohibition on new residential irrigation wells, constructed in the Floridan Aquifer, where a lower quality water source is available for irrigation, or public supply or reclaimed water is available at or immediately adjacent to the property boundary;
a definition of “New Uses” as those first permitted after December 31, 2018; and
a requirement that “New Uses” permitted after December 31, 2018, offset their entire impact at the MFL Compliance Points.
All of these improvements, along with nearly every other protective regulatory measure in previous drafts of the Recovery Strategy, have been removed from the latest draft. Instead, the current draft Recovery Strategy relies almost exclusively on a single infrastructure project estimated to cost well over $1 billion, with no funding source, that is still in the “pre-planning stage.” It is not just putting all of your eggs into one basket; it is throwing your eggs into the air and hoping that a basket materializes beneath them. As such, the draft Recovery Strategy is irresponsible, likely unachievable, and, in a best-case scenario, guarantees a generation of ongoing significant harm to the Santa Fe River, an Outstanding Florida Water, and numerous Outstanding Florida Springs. To be clear we do not oppose the “Water First” project (JEA Project), however we do oppose the creation of an MFL Recovery Strategy that is solely dependent on such a project to achieve MFLs.
The draft Recovery Strategy fails to prioritize the recovery of the LSFIR and priority springs. Instead, it prioritizes continuing significantly harmful water withdrawals in violation of Florida Statutes and the Districts adopted rules. The often cited flush-left language in 373.0421, Florida Statutes, states,
The recovery or prevention strategy must include a phased-in approach or a timetable which will allow for the provision of sufficient water supplies for all existing and projected reasonable-beneficial uses, including development of additional water supplies and implementation of conservation and other efficiency measures concurrent with and, to the maximum extent practical, to offset reductions in permitted withdrawals, consistent with this chapter. (emphasis added)
The Department and Districts continue to misinterpret this statute as requiring the issuance of consumptive use permits, up to the applicant’s demonstrated demand, regardless of the impact such withdrawal will have upon the water resources. However, this interpretation is not supported by statute or rule. For instance, SJRWMD rule 40C-2.301(2) states that, “(i)n order to provide reasonable assurances that a consumptive use permit is reasonable-beneficial, an applicant shall demonstrate that the consumptive use: will not cause harm to the water resources of the areas...” By rule, any consumptive use permit that causes harm to the water resources, including every permit issued that impacts an MFL Compliance Point already below its MFL, is not reasonable-beneficial. Further, the flush-left language in 373.0421, Florida Statutes, only allows the development of additional water supplies and implementation of conservation measures to offset reductions in permitted withdrawals “to the maximum extent practicable.” The statute, unlike the draft Recovery Strategy, recognizes that achieving the MFL is the first priority and offsetting reductions in permitted withdrawals should only be done to the maximum extent practicable while achieving the MFL. Instead of recovering the LSFIR to the point that significant harm is no longer occurring, the draft Recovery Strategy is a backdoor for allowing significantly harmful consumptive use permits to continue contrary to statute, rule, and the public interest.
FSC continues to advocate for an immediate and mandatory reduction in permitted withdrawals, whether through the declaration of a water shortage pursuant to 373.175 or 373.246, Florida Statutes, or through an annual allocation of water as contemplated in draft rule 62-42.300(3)(b), with additional water made available for consumptive use as water supply, conservation, or resource development projects come on line and benefits are seen at the MFL Compliance Points. Water made available by the JEA Project, as well as other listed recovery projects, should be prioritized to recovering flows to achieve and maintain the MFLs for the LSFIR and priority springs. Only after this is accomplished should such water be used to offset new consumptive use permits. New applications for consumptive use permits should not be approved based on recovery projects that are not operational and showing benefits at the MFL Compliance Points. We believe this is the only way to ensure that the MFL is expeditiously achieved. Alternatively, the draft Recovery Strategy should be amended to reflect the July 2024 draft, inclusive of the suggestions provided by FSC and other partners during the previous comment period.
2025 Implementation Strategy
It is telling that in the “Strategy Objective Section” of the draft Recovery Strategy, reducing water use through the district’s statutory authority to regulate consumptive use permits or through the declaration of a water shortage, are not even listed among the means to achieve the MFL. The Department is failing its statutory obligation to recover flows in the LSFIR and priority springs by leaving half of the tools to achieve the MFLs, and the most effective tools at that, off the table.
Further, the draft Recovery Strategy is fiscally irresponsible, a fact that will no doubt be noted by lawmakers and taxpayers. Regarding funding for the JEA Project, the draft Recovery Strategy states,
Funds provided by the water management districts to support this project are intended to mitigate impacts from existing legal uses to the LSFIR MFLs through 2025 as well as future water resource impacts associated with domestic self-supply and authorized uses under a general permit by rule.
The draft Recovery Plan intends to place the full cost of restoring the LSFIR and priority springs on taxpayers within the Districts, and potentially the State, thereby alleviating any financial burden on the water users that caused significant harm to the rivers and springs in the first place. Given the anemic funding provided for springs restoration across Florida this decision will undoubtedly result in fewer springs restoration and protection projects being funded overall. The draft Recovery Strategy should be amended to require existing consumptive permit holders impacting the MFL compliance points to reduce their permits, buy out a comparable existing permit, or provide a financial contribution to a water supply, water resource development, or water conservation project. Previous versions of the draft Recovery Strategy contained such language and it should be restored in the final Recovery Strategy.
The quote above also conflicts with the language in the funding section of the draft Recovery Strategy, which states the SRWMD is not required to provide funding to the JEA Project and that funding from SJRWMD “will be limited to the share of impacts to the MFL Compliance Points resulting from the water withdrawals in the SJRWMD region.” Given these constraints, the draft Recovery Strategy contains no plan for funding the JEA Project. This is a glaring omission considering the draft Recovery Strategy purports that the JEA Project “will provide sufficient benefits to the LSFIR MFLs to offset the impacts of current and project 2045 water use,” and essentially solely relies on this project, in lieu of conservation and regulatory measures, to achieve the MFLs.
The draft Recovery Strategy removes an essential requirement from previous drafts mandating that agricultural consumptive use permit holders implement water conservation measures equivalent to a level 5 tier. Agricultural water use is the second largest contributor to impacts at the MFL compliance points, yet existing agricultural operations have no obligation to reduce water use or use water more efficiently. As reported in the 2023 North Florida Regional Water Supply Plan (NFRWSP), water supply projects are only one-fifth as cost-effective as water conservation measures. The NFRWSP shows that water supply projects are estimated to cost $15,000,000 per one million gallons of water per day, compared to $3,400,000 per one million gallons of water per day through conservation. The JEA Project, at a conservative final cost of $1.5 billion, equates to $37,500,000 to provide one million gallons of water per day. To eschew mandatory cost-effective water conservation measures, implemented and funded by the water users, that would result in immediate benefits to the LSFIR in favor of a water supply project that is ten times more expensive per million gallons of water, funded by taxpayers, with benefits not to be seen for a generation is terrible public policy, fiscal policy, and environmental policy. Mandatory water conservation measures for agricultural consumptive use permits based on a tier point system should be returned to the draft Recovery Strategy prior to adoption.
The public water supply conservation measures, recommending that local governments and utilities implement Florida Water Star Silver Plus through ordinances and utility agreements, again ignores a critical opportunity for cost-effective water conservation. We concur with Alachua County that implementation of a water conservation plan at least as protective of water resources as Florida Water Star Silver Plus should be a requirement for all public water supply consumptive use permits within the NFRWSP. As noted above, water conservation projects are not only significantly more cost-effective but will provide quicker recovery of the LSFIR and priority springs. Passing the buck to local governments and utilities to implement these measures, when the Districts have the ability to mandate them, will only delay recovery of the river and springs. Local governments, like Alachua County, that have already implemented such measures are being asked to carry the load for private utilities that have and will not do so. This is fundamentally unfair. Again, there is no reasonable justification for proposing a draft Recovery Strategy that is both more expensive and less effective than other options readily available to the Department and Districts.
The milestones in the draft Recovery Strategy ignore the fact that a Recovery Strategy for the LSFIR and priority springs has been in effect since 2014 and illegally extends the timeframe for achieving MFLs to 2045. 373.805(4)(f), Florida Statutes, requires that the recovery strategy for each Outstanding Florida Springs must include, “(a)n implementation plan designed with a target to achieve the adopted minimum flow or minimum water level no more than 20 years after the adoption of a recovery or prevention strategy.” 373.042(2)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department or Districts adopt a MFL for Outstanding Florida Springs no later than July 1, 2017, and 373.805, Florida Statutes, requires that the Department or Districts “concurrently adopt a recovery or prevention strategy.” If the Department and Districts wished to “restart the clock” on achieving MFLs for the LSFIR they were required to do so by July 1, 2017. Instead, adoption of a revised Recovery Strategy has been delayed for more than eight years. By unnecessarily delaying adoption, the Department and Districts now seek to grant themselves an additional eight to eleven years to achieve the MFL. Under this absurd reasoning, the Department and Districts could delay adopting a recovery strategy for another decade, moving the recovery date out to 2055. This is a clear violation of the intent of the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act. Further, it means that many taxpayers who are being asked to fund the cost of restoration will never get the chance to experience a restored Santa Fe or Ichetucknee River.
Draft Rules 62-42.200-300
Draft rule 62-42.300(1)(c) is nonsensical when compared to the 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year milestones within the Implementation Strategy. 62-42.300(1)(c) requires a comparison of flows at the MFL Compliance Points with current and projected impacts at those points due to water withdrawals. Based on this analysis the Department and Districts are to determine whether the Recovery Strategy is meeting the established 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year targets required by 373.805, Florida Statutes. The targets within the Recovery Strategy, however, have no mention of flows at the MFL Compliance Points; instead they are simply a checklist of activities that should have been completed. For instance, how are flows at the MFL Compliance Points in 2030 in any way related to the 2030 target of conducting a treatment wetland/recharge siting investigation for the JEA Project or outreach to public supply utilities and local governments regarding conservation measures? In fact, draft rule 62-42.300(1)(c) points to the fact that 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year targets should be based on improving flows, not project milestones.
Draft rule 62-42.300(3)(b) is a rare bright spot in the draft 2025 Recovery Strategy. However, it is unclear under what conditions, if ever, it will be implemented. Clearly, every consumptive use permit impacting the MFL Compliance Points where significant harm is already occurring has “water resource impacts.” However, there is no discussion of what determines whether adverse impacts are mitigated or unmitigated. At a minimum, the draft rule should define “unmitigated adverse water resource impacts” to provide guidance on when this provision may be utilized.
Draft rule 62-42.300(5), regarding residential irrigation, is a significant and disappointing step backwards from previous versions of the draft Recovery Strategy. The 2025 draft Recovery Strategy allows for continued installation of landscape irrigation wells where potable water provided by a public supply utility is available. This language should be amended to reflect the 2024 draft Recovery Strategy which prohibited such wells.
The offset requirements in draft rule 62-42.300(8) are a major step backwards in restoring flows and protecting the LSFIR and priority springs compared to previous draft rules. The change from “base condition water use” as defined in previous drafts, to “demonstrated 2025 demand” will delay recovery of the LSFIR and removes the requirement that consumptive use permit holders who caused the significant harm are part of the solution to addressing it. For reasons already discussed above, this approach is inequitable and ensures an additional generation of continued and increasing significant harm to the LSFIR. We recommend that the Department and Districts return to the offset provisions included in the 2024 draft Recovery Strategy, including the additional recommendations made by FSC and other partners.
Conclusion
Overall, the 2025 draft Recovery Strategy is an incredibly disappointing move backwards from the previous draft. We share the above comments in the hope that the Department and Districts will amend the draft Recovery Strategy to be more effective and equitable, and prioritize the restoration and protection of the LSFIR and priority springs. If the draft Recovery Strategy is proposed for adoption in its current form, and without significant changes, FSC and partner organizations will strongly oppose ratification during the 2026 Legislative Session.