What If...? (Part 2)

Blue Hole Spring on the Ichetucknee River

“What if…?” My report on the six years I served as a water defender on the University of Florida Water Institute’s FACETS project (continued from Part 1)

July 23, 2023

The Product

To create this new model, the project team worked with two existing models, SWAT and MODFLOW. One of the modelers explained that instead of functioning as a steady-state model, in which underground water is assumed to move at a constant rate of speed, the FACETS model would function as a transient model that assumed underground water moves at different rates. This is an important shift from steady-state water models since dye trace studies have shown wide variations in the rates of movement of underground water. Those rates depend upon the size of conduits in the Floridan aquifer through which the water must travel.

The summary of key findings from the Florida regional scenarios that the project team conveyed to stakeholders at the last in-person meeting on June 29, 2023, was as follows. In the list below, “Mix-n-Match” refers to a combination of different techniques (including use of BMPs, controlled release fertilizer, changes in crop types and management systems that include controlled release fertilizer and sod based rotations, etc.) that could be applied to specific springsheds or springs Priority Focus Areas. The key findings were:

• Conversion to low-density longleaf has best potential to increase flows and decrease nitrate concentrations.

• “Hi Tech CRF” (Controlled Release Fertilizer) reduces row crop N load by 68%, total load by 20%.

• Mix-n-Match provides environmental and economic benefits (win-win).

• All scenarios meet minimum flows; none meets nutrient criteria.

• “Realistic” scenarios don’t move the needle on nitrogen much.

• Economic changes are uneven across sector and region; rural counties more highly impacted by decreases in agriculture and forestry.

All members of the stakeholder group agreed that while one of the key messages of the FACETS project is that there is no one “magic bullet” that can save both agriculture and the springs, there are new agricultural developments that can move the needle in the desired directions of higher recharge and lower pollution.

The FACETS team stated from the beginning of the project that it was not their intention to use the project’s results to make state-level policy recommendations. Through the project’s educational component, however, the team will be letting policymakers and elected officials know about the results of this research. The hope is that those results can be used to inform the development of new public policies.

Once the project team members have completed their final reports on the project, the FACETS water model will be available to others by request. Employees of the Suwannee River Water Management District have already expressed interest in examining the model, although they cautioned everyone not to confuse the FACETS model with the water model used to set regulatory standards for the region’s Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs).

The Promise

I see nothing in the project results to indicate that the dual goals of promoting “economic sustainability of agriculture and silviculture in North Florida and South Georgia while protecting water quantity, quality and habitat in the Upper Floridan Aquifer and the springs and rivers it feeds” are achievable. FACETS has, however, encouraged me by demonstrating that it is possible for people with very different opinions and interests to work together toward common goals—a big accomplishment in today’s atmosphere of polarization and “us vs. them.”

The FACETS project team was focused not only on the scientific issues involved with creating a new water model, but also on how the stakeholders from different groups (agriculture, public policy, state agency and environmentalists) communicated with each other throughout the six years of the project. Because my background is in social science, this communications research was what I was most interested in. Below are some of the conclusions about communications that were shared by the project team in their presentations at the final FACETS meeting.

1. Producers and environmentalists have similar values and interests, but view agriculture differently. Similar values and interests include connections to nature, a high-perceived risk to ground and surface water, and the need to prioritize water for crops and ecosystems. Differences include the ways producers and environmentalists interact with water and whether they view agriculture as part of the problem or part of the solution.

2. The public’s views about human relationships with water and water use are not just based on science but also on personal values. Members of the public have limited water knowledge, may not necessarily believe water scientists, and follow their values to policy preferences.

3. Strategic communication can increase support for sustainable water action by reducing false conflict and supporting value-based discussions. Strategic communication can help to end the blame game, create opportunities to experience alternative perspectives, and emphasize language that builds shared understandings. Strategic communication can also support value-based discussions by revealing shared values and employing messages and messengers to convey resonating values.

I’m planning to take a deeper dive into this communications research to lift out some ideas that might be helpful for water defenders. I have been encouraged, however, that the FACETS communications research has supported some positions for which I’ve long advocated—that water defenders need to see growers as part of the solution instead of part of the problem, that values—aka the human dimension—are just as important a factor as science in developing solutions to our water problems, and that education about those problems should include education about how we communicate as well as about what we communicate.

Because we all exist in relationship with water, how we define and value those relationships is the proper ground upon which many of our water-related discussions should be taking place. Science, in this case, may be secondary in importance to human values.

Conclusions and What-Ifs

Here are my conclusions at the end of this six-year project.

FACETS was successful in creating a water model that could be used to analyze how different land uses, crop types and crop management systems might benefit aquifer recharge, flow and pollution prevention in specific springsheds and spring Priority Focus Areas.

Nothing in the FACETS data convinced me that it will be possible to have both sustainable agriculture and springs restoration and preservation here in North Florida. As many of the stakeholder participants agreed, nothing in the FACETS data is “a magic bullet.”

The FACETS communications research is fascinating and carries important implications for public education as well as for communication among and between different stakeholder groups.

Here are my what-ifs.

What if conversations between different groups began with a discussion of values that led into discussions of scientific data, rather than starting with scientific data and ignoring values?

What if different groups could use the FACETS communications research to guide their conversations with each other?

What if we all stepped back from our entrenched positions, agreed to ditch “us vs. them” thinking, and assumed that both agriculturalists and water defenders are part of the solution instead of part of the problem?

What if agriculturalists and water defenders could collaborate on a public educational campaign to speak with one voice about the importance of water conservation and pollution prevention?

What if agriculturalists, state agency and public policy representatives, and water defenders could come together in facilitated discussions to create and publicize a workable water ethic for individual householders, business owners, local governments and growers?

What if the water modelers on the project team could collaborate with the Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute to analyze and, if necessary, revise springs restoration plans by applying the FACETS water model to specific springsheds? Would that change the restoration plans and if so, how?

What if we could all learn to understand and respect the interconnections we share with the Floridan aquifer, with the springs, with agriculture and forestry, with public policy, and with each other? How could that understanding and respect change our work and our lives?

I am not naive enough to think that these "What ifs" would lead all water users to link hands around a campfire and sing "Kumbaya." What I do think is that what we water defenders have done so far has not made a difference for our springs and rivers; we keep doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. My point is that we need to try some new approaches to solving our water problems, and we need to be working with the people who may be in very good positions to help us do that--because there are no solutions, short of increased housing and commercial development (which are no solutions at all!), without our farmers, ranchers and foresters.

I’ll close with one of my favorite Chinese proverbs: When you drink water, remember the spring.

Here in North Florida, maybe we should revise that to read: When you use water, remember the aquifer.