Where's Charlie?

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned a ruling by the district court that would have allowed the Army Corps of Engineers and Georgia to enter into an agreement for water rights to the Lake Lanier reservoir. The decision was viewed as a victory for Florida and Alabama.

Governor Crist applauded the court for "recognizing the importance of maintaining Florida's water flow."

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary, Michael Sole, also supported the ruling, saying that lower river flows would harm Apalachiacola Bay.

Why don't they apply that same logic to another one of our state's most important rivers, the St. Johns?

Similar to the situation in Georgia, the St. Johns is also threatened by plans to reduce its flow by using its waters to supplement the drinking water needs of communities that have reached their water supply limits.

The St. Johns River water withdrawal proposals could be just as harmful to an important and fragile aquatic ecosystem. In fact, the rate of flow of the St. Johns is less than the Apalachiacola and the tidal influences are much greater. This results in the St. Johns not being able to flush pollutants efficiently to begin with.

The bottom line is this: Less freshwater and less flow are bad for BOTH rivers.

Governor, when are you going to stand up and defend the St. Johns River, too?

Let's maintain the flow in the St. Johns, as well.