Talk:St. Johns River Water Management District

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Water

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Material from this page has been duplicated at Suwannee River Water Management District on March 18, 2008. The page history of this page now serves as the attribution history for part of the contents of that page.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

SJRFlorida (talk · contribs) / St. Johns River Water Management District St. Johns River Water Management District

Local government

A respected editor has refined a category to "local government." Actually, the government is appointed by the governor and controls a huge swath of Florida. It is clearly a function of state government with no local control whatever.

Is my Florida Highway Patrol, based nearby, "local"? Student7 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water not controlled by SJRWMD

An editor removed the following:

"In 2010, the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (Orange and Seminole Counties) ruled that Deseret Ranches owned and had control over the Taylor Creek Reservoir. This ruling is being considered for appeal. The district wanted to increase the draw from 10,000,000 US gallons (38,000,000 L; 8,300,000 imp gal) to upwards of 25,000,000 US gallons (95,000,000 L; 21,000,000 imp gal) daily.Waymer, Jim (30 January 2010). "Ranchers' stake to water affirmed". Melbourne, Florida: Florida Today. pp. 1B."

I thought this was important because it represented one of the few bodies of water in Florida not controlled by the government. Since it was a court decision, it seemed important. Court decisions are often considered sufficiently important to be included in an article.

Deseret is a big player in central Florida as is the WMD. History is constructed brick by brick. This is one of the bricks IMO. Student7 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor not reading discussion. Student7 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne-Tillman Water Control question

What part does Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District play here? Are they under direct administration of St. Johns? Do they have to check with St. Johns before they do anything? http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/F6B352BB2054A0E985256B370055C1F7 Student7 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slow edit war

Over this: In 2010, the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (Orange and Seminole Counties) ruled that Deseret Ranches owned and had control over the Taylor Creek Reservoir. This ruling is being considered for appeal. The district wanted to increase the draw from 10,000,000 US gallons (38,000,000 L; 8,300,000 imp gal) to upwards of 25,000,000 US gallons (95,000,000 L; 21,000,000 imp gal) daily.^[1]

Why? --Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The government has a classic potable water monopoly. Except for this one place in Florida which the District is contesting. If Deseret wins it will be a loophole in the monopoly. If not, then it will show the power of the monopoly. Student7 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Waymer, Jim (30 January 2010). "Ranchers' stake to water affirmed". Melbourne, Florida: Florida Today. pp. 1B.

Burning is where?

The following was deleted twice from the article: "It also controls burns within that area."(footnote:)"Prescribed burn today west of I-95, south of SR 520". Florida Today. 2009-10-19. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

The last time this was erased, the editor said it was "redundant." Where in the article is the duty of controlled burns clearly expressed? Student7 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"reversed on appeal'

I've tried looking for the reversal of the Deseret opinion in 5th district docs. Can't seem to find it. Can anyone help? http://www.5dca.org/opinions_archived.shtml Student7 (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of biased references

An editor has used a WP:PRIMARY reference, in some cases replacing secondary sources. This is contrary to Wikipedia practices. There has been, in the past, considerable political editing in this article. It would be nice to stop that and allow people who aren't directly connected with the STWMD to edit, using proper sources. The problem here is that government sources tend to be almost deliberately vague and worded to avoid what is really important about the District. Secondary sources skip the fluff and get to the point. Student7 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page tag

What good does a talk page tag do? Most readers are not even aware a talk page exists behind every article. No reader will ever see this page or the tag. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But thanks for informing me. I didn't know that. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we supposed to not change the info and let it get outdated?

I am confused on what the invisible comments are meaning. After "It employs approximately 600 people" comment says this is a part of history or something like that, is this implying that we are not supposed to change it? Maybe I'm just a bit slow, but what do these invisible comments mean? BlitzGen (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faith with understanding.

Faith with understanding. 2600:6C50:757F:DB0A:80A8:7F18:924B:ABCF (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Waymer, Jim (30 January 2010). "Ranchers' stake to water affirmed". Melbourne, Florida: Florida Today. pp. 1B.

[1]