BLAIN & CONE, P. A.
L. M. BLAIN 202 MADISON STREET
THOMAS E. CONE, JR. P. O. BOX 399
RUSSELL M. BLAIN January 28, 1981 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601
GARY A. GIBBONS (813) 223-3888
FRED A. McCORMACK
206 SOUTH MONROE STREET
P. 0. BOX 10449
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301
Mr. John Wehle
Southwest Florida Water
5060 U. S. Highway 41, S.
Brooksville, Florida 33512
Re: State Water Policy
Enclosed are copies of the comments from the West Coast Regional
Water Supply Authority and the city of St. Petersburg on the latest
draft of the Department of Environmental Regulation's State Water
cc: J. Edward Curren
TO: Mr. Jordan M. Rich, Public Works Department
From: Vincent D. Patton, Public UtilitieS/ I/
Date: January 27, 1981
Subject: Draft State Water Policy Rule, Chapter 17-X
The comments and questions below are based on the "marked up copy"
as provided by Mr. Buddy Blain at our meeting on the morning of
January 26, 1981.
It should be noted that six subsections are still being redrafted
and further that the redraft may or may not follow the mark up
17-X.03(2). We believe that it would be desirable to indicate
the priority of water for uses such as those shown, navigation,
recreation and the protection of fish and wild-life habitat as
compared to essential withdrawal demands such as potable water
for human consumption as well as others. We are slightly dis-
turbed that uses such as these are cited whereas water for potable
purposes is not. We trust this does not indicate a list of
17-X.03(5). We believe that this subsection should be deleted
and is unnecessary particularly in view of the language of
373.1961 Florida Statutes.
17-X.03(6). This subsection is unnecessarily repetitive since
water quality standards are established under Chapter 403 and are
also accepted and have become federal standards as well.
17-X.03(7). It should be noted that this subsection is being
redrafted. As presently written in such general fashion it raises
questions such as who would do the protecting and managing?
What standards would be used? What is the role of local planning
and, finally, is this necessary in light of authority of water
Mr. Jordan M. Rich
January 27, 1981
17-X.03(8). Again, it should be noted that this subsection is
to be redrafted, and essentially the same questions should apply
as to the previous section.
17-X.04. We believe that this entire subsection should be
rewritten since there is considerable overlap and questions that
we believe it would generate.
For example, the present law governing conditions for a permit,
FSA l(b), states: will not interfere with any existing legal use
of water. The rule would paraphrase the law in other areas but
deliberately leaves this part out. This could be used as a tool
to attempt a legislative amendment of 373 itself in an area of
critical concern to the City.
For example, is it the intent that subsection (e) would require
the preparation of an environmental impact statement or the
equivalent? It appears there is overlap or duplication between
subsections (b) and (h) as well as between (h) and (i). What is
the difference between subsections (d) and (e)? How is a safe
basin yield to be calculated to determine subsection (1)? Should
not the list of legally adopted local comprehensive plans provide
an answer to subsection (b)? We believe something needs to be
spelled out in this respect.
We believe that subsections (g) and (1) should be deleted since
they appear to be related to water crop.
17-X.04(3). We suggest this subsection be rewritten to read as
follows: "The Department or the Districts shall reserve from
permit use water in such locations and quantities, and for such
seasons of the year, as is demonstrated as being required for the
protection of fish and wildlife and the public health or safety,
taking into consideration natural fluctuations."
17-X.04(4). How is conservation to be determined?
17-X.05. We suggest this entire section be deleted since we
believe this subject is adequately addressed by Chapter 373,
17-X.06. This section should be deleted since it is adequately
covered by Chapter 403 and by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes and
this language adds nothing to the legal authority of the Department
17-X.07. We are somewhat concerned that emphasis is given to
factors such as recreation, navigation, fish and wildlife pro-
tection, but not specifically to potable water supply.
Mr. Jordan M. Rich
January 27, 1981
17-X.08. We believe that consideration should be given to changes
caused by natural fluctuations.
Should not there be some weight given to some of the factors
that are listed under 17-X.08(1)?
17-X.08(1) (f) What does this language mean?
What if there is a drop in water level due to a drought? How
should these be defined?
17-X.09(2). We note that the mark up indicates that the section
which was previously 17-X.08(3) is now indicated to be subsection
(2) under 17-X.09, We are not sure what this language means.
What would be the criteria for decision making? How would
compensation be determined? Based on what factors and how would
"previous adverse alteration? be determined?
We note that the second paragraph which was listed as 17-X.09(3)
is now shown as a (2). What does this language mean? What is
the criteria for making a decision?
Are not projects defined as Water Resource Projects those that
have been approved by the State of Florida, either DNR or DER,
and constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers? How is this
proposal to be related to previous State and federal approval?
.In closing, it appears there is considerable redundancy and re-
statement as a part of the State Water Policy wherein language
is presently contained in Florida Statutes. We suggest that there
is a need, if there is to be a State Water Policy, to be reduced
in length as much as possible. Rules should complement and fill
out FSA 373 and not contradict it. We are fearful that where
the Rules contradict the present law an attempt would be made
to change the law.
cc: Mayor Freeman