July 11, 1983
TO: WILLIAM D. COURSER, Director, Resource Regulation Department (
FROM: DAVID A. WILEY, Hydrogeologist, Resource Regulation Department
RE: Evidentiary Evaluation, COSME-ODESSA WELL FIELD, CUP NO. 200004,
A. Date Application was Received: December 30, 1981
B. Property Description: 591.5 acres owned.
C. Location of Property: Portion of Sections 11, 14, 23, 26, 27, and
34, Township 27 South, Range 17 East in
northwest Hillsborough County. Wells are
generally located along Race Track Road
(between Gunn Highway and Patterson
Road), along the east shore of Lake Rogers,
"and along Gunn Highway (between Tarpon
Springs Road and North Mobley Road) (See
Figure 1, Page 22 ).
D. Proposed Use of Water: Twenty-three wells to provide public supply
for the City of St. Petersburg service area;
approximately 53,454 acres.
A. Water Use Quantities
"*Presently Permitted **Proposed
Average Annual 19 MGD 13 MGD
Consumptive Use 19 MGD 13 MGD
Maximum Daily 22 MGD 22 MGD
Consumptive Use Owned Area 32,122 gpd/acre 21,978 gpd/acre
Consumptive Use Service Area 355 gpd/acre 243 gpd/acre
*Total combined pumpage from Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 are not to
exceed 168 million gallons per week (24 MGD). Production from the two
well fields shall be reasonably balanced.
**Of the 13 MGD proposed for this Permit, 12 MGD are authorized and
intended for the purpose of meeting water supply requirements of the
City of St. Petersburg. The additional 1 MGD (average annual) is author-
ized solely for withdrawal by West Coast Regional Water Supply Author-
ity at a rate not to exceed 3 MGD for any single day, for use to supply
supplemental water to the northwest Hillsborough service area when
water supply requirements for such area are not met under CUP No.
206676. At no time, however, shall the maximum daily withdrawal rate
for any purpose exceed 22 MGD.
July 11, 1983
B. Supporting Information
1. Distribution System
a. The City of St. Petersburg Well Fields, South Pasco, Section
21, and Cosme-Odessa, are interconnected to the 84-inch
regional transmission main that delivers water from Cross
Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Well Fields to Pinellas County
areas. A 42-inch main interconnects with the 84-inch
regional main north of South Pasco Well Field, passes through
the well field and extends to the south where it interconnects
with the Section 21 Well Field. The main then makes a 90
turn to the west along Van Dyke Road and interconnects the
Cosme-Odessa Well Field (WF) where the water enters the
water treatment facility. At this point the water leaves the
facility via a 36-inch main and a 48-inch main and travels
southward to the service areas in or near St. Petersburg (See
Figure 2, Page 23 ).
b. The St. Petersburg Water System is interconnected to the
Pinellas County Water System at two locations.
(1) A 24-inch interconnection is located on the east side of
McMullen Booth Road, 1,000 feet south of State Road
580 at the City's Booster Station near Clearwater. The
maximum capacity of the interconnect is about
(2) A 12-tch interconnection is located on the south side
of 54 Avenue and 64 Street North in St. Petersburg.
These interconnections are utilized only when emergency -
conditions exist which necessitate the exchange of water.
c. An interconnect is under construction between Section 21
Well Field and Hillsborough County's proposed pumping
station. This interconnect is proposed near the well field
entrance, along Dale Mabry Highway. The existing 30-inch
water main will be tapped with a 30-inch connector. The -
hydraulic capacity of this interconnection is anticipated to be
approximately 20 MGD.
d. St. Petersburg sells water retail to the following entities:
Service Area % of Supply
(Acres) from St. Pete "
South Pasadena 365 100
Lealman District 4,885 100 -
Bear Creek Sanitary District 570 100
Gandy District 1,335 100
Bay Pines 470 100
Total 7,625 "
July 11, 1983
e. St. Petersburg also sells water wholesale to:
Service Area % of Supply
(Acres) from St. Pete
South Oldsmar 3,854 100
Gulfport 1,405 100
f. The estimated per capital use for the St. Petersburg Water
System in 1982 was 130 gpcd. This rate was compared with
Suse rates from other municipal systems in the tri-county
area. Listed below are the per capital use rates projected for
1982-2000 by the WCRWSA in the report entitled Regional
Water Supply Needs and Sources, 1982-1995 Update Report.
Per Capita Water Use 1982-2000
Hillsborough County System Rate (GPD)
Northwest Hillsborough County 150
Temple Terrace 145
Plant City 120
Pasco County System
Pasco County Utility Department 135
New Port Richey 135
Dade City 126
Pinellas County System
Pinellas County Water System 150
"St. Petersburg Water System 130
Projected population, and water demands from 1982 through
2010 at 5-year intervals for St. Petersburg are listed below.
The WCRWSA projections for supply and demand are
discussed in Attachment A, Page 41.
1982 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010
Population 311,300 328,700 352,300 366,900 383,700 385,000
Water Demands (MGD) 40.4 42.8 45.8 47.7 49.9 51.4
July 11, 1983
g. Water quantities pumped from Cosme-Odessa Well Field from
1961 through June 1983 (See Figure 3, Page 24 ).
Year Average (MGD) Year Average (MGD)
1961 19.6 1973 11.1
1962 19.3 1974 8.6
1963 16.8 1975 9.7 "
1964 10.0 1976 9.1
1965 10.0 1977 11.2
1966 5.8 1978 8.7
1967 12.7 1979 8.1
1968 10.1 1980 7.4
1969 8.0 1981 8.2
1970 11.0 1982 9.0 -
1971 12.8 1983 9.1 -
h. Water quantities pumped from Section 21 Well Field from
1963 through June 1983 (See Figure 4, Page 25).
Year Average (MGD) Year Average (MGD)
1963 5.4 1974 8.9 -
1964 12.5 1975 9.6
1965 13.2 1976 8.9
1966 17.6 1977 9.4
1967 13.6 1978 9.0
1968 15.9 1979 8.6
1969 18.0 1980 8.6
1970 17.4 1981 8.3 -
1971 17.2 1982 8.7
1972 16.5 1983 8.5
i. Water quantities pumped from South Pasco Well Field from
April 1973 through June 1983.
Year Average (MGD) Year Average (MGD)
1973 15.3 1979 11.6
1974 16.9 1980 12.3
1975 15.7 1981 11.9
1976 15.1 1982 10.1
1977 15.5 1983 10.5
July 11, 1983
j. Water quantities received from Cypress Creek Well Field
April 1977 through June 1983.
Year Monthly Average (MGD)
k. The City of St. Petersburg presently operates four waste-
water treatment facilities (See Figure 2). Three of the
facilities use the complete-mixing process for waste treat-
ment while the fourth uses contact stabilization. Deep well
injection and reuse as spray irrigation of effluent are the
disposal methods used at three of the facilities. The other
facility discharges effluent directly into saltwater.
The four facilities are:
"(1) Northeast This facility is located in northeast St.
Petersburg along 54 Avenue near Tampa Bay. It is a
16 MGD capacity facility and uses the complete-mixing
process for treatment. Approximately 60% of the
treated effluent is injected in a deep well at this site
while the remaining 40% is reused as spray irrigation on
(2) Albert Whitted This facility is located in southeast St.
Petersburg, downtown on the bayfront, at Albert
"- Whitted Airport. The facility presently has a 20 MGD
capacity and uses contact stabilization for treatment.
The City proposes to upgrade effluent quality but
reduce treatment capacity to 12.4 MGD. All effluent is
discharged into Tampa Bay. Deep well injection at the
Northeast facility is proposed for handling effluent
from the Albert Whitted facility.
(3) Northwest This facility is located in St. Petersburg
just off Tyrone Boulevard on Boca Ciega Bay. The
facility has a 20 MGD capacity and uses the complete
mixing treatment process. All effluent is discharged
into Boca Ciega Bay. Deep well injection has been
proposed for this site and is presently being developed.
(4) Southwest This facility is located along the Pinellas
Bayway at U. S. Highway 19 in southeast St. Peters-
burg. The facility has a 20 MGD capacity and uses the
complete-mixing treatment process. Deep well injec-
tion at this site handles approximately 50% of the
effluent while the remaining 50% is reused as spray
July 11, 1983
The total capacity of the four treatment facilities is 76 MGD,
of which about 10 MGD is presently reclaimed. The North-
east, Northwest and Southwest facilities are interconnected
for effluent transport at this time. Ultimately all four facil-
ities will be interconnected.
The City utilizes treated wastewater as spray irrigation on
golf courses and plans to increase activities for this process
as the system grows and customers can continue to utilize
reclaimed water. The reuse of treated wastewater as spray
irrigation will become the primary means of disposal with
deep well injection as backup. The City has adopted this
approach as a water conservation measure, in that it reuses
treated wastewater for irrigation purposes instead of potable
water. A copy of St. Petersburg's water conservation pro-
gram is included in this summary as Attachment B, Page 43.
2. History and Development
The initial development at the Cosme-Odessa WF occurred at
Cosme in 1929 by the Pinellas Water Company, which was pur-
chased later (1940) by the City of St. Petersburg. From 1950 to
1955 the well field was expanded along the Seaboard Airline Rail-
road right-of-way toward Odessa causing the well field to be refer-
red to as Cosme-Odessa. The well field now contains 23 public
supply wells serving St. Petersburg water system (See Figure 1).
The total depths of these wells range from 300 to 350 feet. The
casing depths range from 80 to 125 feet. Thus, all of the produc-
tion at Cosme-Odessa WF is from the same zone. The original
specific capacities of the Cosme-Odessa wells ranged from
approximately 20 to 150 gpd/ft.
The water use from the City of St. Petersburg's Cosme-Odessa,
Section 21, and South Pasco Well Fields, was reviewed during public
hearings held in December 1971 and January 1972, by the
Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. Order No. 72-1 established regulatory levels for the three
well fields. Regulatory levels will be discussed in more detail later
in this summary.
In November 1973 at a regular public hearing, Order No. 73-6R was
entered which established a gallonage cap of 168 million gallons per
week on the Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 Well Fields.
In August 1976 the current CUP No. 7500004, was issued to the
City of St. Petersburg for Cosme-Odessa Well Field under Order
No. 76-2 by the Governing Board (See Attachment C, Page 53).
3. Geology of Well Field Area
Several geologic units exist in the northwest Hillsborough County
area (See Figure 5, Page 26). There is an upper zone of unconsoli-
dated deposits and a lower zone of consolidated rocks. The upper
July 11, 1983
zone or surficial unit consists chiefly of undifferentiated sands
ranging in thickness from 10 to 50 feet. A clay layer approxi-
mately 10 feet thick separates the surficial unit from the consoli-
dated rocks or upper Floridan Aquifer. This clay layer makes up
what is called the Hawthorn Formation. The upper Floridan
Aquifer is made up of the Tampa Formation and Suwannee Lime-
stone. The Tampa Formation underlies the Hawthorn Formation
and is approximately 100 feet thick. Below the Tampa Formation
lies the Suwannee Limestone which is about 200 feet thick. This
unit is a very good producer of potable water and is the primary
source of production at the Cosme-Odessa WF.
- 4. Inventory of Uses in the Well Field Vicinity
An area of approximately 230 square miles in northwest Hills-
borough County and south Pasco County was investigated for
permitted water uses (See Figures 6a and 6b, Pages 27 and 28).
Attachment D, Page lists information pertinent to the CUP's
illustrated on Figures 6a and 6b.
a. Public Supply CUP's
Including several CUP's that are being consolidated under the
Northwest Hillsborough Regional Well Field CUP (No.
206676), there are a total of 38 CUP's for public supply use in
the area defined on Figure 6b. They are listed below with
"their permitted quantities and number of wells. Public supply
use accounts for approximately 90% of the permitted with-
drawals on an average annual basis within the described
Public Supply CUP's
Quantity Quantity No. CUP
Permittee (MGD) (MGD) Wells No.
Inc. 3.46 12.5 24 203182
Utilities 1.34 3.0 2 205408
C.W.D., Inc. 0.116 0.198 1 206312
Water System 35.2 55.0 52 202673
St. Pete 19.0 22.0 23 200004
Section 21/City of
St. Pete 18.0 22.0 8 200003
July 11, 1983
Quantity Quantity No. CUP
Permittee (MGD) (MGD) Wells No.
Edward L. Bolding 0.048 0.119 1 206273
South Pasco/City of
St. Pete 16.9 24.0 8 203647
Chas. J. Bearss 0.02 0.03 1 203572
FL Cities Water Co. 0.8 2.02 3 205886
-, --- -------- -------------------------- ---------- -
N. Tampa Best
Western Inn 0.013 0.432 2 203733
ments, Inc. 0.4 1.2 2 204672
Mobile Park 0.025 0.288 1 202860
Utilities 0.055 0.109 2 206811
Criterion Corp. 0.262 0.394 2 200590
Lakes, Inc. 0.077 2.16 2 206223
Water & Sewer
Dist. A 0.262 0.717 4 200025
Water & Sewer
Dist. A 3.15 6.3 7 200265
Utilities (River Oaks) 1.1 2.35 10 200356
Utilities (Carrollwood Meadows)
& WCRWSA 0.8 1.6 3 200588
Martin Penner 0.07 0.14 1 200593
& WCRWSA 0.95 2.14 3 200743
Utilities (Fairway Village) 0.032 0.072 1 200768
Dept. 67.1 104.0 *9 202062
July 11, 1983
Quantity Quantity No. CUP
Permittee (MGD) (MGD) Wells No.
Utilities (Dale Mabry) 1.34 2.46 2 202637
Utilities (Benjamin Rd.) 0.97 2.72 5 202692
Utilities (Lakewood) 0.5 1.0 2 202695
"Utilities (Country Place)
& WCRWSA 0.595 1.12 3 203571
Utilities (Henderson Rd.) 0.16 0.32 2 204011
Utilities (Sun Lake Park) 0.093 0.2 1 204012
Utilities (Sheldon Rd.) 0.341 1.0 5 204273
Utilities (Plantation) 0.896 1.8 4 204476
Criterion Corp. (North Lakes) 1.08 2.27 3 204624
Utilities 0.22 0.55 1 206125
Criterion Corp. (Crippenwood) 0.014 0.028 1 205064
Utilities (Woodbriar) 0.075 0.233 1 200912
Utilities (Cherry Creek) 0.157 0.47 2 200913
Nelson P. Zambito 0.365 1.03 2 205300
Total 175.986 277.970 216
*Does not include two Surface Water Withdrawals
b. Agricultural Supply CUP's
There are a total of 173 agricultural CUP's in the area
described in Figure 6a. Most of the agricultural use is for
citrus irrigation. Ground water is the principal source of
supply for agricultural use in the area. However, there are
permits that authorize lake withdrawals. Nine (9) percent of
the permitted withdrawals or approximately 21.0 MGD, on an
average annual basis within the described area are for agri-
July 11, 1983
the permitted withdrawals or approximately 21.0 MGD, on an
average annual basis within the described area are for agri-
c. Other CUP's
Six industrial CUP's and ten lake augmentation CUP's con-
stitute the remaining 1% of the permitted withdrawals or
3.02 MGD on an average annual basis, in the area described in
d. Domestic Supply Wells in the Vicinity of the Well Fields in
Northwest Hillsborough County and South-Central Pasco
Within northwest Hillsborough and south-central Pasco
Counties there are many residents who have privately owned
wells for domestic use. Most of these wells are centralized in
the lake areas along Highway 587, between the Cosme-Odessa m
and Section 21 Well Fields and areas just west of South Pasco
Well Field (See Figure 7, Page 29). The total number of
domestic wells in the well field areas, is approximately
11,500. The average total depths of these wells range from
100 to 200 feet and the average casing depths range from 50
to 150 feet. These wells obtain water from the upper
Floridan Aquifer. It is estimated that each well pumps -
approximately 350 GPD, assuming 3.5 persons per household
(Estimated Water Use in the Southwest Florida Water Man-
agement District and Adjacent Areas, 1980, USGS Open-File
Report 81-060). An estimate of the total average annual
withdrawal rate from private wells for the well field region
of northwest Hillsborough County is 4 MGD.
C. Hydrologic Conditions
1. Water Quality
The USGS operates a regional monitor well network in northwest
Hillsborough County. These wells penetrate the lower Floridan
Aquifer and monitor chloride concentrations. In order to determine -
the significance of pumpage from Cosme-Odessa WF on chloride
concentrations, statistical analyses were performed. These
analyses concluded that with time, chloride concentrations have ^
either stabilized or improved for the wells tested. Attachment E,
Page 62, displays the wells tested and the summary of the statis-
In addition, the City of St. Petersburg analyzes water samples
quarterly from each production well in the Cosme-Odessa WF.
These analyses show that there has been virtually no change in ^
chloride concentrations from 1965 to the present.
July 11, 1983
Rainfall analyses were performed for the 67-year period of record
on four regional stations located in northwestern Hillsborough,
northeastern Pinellas and Pasco Counties. Rainfall patterns are
highly variable for the area on a year-to-year basis. Dry years are
interspersed throughout the rainfall history of the area in question,
with the last 30 years having a disproportionate number. The
statistics bear this out in that from 1951 through 1980 the average
rainfall was 50.64 inches with a median value of 47.61 inches. For
the period 1920 through 1950, the average annual rainfall was 52.92
inches with a median value of 53.58 inches. The median value
A probably represents what is more normal than the arithmetic mean
which is easily skewed by unusually high or low values. When
looking at 20-year periods, it becomes obvious that the past 20
years have been the driest. From 1961 to 1980, the average annual
rainfall was 48.31 inches with a median value of 46.45 inches. For
the period 1941 to 1960, the average annual rainfall was 55.63
inches with a median of 55.13 inches. From 1921 to 1940, the
average annual rainfall was 51.39 inches with a median of 52.97
inches. A rainfall curve showing the departure from average for
the Cosme rainfall station is included as Figure 17, Page 39.
Thus, the past 20 years have been dryer than the average for the
67-year period of record. However, it is impossible to say whether
this is cyclic in nature. Rainfall is highly variable in time and
"space in Florida due to the convective nature of the precipitation.
More than likely, the variability in rainfall from year io year can
be attributed to large-scale global forces disrupting to some extent
the expected seasonal Florida rainfall. A secondary effect is the
general decrease in tropical disturbances during the past 20 years.
3. Environmental Summary More detailed information on this
subject is available in the Appendix (Attachment F, Page 63).
Approximately 20 named lakes and the reaches of Rocky and
Brooker Creeks are located within the area influenced by the
predicted 0.5' or greater water table drawdown The area
also contains wetlands including cypress ponds and marshes as
well as other areas, primarily now used as pastures, which are
former wet meadows. The total area within the 0.5'
predicted drawdown occupied by open water and wetlands is
1,379 acres or 25% of the total area of 5,550 acres.
Most of the lakes are relatively small lakes surrounded by
residential and agricultural land uses. Of the 20 named lakes,
13 have levels officially adopted and established by the
1Drawdown predicted as a result of the following pumping scheme: 30 days at average
permitted pumpage, followed by 30 days at maximum permitted pumpage, followed by 60
days at average permitted pumpage.
July 11, 1983
Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management
The wetlands, aside from those mentioned as being used as
improved pasture, are cypress ponds and marshes, occurring
as isolated features in pasture or citrus groves or as borders
of streams and lakes.
The major streams in the area, Rocky Creek and Brooker
Creek, alternate between occupying well-defined channels
and a condition of essentially unconfined flow through
cypress-dominated areas. Along some reaches, artificial
channel improvements have been made, and control struc-
tures have been emplaced at points in both creeks.
b. Lake Stages and Stream Discharge
Of the lakes located within the predicted 0.5' zone of water
table drawdown, nine have data describing previous lake -
stages. Stage records for these lakes vary from 20 years or
more (Lakes Church and Keystone) to 10 years (Lake
Juanita). From the hydrographs for these lakes, the stage
behavior of other area surface water features, at least during
the recent past, can be discerned. A period of decline in the
lake levels began in 1961, following the extremely wet years
of 1959-1960. This decline lasted until mid-1964 when lake
levels underwent a period of recovery lasting through 1966.
Another, longer, decline began in early 1967 and lasted
through mid-1974 with a very brief recovery in late
1969/early 1970. Following the heavy rainfall of 1974, lake
levels fluctuated through an approximately normal range
during 1975 to mid-1979 when exceptional rainfall caused a
substantial increase in lake stage. From the end of 1979, lake
stages fell gradually, reaching near-record low levels in 1980
and early 1982. Since that time, lake levels have risen to
high elevations and are now (April, 1983) at elevations above
ordinary seasonal low stages. This description represents
most natural lakes in the area with the exception of lakes
whose stages are controlled by outlet structures, e.g. Lake
Keystone and Lake Pretty. These two lakes did not undergo
prolonged, serious stage declines during the periods of avail-
able record. In fact, they have fluctuated through relatively
normal annual ranges and are now (April, 1983) at elevations -
above expected seasonal low stages.
In addition, there are a number of lakes being augmented in
northwest Hillsborough County. These lakes are listed in
Attachment H, Page 103
Discharge of Rocky and Brooker Creeks has been variable -
during the period of available record. The average discharge
for Rocky Creek at Sulfur Springs, a station approximately
four miles south of the well field area, is 35.0 cfs. In ten
years of the 30-year record, the stream has exceeded the
July 11, 1983
record average, and in 20 years of the record, stream dis-
charge has averaged less than 35.0 cfs (Figure 12 of Attach-
Sment F, Page ). Extreme peaks have occurred in 1957,
1959, 1960, 1964, and 1979; while significantly lower-than-
normal discharge has been observed in 1955, 1956, 1972, and
The average discharge for the 31-year period of record for
Brooker Creek at Tarpon Springs, a station approximately
eight miles west of the well field, is 21.1 cfs. In a total of 13
years having record, discharge has averaged higher than the
record average, and in 19 years stream discharge has aver-
aged less than the record average. Extreme peaks occurred
in 1953, 1957, 1959, 1960, and 1964; while significantly lower-
than-normal discharge occurred in 1961, 1967, 1972, 1973,
1977, and 1980.
c. Relationship Between Surface Water Levels and Ground
In the vicinity of the well field, the relationship between
surface water levels and the ground water system is a close
one. The surficial system, in particular, can be especially
"1 important to the maintenance of the water levels of surface
water features. Changes in the water levels of surface water
bodies can be expected in response to seasonal and catas-
trophic rainfall events, evapotranspiration, and the magnitude
of inflows and outflows (including ground water inflows and
outflows). These factors act together dynamically to deter-
mine water elevations in lakes and wetlands.
Water levels in cypress ponds change in response to several
factors including surface runoff into the ponds, evapotrans-
piration, vertical infiltration, ground water seepage into the
ponds, lateral movement of water from the ponds to the
water table, direct precipitation, and, where present, surface
outflow. The elevation of the water table around a pond
significantly influences all of the above factors, particularly
those which are directly ground water-related. During high
water table conditions, standing water is maintained in a
cypress wetland as ground water moves in and through the
pond. Also, a high water table reduces infiltration and can
increase the rate of surface outflow. As the water table
declines, water levels in the cypress pond drop as a result of
enhanced infiltration to the surrounding sands. Further,
evapotranspiration, an important loss factor throughout the
year, becomes even more important as the pond water level
drops to or slightly below ground surface. Under conditions
of seasonal dryness, water table depressions result in the
absence of standing water in cypress ponds, and the pond soil
may become dry in the upper 3-5 inches. Prolonged water
table depressions, caused by unseasonable drought or by
nearby ground water withdrawals result in longer periods of
dryness in a cypress pond. This, in turn, brings about
July 11, 1983
excessive soil desiccation and a substantial change in the
vegetational characteristics of the pond. Should the changes
include the eventual toppling and death of the cypress trees
themselves, the hydrologic features of the area formerly
occupied by the pond are altered for an undetermined period
of time. Occurring regionally, this phenomenon could
produce detectable changes in the previously established
hydrobiologic relationships in an area.
Streams in the area of the well field are also closely related
to the ground water systems. Streamflow or runoff in this
part of Florida is dependent on ground water contributions to
a varying extent depending on climatic conditions. Estimates
of ground water seepage to area streams range from 10% to
nearly 100% under conditions of high and low flows, respec-
tively. Therefore, both the potentiometric surface and the
water table are important as indicators of the ability of the
ground water system to contribute to streamflow.
Because of the intimate relationship between lake levels and
the water table, drawdowns induced in the water table will
induce declines in lake stage. Analyses done using a modified
Prickett-Lonnquist Model (reported elsewhere in this Eviden-
tiary Summary) estimate that, under the conditions specified,
a water table drawdown 9f 0.5' or greater will cover an area
of approximately 8.7 mi The levels of lakes within this
zone of influence can be expected to decline, potentially, up
to the actual amount of the water table drawdown. The same
could be said of water levels in marshes and cypress ponds
located within the area of concentrated water table draw-
Streams located within the major zone of drawdown are
dependent upon ground water inflow for a variable percentage
of flow. The large annual variability in discharge makes a
quantitative estimate of flow reduction due to well field-
induced water table decline difficult; however, under dry
conditions such reductions potentially could be significant.
4. Water Levels from Monitor Stations in the Well Field Vicinity
There are many monitor sites in the vicinity of the well fields of
northwest Hillsborough and south Pasco Counties (See Figure 8,
Page 30). These sites are measured periodically for water levels of
the potentiometric surface and water table. Hydrographs of each
monitor site are included with Attachment I, Page 106. These
hydrographs show the seasonal fluctuations clearly. Well fields
came under regulation in 1973 which is evident by observing the
long-term graphs on Lutz-Lake Fern Deep, Van Dyke Shallow, and
Berger Road Deep.
Statistical analyses were performed on these sites to determine the
significance of rainfall, pumpage, and time with respect to water
levels. A description of these analyses appears in Attachment I. "
These analyses conclude that the potentiometric surface responds
to water table elevations which both in turn respond to rainfall,
pumpage, and time. CO-14
July 11, 1983
5. Simulated Drawdowns
An adaptation of the two-layer Prickett-Lonnquist ground water
flow model was used to simulate water table and potentiometric
surface drawdowns at the Cosme-Odessa WF. The geology of the
well field area has been evaluated and determined to produce flow
and confining conditions resulting in a water table unit and an
artesian unit. All withdrawals from the Cosie-Odessa WF come
from depths from approximately 80 to 350 feet. Aquifer charac-
teristics, such as transmissivity, leakance, and storage for each
layer were utilized in simulating drawdowns and are listed below.
These values were taken from a report entitled Management of the
Water Resources of the Pinellas-Anclote and Northwest Hills-
borough Basins West-Central Florida by Geraghty and Miller, March
Water Table Floridan Aquifer
Transmissivity (gpd/ft) 1,000 400,000
Storage .16 .0006
Leakance (gpd/ft3) -0- .001
Drawdowns were calculated for the quantities requested for this
permit and the quantities from the existing permit under average
and worst case conditions. Figures 9 and 10, Pages 31 and 32
illustrate drawdowns of the potentiometric surface and water table
at proposed average annual production for 30 days without recharge
to the system. Figure 11, Page 33 illustrates drawdowns of the
water table at proposed average annual production for 30 days,
maximum daily production for 30 days, and proposed average
annual production for 60 days again without recharge. Figure 12,
Page 34 illustrates drawdowns of the potentiometric surface for 30
days at proposed average annual production and 30 days at maxi-
A mum daily production with no recharge. Figure 13, Page 35 illus-
trates the change in water table drawdowns from existing
permitted quantities to proposed quantities. Figure 14, Page 36
illustrates the change in potentiometric surface drawdowns from
existing permitted quantities to proposed quantities. These pro-
jected drawdown changes are expected from an increase of 1 MGD,
on an average daily basis for the proposed permit. One (1) MGD
has been requested by the applicant to provide supplemental capa-
city to the Northwest Hillsborough Regional Well Field. The draw-
down contours shown on Figures 13 and 14 show that there will be
minimal additional impacts felt in areas adjacent to the well field
for the requested increase.
Due to the close proximity of well fields in northeast Pinellas,
- northwest Hillsborough, and west Pasco Counties, drawdowns were
simulated for the well field area at average permitted pumping
rates. Listed below are the well fields with their respective per-
July 11, 1983 l
Well Field Permitted (MGD) Permitted (MGD)
Cross Bar 30 45
Cypress Creek 30 40
Starkey 8 15
Eldridge-Wilde 32 55
East Lake 3 5
South Pasco 16 24
Cosme-Odessa 12 22
Section 21 12 22
*Morris Bridge 18 25
*Northwest Hillsborough 8 18
*Proposed Permitted Amounts
Water table and potentiometric surface drawdowns are illustrated
on Figures 15 and 16, Pages 37 and 38. The likelihood of draw- -
downs at maximum daily rates occurring is extremely remote
primarily due to existing regulatory levels limiting the pumping and
water shortage restrictions during drought conditions.
Calibration and verification of this model will continue as addi-
tional data are collected. Improvements to this model incorpor-
ating climatic conditions, observable water levels, and refinements -
of hydrologic characteristics will be an ongoing project.
6. Well Field Regulation
a. Regulatory Levels
Regulatory levels have been established for each of the three
monitor wells within Cosme-Odessa WF (See Figure 1), which
are set forth in the existing CUP (See Attachment C). The
three wells with their respective cumulative weekly average
and weekly average regulatory levels are listed below.
Cumulative Weekly Average Weekly Average
Regulatory Level in Regulatory Level in
Well No. Feet Above MSL Feet Above MSL
Grace 3 (Cosme 3) 20.0 17.0
James 11 25.0 22.0
Calm 33A 24.0 21.0
These water levels listed above refer to elevations of the '
potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer and were
established in 1972. The levels indicated in the first column
are levels that the cumulative weekly average water levels in
the respective monitor wells are to remain above. The levels
indicated in the second column are levels that the weekly
average water levels are to remain above.
July 11, 1983
Both restrictions are included on the existing permit which
"The City, its agents and employees, shall not
withdraw or cause to be withdrawn from the
wells in the Cosme-Odessa Well Field any
amount of water which will cause the weekly
average elevation of the potentiometric surface
of the Floridan Aquifer as determined cumula-
tively to be less than the levels listed above. In
connection with the operation of the Cosie-
Odessa Well Field; at no time shall the weekly
average elevations of the potentiometric surface
of the Floridan Aquifer be more than three feet
below the elevations listed above."
To best demonstrate water levels with respect to regulatory
levels under dry conditions, water years 1977 and 1981 are
appropriate to look at. The chart below lists the pumpage
and rainfall from Cosie-Odessa WF, cumulative weekly
average regulatory level, the cumulative weekly average
water level from that regulatory well for the end of the year,
the weekly average regulatory level, and the lowest weekly
average water level for that year.
Cumulative Cumulative Weekly Lowest
Weekly Avg. Weekly Avg. Average Weekly Avg.
Regulatory Elevation Regulatory Elevation
Pumpage Rainfall Level (Feet (Feet Level (Feet (Feet
Year Well No. (MGD) (Inches) Above MSL) Above MSL) Above MSL) Above MSL)
1977 James II 10.8 43.83 25 30.2 22 22.56
1977 Calm 33A 10.8 43.83 24 29.7 21 22.76
S1977 Grace 3 10.8 43.83 20 24.9 17 17.42
1981 James II 8.5 48.09 25 30.8 22 24.91
1981 Calm 33A 8.5 48.09 24 30.4 21 23.83
1981 Grace 3 8.5 48.09 20 25.2 17 19.25
As shown above, at no time during years 1977 and 1981 did
the cumulative weekly average elevation ever go below the
cumulative weekly average regulatory level. The table above
also shows that for the same years the weekly average water
levels did not drop below the weekly average regulatory
For the last ten years or since regulation of water levels, the
weekly average regulatory levels adopted for the regulatory
wells at Cosme-Odessa WF have not been exceeded. There-
fore, it is anticipated that under average rainfall conditions
the average requested withdrawal of 13 MGD for the
proposed permit should not cause the regulatory levels to be
exceeded on a cumulative weekly average or a weekly
July 11, 1983
During the first 30 months after issuance of a renewal permit
for Cosme-Odessa WF, it is proposed that a regulatory
scheme for the pending NWH permit be developed which may
or may not affect the existing regulatory levels for Cosme-
b. The existing Permit contains a condition that limits (or caps)
production from Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 Well Fields in
combination to 168 million gallons per week or 24 MGD (See
Attachment C, Page 53). The average daily rate permitted
on the existing Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 CUP's are 19
MGD and 18 MGD, respectively. The pumpage cap actually
limits the two well fields to 12 MGD each on an average daily
"basis. The applicant has requested an average of 13 MGD to
be permitted for each well field. This withdrawal limitation
eliminates the need for the existing pumpage cap condition,
however condition 11 on the proposed permit will require
pumpage continue to be reasonably balanced between the two
well fields. In addition, the well fields are regulated by
regulatory wells that limit production when artesian water
levels are low.
The District has received greater than 500 objections for this CUP renewal.
The majority of the objections received relate to the lowering of lake levels.
Other objectors are concerned with well field pumpage affecting their
domestic supply wells and groves. Figure 18, Page 40 shows the areas objec-
tions were received from.
Two conferences were held by the District staff in order to explain the appli-
cation for the permit renewal to the public and hear their concerns. The first
meeting was held in May 1982 and the second in June 1983. Similar concerns
as those mentioned above were expressed by the public at these conferences.
Using the best information available it is concluded that production from the ,
Cosme-Odessa WF will create less than one (1) foot of drawdown on the
average on lakes in the Cosme-Odessa area. Some domestic wells may be
affected by well field pumpage, however, the well field has been an existing
use and the applicants are required to investigate complaints in the well field
area and mitigate when appropriate.
IV. RULE CRITERIA (40D-2.301) -
-" i ** "" "" *----*- -
Section 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code sets forth the criteria to be
considered before a permit can be issued. A discussion of each of the criteria
applicable to the permit request is shown below. "
(1) Will the intended consumptive use:
(a) Be reasonable and beneficial?
Yes. Cosme-Odessa WF has been in operation for the City of St.
Petersburg supplying water to the City's residents since 1931.
July 11, 1983
Water conservation efforts have been made and the per capital
water use rate is reasonable.
(b) Be consistent with the public interest?
Yes. The well field is used to meet the municipal water demands
of St. Petersburg residents.
(c) Interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the
No. The well field has been in existence since 1931. West Coast
Regional Water Supply Authority and the City of St. Petersburg
have policies to investigate complaints and correct problems, if
related to well field production.
(2) Will the withdrawal of water:
(a) Cause the rate of flow of a stream or other water course to be
lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the
No. Brooker Creek and Rocky Creek are in the vicinity of the well
"field, however, there has been no minimum rate of flow established
for these creeks.
(b) Cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below
the regulatory level established by the Board?
No. The Board established regulatory levels for the Cosme-Odessa
"WF in 1972. The proposed consumptive use permit is conditioned so
that recurring weekly average elevations (non-cumulative) and
cumulatively weekly average elevations of the potentiometric
surface shall not drop below regulatory levels (see proposed
(c) Cause the level of the surface of water to be lowered below the
minimum established by the Board?
No. The application is for ground water withdrawals.
(d) Significantly induce saltwater encroachment?
No. The well field area has been monitored and statistical analyses
performed on a series of monitor wells showed no increase in
chloride concentrations with respect to pumpage and time (See
Attachment E). Analyses of production wells have also shown
virtually no increase in chloride concentrations.
July 11, 1983
(e) Cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vege-
tation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other
than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the
Yes. Lakes in the vicinity of the well field have undergone stage
declines which are attributable, in part, to ground water with-
drawals. On some lakes, stages have been depressed for a
prolonged period of time, resulting in low water stress on lake
habitats. Because requested quantities are higher than current
levels of withdrawal it is expected that impacts on lake levels will
continue. Lake drawdowns due to pumpage are of a magnitude so 4.
as to cause depression of lake levels below the low management
level under particular conditions. This will happen when lakes are
very close to the low management level prior to the dry season.
Low rainfall combined with pumpage has historically caused "
greater-than-normal declines on lakes. Recovery to normal levels
has occurred when exceptionally high rainfall was experienced.
(3) The withdrawal of water must not:
(a) Cause stream flow to be reduced by more than five (5) percent.
Consideration of withdrawals from a stream is not applicable.
(b) Cause the level of the potentiometric surface under lands not
owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be
lowered more than five (5) feet.
The five-foot drawdown contour of the potentiometric surface
simulated at proposed quantities will lie outside well field bound-
aries (See Figure 12). However, the well field is an existing use and
the permitted has a policy to investigate any complaints that may
be related to well field pumpage.
(c) Cause the level of the water table under lands not owned, leased,
or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be lowered more than
three (3) feet.
Water table drawdowns were simulated using the Prickett-
Lonnquist ground water flow model at proposed quantities. During
prolonged dry periods water table drawdowns may exceed three (3)
feet at well field property boundaries.
(d) Cause the level of the surface water in any lake or other impound-
ment to be lowered more than one (1) foot unless the lake or
impoundment is wholly owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by
The lakes in the vicinity of the Cosme-Odessa WF are directly
influenced by the water table and any effects on the water table
are reflected in the lakes. Water table drawdowns were simulated
using the Prickett-Lonnquist ground water flow model at proposed
quantities and were estimated to be less than one (1) foot on all
lakes outside well field boundaries (See Figure 9).
July 11, 1983
(e) Cause the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level.
The potentiometric surface will not be lowered below mean sea
Recommend granting exceptions to Rules 40D-Z.301 2(e), 3(b) and 3(c) and
approval of attached Permit, the conditions set forth in the Permit, and the
VI. PROPOSED PERMIT
Attached to Order in Regulatory Packet.
VII. VISUAL DISPLAYS
Figure 1 Well Field Map
- Figure 2 Distribution System and Water Treatment Facilities
Figure 3 Cosme-Odessa Well Field Pumpage
Figure 4 Section 21 Well Field Pumpage
Figure 5 Generalized Geologic Cross Section
Figure 6a Agricultural CUP's
Figure 6b Industrial, Lake Augmentation, and Public Supply CUP's
Figure 7 Domestic Supply Wells
Figure 8 Regional Monitor Wells
Figure 9 Average Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Figure 10 Average Water Table Drawdowns
Figure 11 Water Table Drawdowns
Figure 12 Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Figure 13 Change in Water Table Drawdowns
Figure 14 Change in Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Figure 15 Regional Water Table Drawdowns
Figure 16 Regional Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Figure 17 Rainfall Curve
Figure 18 Objectors
Attachment A Water Needs and Sources
Attachment B St. Petersburg Water Conservation Program
Attachment C Existing CUP
Attachment D CUP List
Attachment E Summary of Statistical Analyses on Chloride Concentrations
Attachment F Summary on Lake Levels and Streamflow
Attachment G Regulatory Plots
Attachment H List of Lakes Being Augmented
Attachment I Summary of Statistical Analyses on Regional Monitor Wells
VIII. RECIPIENTS OF FINAL ORDERS AND PERMITS
West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
City of St. Petersburg
Others making written requests names available in the files of the District.
Consumptive Use Permit No. 200004 PERMITTED WELLS
9 10 i 12
271 . 22 .( 12A 24
.-.34Nrth Mobley R.
Labke Car lm
32 _" 5
16 C 15 34 13
Fieg.ruaed. IJ^00 1 l Regulatory Well
33 34 (.J 35 O Chloride Monitor Well
Lake A lice
0. V 24
Figure 1 C0-22 "
Distribution System &
Waste Water Treatment
New Port Richey
\ S _hSOUx Paxco Pasco Co
szcgeids-W4d HUsborough Co.
East Lake Road Odeas
y1 B i Section 21
i ^ ntertie.
"County and City 24" Interonnection
Northwest Wastewater Treatment PIt ,
-" L_. St. Petersbur_ / "
\ 1( 9Albert Whitted Wastewater Treatment Plant
Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant I
- Figure 2
2Monthly average withdrawalbyyear
.s .s ii
Peio ofRcrd13 -1&
Figure '15 3 n_
WOO SECTION 21
M-ntP averiod of Record 1963 by yea
Cas Figure 4
Cross Section General Vicinity of Cross Section
0 1 2
dashed grid represents section lines... "
-" Cosme Odessa
3" 4 .FORMA.." 30 .-.
S sandy limestone ,----
Figure 5 CO-26
Fgr 30 .0
.==.~ S .0
rentiated sand clay,
3 4 16 7 168 LA... O' LA K7ES I
166 186169170 163 175 1.$4 177
/59 186 6 172
160 161 16 156
151IT 158178 153
\\ 149 / 145
80 147 44
222 5 Sou th Pasco 140
78 79 2 9 26
......-.. Pasco Co. 134 1 37
6 Hillsborough Co. 135
76 7713 10
747 132 130
7 72 73 214 126 131
173 98/ LUTZ 129
Eldridge-Wil 71 16 LT2
8 219 196 124 190
68 69 66 19 189 127 128 117
67 183 61 121 116
62 9 A 119 114
"65 9 -" 118n
9 65 64 60 84 11
Cosmre-OdessaS5 84 1. 1 112
11 12 18 54 56 Section 21 108 110
14 16 53 55 86 09
15 50 51 87106 105
20 41 1 24 52 9210 106 105
19 218 25 26 45 597 44 91
East Lake 22205 27 46
Road 28 29 48 47 92 41
30 31 32
1 34 3 201 194 195
3 5 102
36 38 207 192
225 226 96 75
" OLDSMAR-g 220
^^ TAMPA0! ^
.. ^ '"-,--TA M P A -
".l ,l ^ McKBay
0. 2 3 "^ L\ \
scale tn miles
Other Consumptive Use Permits in the Vicinity of the Well Fields
Agricultural Consumptive Use Permits in the Number refers to key
Northwest Hillsborougli/South Pasco Vicinity i (Attachment D)
S Pasco Co. 140
Hillsborough Co. n33
Eldr id ilde
S section 21 21
East Lake 28
Road 9 0 41
OLDSMA R 5 9
2041 j .
r: 0 i ..........A M
: Old Tampa Bay
0 1 2 3 MKy
scale in miles -
Other Consumptive Use Permits in the Vicinity of the Well Fields USE TYPE m I a
Consumptive Use Permits in the Northwest L ak
Hillsborough/South Pasco Vicinity Lake Augmentation
*Number refers to key (Attachment D) O Public Supply
Figure 6b -.8
^ Consumptive Use Permit Numbers 200003, 200004, 203647, and 206676
DOMESTIC WELLS NEAR THE WELL FIELDS
PERMITTED SINCE 1972
PASCO co, o o
11 0 0 0
..E..... .. o.,
ee 0 0* 07
"- o to TAMPA
Density of Domestic Wells
SECON 21 represents 1 well
0 represents 5 wells
Si represents 10 wells
0 1 2 3 4
scale in mi0s
Figure 7 CO-29
Water Level Monitoring for Cosme-Odessa and Section 21
Bexley Well No. 2
nclote River (1 mile west)
.Branch Anclote Riv o P 0 7
Pasco 305 Doyles o05amp Lake
n Vj7 '5 Pasco South
1 Lutz-Lake Fern
So oPasco 205
Se L o LUTZ
SDundee sco 21
S0 Van Dyke
COSME-ODESSA -/ -
E 102 $ I
oTR 13 -3 o to TAMPA
o Water Level Monitor Well
0 1 2 3 4
TR 12-1 scale in miles
Figure 8 CO-30
S.' Section 21
Road dy p
A^SMR-^r ------ -------- -- ---
sc, ite ., .. s i. .... .......
Proposed water table drawdowns at steady-state:
30 days pumping at average permitted quantities (13 MGD).
Figure 9 CO -31
"LAND 0 LAKES
._. Pasco Co.
Hil h Co.
Elridge-Wilde LUTZ I,
I ~~ I
Fig ure--- 10- ^ _^\
Figure I0 G ,,_
LA<*.o 0' LAKES
I South Pasco.
I/^ Section 21
L" A LDSM A R jY ^\r9_
R a 41
^ :: ." ......... J
LAND 0 LAKES
Sou th Pasco
-10' -5' -2'
charge to the system.AMPA --------
Figure 12 -34
LA*.Co 0 LAKES LEGEND
._. .. .. MaaIPasco Co.
iS Section 21
"East Lake 5
... Ol::Tampa ::Biy
o: i. 2 3
Change in water table drawdowns between existing permitted withdrawal rates and proposed
withdrawal rates at the end of 120 days for the following pumping rates:
30 days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD proposed), 30 days at maximum
daily (22 MGD permitted and proposed), and another 60 days at average daily with no re-
charge to the system. ------------ -
Figure 13 CO-35
LAND O' LAKES LEGEND
Pasco Co. i_ --- -/ : -
S^ 1 Section 21\
East Lake \\
Fiur 14 CO-36
Change in potentiometric surface drawdowns between existing permitted withdrawal rates and
proposed withdrawal rates at the end of 60 days for the following pumping rates:
30 days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD proposed), and 30 days of maximum
daily (22 MGD permitted and proposed), with no recharge to the system.
N--H a o Co..
W... : .--.o.oM .o ."
...brog C o
.... % ... %. .
Na m. .. .... .
X: ...scale .8 mlscc
zRegional Well& F
"m Cross Barz~;~~-ss.;~;
X ...t..ll~~'..~';t .. ..L .. Z
F gr... 15....... C0
M%. .%R R~~::~~::::: I~.::'::: LP~c o
A .... ......g,~::;;~ :~;~f
M...~ ~~SZ? 5f~~:.~:.~: :I
--- ----- --~:'2; ~~
%.._ C i ~ ..
A X, NAE RT~
R I HEY
X.;- ~~~-2~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r
I / 1 8lsa~i~ Cpr&d
'-Xz -K %...
06 : ~ ~ ;: :;::::
~::;: ~E~rdg~ld /~ouk woMo
1~5~5~~~tf: ~ jii ~ sr iltb rouN.o
.............. ....... .a o C o..
......... C reek.
...... .H e n a d
.ge-Wi.e th Pasco Pasco Co.
-8 H borough Co.
S e o 21 or B g
-6p .. ..... 4. '':::. .
,%::..:-: .. ... .:. .-..'... .'::. : L .. .
x ........scale in miles
Regional Well Field Drawdowns of the Potentiometric Surface for 120 days with no recharge at
Average Permitted Quantities.
Figure 16 CO-38
o Rainfall departure from annual average
P'.riod of Record 1932 1982
Figure 17 CO-39q
Objectors for CUP's
200003 & 200004
(Section 21 & Cosme Odessa)
.. .. SOUTH PASCO
I Lake Crenshaw --
Lake Keystone /7i>
k __ to TAMPA
SGeneral Vicinity of Objectors
t scale in miles
Figure 18 CO-40 --
u 0 ( 100 Un C M ON CM M) 0C a Ln Ln
-- u :m ^*
a '*""^ ^I U~3C ~I ah C~C
Ss 00 00 f 00 -40 i t )O0--
Cn E '-'- -* -i i i > .0 (*1-
Ch CD a a CDC 0a,
"4f ) .,
CD r%. r o o r-0
I 1 %00% 1 1 1 1 %0 M %0 CD Ln IOLn
I W r -I Io I I cL) o Uw
c3 x c3 x cs x 3
- S S..U)
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ac a at ata ) a 00000 O.
^~U 3= .1
(L) I I^o I~f- Co00) C) O n en0 4D
IaCn faf LO
3: 1 1 t It J a II I I I "4 J '-4Lo J CO
U) n C Q M n
U- 0 P1 II I Ln I3tI=ot ~)~
Q r cn II I 4 I t I4 "
"f I II '- 3= i i3 mr i I Cr)r for o js ^^o
W O V a a a a at -I -
3n I f I I i I I I I I I (D3 fa
tz v- C L L S
0 3: I I I 0 1 I 1 0O CT0 00 00)0
*r cc I 3I nU I CM I I CD C) 0390
40 I Lf II It O I i (L Co <
(I CQJf l l I I O~t I I I I c O l d C Ol CO OOO
r Zl I I a a aC a a a a 0 M enM M
0 "4 4. I 1.. I i a COu O0
a tt) 0 0 00 LD I I I I OOU O1 lO In c3 a
a a C I I t I a a t
Co %0 a0%a a)a0 aDa11 of-. LO "*f
.6 %A u1, ,
V) 1 J ~ -< c3 1 1 1 1 -< Co Cro m CM CM*-
cn ( i l l 00.5
3 03 aC
"4I oI c.. LOL( au,# a a a a a a a a 00 00 00u
> = 10
I 3 % A
"" 4 IB| inm i i i i m om 0 c '.-1 0
1o'- "4j co 1 1 c'oin #0'. 00> Oal r.uo <..-- --
.O .3 U )U 0
(hI f 0I La. *- Oal 0. I II O d IdY
0 EU a; 4 C
&- OI O l, I I I I I I I Oi
"-a U 'S cc> ^^ 1 I I I i cc r^C ^-<- c1 ^1
<0 0^ 0.>CO 0
U) a 0 4.
51: S *- 0 n 1 I I 1 1 I I 0 tf> CM CM CM CM tt L.
*0 00 I I 1 1 1 1 LU
0- I cM I I I 0 0. C0' T
rr: s .
< -# c>i -- Q- e> or. no
**- SI ** o In't cu
I r4r." 40 )I ") (\CC) 0rCc >T CC
- D C"4 "4< "4 0^o c~ oo o 1 -i ^''o
0- "4 OCC 0W0 v i
U (a 0- 0 U 2 C.
r~> cLf 0Q (o
(4 o rcu >> ( so
S)'( f- h > 00 0I- 0
*< > 4 d- oo coo co ir CO cy C oin ^" <** ja ja COc u
t o VI
VIV)~~ U) 0r ,I
L1 U 1 Fa O0 U)w
"42: U-- 4-U)" U)
"CO .C. 0o^ a
*U) 0) 3 C lV "4
0)cr E 4
os-3 0r e C C
$.e .-4 0oo Uo 1) 2c 0 3 M
SO 4- = < a a-
> AC O-
CO)~V Q Us c)
3* 3 X: flt >& flt (e= 5 T-: 1 ~ L c
i~~V 5 (- > o
4-> *O U0&.4
cn o) vi v) a >0c= S
es a S, a o ce *(- v 3
E ,.- ,- -- M
l X 0 d r' C
0m C %. 0V ,6 C o : -
S. j Q _
V) rr V
..J . C
>: C v- e o0 C r- r r%
xO Cr s2" Co oj Cro
V) (00 %o o v
I-. 0S. -
vi Cr cc
L0 -- C)
L .. N N N
.j =: j: x C
1 0) -i t7 o 0
(2 *C Q. a)
This report has been prepared to summarize past and ongoing water conservation
programs of the City of St. Petersburg and to examine the dependence of water
and wastewater revenues upon quantities of water sold and to set forth conser-
Table 1 summarizes water production, water and wastewater rates, and water and
wastewater revenues for the past three years. This table also includes some
future estimates for these values.
The quantity of water produced and sold has maintained a more or less constant
level in recent years and is not expected to vary significantly from this trend
in the near future. Several factors contribute to the level trend:
Increasing use of reclaimed water for irrigation.
A decline in the rate of growth and development within the water
Increasing awareness of the public for the need to conserve water.
Increasing service rates which encourage conservation.
Recent water use restrictions which have resulted from drought conditions
which may reoccur.
Past and Present Conservation Measures
A. Metering: Metering of potable water is among the most effective and
most widely used water conservation methods. As compared to the unmetered
(flat rate) water system, metering discourages waste and many nonessential
uses of water while not discouraging essential domestic use by the customer.
Records date back as far as 1909 concerning the use of meters to control
water consumption in St. Petersburg. Over the years the metering system has
grown with the water system keeping control of nonessential and wasteful
use. Since no history exists as to unmetered modern day usage, it is not
possible to determine the extent of water conservation brought about by
In recent years the City has become involved with the replacement of older
inaccurate meters. As meters age and wear they become inaccurate in that
they do not record all of the flow of water. Since water flow is the
driving force that operates the meter, a worn meter should never record
more than the actual flow but almost always will record less.
Source: City of St. Petersburg
Tests conducted earlier in the City have concluded that meters 20 years
or older may be as much as 45 percent inaccurate. Based upon this
information, a meter replacement program began and through September,
1981, more than 46,000 meters of various sizes have been replaced. An
additional 21,000 smaller meters remain in the City's system with more
than 20 years of service. These will be replaced in time as this ongoing
meter replacement program continues.
In addition to having a direct impact upon water and sewer revenues, the
meter replacement program has an indirect influence upon water conservation.
By ensuring that the customer pays for the full amount of water consumed,
an accurate meter discourages wasteful and nonessential use of water.
B. Toilet Water Savers: During 1973, the City purchased 45,000 water saving
devices designed to conserve water used for toilet flushing. Since that
time these devices, which are designed to conserve 2 gallons per flush,
have been distributed free of charge for use in private homes and apart-
ment complexes. At the present time approximately 5,000 of these devices
are still available for distribution to citizens upon request, from the
Public Utilities Department.
A demonstration project was conducted with the assistance of Coquina
Key residents during 1972. Toilet water saving devices were installed
in 359 single-family dwellings and nearly as many townhouses and apartments.
Total water consumption was monitored for these residences for the months
of August, September and October of 1971 and 1972. From this data a
reduction in water use of 7.89 percent was noted for single-family dwellings
and a reduction of 26 percent for the townhouses and apartments. It should
be noted that several other factors must be considered which could
influence these reductions including: lawn irrigation, rainfall, multiple
flushing problems, vacations, etc.
If it is assumed that 20,000 of the 40,000 devices which have been
distributed are still in service in the City, an approximate annual water
savings of 55 million gallons would result based upon reported savings1
in three-member, two-toilet households. This savings would result in a
reduction in FY '82 water and sewer use revenues of $114,000.
C. Leak Detection: In order to reduce unaccounted for water in the City's
system, a leak detection program was initiated during FY '80. By locating
and repairing leaks within the water distribution system, water would
be conserved in that less water would be pumped from the well fields
and treated at the Cosme Plant. -
The current unaccounted for water level for St. Petersburg is 11.8
percent as shown in Table 1. This percentage falls into the range of
10-15 percent which is considered a "Tight System" by the American
Water Works Association2.
The City's leak detection program was responsible for checking 14,867
locations and locating 160 leaks during FY '80. The estimated volume
-of water conserved as a result of this work is 2.76 million gallons
per year. The annual cost based upon FY '80 water and sewer use rates
would be $4,168, which was well below the program cost.
"The leak detection program was not approved by City Council beyond FY 80.
D. Enforced Reductions: During the spring and early summer months of 1981,
drought conditions existed over most of Florida. These conditions resulted
in an emergency declaration of a water shortage by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD). This shortage covered the entire
O 16-county district and included mandatory water use restrictions from
May 20, 1981 through August 5, 1981. The declaration of this water
shortage and enforcement of mandatory restrictions had a significant
impact on water use within St. Petersburg.
Table 2 includes a chronological summary of major events leading to and
during the water shortage period.
Figure 1 has been prepared to illustrate some effects of 1981 water use
restriction upon water consumption within the City's service area. Weekly
average water consumption was plotted for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 and
for the water use restriction period. Of course, no water shortage or
restrictions were imposed during 1979 or 1980.
For the period prior to the week of April 19, 1981, before any water use
restrictions were enacted, water consumption was higher than that recorded
for the two previous years. During the period of voluntary restrictions
a downward trend is noted in the 1981 figures; however, 1981 remains
higher than the other two years making it difficult to draw any conclusions
concerning the effectiveness of the voluntary water use restrictions.
During the period of mandatory water use restrictions imposed by SWFWMD,
"the 1981 consumption figures remain primarily below those reported for
the previous two years, illustrating the effectiveness of the mandatory
restrictions which were enforced by the City.
Consumption figures for 1981 have been compared to the average of 1979
and 1981 consumption to estimate the quantity of water conserved during
the period of mandatory restriction. An estimated 3.08 million gallons
"per day was conserved or a total of 237 million gallons. Since both
water and sewer use revenues are dependent upon water consumption, the
impact of this conservation program was significant and is estimated at
"of $393,000. These water conservation figures are most likely low because:
(1) the comparison years were not as dry as 1981, and (2) gradually
increasing population within the service area should result in higher
consumption for 1981.
E. Reclaimed Water: The St. Petersburg 201 Facilities Plan recommended
spray irrigation of treated wastewater as the primary means of disposal
with deep injection wells for backup purposes. Implementation of this
plan has followed and reclaimed water was first used for irrigation
at Isla Del Sol during February, 1977. The reclaimed water system
continues to grow and at present 102 customers utilize reclaimed water.
An average of 5.7 million gallons per day of reclaimed water was reused
during October, 1981.
In addition to providing an environmentally beneficial means of disposing
of wastewater effluent and utilzing a resource that was previously
discarded, the use of reclaimed water also conserves the potable water -
resource when used instead of potable water for irrigation or other
Most customers which are now connected to the reclaimed water system
are irrigating rather large areas which were previously irrigated by
means other than potable water. To illustrate this point, the following
table of golf courses which are now irrigated with reclaimed water has
Golf Course Previous Irrigation Source
Mangrove Bay Potable Water
Twinbrooks Ground Water Wells
Isla Del Sol None
Sunset Ground Water Wells
Only one of six golf courses was irrigated previously with potable water.
A total of 24.5 million gallons of potable water were used at Mangrove Bay
from October, 1979 through August, 1980 when reclaimed water was made
available. Mangrove Bay Golf Course paid $18,580 for the potable water
used during this period.
Due to the fact that most reclaimed water use up until now has not
replaced potable water uses, no significant reduction in potable water
production or per capital consumption has been noted (see Table 3). -
The slight reduction in per capital consumption noted between FY '79 and
FY '80 is attributed to a rather significant rate increase (see Table 1).
As the reclaimed water system is expanded into the critical water quality
areas where alternate sources of irrigation water are not available and
considerable potable water is used for irrigation, a greater conservation
of potable water is expected. Estimates as to the extent of this conser-
vation are not provided due to the uncertainty as to the extent of
participation that will result as reclaimed water is made available.
Future reclaimed water use could impact utility revenues significantly,
depending upon the extent of participation. As an example, a residential
customer irrigating a half acre residence at a rate of 1.5 inches per
week would pay $6.00 per month for reclaimed water service. To irrigate
the same residence with potable water would cost more than $37.00 per
month, based on FY '82 rates. If a considerable number of residential
customers now utilizing potable water for irrigation are connected to
* the reclaimed water system, a significant reduction in utility revenues
Future Conservation Actions
In considering this subject, a review of historical events lends credence to
the idea that St. Petersburg cannot expect to obtain more water from it's
wellfields than is now produced. If SWFWMD should agree to a change in regu-
latory well levels, slightly more water could be made available. The Comprehensive
Land Use Plan allows the population to grow about 100,000 as compared to the
1980 census. Therefore, it appears logical to assume that the potable water
needs of future inhabitants will have to be met from the present supplies and
by using reclaimed water to a greater extent for non-potable uses.
Potable water could be produced from brackish or salt water. Such production
would be expected to cost about $4.00 per 1,000 gallons. This type of technology
has not shown cost reductions that some had anticipated. At present there does
not appear to be any type of cost breakthrough on the horizon.
The direction of future water conservation should include the following:
A. Continue to maintain a good metering and meter replacement program.
This will help ensure that those using potable water pay for their consumption.
B. Encourage consumers to use water saving devices.
This will allow consumers to have water available for essential needs
without wasting water.
C. Continue the expansion of the reclaimed water system in accordance with the
"priorities and procedures established by the Council.
D. Use the ordinances previously approved if in the future SWFWMD should issue
water shortage orders to meet these orders.
Previously adopted ordinances should be studied and recommendations made
to Council where improvements can be made.
E. Institute and maintain a review of water and sewer revenues so that shortfalls
will not be experienced due to use of reclaimed water in lieu of potable water
F. Continue to watch for possible breakthroughs in desalination technology to
take advantage of any developments that might occur.
G. Develop a strong educational program to acquaint the citizenry with the con-
1 "Planning and Evaluating Water Conservation Measures", American Public
Works Association Report No. 48, 1981, page 13.
2 "Planning and Evaluating Water Conservation Measures", American Public
Works Association Report No. 48, 1981, page 20.
"City of St. Petersburg Water System
Production, Rates, and Revenues
FY'79 FY'80 FY'81 FY'82 FY'83 FY'84
(Billion Gals.) 13.8 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.8 13.8
(Billion Gals.) 10.9 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1
Unaccounted Water 21% 11% 11.8% 12% 12% 12%
St. Petersburg Rate
"($/1000 Gal. Water) $ .67 $ .72 $ .72 $ .81 -
St. Petersburg Rate
($/1000 Gal. Wastewater) $ .52 $ .79 $ .94 $ 1.13
Water Revenue $ 8.6M $11.OM $11.2M $12.5M
Wastewater Revenue $ 6.3M $10.7M $12.3M $14.OM
'- Weekly Average Water Treated' D)
0-r4 0 0
0 ro -4 -
NO I 0N4 t
-- :* _- ._-t r l
o . D .
Chronological Summary of Major 1981 Water
Date Item Description
4/20/81 St. Petersburg Voluntary Lawn Sprinkling Ban
5/6/81 SWFWMD Order Water shortage declared Voluntary
5/13/81 St. Petersburg Color coded water use restrictions
News Release announced.
5/20/81 SWFWMD Order Water shortage continued Mandatory
restrictions: 20% reduction for public
"supply & private wells, 10% reduction for
agriculture & industry.
5/22/81 St. Petersburg Lawn sprinkling prohibited during daylight
Ordinance 502-F hours, allowed only under odd/even system
during night time hours. Vehicle washing
prohibited except at commercial establishments.
5/22/81 St. Petersburg Wholesale water customers notified of need
Correspondence to comply with 20% reduction mandated by
7/16/81 St. Petersburg Suspended water use restrictions.
8/5/81 SWFWMD Order Water shortage continued but mandatory
Per Capita Water Consumption
Fiscal Water Produced Service Area Gallons Per
Year Billion Gallons Population Person Per Day
1976 12.08 284,338 116.4
1977 12.61 284,813 121.3
1978 12.98 285,275 124.7
1979 13.72 286,096 131.4
1980 13.52 286,699 129.2
1981 13.59 287,327 129.6
SOU50 WEST FLORIDA MATER IMA-IAGEHEIT DISTRICT
CONISUMPTIVf USE PERMIT
PERMIT GRANTED TO: PERMIT ;o0. 750OC04
DATE PERMIT G.Rif;E0:
City of St. Petersbur3 DATE PEP.IT APPLICATOi- 1
-. FILED: Seotember 4, 1975
_P. 0. Box 2842 PERMIT EXPIRES 0:1: Oec'?-e.r 31. 1930
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION: loriAn Aeuit er
St. Petersburr, Florida USE CLASSIFICATION: Public S'Jtv--
(.ega l ame and Address)
TERMS ANO CONMITIOIS OF THIS PERMIT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. That all statements in the application and in supporting data are
true and accurate and based upon the best information available,
S and that all conditions set forth herein will be complied wifh. If
any of the statements in the application and in the supporting data
are found to be untrue and inaccurate, or if applicant fails to comply
with all of the conditions set forth herein, then this Permit shall
automatically become null and void.
2. This Permit is predicated upon the assertion by applicant that the
use of water applied for and granted is and continues to be a reason-
able beneficial use as defined in Section 379.019(5), Florida
Statutes, is and continues to be consistent with the public interest,
W and will not interfere with any legal use of after r existing cn the
date thiG Permit is granted.
3. In granting this Permit, S.FIC- I has, by regulation, reserved frc. use
by applicant, water in such locations and quantities, for such seasons
of the year, as it determines may be required for the protection of
fish and wildlife and the public health and safety. Such reservations
are subject to periodic review and revision in light of changed
4. Based upon the application and supporting documents. S:F:.1O finds
"m that the applicant's use of water was in existence before January 1,
1975 at the rate of 9 million gallons per day
5. Nothing in this Permit should be construed to limit the authority of
Southwest Florida hater Management District to declare watar shortages
and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, or to
formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage,
pursuant to Section 373.246, Florida Statutes..
6. This Permit authorizes the applicant named above to make a maxi-it.
combined average annual withdrawal of 19 million gallons of after r
per day with a rmximum combinedJ wi criora-a rate not to
exceed 22 cod during a single day. Withdrawals are
authorized as shown in the table below.
7. WITIfORAWAL POI1T GALLONS PER OAY GALLC:IS PE.'R C.L
LATITUDE LO'IGITUOE :. -AX It.U, AVERAGE
2805'0" 8235'49" '[ 120CCCO 943480
"" 285'50' 820;5'43" J 575000 563480
28o6' 6" 82035'29" 500000 443430
28o6'11" 2o35' 16 120OOCO 99H480
2806'22" 8235'14" 12000CC 993430
2606' 1" 12035' 3"- 12000CO 953480
"28o6'43r 82034' 25" 10C000C 943.180
2806.' 4." 0234'20" 1 ZCC0 10000ICOO
2806'35" 82035' 4" 10C00000 96040
2no' 572" 8203417 'r l?7flnln
2807'13" 82034 13'" 1200000 993480
2806' 0" 82035' 3 /6 1000000 873480
2806' 1" 82035'l18/ 575000 543480
"2806' 8" 82035' 3"/? 1000000 983480 .
2806'14" 8235'30" -, 1200000 963480
2806'22" 82035'33*1' 1S1co000 1000000
287'14" 82034'20" ; 575000 566950
-2807'21" 82034'21" 850000 723480
287'33" 82Z34'21" 2 1000000 783480
2807'44" 82034'29" o 575000 543480
2507'52" 82o34'30" 750000 643480
2807'58" 82034'33" 3 850000 763480
288'*12" 82a34'40"3 q 1000000 789960
S.8. The use of said water is restricted to the use classification set forth
above. Any change in the use of said water will require a ncdification
of this Permit.
9.. In the event an emergency water shortage should be declared, the
District may alter, modify or declare to be inactive, all or parts of
this.Permit. An authorized Oistrfct Representative may, at any
reasonable time, enter the property to inspect the facilities and may
require that this Permit be shown.
10. Applicant shall comply with the following items, and if Applicant
fails to comply with them, then this Permit shall automatically
become null and void:
A. That the City, its agents and employees, shall not withdraw or cause
to be withdrawn, from the wells in the aforesaid Cos.-Cdassa !'ell
Field, Ilillsborough County, Florida, any amount of water which will
cause the weekly average elevation of the potentiometrit surface of
the Floridan Aquifer as determined cumulatively to be less than:
(a) Twenty (20) feet above mean sea level as measured at Grace 3
Observation Well (280607::823530:).
(b) Twenty-five (25) feet above mean sea level as measure- at tha
"James II" Observation W1ell (280703::C323417).
(c) Twenty-four (24) feet above mean sea level as measured at the
"Calm 33A" Observation 'al l (280S 032343e).
B. In connection with the operation of the Cosme-dessa Wtell Field:
(a) At no time shall the weekly average elevations of the "o tentiometric
surface of the Floridan Aquifer be ,more than 3 feet below the
elevations set forth in Paragraph I above.
(b) Weekly average elevations shall be calculated by adding together
the high reading for each day and the low reading for each day,
then dividing the sum thereof by 14; each weekly period shall
coamence at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday of each week.
(c) The weekly average elevations shall be determined cumJlatively
from N:ovember 1, 1973 through Sptetber 30, 1974. A new
production year shall start on Octoer 1, 1974 and each Oct:ber -
1 thereafter. Cumulative weekly average elevations shall not
carry over from one production year to another.
C. Reports of weekly average elevations for each weekly perfed shall be
made by City to District by telephone on the following llondjy and -
confirmed in writing in a form to be provided by District: such weekly
periods shall ccnarwnce at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday of each .eek.
S0. Well E-100 shall he .modified or replaced with a well to serve as a
S hloride mnitoring well. Specifications for such modification or
replacement shall be submitted to the District within thirty (30)
days following the date of this Order.
E. The total maximum withdrawal from the Cos.ae-Odessa and Section 21
Well Fields shall not exceed 168 million gallons per week. which
amount shall not be figured cumulatively; provided that during any six
(6) weeks in the production year 1976, the City can pump an additional
21 million gallons per week in excess of 168 million gallons per week.
However, all production by the City shall be reasonably balanced batw'en
S the two well fields.
F. This permit is issued pursuant to Part 2 of Chapter 163, F.A.C. and
authorizes the consumptive use of water.
S. AUTHORIZED SIGI1URaE: l ..
CO:,SUMPTIVE USE SECTION
WATER RESOURCES OIVIS1O.1
Applicant hereby certified that applicant is the owner of the propLrty covered
by this application, that the information contained in this application is true
and accurate and, if applicant is a corporation or a partnership, that the
undersigned has the legal authority to execute this application and affidavit on
behalf of said corporation or partnership.
Signature of Applicant
Sworn to and subscribed before
I- me this day of
i dtARY PUSLIC
Hy Cowrission Expires:
.. S S- .- S- .- S S S- S-.. S- S S -. S- a S- S- S- S S a- a- S. S- S- .- -
:::1 ::3 3=33n =3 =33 =3 33 =3c n 3 = 3 =3 :3 =n3: = 3 3=3 3 3=3 =33 r 3 3 3 3 (0 3
(n +: I 4 4J4J4 4 +J I4- 4 4 n4- 4- 44V) 4 4- 4- + 444, 44 4 + 4 4 V + + + 4 4 4-4 t4 4 +W 4- 4 4J +J
r a O- r *e- *o-o r-' r- o r- .o *-r- *r- *, r a- ,r *o -a- a- ,,r a- .t -e .r- r- *- or- *r -r- ,- *- -- c o- r -
o S I I IS I I I I. I S I S O I I I SI I I I I I I. S I I ISI L
S 3CD ( CD O1 C CD ( (D ( CD CD ) 3 CD CD o D CD D M CD CD CD CD ao a CD CD CD C ( a (DC C D 9D CD c=
C ) I
S C) C C C C CO C C C C C
U. awOO:: c) Lo DOm cD r cD cw t:o r-..,-O co q --OOOOO O cD4O OtoOO OO
L 0 0 0e0 ) -O 00 C 4 .0
ccee tn .-r cu CV C
oi.I -C 0
,, .C C r CO-. ,) ,n r ,O O O 'O OOO = ,- oC o s< (O o cOOf O -OCO "C O O OO
J : : ,- "- 5.- * *' *' * *" *' -,-
LU O O 0 .- O rI .0 -- O 0 O O C I O I3 ,
0 o-" ,.--- ,-0 ..m
=A a 3 C a)
0 a C3 -)a 0 '- j)
I- E01-C 4) a- aa an *0 >ia) a )C
l-r--0 3 00 *X 0- aO -0 ^ *U) S- C
*-C a 4> TC0 aJV-> C > S+lS C a) C.-Jr) .. 1
CC0 .L -a- a> 0 a) >00 ) U0 L E
-C-4 S < 0 O -> *Q-. >-4 >4--rS- CS 0C fcO mO m) -
I O -CA ** *. \) 'U S ') cOC 10 *O S- O C J 0 C) -- cU ? O C%4 '0 r O -.. 'o r- C? r
IC. ) C^^^ ^coa <3 c c^^\jc ^r (Xa a -
0 CJC^JLsJC C CKJC^C C iC^COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO C0
F r F- F- F u F F F- U- F f F F F F F F F- F- F F- F- F- F F F
10 (0 (0 0 (0 4 0 (00.0 (0 (0 0 ((roo0 ( M0 (0 (0 ( e& r (3 (0 0(r r0 M0 (0 ( 0 (0 ( (0 0 ( 0 0 (0 Q C( 0.0
S. S S S. S. S. S.. CLM S. S.. S .. S.. S. S.. S S S.. S S- S.- S ... .. S. S. S. S. S.. S-. S. S.- .. S. ..
' 0 QU
4r- r- o F- r- r r- r 'r- r F- o- or- o r- 'r- or- o or- o F- or or- r o F- r- o r- o-* a f- r- '*r- F *r *r- o O F r -
o c cn 0 )c 0C c m c n M D3 n cm o c ) c) c) nc0 c cm 0c cm cC cm cm c7 cM a M U c" 0C cm cD M Mcm ca) a =
U.L03wao C)wcM r<4ofo"MoaO ao Mowacl
L Q C C C)..C C ) C D a a C)-D q aJ ,- C C ) J C, C) D C, 0--a C C C)
r: -. 1 5= O1 CM r
SI- c u 0) ( O) C. -- -
l 3 0)
," U) S ,. l-r-- 0 0--- 5..,-.4-.) 5 r- ( 0 O a SS. .
-. 0 1 0. I ,) * S 0 0 0 *.
u F-' v 2. .. .) 0) l CCOS n o- r O -- C O O(
"F- 'F- (0 > ) .. J= 5. 5.. (00)" S -. S...'v-'- --. S.--. C" C7 O O. (0 v 0(.
ON. 0C) 0 u4 N0 3 u-U).C:U)' M
00 -4 1'- UO O OON N N
Irr CT d T r r (C C1 1- rO (3ed d r clta ^f(3 )'PC cmI L cmr a) (dr Qr^
O a OA XIS 1W l aO I-QL-1 eva c I^- a3 L:CS TZ ^S gj ,ZcSS ^^ s^ So
r^ CV( VC UC UCUNC tC VC VCUC UC VC V VC UC VC VCVC VC eC UC
04 rcCYi)rcco^C<^no~o70^Mn~^^~om rcc~~o
""^ o ^
c c c c c
0 0 0 0 0
-- *rf- *-- *- -- ll
4-) 4-J 4-J 4-3 *+->
( 0 (0 00 >) 03 (^ > >
4-) -- r- r- r- r- *- r r- r- ,- r- f- -r r- r- *r- r- *- *r- r- r- *- +
) S- W S. S.. W C.L) S.. S.- CL. S- S. S S.- r- S- --- C.- S S S. S. S- S.. S S. S. S. a.SS S)
= 3 E 3 3 E = EM =3 3 3M 3 3 3M =3 O I0 3
MD4 0)D4 4+ CD)O) CD44-) J4J ) ^ 4--) 4J4-) 4-) 4-4-r-*-r--r- 4J-r-0,V)+4 J4-+4J)4- 4 4 -) 4 -4 4 -)4V) 4-4 -)44) C 4-)DV 4) +J -
3 f- 3" r--=- :3 r- r- r- r-- S.- S.-. S -- -- r- r- f- r-
LJWa =< =3 3 < U < 3 3 U = 3 3 =3 34-.4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 U 3 3 3 < c
SU U (JO r uU'r- U U UU UtU U n UU,.- UU U U U U U UOU"U,- U U U'r- U
D J *- *- f -- *r- r- r- -- 3 =3 3 I- "r *-- r- r- .r- *r r- a*r- -r- ,- r-
I I -
r. o 0) N 43 o o o (0. ,- 0) 0),-n -0. C,," 00) C" ,.. a. m,. C: =5 ,. 0) ,. m 0) a 0))CM m3 =000cm,. ) 0) _.v
C-O O< O t -
CD 0 *--4 C0J v--4 A0 r--0 -4' r4 -4 4v-4-r-- rqC co r- r4r- C ^" r- rq 4 r r4" C'Q r4rqr- r4 I
w C D0 CDC C C CC D D D D-w D DD
m t o- m m m" t 4 c DC D -,-000 c-
0 34 *0 0
2: I- CO
m B o 5
,- 4 0 03 0 - 4 .5 03 4.- CO 5 _C C 3 O
C 00 ) C- 0 C- CO c 0 C C O ( v- C) C 0 C0
) C"- 0 0
2 LV( CX U M4C
V) (A C
-- c M 4- 4-.0--- --) So-.-- P E
SL2co ) ((n 0 0 (0 O C 4 )
0 ) ( '1 rC 0. 4. 03 S-. 2 w S.. S .. C CV 5. C7 C ( e3 C) CT- t ( C C rT C C Y
) L00 0 i c) *0OC00a4 N -fU A4 E 5 0
.4 F- -
CL (- -*0)- 0 CU 0 C -C
S. O *- 0 0 .S. + -0
'- CC CDC0 lC 4 Q +C C-C C C
00 E0 0 0 03 0C2.40 Q
00 .: F
^fL Or Oa o2^^^^^rccllCVC) ^Ln OI O ^fn o< ^ < CV 413 t n CO r\ O Cn 3cs Btl"~ C C reC s lC
t ~n *<^<^^ooo ooooor )C 7 >^~ > l -r tr c ^r CrCl r r tr C y
O* -*^ r t r-'~r r r~ ^-- r- r-rtr<-
-<( >) > >) >1 >
C toc(0(a( (a(0(0(0(0 (.(0 (00.(0 M( 0.(0 (0L ( ( 0 (0 c((0.(01ammm mm0( C- r0 (0 (a(0(to (0 (0(0c
S- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- r *- *,- ,-- r,- r- ,- ,- ,- *,-- *- ,-r ,- or- *9- or *e- *e
0) 0 I I I II L I L I I 1 a I I I L L I L I I I I D I I I I I SI
S S S S. 0 S S S S S S S S. S S. S
0 0I I
Q ( CD 0 Cz V CD CD, CD ) c CD CD CD CD CD CD D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C CD CD CD CD Cr.
C Vc- ,- 4 -I C.- "4- CO e-4 r-,- r-4 P- -4 0)-- 4 -,- ,- r-4 I-q "0D M r -
0 -.. C-,"
uL.0,D c CIj cn Co ON to .D q*- CD oo C 4 : :L-. M ) LC P-%C)0D. CD COD-) C0 C)O
Li (SOC300000000000 00005000000000 0000CCr 00 0000000000
m r-. 4 r--4< *-r-4qrto o o r--4 m r-4 cy) Lo cyi r-4 q d c* -t -qtr-c m m CD -4 ONIr- r-4 oqr M r- 94' -qr L CO k LCM
t0 o C3 C o
U. C0 -5
S.. oooosjcoom a *o ^ (0
L0 (0 0
SU.C CI. ( Nd
,. ... 0... co 4 ) 9
SS..IU U00 O- 04 S.. cal 0
4- CJ 04-) r = >
C 3CS ) r u c Cu C) 0 C C
-: U E ( .
_0,- N ) (0
U( <0 0( 3 C 0) OCUC
""4-'a C0 U U *r4 0-C C C0)
Co O <-> r Co OO S40 CoJ- N4 '. Co
8C OCv)0 -001.O O 00 OC cC (NI '<> 0c 0 0= ^4 t a O r
CN IC> NI .C\INICN (It C N c o sNI oCN C NIs C c( ( I (NI ( (I (N (NI (NI ?? ( (NI
0 ,( 9-4 w- 9-4 .: rl r r4 w-4 w-6 -I 9 1 9-4 .: t4 .-4 -4 .: w-4 ^ ( .:l 4 -49 -4 .: w-4 r4 9-I ..* 9-4 r-
+ *or- 4o- *f -
0 0 (0- 0 .,
o--r- 4-4--- ----. o -.. r- r ->j r>--) r- r--- r- rr r>-, r- F> r- r-.r- -- -.
S(a (0 C, r. r r.-,0 ,- 0 ., 0 Do 0 t o (0 ,. m m mn m- Lm
= ^ 3 =S = = 1 = =<
So O or,-o r or Or r or O O O r- r- ,- r- L -- r-
0C I I IC CJ
SA-4 V-4 LO -4 T- ..4 r4 fee ) v -I C- --4 "- M v- r-4 V4 T- r v -4 r-4 c- 4 I- -
2- O- O O 1
-4 V-4 r-- to "".
u o< .C
>- < o m
j CD C C)D D C c D D C CD-qC CD ) C) C) M n
"-- -*- -
Li -| .
w LU )
S4j o 0 4J -P 4-) "a +j a 4
:moo h n -: t O(A W t C. O O fn .. n
ci,- 0 O a
C > ) r- 4-) -) L
- C 60
r, SCOO ) 04,, o r,.
0)1 "I ,-,-,- 0- ,. -.,0,. 0. ,. ,. ) 0 O O 0
r- I r
0 a 0 0 CL 0 m r 0 m CL CL 0 0 m0 0 0 CL CL. 0 0 0 CL0.
r- C- S- .- .- S0 .. 0 .- 0.a. S. .. S.. 0C. .. S .- CL C
*v- 4)4J)4J4-) V) 4 4.J(nV)/ 4V) V/) /) 4-.)4-.) -4 4->) V ) V 4-. 4-) LV) (n(1)
4- = r- r o r o *r *r- 0 or *r- r-m r o *r o *rr- r- *r- or- r
o Cl = a) a) ==-3=v=-Q = = v<3-r-P< L 3 = =
S 1 l l l 1 1
,, --, o,.o o, I o o l .--, 6. ,o ca. o ,-. a. r- cS.
S-t 4 v<-4 CO v-4 S vsIr-4 -4mU CM r-4 LO<-4C qr-4 r-4r-4 -4C%
Z0l I- :m< qz
w. oLJcoCo) UCoN0s04omoOrf CU o0(o0c4 tOcOc oJ:t c, 4
jCDCCDCC Ln C Dm 0 :C) Cr CJ C CY) C 1,)CCC 0 ,
.>- 0- OOC0 OO C00 ,- -- 0a 0C0
_I-- ( v*,-.4 *- *v-..S 4 *-. .
,-- o,- h: u C ( (7 w CIn (Do (D,-- 00 0n > 0 ) n u
..,. C -i
0 -. I--^ 1- $ -,-" ( r r-
4)4)) 4) ) 4.v c
o< tw 00 o coo Cr
C.) f *f- C / *f ) c tw
col o =c CM
0, % Lii c
')CO 0- 4) .)I) '0 ..4 I-
-< : t- h- =3 ^. ^r^ -i
2' .C CC CC Or coC '. -
L j S 4) U CflCI)S.- 4 3. >S..r oLJ.J LC)Ov-tC O)
rC 00 00 -^ v0 -S
L( 00 C C CM O C
- r OCC t- O.COO
U) *v S O O CS...). OS ..S
< 1o 01 > ( 1 ( (
> 0)'*r- *r. S *r0 *r..C. *r 0 C r- *r 2
04 CC r- r-r r-r > r 0
O ^OO 3 0 *r O *r0 *r0 C'0 0. r *r 4
C) acC 4. >- 0' C s g ss
0) O t n CO O Or O O t CU CU **-+- > 0d 0 0 Cl > L CC/) 4. .v 0)
X I- CO-613 < OO 33
ov, a t/
oP- NC N(- *JCCNJ rCT .r ( i C1 C C\J(N^~*i cB I
a VNCUC UC QV xiuiooo-CU N j< )< ^LOU oVCo CrUoCU OO<^-Lr) ^or cn Ooo IQ ^"T 4 w
May 21, 1982
Revised: June 23, 1982
Revised: May 26, 1983
TO: DAVID A. WILEY, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
JOHN W. HEUER, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
ROBERT R. GORDON, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
FROM: ROBERT G. PERRY, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
RE: Cosme-Odessa/Section 21/South Pasco Water Quality
Consumptive Use Permit Nos. 200003, 200004, 203647
In order to determine the effects of pumpage on water quality a time series analysis was
performed upon the chloride concentration of six regional monitor wells, TR12-1, E100,
E101, E102, EZ1-7, and E105 (see Figure 8). "*
If well field pumping was resulting in either upwelling or intrusion of saltwater the
monitor wells should detect the increasing chloride over time. A straight line regression
was fitted for each well using as the independent variable and chloride as the dependent
variable. The raw data supplied by the USGS was first tested for outliers by application
of chauvenets Rejection Test. Data points which were thus tagged as suspect were
removed from the data set when the USGS verified that they had been derived by
sampling methods inconsistent with the body of the data, i.e. sampling at different
depths by use of probes. The results are summarized below.
Well Regression of Data Coefficient Period
TR12-1 Cl = 887 +.01M N = 48 R = +.047 09/77-04/83
TR13/E101 Cl= 11753 +22M N= 69 R = .091 06/73-03/83
E102 Cl = 63.3 -.8M N = 46 R = -.501* 01/77-03/83
E100 Cl = 2354 -.01M N = 54 R = -.026 04/76-03/83
E21-7 CI = 27.2 +.02M N = 49 R = +.023 11/73-01/83
E105 C = 9093 -48M N = 38 R = -.53* 04/76-02/83
Where: Cl = Chloride concentrations in mg/1
M = Time in months
N = Number of data points
R = Correlation coefficient
*Significant linear relationship in excess of 99%.
Only wells E102 and E105 had significant linear correlation over time and each of these
indicated a decreasing chloride concentration. All the rest were not statistically signif-
icant and therefore we are unable to give any credance to the regression over a simple
averaging of the data. We have not addressed seasonality of the data but rather the
long-term average trend of the data. -
It is therefore concluded that in spite of the well field pumpage and seasonal variations
the water quality has either stabilized or improved for these wells.
June 9, 1983
June 21, 1983 Revised
TO: D. A. WILEY, Hydrologist, Municipal Permits, R.R.D.
FROM: tAP. M. DOORIS, Manager, Environmental, R.D.D.
"RE: CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT NO. 200004, Effects on Lakes and Streams
Below is a brief description of the expected effects of the withdrawals allowed by the referenced
permit on surface water bodies.
This report was prepared to assist in addressing District Rule criteria relating to conditions for the
issuance of permits (Chapter 40D-2.301) and as an aid in answering questions from the public con-
cerning potential effects of well field withdrawals on lakes, wetlands, and streams.
The operation of Cosme-Odessa began in 1931. During the first 13 years of operation, the pumpage
rate at the well field steadily increased, but did not exceed 5.0 MGD (Figure 1). This increase
continued through 1960-1961 when the average annual pumpage rate peaked at 19.6 MGD. Since that
- time, the pumpage rate at Cosie-Odessa generally declined as other well fields became operational.
During the 1962-1982 period, the average annual pumpage rate was 10.0 MGD or greater in 11 of the
21 years, with a peak of 18.0 MGD occurring in 1972.
Ground water withdrawals and their effects on surface water from Cosme-Odessa should be viewed in
light of other municipal ground water withdrawals in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. The
combined pumpage rate for the four large well fields in the area (Cosme-Odessa, South Pasco, Section
"21, and Eldridge-Wilde) has averaged over 50 MGD since the early 1970's (Figure 1). Total area
pumpage is important as the water levels of surface water bodies may be affected by regional
municipal withdrawals as well as by pumpage from individual well fields.
"DESCRIPTION OF LAKES, STREAMS, AND WETLANDS
GENERAL Approximately 20 named lakes and the reaches of Rocky and Brooker Creeks are located
"within the area influenced by the predicted 0.5' water table drawdown (Table 1, Figure 2). The area
also contains wetlands including cypress ponds and marshes as well as other areas, primarily now used
as pastures, which are former wet meadows. These present-day pastures still become saturated during
wet climatic conditions and are considered wetlands for the purpose of this report. The total area
within the 0.5' predicted drawdown occupied by open water and wetlands is 1,379 acres or 25% of the
total area of 5,550 acres.
1 Drawdown predicted as a result of the following pumpage scheme: 30 days at average permitted
pumpage, followed by 30 days at maximum permitted pumpage, followed by 60 days at average
Technical Memorandum CUP No. 200004
June 9, 1983
Most of the lakes are relatively small, and are surrounded by residential and agricultural land use
(Table 1). Of the 20, 13 lakes have levels officially adopted and established by the Governing Board of
the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
The wetlands, aside from those mentioned as being used as improved pasture, are cypress ponds and
marshes, occurring as isolated features in pasture or citrus groves or as borders of streams and lakes.
The major streams in the area, Rocky Creek and Brooker Creek, alternate between occupying well-
defined channels and a condition of essentially unconfined flow through .cypress-dominated areas.
Along some reaches, artificial channel improvements have been made, and control structures have
been emplaced at points in both creeks.
LAKE STAGES AND STREAM DISCHARGE Of the lakes located within the predicted 0.5' zone of
water table drawdown, nine have data describing previous lake stages (Figures 3 through 11). Stage
records for these lakes vary from 20 years or more (Lakes Church and Keystone) to 10 years (Lake
Juanita). From the hydrographs for these lakes, the stage behavior of other area surface water
features, at least during the recent past, can be discerned. A period of decline in the lake levels began
in 1961, following the extremely wet years of 1959-1960. This decline lasted until mid-1964 when lake
levels underwent a period of recovery lasting through 1966. Another, longer, decline began in early
1967 and lasted through mid-1974 with a very brief recovery in late 1969/early 1970. Following the
heavy rainfall of 1974, lake levels fluctuated through an approximately normal range during 1975
through mid-1979 when exceptionally high rainfall caused a substantial increase in lake stage. From
the end of 1979, lake stages fell gradually, reaching near-record low levels in 1980 and early 1982.
Since that time, lake levels have risen to high elevations and are now (April, 1983) at elevations above
ordinary seasonal low stages. This description represents most natural lakes in the area with the
exception of lakes whose stages are controlled by outlet structures, e.g. Lake Keystone and Lake
Pretty. These two lakes did not undergo prolonged, serious stage declines during the periods of avail-
able record. In fact, they have fluctuated through relatively normal annual ranges and are now (April,
1983) at elevations above expected seasonal low stages.
Discharge of Rocky and Brooker Creeks has been variable during the period of available record. The
average discharge for Rocky Creek at Sulfur Springs, a station approximately four miles south of the
well field area, is 35.0 cfs. In ten years of the 30-year record, the stream has exceeded the record
average, and in 20 years of the record, stream discharge has averaged less than 35.0 cfs (Figure 12).
Extreme peaks have occurred in 1957, 1959, 1960, 1964, and 1979; while significantly lower-than-
normal discharge has been observed in 1955, 1956, 1972, and 1977.
The average discharge for the 31-year period of record for Brooker Creek at Tarpon Springs, a station
approximately eight miles west of the well field, is 21.1 cfs (Figure 13). In a total of 13 years having
record, discharge has averaged higher than the record average, and in 19 years stream discharge has
averaged less than the record average. Extreme peaks occurred in 1953, 1957, 1959, 1960, and 1964;
while significantly lower-than-normal discharge occurred in 1961, 1967, 1972, 1973, 1977, and 1980.
The record for the second station on Brooker Creek, located about three and one-half miles northwest
of the well field is quite short (13 years). However, the information is presented for the purpose of
completeness (Figure 14).
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SURFACE WATER LEVELS AND GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS
In the vicinity of the well field, the relationship between surface water levels and the ground water -
system is a close one. The surficial system, in particular, can be especially important to the mainte-
nance of the water levels of surface water features (Figure 15). For example, in many cases, lakes are
hydraulically connected on all sides with the surficial aquifer, and the elevation of water in that
aquifer directly influences lake levels. Water levels in marshes and cypress ponds, too, frequently
Technical Memorandum CU" .o. 200004
June 9, 1983
represent the water table above land surface (Figure 15) and, like lakes, these wetlands are sensitive to
fluctuations in water table elevations. Changes in the water levels of surface water bodies can be
"expected in response to seasonal and catastrophic rainfall events, evapotranspiration, and the magni-
tude of inflows and outflows (including ground water inflows and outflows). These factors act together
dynamically to determine water elevations in lakes and wetlands.
In the vicinity of the well field, the water table is higher than the potentiometric surface. Therefore,
water moves from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan Aquifer as a function of several factors,
including the head difference between water table and potentiometric surface, the transmissivity of
the Floridan Aquifer, hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer and the leakance characteristics of
the upper confining bed. At a given point, the variable factor in determining recharge rate to the
Floridan Aquifer is head difference, other factors being fixed. The head difference changes seasonally
in response to rainfall and to ground water withdrawal rates. Activities which increase ground water
withdrawals encourage the downward movement of water from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan
Aquifer, potentially causing a decline in the water table. Elevational changes in the water table will
be reflected in elevational changes in lakes because lakes in the area substantially depend on the flow
of water from the surficial aquifer.
As mentioned, lake levels are highly responsive to the water table. A linear regression analysis of data
"for Lake Church from the 1981 water year indicates a significant correlation between end-of-month
lakes stages and end-of-month water table elevation (r = .84, p. 001, Figures 16 and 17). While it
remains significant, the value of r decreases as one relates lake stage to a water table elevation which
has been lagged (2, 7, 11, and 14 days), indicating that lake stage reacts rapidly to changing water
table. Therefore, insofar as the influence of ground water withdrawal, lakes can be expected to reach
a condition of steady state within the time required for the water table to achieve steady state.
"Lake stage is also dependent upon the prior lake elevation, that is, the stage of Lake Church today is
very much affected by what it was yesterday. This is, of course, an expected and intuitively under-
stood fact; however, it has implications relating to the perception of the effects of ground water
withdrawals on lakes. Lake levels fluctuate annually between high and low levels and, by the end of
the dry season, can be expected to be at the lowest elevation in a normal year. Thereafter, following
the beginning of the wet season, lake levels start upward from the seasonal low, eventually reaching a
normal high elevation by the end of the wet season. A lake subject to stage decline in addition to
"ordinary dry season-induced decline will essentially be at a lower-than-normal starting elevation when
the rainy season begins. Consequently, the chance of a lake reaching the expected wet season high
stage is reduced unless above average rainfall is available to fill up the additional storage in the lake
created by water table drawdowns.
Water levels in cypress ponds change in response to several factors including surface runoff into the
pond, evapotranspiration, vertical infiltration, ground water seepage into the ponds, lateral movement
"of water from the ponds to the water table, direct precipitation, and, where present, surface outflow.
The elevation of the water table around a pond significantly influences all of the above factors, partic-
ularly those which are directly ground water-related. During high water table conditions, standing
water is maintained in a cypress wetland as ground water moves in and through the pond. Also, a high
water table reduces infiltration and can increase the rate of surface outflow. As the water table
declines, water levels in the cypress pond drop as a result of enhanced infiltration to the surrounding
sands. Further, evapotranspiration, an important loss factor throughout the year, becomes even more
important as the pond water level drops to ground surface and to slightly below ground surface. Under
conditions of seasonal dryness, water table depressions result in the absence of standing water in
cypress ponds, and the pond soil may become dry in the upper 3-5". Prolonged water table depressions,
caused by unseasonable drought or by nearby ground water withdrawals result in longer periods of
dryness in a cypress pond. This, in turn, brings about excessive soil desiccation and a substantial
change in the vegetational characteristics of the pond. Should the changes include the eventual
toppling and death of the cypress trees themselves, the hydrologic features of the area formerly
Technical Memorandum CUD No. 200004
June 9, 1983 -
occupied by the pond are altered for an undetermined period of time. Occurring regionally, this pheno-
menon could produce detectable changes in the previously established hydrobiologic relationships in the "
Streams in the area of the well field are also closely related to the ground water systems. Streamflow _
or runoff in this part of Florida is dependent on ground water contributions to a varying extent
depending on climatic conditions. Estimates of ground water seepage to area streams range from 10%
to nearly 100% under conditions of high and low flows, respectively. Therefore, both the potentio-
metric surface and the water table are important indicators of the ability of the ground water system "
to contribute to streamflow. The relationship of streamflow to the ground water system is illustrated
in Figure 16.
IMPACT OF MUNICIPAL WITHDRAWALS ON SURFACE WATER LEVELS
Because of the intimate relationship between lake levels and the water table, drawdowns induced in
the water table will induce declines in lake stage. Analyses done using a modified Prickett-Lonnquist
Model (reported elsewhere in this Evidentiary Summary) estimate that, under the conditions specified,
a water table drawdown of 0.5' or greater will cover an area of approximately 10.81 mi The levels of
lakes within this zone of influence can be expected to decline, potentially up to the actual of the water -
table drawdown. In other words, in that area, a 0.5' drawdown in the water table could produce a
decline in lake levels ranging between approximately 0.25' and 0.5', particularly during the dry season.
The same could be said of water levels in the marshes and cypress ponds located within the area of
concentrated water table drawdown.
Streams located within the major zone of drawdown are dependent upon ground water inflow for a
variable percentage of flow. Generally, drawdowns in the water table can be expected to produce -
declines in streamflow resulting in a greater frequency of zero flow conditions during the dry season.
The large annual variability in discharge makes a quantitative estimate of flow reduction due to well
field-induced water table decline difficult; however, under dry conditions, such reductions potentially
could be significant.
Technical Memorandum CU :o. 200004
June 9, 1983
CHERRY, R. N., J. W. STEWART, AND J. A. MANN. 1970. General hydrology of the Middle Gulf
Area, Florida. Fla. Bur. Geol. Tallahassee, Florida.
HEIMBURG, K. 1975. Surface Hydrology. In:Cypress Wetlands for Water Management Recycling and
Conservation, 2nd Ann. Rpt. U. of Fla. Gainesville, Florida.
HUNN, J. D. AND R. C. REICHENBAUGH. 1972. A hydrologic description of Lake Magdalene near
"Tampa, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Tallahassee, Florida.
HUTCHINSON, C. B., D. M. JOHNSON, AND J. M. GERHART. 1981. Hydrogeology of well field areas
near Tampa, Florida, Phase I Development and documentation of a two-dimensional finite-
difference model for simulation of steady-state groundwater flow. U. S. Geol. Surv. Talla-
"MENKE, C. G., E. W. MEREDITH, AND W. S. WETTERHALL. 1961. Water resources of Hillsborough
County, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Tallahassee, Florida.
SINCLAIR, W. C. 1977. Experimental study of artificial recharge alternatives in northwest Hillsbor-
ough County, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Tallahassee, Florida.
STEWART, J. W., AND G. H. HUGHES. 1974. Hydrologic consequences of using groundwater to
maintain lake levels affected by water wells near Tampa, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Talla-
WHARTON, C. H., H. T. ODUM, K. EWEL, M. DUEVER, A. LUGO, R. BOYT, J. BARTHOLOMEW, E.
DeBELLEVUE, S. BROWN, M. BROWN, AND L. DUEVER. 1977. Forested wetlands of
Florida their management and use. U. of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.
CUP No. 200004
June 9, 1983
TABLE 1. NAMED LAKES AND STREAMS LOCATED WITHIN THE PREDICTED1
0.5' DRAWDOWN CONTOUR SECTION 21 WELL FIELD.
Lakes Size (Acres) Board-Adopted Lake Levels
1. Calm 127 +
2. Church 68 +
3. Cypress 17
4. Echo 27 +
5. Fairy 52 +
6. Horse 28 + -
7. James 16
8. Josephine 51 +
9. Juanita 24 +
10. Keystone 417 +
11. Little 18
12. Little Moon 13
13. Pretty 80 + -
14. Rainbow 47 +
15. Raleigh 24 +
16. Rock 53 +
17. Rogers 93
18. Thorpe 13
19. Velburton 26 +
20. Williams 15
1. Rocky Creek N/A N/A
2. Brooker Creek N/A N/A
1 Contour is predicated using a modified Prickett-Lonnquist Model based on 30 days of
average permitted pumpage, followed by 30 days at maximum permitted pumpage,
followed by 60 days at average permitted pumpage.
S r yur'e i nultvioual average p.-page ot the tour major well tields (a-d) a;-o the total average pumpage e).
20 Cosme-Odt, To.,
-( MCD 10 90
'31 '41 '51 '61 '71 '81
-( MGD 10
0 4 a a : W...M.F.0 0.
'31 '41 '51 '61 '71 '81
MCD 20 -20
'3 1 '41 '51 '1 161 '71 '81'6
'31 Y Y41 51 '61 '71 R81
2 Section 21
S. . . .
& j----- ~
i: : ::: .. ........ .... .. ...... .- J
.. .. ..........
.. .... .ii~i!!iiii .l ..:: .. iiiiiIji:1 J ::;:iii::iiii iiI:::li::: !:..... i
~ ; ~~i : ..... :---i...... ............ .......iii EiiiiliiiSi
1 Church Lake 7 Lake Josephine 13 Lake Crenshaw
2 Echo Lake 8 Keystone Lake 14 Lake Charles
3 Lake Juanita 9 Calm Lake 15 Crystal Lake
4 Rainbow Lake 10 Pretty Lake (So. Crystal Lake) -
5 Lake Rogers 11 Saddleback Lake 16
6 Lake Raleigh 12 Round Lake 17 Starvation Lake
Figure 2. Location of selected lakes in the vicinity of Cosme-Odessa Wellfield CO-70
-- C CO __ 0
--- wooi---Y----.j i---------
ZO-- -'^ 0"}
a0 -J U.
S W- Q C-
0_ r ,
a LL >
< W.. CD.
S- w' c
-S I CO L <
_ ) W.JUJ>
> J -
o <0 0
o 03 C- O
WO .C .
--- ~ CL
4 --- -
JL> -s r- -
) -3 ;
S: 1 ^ -1 m
W. H ----------: W-
I> I I
-- D---...... ..----i.... ...---.... ..----.. .. .....-- t--
S -- -
(.S <_ 3 0Oo "
S (^OCOO .)
"U C <7
-J Imoj---*-i-- i> i----------- 0
"* __ _3 <
_ _ _ _ D
L 0 0
" H .1
"= = I -
- CO 7-
-JJ C------------rD-- --
S .... ...
S > -
< r -
< L.-- >.
0 .cO) co
4- W o
W _________---------------__ D
^ I ,
C r,- 03 LD 5 KO f, CD rY
o il..----- ,-------- .. .. ...
SC0 C -
......, .f '-- 4
"mo L----S-------- j
-o _. w.
. ....... .....---... ---.....-------,--- .....-. .-- -
,- W f.- -
. LL )-- <
C -7 D
(0 ________________]_______I________----- ----- ----- ----- ---U
"- w -
- J1 ^ ----->- C
J <<----- __ ^-- ----\- -- --------- --- t-
.- J Z:
^ -- -
a N) I C) -
, j -- -.
1O0-- ---- --- HH
WoI w L-
-D W CCD
O C -
__"- -- ---- 0
Y LLJ CDD
.' < GO--"- 3
W ... .. L... = -
- >W .-
. W' -
-W .. 4 -., <
.--...--- i .,-- I.... .. . .I ... ...I...-
- N N
-- . j -- .. ..--. .... ..--... .........--,.-_ ..b 1-,,,--
C- 4- co 0
F- 4- a
: < ....._ I....____ .
D 5 -
.. ____ __-__---_ i
S m-J- LD
0 .0 __ _____ H -
IW 0 .--4-'- -' --
= < W P
"" L ZH --_---
-L U __________
"o W r I
t .. .
_ __ C
No N 00 CD r'- COD
3 f) P---4 ..
J COZ N 0-
n coL n
b- W- -- ~ i
0mO W N
< co Q m ,
Wz ..' >.. LO
S0 F- "
z(nu M- _t LD
O ..M LuD -
LW ,- u H-.,
0 Z I-C -- --
I-- .--^ 1-- ,....
W. V D -
> ,---,-------- > --------- 1-
~o > _o
~a I a,
I ,ll .. ....
W W ... 0 0
- Q<^-0w co
"-J WO-- -- -
< CD_ CD
< CO O CO-
_j W o. ... -
S1: ________ -
Wo 0 o i- a 2
-1 co:3co <
- )- D-,
-LJ (0Z N 0
mo w m L
-I w t_ .________- C
- .. D1
,-- ). _
W_WUX--OZ: c- UWWt-L l
I t IW
i," C _
S 1O .... .. t .
w co z
< .co 0
o __ --
SO .f ---- O
< CD) C-
to 2 Hr -
W D 3 N
W 0 S...... --,---- .
S DN r- -
Cfm 2 .D
|,-L --- 1--- ^--- H.' 0-----^--- -.
N N -------- C --0- ------ -
-, 0 ..
--) ~ C
CD 1, "~~..,- -- -"
a .... ----- 0
COH CH 0D
c .... law
-----------t -------T ----
4 < Z
LJ ...... -
-^ --- --. -- ----: -
S fC 'T
E < .
SW ______ .._..
I lI Hi____fill,__ _ _
4- C D. . .
> -- ---
c 5 co
< 2 I iIi -o
( V- -"r -
S COW 0
..J Q--- -----' ^-"- ---
,, ,- ,
LUr! ,2: CO < -
jco< r- -i
:D 2: LU 0.
3 CD L
0 GD LL rlo
1 GD G 3
z > H '-2 W WLU -
.- 1 -- I ---- I -- I -------"-- --
a): _. D U
- _. H
.." LJ U
S 2 CO C O
S" I IQ II
a < H
a)>, 0 -
' r- I I I-
W I, C.) ..
0 0 ) W
0 < 1 w
r J. _-- --
,, -A -- .. 1 ..
W 1 ,- ~ .
S "- t-
^J OI O-
S1 I n
I I -I--- 1. .I I --- I -- I -- I --- ] -
S mw w
_" O 0 *
S. C CO
. ,. .. 1L
S ^--}-2 -
-CD z .. .
. W 1 -
I I I-
< CO CO
O 0 -
o 1 r- -
-J .. .,
u .... .....-,,-,C)- -
Ct t- 1- J -N
> J L L U L U H
01 > i I I t-
w0 r, 1 17
<^ ^ --- 1 -- I -- 1 -- -- i i __ 1 __ 1 __ 1 ____
.J at CD C ^ D O ^ r M 3 (:
I- I I . L I I I ..I- I I s --
I g ---- i ^ ^ i Tf
S- -) w -- L
. .. .. .. .
: .i'.. : .
i ..... i.
,I I' .
-CD c 0 -
Co co -
T.. C ...T I l
' I' i I I i I t
U" I I
S- ^ rC < -
.'l i !- I ..
- ..- ,
.. .t .. ....t.. --- --- --- --- --- --- ----- -.... ---- --- ( ---- "--- --'-- --- ^ --=-- 0)
S "- <^ W_. 0
CO [ -- -- -- -- l l i -- -- -- -- --- T---i-
Q I i I \-- --
I I I I I I I !
- aSO) <
I -------------^ 2
- 0 c-
""- w --
I,,, --- -- I -- -- l'-i -- -- l ------- l s --1
1; C0 C CO .
- ts ---- m ^
-4 Q C OO r^ CD ^4 CO L
"" M -
I I I .
H CD ..
D I I .. I I
"t w CD <
S0 0 i)
S.. . .H
I I I I
0 CD G
' I I I I I I I I
- 00 CM
I I ". I .
U. 0-4 L-'-
-. I ... .. .. I I I
-. I I I : I - I '
+3 I C CN -
"m o I t
C I< CD W .
C\J I- I-. I -....I- I' I I ....1i- I I -I L .. .
I I ', .
I I I .. .... .. .. I "
S I I I I 1 I 1
LiJ-- CD CO -
:U I, ,r-,
ii I n U I l I l I I i I I i I, ,
S.- l l l t f l l l O .W t !
(N,- -- -. W
__i I 1 !
II1 ... .... .
1 1 i i t
1 _ 1 1 I
.... .... ... .._ ..
S.. ..% .......................
I I IFLORMDAN A QUIFER'
C l ll
I I I
Generalized relationship of lakes and wetlands to the water table
Relationship among month-end elevations of Lake Church, the water table
and Brooker Creek discharge
/ \ Brooker Creek
20 I 1
\ I \ I
/ \\ /
I I I I I I 1 I
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Regression line describing relationship between stage of Lake Church, Brooker
Creek discharge and the water table for January through June 1981
0 Brooker Creek
a Lake Church
"36 dry 6
4 35 36 37
34 35 36 37
--- Regulatory Level
--- With 3 ft. Swing
.$ Weekly Average Water Levels
Cumulative Weekly Average
Water Level for Water Year
CuSME-ODESSA JAMES II WELL
,-,Io i I j p C" j
o. o r o 5
a~r a ac a a a a aa
3~~~ N7 N 3 9,9 NN-
I3~'A .iihI 39. 3:a33 :wI. I3'3 .wU.a3
COSME-ODESSA JAMES II WELL
og-Ca X..... ..... -Wc.. ,,, .. ..m j C3WCCO W.. ...J. XC" C JW3*0-4 C0, .
SC 2 0 0 0
COG..E-ODESSA CALM 33A WELL
01 I 01)
H 'h 2 fm... . ,
SN l N "
a% t 2
01 0 01 01 0 010 01a 0
01 AlAl 01 1 01Al A
C~hi C~h IhhiCJ- C~hi Jh~hi.i 01~ C~hCCO IhhiC~ I I- hC Ji~h.J 01.