Title: Water Resource Needs of Pinellas County, Position Statement
CITATION PAGE IMAGE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00051667/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Resource Needs of Pinellas County, Position Statement
Alternate Title: Water Resource Needs of Pinellas County, Position Statement. Presented to The Board of County Commissioners.
Physical Description: 28p.
Language: English
Publication Date: July 31, 1973
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
General Note: Box 3, Folder 6A ( WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AREA B3F6 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00051667
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text



J\\ POSITION STATEMENT:


WATER RESOURCE NEEDS
OF
PINELLAS COUNTY






PRESENTED TO
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JULY 31,. 1973






* -
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members c se Board of
County Commissioners

FROM: M. R. Stierheim, County Administrat

SUBJECT: Position Statement Relative to the Water Resource Needs of
Pinellas County Today and the Foreseeable Future.

a DATE: July 30, 1973

Introduction:

It is absolutely essential for the citizens of Pinellas County, and the development
Industry, to thoroughly understand the gravity of the water resource dilemma facing
Pinellas County.

The members of the Board of County Commissioners have indicated their awareness
of this problem through your personal discussions with me. Even before assuming
full-time responsibilities, you requested that I give this matter immediate attention,
Sthe results of which are contained in this report.

Our current situation is analogous to the person who visits a doctor's office and
m requires immediate medical attention. To ignore the illness and treat the symptoms
rather than the cause would only lead to more serious complications.

The time for direct and positive action is at hand, and we must face up to the
realities of the situation however unpleasant or unpopular they may be. The
Subjective of this report is to set forth Pinellas County's water problem factually
and objectively and to provide a framework for future decisions by the Board.


Pinellas County Water System:

The Pinellas County Water System was created by Special Act of the Florida
Legislature in 1935 and initially operated wells on the Pinellas peninsular. In
1954 the County leased the water rights on 1800 acres of the Eldridge-Wilde
properties straddling the Hillsborough-Pinellas County line and constructed its
current and only well field on that property. Today the facilities consist of
58 wells, 45 of which are in Pinellas County and 13 are located on the Hillsborough
County side of the property. Two treatment plants are tied together at the
S. K. Keller Pumping Station and provide the total water consumed by the
system. The treatment and pumping capacity of the plant is 75 mgd while
the maximum well field production capacity is 48 mgd during droughts. Well
field production is limited by drawdown of the water table in the well field









-2-


\ 0 the' sea level. Drawdown of the water level below sea level invites salt water
encroachment in the aquifer.

The County Water System has 26 million gallons of storage. Storage is used
B daily to add water to the system during peak demand periods and is refilled
during low demand periods. Additional storage tanks are not a solution to
provide water for a period longer than 24 hours. The water system has 50,000
Retail connections which consume 57 percent of the water produced and 5
wholesale customers with their own retail systems which consume the other
43 percent of the water produced. The retail and wholesale systems currently
serve 137,400 residential units.


f Analysis:

The shortage of water is the most serious problem facing Pinellas County today.
SIt is far more important than roads, sanitary sewers, or any other pressing need.

On July 11th the staff of the Southwest Florida Water Management District
recommended that this County's pumping from the Eldridge-Wilde well field
S(the only current source of water supply for the Pinellas County Water System)
be reduced gradually over the next nine months from the current daily average
I pumping level of 36.6 million gallons to 28 million gallons per day on a weekly
average by April, 1974. This reduction represents more than a 23 percent
reduction in average daily pumping.

A decision by the District Board on their staff recommendations was delayed for
60 days to September 12th after considerable testimony and particularly after
the Board took cognizance of the impact that the staff recommendation would
have on 335,000 permanent Pinellas residents and 300,000 daily visitors who
are now being served through the County Water System.* The District did,
however, declare that a water shortage does exist, and public notices to that
effect have been placed in local newspapers. This action has significant legal
importance pursuant to the statutory authority of the District Board.

In previous action the Southwest Florida Water Management District regulated
the St. Petersburg well fields by substantially reducing the production from
each field. As a result of the continued drought condition, it is anticipated
that additional restrictions may be placed upon St. Petersburg's wells which
will further reduce the planned output available to that system.


k *See attached map Re: County Water Service Area. (Appendix 1)









-3-


The gravity of the situation faced by the County Water System cannot be
Overemphasized.


SExisting and Committed Demands:

The District staff recommendations gave absolutely no consideration to committed
f-- growth in Pinellas County, which can be defined as that growth for which building
permits have already been issued. Members of the District Board and their staff
felt that if Pinellas County eliminated all lawn irrigation that the County could
Mi live with the reduction in daily pumping to 28 million gallons from the County's
well field. This conclusion was clearly simplistic and lacking in any true compre-
hension of the impact of this regulation on the water needs of the citizens of
1 Pinellas County.

The Pinellas Board of County Commissioners has already taken action or supported
:- on a policy level a variety of progressive steps to conserve water. These actions
Shave placed this county in a leadership role in the State of Florida in the area of
water conservation, and this fact should be recognized by the District Board.

Clearly, we proved at the July 12th hearing that there was no emergency at the well
field as a result of pumping at the current drawdown limits of the water table. It
Sis equally clear however that maximum drawdown limits have been reached during
drought periods and that there is a critical water situation in Pinellas County requiring
immediate action on several fronts.

M The Planning Department reports that within the County water service area
i (including those municipalities served by County water) there are 18,917 dwelling
HH units under construction at this time which should be occupied within the next
12 months. The number of building permits now issued by those municipalities
which have their own wells but who purchase water wholesale from the County
Swas reduced one-third to offset their local supply capabilities. Computing the
water requirements of growth committed by existing building permits, there will
be an increase in the daily water requirements of the County Water System of
approximately 4.9 million gallons per day within the next 12 months. This
estimate is based on current average use and could be reduced significantly if
several of the recommendations contained in this report are adopted and
successfully implemented. The 4.9 million gallon requirement is an addition
to current demand, which has been averaging 36.6 million gallons per day for
the first six months of 1973. Adding the new construction to the existing 137,400
residential units now being served by the County system commits the County
legally to provide water service to 156,317 dwelling units.









-4-


The requirements to produce the additional 4.9 million gallons daily presently
committed under building permits already issued will further aggravate our
inability to meet peak demands if the drought continues next year unless sub-
stantial reductions are achieved in the use of water for irrigation purposes.

a The foregoing figures exclude a potential increase of 68,440 units in the
unincorporated area of Pinellas County for which zoning and site plan approval
b have already been obtained but for which building permits have not been
requested. Similar projects that have plan approval within the 18 municipalities
served by the County Water System are not included in these figures.* It
will be very difficult for the Pinellas County Water System to guarantee
service to those developments planned but not presently issued building
permits without successfully adopting the recommendations in this report
Sor after obtaining additional water resources and the necessary transmission
facilities. Applying an average density of 2.4 people per dwelling unit to
the 68,440 dwelling units for which building permits have not been obtained
B at 110 gallons per day per person (current average demand) will generate an
additional demand of 18.1 million gallons per day in the unincorporated area
alone.** It should be recognized that the capacity of present County production
B facilities is not sufficient to meet current demands during drought conditions in
conjunction with local irrigation systems now permitted. Further increases in
demand without increases in supply would lenghten current periods of water
Sinsufficiencies.


Conditions contributing to this problem:

^ It is important for all Pinellas residents to understand that many unforeseen factors
contributed to the present dilemma. These are:

I. There has been only two years of normal rainfall in the West Coast Area in the
past ten years with substantially lower than average levels during the past three
years. This lack of normal rainfall has increased domestic and agricultural irrigation;
Mand, coupled with accelerating growth, has lead to the current situation. The
public pressure currently being experienced in Pasco and Hillsborough Counties
and with the Southwest Florida Water District comes principally from rural residents
t where there has been a general lowering of lake levels and some irrigation and
domestic wells have dried up. The yearly droughts over the past several years


tljB *See attached table Re: Municipalities Served. (Appendix 2.)

il **Based on average daily current consumption per capital which includes irrigation,
industrial, commercial and domestic uses.









I -5-
'-0r








Shave had a significant cause and effect relationship on this situation. Because
of the continued drought and the resultant lower water tables, maximum production
capacities at the County well field have been reduced by 8 percent over the past
12 months.*

S2. In 1968 the construction value of building permits issued in Pinellas County
amounted to $151 million. In 1972 the level increased to approximately $600
million. In 1968 connections to the County Water System were approximately
|a 1,800 while in 1972 there were 5,000 connections. The water production capacity
from the County's well field (that should have normally lasted through 1975) has
been largely used up because of accelerating construction.**

3. Pinellas County's efforts to acquire additional supplies from the Cypress
Creek area were delayed approximately 12 months because of administrative studies
to determine flood levels within the area. The A Z Holding Company property
which was sought by Pinellas County in February of 1972 was part of the flood
V retention basin for that area. The Corps of Engineers, the Southwest Florida
BI Water Management District, and their consultants were not able to set the required
flood elevations. Since the property could not be bought for a well field without
flood elevations, the District proceeded to purchase it for their own use as a
flood retention basin. Thus, the initial efforts of Pinellas County to secure
i additional water resources were delayed because flood elevations were required
for condemnation purposes.

4. The combination of these events could not have occurred at a worse time.
Expansion of water production facilities occurs in major steps, or milestones,
while growth and the subsequent increase in water demand is more linear in
nature. The rapid increase in current demand has occurred before, rather than
After, a major increase in production capability and comes at a time when the safety
margin of uncommitted production is at its lowest.


Additional Water Resources:

Your staff has and is investigating various alternatives to obtaining additional
water resources. These studies include the use of Lake Tarpon, St. Petersburg's
excess capacity, wells in the Lake Tarpon and other areas, expanding local well
fields, and the acquisition of the Cypress Creek well field.


*See attached chart Re: Rainfall Rates. (Appendix 3.)

[ **See attached chart reflecting growth rates in Pinellas County. (Appendix 4.)










l-6-


1. Lake Tarpon, as a water source, cannot be used without an extensive
treatment facility which could require a minimum of 18 months to 2 years
to complete. Firm production capability from such a plant would be undepen-
dable due to a lack of stream flow into the lake. For approximately fifty-
R six days per average year there is no stream influent entering Lake Tarpon.
Raising or lowering the lake level to compensate for zero stream inflow would
only guarantee a firm production of three million gallons per day. Studies
already completed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District
indicate that Lake Tarpon should only be considered for standby utilization.*

2. It is doubtful that St. Petersburg has any firm excess capacity that could
be utilized by the County Water System to augment its production because of
the changing regulatory levels being applied to the St. Petersburg well fields
by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. This possibility, should
however, be explored further.

M 3. Three of the five municipalities obtaining water on a wholesale basis from
the County Water System have local water supply wells connected to their
systems. Increased use of current and future wells would relieve some of the
B existing and additional demand which will be placed upon the County system
by future growth.

4. Irrigation wells are being investigated for use as additional water supplies.
-7 Pumping and water quality tests are being run on seven wells on property near
Lake Tarpon. Two or three million gallons per day could be obtained from
VM these wells but preliminary water quality analyses are not encouraging.

5. Investigations are being made into installation of wells along East Lake
Road for connection to an existing 48 inch main. Three to five million gallons
ner^ per day might be developed from these wells within 12 months.

_ITH 6. The most immediate and meaningful solution to the problem of obtaining
additional water resources is the development of a new well field for Pinellas
County. It is toward this objective that the County has already initiated a
II positive program. Condemnation suits have been filed for the right-of-way
required for transmission facilities and for the well field. Engineering
m consultants are currently designing an 84 inch transmission line. An agreement


*See Memorandum dated November 22, 1971, Re: Lake Tarpon Hydrology.
(Appendix 5.)









m-7-


has been executed with St. Petersburg to share in the cost of this facility,
and negotiations are underway with our neighboring counties of Pasco and
Hillsborough to join with Pinel las County and St. Petersburg in this effort.

The optimum period of time (assuming no delays because of unforeseen
construction requirements, weather, litigation, etc.) for the construction
of the 84 inch transmission line along the Seaboard Coast Line right-of-
way to the new Cypress Creek well field is approximately two years. I
have, however, requested the County Consultants on this project to study
all possible ways to accelerate their projected time schedule.

The earliest possible period within which Pinellas County can expect to
receive additional water from intermediate wells constructed along the
railroad right-of-way is ten to twelve months. This estimate, too, bars
unforeseen delays. At this time it is impossible to determine what gallon-
age can be expected from these intermediate wells. The cost of acquiring
i the necessary right-of-way and the 2,000-acre well field at Cypress Creek
is $2.3 million. The costof constructing the pipeline from Pinellas County
to the new well field will approximate $17 to $20 million. Additionally,
capital funds beyond the current bond issue will in all probability be
required to complete this project. Consideration should also be given to
current wholesale account contracts as they relate to the added capital
M requirements.

- Wholesale Retail Customers Fiscal Considerations
The distribution of the consumption of the water produced by the County
system is 19.5% consumed by the unincorporated areas, 37.5% consumed
by retail customers in cities served by the system, and 43% consumed by
five wholesale customers. Of the revenues derived from the sale of water,
wholesale customers pay 18% and retail customers pay 82%. While con-
sideration should be given to the cost of distribution and storage systems
for wholesale customers the disparity between consumption and revenue
between wholesale and retail customers is a matter that warrants careful
-- .study particularly in view of the tremendous capital requirements that the
County is faced with. Any program to conserve or allocate available water
supplies requires the complete cooperation of wholesale customers.
-
Wholesale contracts with our cities provide for rates set by a formula based
on operating costs to produce the water consumed and the return of capital
outlay by a pro rata share of depreciation and interest expense. In most
cases the useful life of an asset, in determining annual depreciation, is



IM






un


S-8-


Ssignificantly longer than the terms of the financing obtained to construct the
particular asset. In the case of transmission mains, which make up 15 million
of our 33 million in assets, useful life is 50 years while bond certificates are
usually for 30 year terms. The retail customer must pay his pro rata share of
the financing plus the annual difference between the 30 year term of the cer-
tificates and the 50 year repayment plan by the wholesale customer. This
difference is substantial since the wholesale customer consumes 43% of the
County water produced.

Where capital expansion is financed from accrued revenues, the wholesale
customer pays his share over 20 to 50 years, depending on the useful life of
B the asset. Annual investment of accrued revenues for expansion is a sub-
stantial amount because of the requirement of 1.5 net earnings coverage to
debt service. This coverage causes a required surplus of $900,000 annually
-- for existing debt. Through the next expansion phase, this figure will double
to approximately $1,800,000. Because of the current wholesale rate
structure, this coverage, above interest expense, must be generated by
retail revenues.

With the current financing structure described above, County retail customers
lh are vital to the fiscal health of the County Water System. The next expansion
phase which will culminate in another revenue bond issue to be sold in 1974
will require sizeable increases in retail revenues. It is very important that
if the wholesale accounts continue to consume nearly half of the total water
produced, that they must also assume a greater share of the cost of financing
future capital requirements.


Current Proposals of Southwest Florida Water Management District and Relevant
Considerations

SThe average daily consumption for the first six months of 1973 was 36.6 million
gallons per day. The daily consumption during this period was as high as 50.2
million gallons per day while some of the weekly averages during this period
amounted to 44 million gallons per day. A current proposal being considered
by Southwest Florida Water Management District would ask Pinellas County
not to pump in excess of 256.2 million gallons in any one week. This amounts
r1 to an average of 36.6 million gallons per day. The Pinellas County Water
System cannot meet this limit on production without serious hardship on Pinellas
citizens. At the public hearing on July 12, 1973 (called by Southwest Florida
Water Management District to hear testimony relative to the emergency regula-
tion of the Eldridge-Wilde Well Field) no evidence was given to indicate that
an emergency existed that was caused by pumping from the field. The Pinellas
Water System had already set limits on production that protect the acquifer and
the well field from damage by salt water encroachment. Testimony by both the






pm1


r9

r
/ staff of Southwest Florida Water Management District and the County was
explicitly clear that there was no salt water intrusion in the Eldridge-
SWilde Well System. The current pumping limit is set on the water table
level in the well field to prevent pumping which would draw the water
table down below sea level.

Limits to production from the well field should be based on the protection
W of the acquifer and the rights of adjoining property owners. Limits based
on pumping averages do not accurately reflect damage, the needs of
consumers, nor the amount of water that is safely available for production.
IB Emergency regulations should be based on evidence of damage to the
acquifer or irreparable harm to neighboring properties. These regulations
should be set relative to the drawdown of the water table in the well field
Sand not to monthly, weekly or daily pumping averages. The limits of
drawdown should be those levels that will prevent damage to the acquifer
by salt water intrusion or infringement on the rights of others. Since a
State of emergency from pumping at Eldridge-Wilde does not exist, the
County Water System should be permitted to continue pumping, limited
only to levels of drawdown already adopted for the protection of the
acquifer and the rights of others. For our neighbors who are concerned
that we must recognize the problems of growth and the need for additional
supplies of water, the preponderance of action either already taken or that
Swill be taken as a result of recommendations contained in this report that
are designed to initiate immediate and long range solutions should nullify
any uncertainties they might have. Because these solutions provide mutual
M benefits we deserve and want their cooperation, understanding and
participation. To resolve the issue of water shortage and in conjunction
S with the actions being taken by Pinellas County, it would be most helpful
M to have a public pronouncement of support from Southwest Florida Water
Management District and the assistance and leadership that they are em-
powered to give us.

If the limits on pumping from the field were set at 256.2 million gallons
per week and we experienced a dry week, 200 million gallons could
M easily be consumed in five days leaving only 28 million gallons per day
for the sixth and seventh day. If demand remained high during the sixth
and seventh days we would have to cut off pumps and at some periods dur-
M ing the day pressures would drop to 20 PSI or lower in the Gulf Beach Cities.
The high rise buildings in this area have internal repump systems where low
pressure cutoff limits are preset near 20 PSI. Under these circumstances
Mthe repump systems would cut off and all residents of high rise buildings
would be without water.









10-


I have had several discussions with the Chairman of the Southwest Florida
SWater Management District and I want to publicly acknowledge an aware-
ness and empathy for his Board's position. The District Board has received
a considerable number of requests from residents, citrus grove owners,
cattle ranchers, and other agrarian interests as well as from officials from
Hillsborough and Pasco Counties, principally pertaining to the area of
St. Petersburg's well fields. These requests ask that Pinellas County and
SSt. Petersburg be regulated in their respective well fields by the District.
Certainly, the District cannot ignore (nor should it) these requests.
Speaking for the Administration and subject to Board approval, Pinellas
SCounty should be willing to cooperate in a regulation effort by the District
providecfthat he regutlaTons are predicated on scientific and technical
facts and realistically recognizes the impact of such regulations on
SPinellas County. These regulations by the District should not be based on
assumption, apprehension or political exigencies.

We feel that the level of drawdown at each well should be the criteria for
regulation rather than a weekly average pumping level. The impractica-
bility of the latter regulation should be clear to all who have read and
understood this report. If the District Board cannot accept or adopt regu-
lations based on pumping levels, then we would reluctantly recommend
that Pinellas County be permitted (regulated) to pump for a six month
period where the average pumping over the six months would not exceed
the current average pumping level of 36.6 million gallons per day. Dur-
ing this time five additional salt water intrusion monitoring wells will
have been constructed (by October 1973) and the staff of Southwest Florida
) Water Management District will have had ample opportunity to analyze the
results over a four month period. Certainly the District Board as well as
Pinellas County will be in a much more informed position than we are today.


Recommendations

MI After a thorough review of this matter, it is recommended that:
1. The Board of County Commissioners should confirm the administrative
Directive taken on July 20th which established an immediate forty-five day
ban on the issuance of new building permits by Pinellas County.* The only
exceptions to this ban should be for construction that does not place an
additional demand on the Water System.



5i *A copy of this directive is attached along with letters directed to the Mayors
and City Managers of the 18 affected municipalities. (Appendixes 6 and 7)


I









P -11-
II/


An acceptable alternative to those property owners or developers who are
Denied permits where the proposed project would add additional demands
to the County Water System would be where local wells could be safely
constructed which would provide domestic water service on an interim
basis until such time as the County system has obtained additional capacity.
Building permits should only be issued after potable well water supplies are
determined to be available.* Through this procedure the County Water
System would own, operate and maintain the interim distribution system.

The municipalities of Pinellas County who now receive County water must
be required to adopt the County's policy in this regard or face reduced
-- water allocations. I have conferred with the.County Attorney who advises
that there is sufficient evidence to warrant and justify such action. I have
directed letters to the Mayors and City Managers of the 18 affected munici-
palities (copies of which are attached) advising that under the provisions of
the Southern Standard Plumbing Code which requires that all connections
Shave an "adequate and safe water supply" that Pinellas County, as the
supplier of water to their municipality, could not assure that an adequate
and safe water supply would be available for new construction authorized
During the forty-five day building moratorium. To permit a City to continue
the issuance of building permits while others comply and while there is no
construction in the unincorporated area would be unfair to say the least.


II. At the end of the forty-five day moratorium, or after whatever extensions
Smay be applied by the Board, the County Commission should establish and
firmly control the rate of new construction. Aside from the initial ban, and
whatever extensions may be applied to it, I am not at this time recommending
N- a complete building moratorium only because I think that such action would
have a drastic, if not catastrophic, effect on the economy of Pinellas County.
si It would seriously and adversely affect tens of thousands of citizens who are
directly or indirectly employed by the development industry. In recognition
of the concern of the members of the Board and your Administrator, I have
Smet with representatives of the construction industry in Pinellas County and
have briefed them thoroughly on the gravity of the present situation. New
construction, however, must of necessity be sharply curtailed.

During the building moratorium a formula or quota system should be established
on new construction permits. The program should take into account the popu-
lation density of requested permits, as well as geographic considerations, so



(V *See the Administrative Order dated July pertaining to this policy, a copy of
which is attached. (Appendix 8)

*









-12-


that all areas of the County are treated as fairly as possible. I have requested
the Planning staff to undertake a detailed study of this matter and to develop
specific recommendations that will be submitted to the Board in the near future.


III. The County Commission should adopt and strictly enforce the proposed
County-wide land use plan which would be used as a basis for determining new
construction allocations. Municipalities being served by the County Water
System should be required to do likewise.* If this plan is adopted the population
in 1990 projected from the current growth trend is reduced from 1,497,212 to
I 1,072,932, which represents a reduction of over 400,000 people.


IV. Pinellas County should consummate and approve written agreements with
Hillsborough and Pasco Counties assuring them of their rights while at the same
i time protecting those of Pinellas County. It is also recommended that we
. formulate an agreement with the Southwest District pertaining to the railroad
) right-of-way and mutual rights. These agreements must clearly recognize and
S account for the tremendous capital investment that Pinellas County will be
|, required to put forth in partnership with St. Petersburg to secure water from
Sthe new Cypress Creek well field.


uV V. In addition, the Board should proceed expeditiously in the following areas:

1I. Require shallow irrigation wells and distribution systems for all new
S' development that requires irrigation.

S2. Require low volume water closets for all future construction.

3. Require maximum use of retention ponding of storm runoff water for
Irrigation purposes for all future developments.
4. Force the abandonment of all special irrigation water meters effective

M immediately. Cities which do not comply should be brought into
compliance by increasing the surcharge to higher amounts as
necessary or by reducing water allocations accordingly.

Mi 5. Require municipalities being furnished wholesale water from the
7 County System to prohibit installation of meters of a size that would
provide for lawn sprinkling in conjunction with domestic use.


*Population Projection for Pinellas County to 1990 attached. (Appendix 9)


U









-13-


6. Receive and adopt the County water consultant's water rate study
which was previously authorized by the Board. This study will
recommend:

fA. A water resource impact fee that will provide for
expansion of water production facilities as demand
increases rather than after demand increases.

B. A flat water rate structure that eliminates the reducing
rate scale as the volume of consumption increases.

SC. Reduced water rates to provide incentives for the installation
of lawn irrigation wells

St 7. Continue the surcharge schedule previously adopted by the Board to
promote water conservation.

8. Require that all County and City public grounds should utilize shallow
well irrigation systems wherever possible.

9. Encourage the development of recycling systems for large developments.

BS10. Authorize studies on the recycling of waste water including force main
pumping of secondary treated effluent to agricultural areas in Pinellas
and neighboring Counties.

\ 11. Authorize an aggressive public relations program encouraging the
citizenry to practice water conservation from the domestic water system.

12. Authorize your Administrator to explore all possible sources of water
not now being utilized that are accessible to Pinellas County.

13. Encourage and support Clearwater and other municipalities to safely
tap the unused acquifers within their jurisdiction.


Conclusions: A large majority of Pinellas residents are in favor of some type of
restriction on connection to the water system until additional sources of supply are
obtained. There can be no doubt, however, that tremendous pressures will be
exerted on the Board and your staff as a result of these recommendations. Financial




P

*~l








-14-

hardships will be experienced by many. If the gravity of the situation is
adequately explained through the news media, however, I have every
confidence in the responsible and responsive support that the citizens
of Pinellas County will give to the County Commission in this effort.

Cognizance of the facts cited in this report is sobering indeed. Coupling
this with the realization that our two neighboring counties of Hillsborough
Iand Pasco are aggressively following the current efforts of Pinellas County
to secure more water and the fact that the Southwest Florida Water Management
District desires to assert its regional authority over water resources and the
Distribution of same, one can readily understand the gravity of the current
situation. In order to minimize adverse effects on the residents of Pinellas
County, I believe it to be essential that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the foregoing recommendations.
It is felt that successful agreements can be negotiated with Pasco and
Hillsborough Counties when it is recognized that Pinellas County is facing
iup to its responsibilities. We should also be successful in obtaining a more
cooperative level of understanding on the part of the Southwest Florida
Water Management Board if they are assured that we are doing everything
within our power to cope with this dilemma. We need their support and
understanding because our collective needs are great. In the absence of
RM I a responsive attitude on the part of the District, court action is inevitable
and highly undesirable. I am confident that the District will respond more
realistically to the water resource needs of Pinellas County as a direct result
Sof the actions taken by the County Commission.










II
I'
.151

a




IM

















W_ I Uc4 ,/ i!1i"

I ^ -...





I :ifi:-:!-:
^^ sx I .. ; "
















a: i::-?IY;;l::::. ~.:::':"
JK^B~i0 1 s v
'*S. 6p^ \:^











w s )^ plll^::i ^'::"^










WATER SERVICE AREAS !i~~
IN PINELLAS COU .TY
:~~:::" .... I::i:~ i'












COUNTY SERVED /:;!iii
(RE TAI iL) / \ p "



^^~~ /"ll-^:"*'









(W HOLESALE)iv ........ :':'" '
OTHER MUNICIPAL
SERVICE AREAS
.e # 1,
-(j [ ::o


nB' .r^...Appendi 17
Bu- ^^f ^^Jl^^^^^^*^^ ^ ::i:^i ?^^IJS


Pm ~ ~ ~ IN PIELA CONT ^^^ IBMI
RffiSB --i \? ^i^^^^^ ^Jil^^^^^
gi| IICUT at;f K ^ .^ ll


fflMJ I (WHOLSALE j^ r^'^^^^^^ ::::: /

;. rr..& ; i ii:
'I r~\ (0\ \\\~~~~~:ii i --^''
:T:v
(8^ "^:::: ::;:
Appendix "1










WATER SYSTEMS WITHIN PINELLAS COUNTY




The Pinellas County Water System The Pinellas County Water System Whole-
Retails Water to the Following Cities: sales Water to the following Cities:

St. Petersburg Beach Tarpon Springs
Treasure Island Safety Harbor
Madeira Beach Clearwater (also has their own
Redington Beach supply source)
North Redington Beach Largo (also has their own
Red ington Shores supply source)
Indian Rocks South Shore Pinellas Park
Indian Rocks Beach
Belleair Shores
Belleair Bluffs
Belleair Beach
Kenneth City
Seminole


And to a Portion of the Following
Cities:

Clearwater
Largo



The Pinellas County Water System, in
Addition to the Above, also Retails
Water to the Greater Majority of the
Unincorporated Areas of the County.












Appendix #2








COMPARISON OF MONTHLY RAINFALL AND PUMPING RATES
FROM THE COUNTY'S ELDRIDGE-WILDE FIELD



Month Pumping Average Normal Actual Departure
S.... mgd inches inches inches

1972 March 33.14 3.67 3.50 -0.17

S*April i. 40.93 3.21 0.58 -2.63

May 38.94 2.58 4.59 +2.01

June "' 38.76 6.32 3.80. ,,, -2.52
-r Jun '. 1% "
July 37.47 9.22 2.78 -6.44

i August "' 35.07 8.96 9.23 +0.27

September ~"-7 36.37 8.37 1.48 -6.89

"October ,-s 40.03 3.85 0.73 -3.12

November -I. o, 31.27 1.66 4.16 +2.50

SDecember ,.:- 29.48 2.10 2.09 -0.01

1973 January ; 29.84 2.46 2.73 +0.27

February 29.80 3.01 2.13 -0.88

March 37.18 3.67 3.85 +0.18

April 37.98 3.21 4.88 +1.67

*May ",'- 43.56 2.58 0.19 -2.39

June '-" 41.36.2' .".'> 6.32 ,,f 2.05 .., -4 27-
Total: Since March of 1972 the deficiency in rainfall has been -22.42 inches below normal.

M *Peak pumping occurs when rainfall amounts are less than 1".

Maximum day pumping when drawdown limits were reached was 52 mgd in April, 1972,
50 mgd in May, 1973, and 48 in June, 1973.



/
U / *





m

35



BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
30 PINELLAS COUNTY 1965-1972


---- SINGLE FAMILY
J MULTI- FAMILY
S --- TOTAL
25




m 20-


T 'Z


Z







0 /
M 5-10










0- i T I
S1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
YEAR
Appendix #4
- ,. /








(ei T K 7 D
E S T., P. 0. BOX 457 BROOKSVILLE, FLORIDA 33512
S19619 V/

"-.. DERRILL McATEER, Chairman, Brooksville HERMAN BEVILLE, Bushnell THOMAS VAN der VEER. Yankeetown
S. C. BEXLEY, JR. Vice Chairman, Land O'Lakes JOE E. HILL, Leceburg ROBERT B. VAUGHN, Brandon
JOHN A. ANDERSON, Treasurer, St. Petersburg PETER J. NEGRI, Ocala J. MASON WINES, Lakeland



July 6, 1973






Mr. P. C. Talley, Superintendent
Pinellas County Water System
315 Haven Street
Clearwater, Florida 33516

Re: Lake Tarpon

Dear Pick:

Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum which Jerry Parker wrote some
time ago regarding the feasibility of using Lake Tarpon as a
water supply source. I'm sure you'll find the memo of interest.

As you mentioned in our conversation, the cost of treating surface
water for water supply purposes is more expensive than groundwater,
but possibly excess water from Lake Tarpon could be pumped to the
Eldridge-Wilde well field for recharge purposes.

Very truly yours,





DONALD R. FEASTER
Executive Director U.


DRF:ce 1 -- A5
Enclosure






S"- -""- Appendix #5







Noc-vember 22, 1971


v 'EMvOR AN DUM'


TO: Dale H. Twochtmz.nln, Executive Director

FaOM: Garald G. Pcrker, GChf HIydrologist

LRE: Lake Tarpon Hydrology


Itr acccoirdace with your recent request, I am submittin hierowith a rough estlimte of.
"C. a;'ount of wv.'r that L.:c Tarpon can provide for municipal con:rnption". Th'
dccil~d dcat needfora we nd f a highly rc.icblc vwair budget- o:f the lake are not available
4bec(use they hove not all b-en acquired. As our cooperCiive work: with fhe USGS con-
tinues we will, someday, have such information.

1. \ 'ith ithe cbove prefoco, the following informfc.on is known about the area
including Lake Tarpon:

1. Arca of lake approximatro! 4 mi.2; Ionjih of shoreline cpproxirr.otely 13
miles; avcragoe cipt is unkown- so stored volume of wYier unkn,.,vn.

2. Avcrcec levc-i'on. of !: surface was +2.0 feet McSL, March, 1961 to July,
196?; July, 1969 to p0otont", about +2.5 ffo: MSL; ie change is apparently
at least partly du o c iosure of the sinkhlo. e in -May, 1969; increase in
summer vrainfal crcd rcsutiant runoff alBo has helped.

3. Arcsiaon pressure surface and water fable of shallow aqulfcr are eslsentail!y
tho same (+10 feet i;\SL) alo;g cost side of Lake Tcarpon. No vwa;tr tabl
data or map cr civailable for west side, but presumably the vwac'r icabic is
several feet highl.;er thn the -otentiormeric surface ne-or US 19. Both
surfaces eciline to MSL at or near the Gulf shorelin,.

4. Both {ho v.atcr table cnd polentio;motric gradients probably wiil average
5 feet per mile of s!ope i-oward Lake Tcrpon.

5. USGCS esltimnes coef icients of pcrmeability (P) in the shallow aquifer to
range from about 17 io 100 gallons per' day per square foot per fool per
foot of hydraulic lead.

6. Shallovw aquifer is thus of very low P, lover than ordinary very fine sand,
probably duo to small grain sizae sand wvits; included silt and clay.

7. Shalowv acuifcr is ve-ry Foorly permcc, blc, ranging frcn about 10 to I 0
f:co in thickri::s, and .rervc; as th.o copping layer for tho undcrlying
Floridan oa culcr.






,,, MMOrAN DUM
November 22, 1971 Pago Two


8. Some upward lookal3 from the Florldocr to the shallow watcr-tablo aquifcr ray
occur during. cdrouth times but during ilood timns the reverse probably tokes
place. Most of the time there is cssentiaily no exchange of water from
the upper to tIc lower cquifers inasmuch as their respective woier levels
ore rpracficolly equai,

9. Son:e flow always exists from Iho sha!owo ground water body into fth lake,
but vwiTh lovw hic.d; cvoilabol to drive tho vic r.fthroughl the very low permeable
materials the quantity is small.

10. Preciitation over the lako and surrounding area, from long term averages,
is about 55 inches pzr vycr.

11. Evcaporation from t1'h lake surface is about 52.3 inches a year, also from long
term vc:'rags.

12. Excess of >r" over Ev is thus about 2.7 Inches.

S13. iggcs.t mrcsur'od input into the lake is direct surface-waer flow out of
Drookcr Crfck. The USGS long-term record (August, 1950 to present) gives
ths following information:

a. &ooker Creek drainage Crea 30 mi.2
b. Averoag dischcrga = 25.7 cfs = 16.4 mgd = 11.64 inches runoff
from the b.sin.

11. Calculations from information above can be. trade as follows:

1. Pr Ev = 2.7"/yr. = 513,000 Spd increment to lake.

2. For ground water inflow, u:, Q-PIA in which P=coefficlent of permeability,
200 gallons per day per foot :per foot; I cater-tcbio gradient; 5 fee.l per
mile (cst.); Ao=rca of cross section of aquifer contributing inflow to lake.
Aedopth of saurated ccquifcr (d) X length of this zone (1); d=200 feet (csi.)
and 13 miles (r@ccoured). Thus:

3. Q = 200 x 5 X 13 X 5280 X 20 = 260,000 gpd.
5280

O = 260, 000 gallons cer dlay average ground-water scepago into Lake Tcrpon.


EBE .







SNovemnbr 22, 1971 Page Three



4. Annual average increments to the lake arc thus:

1. 513,C3300 pd, cxc.ss of prccipiltton over evaporation.
2. 260,000 Qpd, oround-.walr seepage into lake.
3. 16,400,000 gpd, Lrco:ker Creek inflow.
Total = 17,173,000 pd, inflow into the loko.

lil. Conclusion:

A-pproximately 17 mgd might be developed from Lake Tarpon without de!pleting
-.7torcOe -- on the lonr-term ovc:rco, with lIc conditions as thoy now exist --
clcAn, non-eu rophic water, with chloride rcn;ing from about 300-600 mo/L.
SAs long as thclo cond'iions rcrmion, and the v.tCtcr can be kepti" free of algao
and oi thr pollutants, this 17 mrr, at 250 pcd (lIalions per capital per day),
would supply n'Ceds for 68,000 avcrago urban rwter users.
HloCovCr, "avcracge"corndi ons for a lako eth so little available storage to
fall back upon in ccso of lon-continucd drouth -- gives little assurance
of sc;iot- of suprly. Therefore, i ni~jh, be best to keep' the Lake Tarpon source
only 1for sOanCdy C urpo;"s, vuilabic if needed in an emergency.

One ohcrr aspect of ihe Froblem that is favorale for somne additional production
lics in the recent 1/2 f-ot rise of l ko lcvcl. This quantity of water stored in
this 1/2 foot over 4 n i.2 of lake area is about 4i8 million gallons; and a one-
foot voluo taken off the op of ithe take would produce 836 million gallons.
But once thi s ipunped off, we're rijhi bc ck wv/hre we started, until high flows
again raise levels -- an cvcra;ge daily yield of only 17 mgd, and water level
in the loke at +2 feet MSL (if we use up 1/2 foot), or at 1 1/2 feet if we use up
a foot of stora;g. I would recommend trying io hold level of about 2 1/2 foet.
This would, over ite long h.ul, protect the aquifer against salt water encroachment
to -- 100 feet MSL.


Gorald C. Porkcr, CPG
Chief -cydrologist


C GP:cam:cca

^^*^^^













July 20, 1973


This letter sent to Mayors of the following cities:

Treasure Island, Seminole, Redington Shores, St. Petersburg Beach, North Redington
Beach, Redington Beach, Madeira Beach, Belleair Bluffs, Safety Harbor, Pinellas Park,
Largo, Clearwater, Tarpon Springs, Indian Rocks Beach, Indian Rocks Beach South Shore,
Belleair Beach, Belleair Shores, Kenneth City.




As you know, the Board of County Commissioners today authorized an administra-
tive directive to the appropriate County departments establishing a 45-day ban on
new construction that would place additional demands on the Pinellas County Water
System.

I am attaching a copy of a statement that I released to the news media pertaining to
this action. The purpose of this letter is to request on behalf of the Chairman and
members of the County Commission that your city cooperate with the County in this
effort by withholding the issuance of building permits that would place any additional
demand on the Pinellas County Water System for the 45-day holding period.

Within the next week the County Commission will consider a detailed report analyzing
this situation which will be distributed to you and will, I believe, amply demonstrate
and justify this action.

On behalf of the Board we earnestly solicit your cooperation and understanding.
Sincerely yours,



M. R. Stierheim
County Administrator

cc: City Manager




Appendix #6

rd













SJuly 24, 1973


SThis letter sent to Mayors of the following cities:

Treasure Island, Seminole, Redington Shores, St. Petersburg Beach, North Redington
Beach, Redington Beach, Madeira Beach, Belleair Bluffs, Safety Harbor, Pinellas
Park, Largo, Clearwater, Tarpon Springs, Indian Rocks Beach, Indian Rocks Beach
South Shore, Belleair Beach, Belleair Shores, Kenneth City.



I This letter will supplement my letter of Friday, July 20, in which, on behalf
of the Board of County Commissioners, I requested the cooperation of your city
in voluntarily complying with the 45-day ban on new construction which would
place an additional demand on the Pinellas County water distribution system.

It is my understanding that your municipality has adopted the Southern Standard
Plumbing Code, as amended, or a similar code. The Pinellas County Commission
has also adopted this uniform code. I call your attention to Chapter 2,
Section 201, entitled "Basic Principles." Under Principle I it states, "All
Buildings, structures, and premises intended for human habitation, occupancy,
use or employment. shall be provided with an adequate, safe and potable
i ~water supply ."
In view of the fact that Pinellas County supplies water to your municipality,
i please accept this letter as formal notification that there is sufficient evidence
to warrant a prohibition on new construction which will place additional demands
on the County water distribution system. In other words, there is a serious
question pertaining to the adequacy of safe supply and your municipality is
requested to voluntarily comply with the 45-day ban on the issuance of new
construction permits, effective immediately.

On behalf of the Chairman and members of the Board of County Commissioners, we
are requesting your cooperation in this effort. As indicated in my earlier letter, a
Scopy of a complete report on this matter which will be submitted to the Board of
County Commissioners will be made available to you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,


| M. R. Stierheim
County Administrator
cc City Manaer Appendix #7
WyufA cc: City Manager










TO: George M. Dame, M. D., Director of the Health Department
Pickens C. Talley, Superintendent of the Water Department
Robert E. Hostetler, director of the Building Department

FROM: M. R. Stierheim
County Adminisat ..

SUBJECT: Building Permits -- During Permit Moratorium Period

DATE: July 25, 1973


Building permits will be issued during the moratorium if it can be established that
potable water is available other than from the Pinellas County Water System.

In order to apply for a building permit on this basis, necessary documents must be
presented to the Building Department to substantiate that the following conditions
have been met:

1. Private Supply (for a single family residence only) where Pinellas County Water
System is available.

(a) A permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District
if the well diameter is two inches, or greater, according to
Florida Statute, Chapter 373, Code 16 CB 1 and 16CC.

(b) A report from the Pinellas County Health Department indicating
satisfactory bacteriological water quality.

2. Public or commercial supply.

(a) A permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District
if the well diameter is two inches, or greater, according to
Florida Statute, Chapter 373, Code 16 CB 1 and 16CC.

(b) Written approval from the Pinellas County Health Department
that an acceptable water supply system is available.

(c) Agreement by the owner to deed the distribution system to Pinellas
County after installation has been inspected and accepted.







Appendix 8A








July 20, 1973

TO: Robert E. Hostetler, Director of Building
Fred E. Marquis, Director of Planning
William E. Dunn, Superintendent of Pollution Control
Pickens C. Talley, Superintendent of Water System
H. Gordon Gray, Director of Public Works and Engineering
W. Gray Dunlap, County Attorney

FROM: M. R. Stierheim, County Administ t

SUBJECT: 45-day Ban on New Construction


Effective immediately, for a period of forty-five days there shall be no
building permits issued for new construction in Pinellas County which would
require additional water from the County Water System.

Applications should continue to be accepted, dated and time stamped;
however, no permits shall be issued except for those that do not place a
demand on the County Water System. All applications that are now being
reviewed shall be frozen for the 45-day period. Those in hand shall be
given first priority at such time as the Board of County Commissioners shall
authorize the issuance of future permits,

The Pinellas County Water Department shall issue water connections for
construction now in progress; however, no new connection permits shall
be issued for building permits issued by municipalities being served by
the County Water System after today and during the 45-day ban.





















Appendix #i
- --- --








1,500- 1,497,000
POPULATION PROJECTION
FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
S TO 1990 /

* /
i /
1,250-

* /

i/
I PROJECTED TREND OF 1970-1972
S^ 1,072,000
0

S1,000-
I-
__J
I 0

C -CONFORMANCE TO COUNTY LAND
SUSE PLAN

750-
I >

I



500 I I ---
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
i YEAR

* Appendix #9




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs