July 30, 1976
Donald R. Feaster
3) If we elect to assume "water rights" acquired by others
through a Consumptive Use Permit, may we assume that
practice will be honored by SWFWMD? That is, is the
Consumptive Use Permit transferable? Are there any con-
ditions attached to such transfer?
4) Is it appropriate to assume that "water rights" do not
exist where a Consumptive Use Permit has not been issued
or applied for (by January 1977)?
5) For planning purposes, is it appropriate to assume that
SWFWMD owned property is available for water supply
development (without land costs to WCRWSA) if this can
be accomplished without adversely impacting SWFWMD water
6) Linear well fields appear to be quite meritorious from a
hydrologic standpoint. May we assume these will be
acceptable, even though they may impinge on the "water
crop" of adjacent lands, which is going un-used?
7) Do new municipal use permit applications have priority
over new industrial or agricultural use applications?
8) What is the relation of recharge to the Consumptive Use
9) Can we obtain "credit" for public lands owned by Authority
members to apply toward "water crop" limitations?
10) What kind of justification is required to obtain relief
from the 5-3-1 Regulatory Levels?
11) What are your plans for regulation in the:
a) 1976-80 time period
b) 1980-85 time period
c) Beyond 1985
These are but some of the questions which come to mind. The
answers will have a major impact on our study approach. Any-
thing we can do to resolve them at this time will be of great
benefit to us and the jurisdictions we serve. Please call me
regarding an acceptable meeting date.
Since e ,
Richard J. Hesse
cc: Ross, Saarinen, Bolton & Wilder, Inc.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
July 30, 1976
Donald R. Feastt.
Our immediate concern is with developing supplies to meet
1980-85 needs. There is evidence that those peak needs will
be in the range of 60 mgd, in excess of existing usage and
Consumptive Use Permits now effective, assuming the follow-
ing additional permits will be issued:
Morris Bridge Well Field 40 mgd
Cypress Creek Well Field 30 mgd
Starkey Well Field 16 mgd
301 Well Field 3 mgd
Bloomingdale Road Well Field 2 mgd
Obviously some development decisions in connection with the
projects listed above have already been made and they must
be treated on a case-by-case basis to determine an accept-
able yield. Our concern is with the comparison of alterna-
tives when no development decisions have as yet been made.
It is in this area that guidance from you can be of im-
measurable help. itularl k explicit information
Lon your plans for regulation in the 1980-85- time -amp. Soon
we wi- be pursuing the Post 1985 needs as well, but for now
our -emphasis is on the 1980-85 problem.
I would like to arrange an early meeting between you and
our staff and me and my staff and our consultants to ex-
lore-'-isin aet1ai1 If we can reach, at this time,
general agreement as to the constraints, there is an oppor-
tunity to make major savings in public investments, and I
believe we can set the stage for wise decisions in the public
Some of the questions which should be the subject of dis-
cussion are posed below. Some are obviously policy issues
which ultimately must be addressed by our respective Boards.
The list is not necessarily complete, but is intended as a
preliminary format for a staff meeting agenda. Please feel
free to add to it as you desire. I wol -ik -t- met as
soon after 4 August as is mutually agreeable.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1) May we assume that the water crop theory will not apply
to our Consumptive Use Permit applications if we can
show good reasons why it should not?
2) Would it be reasonable to assume the three-county area
as the land which we "control"? The meaning of the
term "control" needs clarification.
_*_ ______ _-__----- -
West Coast R ';ional Water S-zply Authority
ARBOR OFFICE CENTER, SUITE 404 1321 U.S. 19 SOUTH, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33516 813-531-5885
l3 :.: ^-'-'-") fRICHARD J. HESSE
""-^ I f ~-.._ .GENERAL MANAGER
/ .. ,OR', ,",,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CHARLES E. RAINEY, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT CURRY, VICE-CHAIRMAN
CURTIS L. LAW, TREASURER
DALE TWACHTMANN, MEMBER
CHARLES E. SCHUH, MEMBER \. -"
July 30, 1976
Donald R. Feaster, P.E.
Southwest Florida Water Management District
P.O. Box 457
Brooksville, Florida 33512
As we proceed in our study of water needs and sources for
municipal and county uses it becomes increasingly apparent
that we must work very closely with you and your staff in
the development of alternative plans. Obviously we want to
avoid any possibility of pursuing too far a proposed course
of action which will not result in the issuance of a Con-
sumptive Use Permit by SWFWMD. In the economic and hydro-
logic evaluation process we must be realistic in our
assumptions with regard to your ultimate actions.
We are both aware that some have alleged that SWFWMD will
insist that Consumptive Use Permits for new users will be
based on land that is owned, leased or controlled by the
applicant. You have indicated in the past that this is not
necessarily so, and that statement is borne out by my read-
ing of your Regulations.
The application of the water crop to large areas, preferably
large hydrologic units, is undoubtedly one of the most
logical approaches to insuring resource protection in the
long term. We would intend to develop applications such
that we will not exceed the "water crop", except where as
your Regulations suggest, there is a sound basis to do so.
When we find it necessary to exceed the "water crop" in our
applications for specific projects, we intend to demonstrate
clearly that we can do so without unacceptable environmental
impact and without threatening the resource.