Title: Water Crop Concept, Draft
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002173/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Crop Concept, Draft
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Water Crop Concept, Draft, 10/31/1978
General Note: Box 10, Folder 6 ( SF Water Crop - 1978-1979 ), Item 2
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002173
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, 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
I : I i


0
DRAFT




Water Crop Concept

BUTLER: I am no hydrologist, but I would like to talk about the Water Crop Concept

and I'm sure there are some members of the staff who will assist me. I am sure

the members of the staff will correct me as need be, but I would ask the Board

to remember that this is the Water Crop Concept as best as I, J. B. Butler,

understand it, and I think it amounts to the water crop concept as this Board

envisions, especially the ones who have been here long enough to wrestle with this

problem a lot. So, for those, for you, the older ones and the newer ones, I

thought it would be appropo at this time to talk a little bit about the water crop

concept and revisit some of the concepts that we deal with here, almost every

Board meeting as we go about our permitting.


So I would like to give just a brief description of the concept as I see it being

applied or feel like it should be applied and how it might deal with some of

the permits we deal with.


A quick, simplified version of Florida Hydrology I think is in order and we can

see that here with the two pictures on my right, here on the board. Very quickly

we see a depiction, a simple depiction of a famous Florida aquifer which exists

as a bubble in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf surrounds us on all three sides, and

the Floridan Aquifer divides the great reservoir of fresh water to all citizens

of this State, but most particularly a value to us in the southwestern district.

There have been many estimates and speculations as to the volume of this water.

Some have set it, in fresh waters, a volume as large as one third to perhaps

one half of the great lakes, and there are various constraints, of course, about

how even if its there, how you would use it, and certainly that's what this District

is all about. To be sure, that however we do use it, we don't ruin it. But,

of course it is also imperative upon the District that the citizens of this State

do need to use that aquifer and that we should not prevent the rightful use of

any water to any citizen of the State that has the legal right to do so without
good cause. So we see the bubble as it exists, the Floridan Aquifer, the vast

limestone caverns that contain the water that supply this State.


Page 1




I Ii l I


0 Q




We also happen to be showing here one of the possible ways of ruining it. Probably
as far as I am concerned, the most serious and likely way of ruining it, and that
is by creating salt encroachment into the system by overpumping in any one area.
Such as is demonstrated here by the upcoming effect of the salt water into the
system.


Now, we've learned many things over the years, and one of the things that we've
learned is that in many parts of the system there is a floor, a fairly, and I
can prove this is not a good word any longer, an impermeable, confining core
or bud that separates especially the floor of the system from the salt water
underneath it. And so you really can work hard to disturb this balance, and
conversely, to keep that balance down there, what we have to do is provide for
deep monitor wells anytime that there is a large and significant pumpage from
those levels.


Very quickly, the Floridan Aquifer gets its water from rainfall. That is a source
of all our water, actually the one source that's unique and probably contains,
well, it is the entire source of our water. The Floridan Aquifer provides the
source and then we have the rainfall that recharges the aquifer, there's runoff
going off the land, either from the artesian system, as you see here with a
flowing well, or from the surface system which is just land runoff, and it all
goes back into the Gulf off the land. There is also a certain amount of seepage
of fresh water into the Gulf. Then the system goes back into the sky by evaporation
off the water, and by evapotranspiration off the land.


Here's another depiction of that same system. Transpiration of plants is a very
large source of water going back from the land to the hydro-cycle. Evaporation
directly off water is the largest source of water back to the cycle, and precipitation
returning the water to the land.


Mathematically, this system can be depicted as a water budget, again very simplified.
We have an equation here which provides the water budget in a closed system, if you
will. A closed system such as exists in Florida below the hydrologic divide.
This equation provides a precipitation, rain, plus the inflow from the surface, plus
the inflow from ground water is equal to evapotranspiration, plus the outflow
from the surface, plus the outflow of the ground water, plus or minus any storage.


Page 2




I .1


Now the according to J. B. Butler, there's no mining going on,
and that is 100% concurred with, so if that's true, there's no change in the

storage of the entire system, again, we would visualize a closed system, which
is a generalization. I visualize a complete cycle that in effect is a closed
system. Unless, somehow someone has figured out a way to burn some of that water,
and dispose of it, which I can't imagine. In any event, considering Florida is a
closed system, we would venture that we would have no storage change, and so
therefore this has to go to zero. We would venture that the
surface water inflow is not usable, there's no water flowing down from Georgia,
across the land, and there's no ground water flowing from the Appalachian mountains

underground in an underground river. There's actually none of this and there's no
ground water outflow, at least these two cancel each other. I got a little loose
here with that description, I believe. These two cancel each other because
they are on opposite sides of the equation and they're equal. We are left then
with a simplified equation providing for the water budget as it actually occurs
over our native state and in our region, which is precipitation minus the evapo-
transpiration, that is, rainfall minus the return system, which is evaporation
and transpiration, is equal to the surface water runoff, and that runoff
represents the amount of water, as far as we are concerned that's available
to man's use in southwest Florida. In any part of Florida for that matter, but
in our part of Florida we calculate that to be approximately 13 inches on the
general district average. That number may be different for some people who have
studied the system more, and Mr. Zeb Palmer has been studying the system more,
a good bit here in the past year, two years, in an attempt to refine the water
crop throughout the District. But for our purposes and particularly right now
in Hillsborough County, for example, we're calculating the runoff to be
approximately 13 inches. So precipitation, over many years of record, indicates
to be approximately 52 inches per year. That number is different than it would
have been if It was taken 20 years ago, because we were getting a lot more rain
as a record, 20 years ago. The end of 18 years we received a relative drought
so we might say this number is not the same as it would have been 20 years ago.
And the evapotranspiration we take to be 39 inches, so we have some 13 inches
of for consumptive use by man, and that's consumptive use by
SWFWMD's definition it does not mean consumptive in the sense of you mining
it. It's available for man's use, reuse, so long as he manages it properly.


Page 3













Any questions on what I've talked about so far?


QUESTION: When are you going to get back to not mining.


BUTLER: I'd like to them until next week, if you will. But I'll

answer as best I can any question you have, Mr. McAteer.


QUESTION: ( ) simplified explanation

( __) such as I described to you this morning on
Hillsborough County. Or do you consider such localized problems as not being

of general nature.


BUTLER: In a general system, I'm saying the hydrologic system considering the

whole peninsula of Florida of a system of localized distortion, may not necessarily

or would not necessarily represent mining of the entire system. The water has

been displaced, and obviously there is a great dislocation and inconvenience to

the people who used to have water in that local area. But there remains to be

seen whether the water has been lost totally out of the system. If it has, it

won't be due to the fact that man has mined it and thrown it away, it will be

likely due to the fact that the hydrologic cycle has changed and is not experiencing

as much water in the cycle system as it used to have. The water holding capacity

of the lime surface is obviously one of the major local effects that man experiences.

That capacity changes from generation to generation, and I don't doubt but that

we all recognize that the capacity of the system as far as its holding of water

has changed over the last 20 years. I don't consider that mining myself.

( ) been drained and the system has been put back into the Gulf faster
than it would otherwise have been perhaps and is lost to man's use, there's no

question about that, especially at the water table level.


SOMEONE: Then you don't consider relocation to be mining.


BUTLER: The water hasn't been disposed of. I don't mean to be academic...


SAME SOMEONE: It's still in the universe but it's not in the ground.


BUTLER: It's in the universe, I don't mean to be academic, it certainly is


Page 4


I I n ,klA













not available to man locally, and if the District is doing something about that

it ought to be doing something about it as a water management responsibility.


SOMEONE: ( ) when you pump the water
out of the ground, do you agree that you might be actually making place for the

rainwater to go and not to run out?


BUTLER: In other words, I would say that when you pump it out of the ground

you increase the capability of the system to be recharged back to the place

where you pumped it from. Does that answer your question?


SOMEONE: That answers the question, now I'm going to ask you the next question.

Then why ()


BUTLER: I'm going to ( ) that because that's a very speculative

question. My opinion is that it is being loaded due to the drought conditions,

primarily, and partially due to man's displacement of water, which is his use of

it, which we are obliged to control by permitting.


SOMEONE: Well, I'm in agreement that the water's still here, in other words,

it's just rearranged. But people tell me all the time, why don't you'll store
some of this water. I look at that chart ( ) 52 inches a year.


BUTLER: ()


SAME SOMEONE: This is what people, they make the statement, "We ought to be

storing all this rain water.


BUTLER: I would like to answer that though. There ( )

hydrologists and there may be some in the audience who would like to testify to
this, that one of the real potentials for storage is in the underground aquifer
system, if you put it back down there by artificial recharge or other techniques.
It's about the only place, I suppose you could store it efficiently in Florida.


SAME PERSON: Mr. Butler, another thing you didn't bring out, and I guess you're


Page 5


1 1 1 1 11, I I ,




I I : i 1 ,ii


going to get on this thing, I don't know.


BUTLER: I'm going to get on it in a very simple context, I certainly don't want
to have to explain it in detail. I would like to ask Barbara or one of the others
to do that but I wanted to give a simplified viewpoint of what happens when a major

pumpage withdrawal of water, as we see it in our permitting process, and how our
water concept attempts to deal with it. This provides a depiction of a pumping
well, let's say of a large quantity, and the basic effects that we believe occurs
and I think everyone agrees occurs, all of the available hydrologists. We have a
drawdown in the artesian system represented here by the red line, and this is a
potentiometric decrease, it is not the actual surface line of water. It is a
figure that represents the potentiometric level of the system that will exist.

This level, by the way, might well exist before pumping uphill, we see the red
line occurring here, it could well have occurred up here. If it did, you'd have
a flowing well. If you punctured it and installed a well you'd have a flowing
well. You still have an artesian well, when you punch into the system, when you
drill into the system, but now instead of flowing, you would only come up to
this point. But if you punched a well right here, or if you had one right here,
this close to this newly constructed well, you would see a change in your water
level, your artesian water level is this amount. Let's say that this location
between this level instead of this level. If it were right here, you would see
a change of this, this is the drawdown that an existing owner sees or experiences
when a new well nearby goes on. This is exactly the kind of thing that we look

for when we install monitor wells, this is the purpose of installing monitor wells
is to get with a monitor a dictation of exactly what the drawdown is at that point
from that well. Here you see a depiction of a drawdown of the potentiometric
surfaces, above you see a depiction of the drawdown and this is a secondary
effect that does not carry or occur as quickly as the first one. In the second
effect you see the drawdown of the water table associated with the leakance of
water through the confining layer, in this case, the clays that exist in the
Floridan system, into the artesian system, the leakance of water as we call it
from one system to the other, from the surficial system into the artesian system.
This is a secondary effect and is occurs in days, perhaps weeks, perhaps months
after the effect taken in the artesian system when pumping starts.


The Water Crop Concept provides by the calculation we saw earlier, this equation,


Page 6




I ii iI il


and this figure, which is now hidden, of 13 inches. That 13 inches roughly
translates to approximately 1,000 gallons for every acre in the District. Now
that is an average, and is termed that in our rules that an individual water crop
District wide be approximately 1,000 gallons per each acre involved. Now we
use that term and we use it primarily for this purpose, is used as a screen to
try to give some variation between those users of water and the quantities they
want, we use it as a screen to determine when hard calculations have to be
decided. A person, owning a certain area of land, is entitled to use all the
water legally available to him that does not interfere with existing users, the

neighbors of his, and does not impact detrimentally to the environment. Also
that use has to be judged to be reasonable and beneficial and consistent with
the public interest. Now those latter two cases can get to be pretty much a
legal point, but we have been doing a lot more ( ) of having a
reasonable and beneficial. There are some things we would not consider to be
reasonable because it would not be sound water management taken in the time and
place of the permitting problem. But again if it's reasonable and beneficial,
if it does not interfere with the existing use of neighbors of their legal use
of water and if it does not have an unacceptable impact upon the environment,
then it should be permitted by this District, and that's what our laws and rules
provide. Now, in many cases, several cases, most particular ( )
uses, there is not enough land envisioned or not enough land purchased to
account for 1,000 gallons per acre. So the rules provide, the law provides
and this District's rules provide that the Board, may for good cause, consistent
with the public interest, and for a reasonable and beneficial use grant an exception
or in effect grant a larger amount of water than is defined by the water crop
figure of 1,000 gallons per acre. We haven't departed from the water crop concept,
we've departed from the figure of 1,000 gallons per acre, when we do this. But
we are still, as far as I'm concerned, operating within the scheme of the water
crop concept. The Water Crop Concept provides that if, in those cases, where we
have a large withdrawal of water from a small holding of land, if we determine
among other things, that it is consistent with the public interest to do this,
consistent with the larger public interest, is reasonable and beneficial, and
either does not effect a neighbor or that they can be ( ) or solved,
and if it does not have an unacceptable environmental impact, then the Board,
in its wisdom, grants the permit for an amount larger than 1,000 gallons per
acre. All those four criteria apply in a very real sense. In the case of a


Page 7




I i t il il


well field that does pump in excess of 1,000 gallons per acre, it is a part of
the water crop concept that they are borrowing, in effect, from adjacent land owners.
Theoretically, the permit or the well field is there before that water is
otherwise being used, that is immaterial. But, the point we have is that the
supplier of the well field must accommodate then the use of all water within the
cone of influence of other well field. He must accommodate it by allowing it
to occur within the water crop. That means that if there is a neighbor that

uses a lot of water, a neighbor to the well field that needs to develop water
that he has the right to develop his water crop, that is 1,000 gallons per acre,
for his reasonable and beneficial use, and the well field must absorb that.

That's the concept of the water crop applied to regulated well fields. And so,
a neighbor adjacent to a well field has 1,000 gallons for every acre of land
holding. His pumping, up to that point, must be absorbed in the regulatory
levels that are provided for the regulated well field. And this would be equal
to all regulated levels.


As I mentioned earlier, you could sink a monitor well here and you could
measure the effect taken of this drawdown on the water level at this point.


REQUEST: Go back to that last part again, please.


BUTLER: I'm saying that a neighbor adjacent to the well field has a right to
use his water crop, and it has to be absorbed by the well field's regulatory
levels. Now if he's pumping up to that figure, as his did, so long as he stays
within that figure, then the pumping must be absorbed by the neighboring well
field's regulatory levels. That's what going on right now around most of our
well fields.


SOMEONE: Mr. Butler, you may have answered this a while ago, I was trying to
listen to you, and I think I heard, theoretically, are the levels set on the
well field such that if everyone surrounding that well field takes his water crop
then the well field itself will be cut back to the water crop.


BUTLER: Theoretically, that would be what would happen if you actually developed
around that well field the water crop. I have a feeling, myself, that they would
still be able to develop more water. Regardless, that would prove out for what


Page 8




I I II. I Ali


its worth.


SOMEONE: Wasn't that the intention in the long run, in the set levels?


BUTLER: I don't believe it was ever calculated to that point. What I mean is
I don't believe anyone, any hydrologist here would say that it was calculated to,
that when all the development around it was complete that it would reduce back
to zero.


SAME SOMEONE: If that's the case, then, mining would begin to occur, as we call
mining, in that if the water crop was used by all surrounding and the well field
was using in excess of the water crop, then we'd be mining the area, even if it's
localized.


BUTLER: In that theoretical case, I simply don't agree in mind with the (_ )
because you would still have a larger cone of influence that would be drawn in.
You would actually have to go to the entire jurisdiction of the District and
develop 1,000 gallons for every acre before I think you'd have that possibility.


SAME SOMEONE: You're saying you're spreading the calculable area to the point
where mining would not take place, you'd be merely spreading the cone of influence
right on out to reach the lmits of the District.


BUTLER: Theoretically, I think that is what I would suggest as happening if you
developed 1,000 acres on every acre in the District.


SOMEONE: 1,000 gallons.


BUTLER: I'm sorry, 1,000 gallons. But now we're talking about theoretical
and speculation.


SOMEONE: Mr. Chairman, ( ) presentation, but I would
like to come back to that particular point ( ). I think we may
have some differences of opinion.


CHAIRMAN(?): I understood it from the beginning, as Mr. Butler presented it,


Page 9




I 11, 1 ,I k L I I I I


in that I've always understood that theoretically the well field would cut back

and give it up. Now where do you disagree, because I think it's important while
it's in our minds and it's fresh.


SOMEONE: Mr. Chairman, (_
but if that reasoning is to be used so that you're entitled to your water of
365,000 gallons per acre, 1,000 gallons per acre per day, then you also would

be entitled to cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered to

the regulatory levels, and because the level of the surface is to be lowered

to the minimum level...


BUTLER: I ( ) that, among those other things that you can

cite on them, no, Buddy, I did not mean to imply that the other restriction don't,

are not applied. In fact, what I'm saying is...


SOMEONE: I'm sorry, but there's nowhere in the Rules that says that you're

entitled to your water crop, it says that each permit will be denied if the
amount exceeds the water crop. It does not say that you're entitled to come
in and get it as long as it's unexceeded. I think that when you read that

into it, you make a wrong application.


SOMEONE ELSE: Well, you've got another possibility that comes into it also,

that once you use the entire water crop, if you should, we're talking mostly
theory, then you're going to defy the stream flow, and when you've reduced
the streamflow by 5% or more, so you've affected other parts of the Rules,
which obviously you don't intend to do.


BUTLER: I certainly didn't intend to do that.


SAME SOMEONE ELSE: I understand that. But I say there are other things that
have to be used for decision making purposes.


BUTLER: Absolutely.


SAME SOMEONE ELSE: ( ) is the water crop.


Page 10
















BUTLER: I ( ) to what I said, and I also modified to accommodate

Mr. Blain's points. I said you're entitled, I do not mean to imply that then
you can go in and take that amount and haul it away as your entitlement or

whatever. I do not mean that any other restrictions provided by the Rules
would be preempted. I regret the use of the word entitle.


SOMEONE: What part, Mr. Butler, between this exchange, what part would we

then be concerned with the ( ) Rule, and how would we apply
it.


BUTLER: It would be applied in the same fashion. Any pumping taken by such a

neighbor would have to adhere to the fact, the 5 foot rule, the 5% rule, the
reasonable and beneficial use rule (_).


SOMEONE: Concerning Cypress Creek, if the pumping ever reached the limits that
some have talked about desire, we would influence the flow of Cypress Creek
in excess of 5%. And I've not heard that used in our discussion, as it related
to the pumping of the well field. Now maybe it has been by Staff, and not back

to us, that could be quite possible.


BUTLER: I believe that Cypress Creek would have to account for the 5% rule in
Cypress Creek itself. I don't know what calculations have been developed to

date on it, but it would ultimately have to account for that, Now I did not
mean to imply that the neighbor in this, we're talking about a neighbor to a
well field, we cannot disregard any other rule entitled to take a certain
amount of water, that is his water crop. He's subject to the same rules as
anyone else and as the well field ( ). What I am saying is that

( _) his relationship with the neighboring well field, he is
entitled to his reasonable beneficial amount of water that he can use on his
property. He is entitled to, and the well field must absorb the impact of that
pumping. That's their relationship, I did not mean to imply that it preempted
him from the application of our other Rules.


SOMEONE: I think the record would show that during the debates over levels,


Page 11


I)i I1IIYII1 liil




, I i It I 1 11 L, I


that you discussed pretty openly the fact that the well fields would give up
some water as the neighbors ( ). I think that's in the ()

and I think that it's acknowledged by those who are influenced. And I also
think that there are things that are going to have to be considered as it relates
to the interrelationship between the well field and the neighbors and the stream-
flows and other items that we have not yet addressed.


BUTLER: Absolutely.


SOMEONE ELSE: The only thing, though, that we haven't really worked out, is

that it is to be cut back because of the regulatory levels and monitor levels,
we haven't come up with the mechanic that had a merchant to be cut back and who

cuts back first. That the problem that we run into each time we talked about

operating with regulatory levels. It's fine to operate regulatory levels as
long as you've got only one major withdrawal in the area. If you've got two,

you've got a problem. Who cuts back first.


SOMEONE ELSE: Well, if you give a permit first and you give a permit second,

obviously the first one's going to be the one to give up. That was understood

during the hearing.


FIRST SOMEONE: But how much do they give up?


SECOND SOMEONE: Whatever the monitor levels call for.


FIRST SOMEONE: But do the monitor levels say that they shut off entirely?
Or are they shut off in part, half closed, 10%? 20%?


SECOND SOMEONE: They cut off according to the monitor levels, the way we under-
stood it in the beginning.


BUTLER: I think what the Chairman is saying ...


SECOND SOMEONE: ( ) takes all the water that reduces the regulatory
levels.


Page 12




1 i It i I I I


FIRST SOMEONE: He's got his permitted at a certain level. If that in turn
pulls the levels down to the point that the well field is shut down, the levels
weren't set properly in the first place. Because that first place ( )

is entitled to his water crop, I don't care what happens to it. Or the water
crop plus the other criteria to be used. If you set the levels, and then the

surrounding permittees are allowed certain number gallons, we're all talking

about a permit we're getting ready to look at, obviously, or two more we're

getting ready to look at, so what are you going to do? Say, if the levels were

not proper, are you going to say that, are you going to say, so be it, now you're

out of water.


SOMEONE: I don't understand your point, because you're now backing off from what
we had always understood it to do.


SOMEONE ELSE: I'm not backing off at all. I'm saying that it's a good idea,
but we haven't worked up the technology of being able to determine how to
apportion the cutback.


SOMEONE: You're visualizing issuing a permit and then turning around and cutting
back immediately thereafter.


BUTLER: To visualize the technology of apportioning the pumpage around to me
is much easier to follow the type we have that new ones come and pump their

reasonable and beneficial which they justify, which must be under the water

crop, which must be used on their property. And the well field absorbs that
is part of the regulations.


SOMEONE: ( ) by the rule and by the law.


SOMEONE ELSE: Well, where is the exclusion, the exemption?


FIRST SOMEONE: There's nothing in there that says that you're entitled to a
water crop and if everybody was entitled to a water crop and everybody took a
water crop, there wouldn't be a lake or a stream in the entire...


Page 13














BUTLER: I want to make sure I go back and withdraw the word entitlement.


SOMEONE: No, but I think since we're getting in ( ), we're going to
have to go on and finish it, because I think now I'm hearing an entirely different
concept from you than I've heard in the past. And I think part of the hearing

( ) and bother myself and I want to get through this thing in its
entirety, and maybe you have some, Nick. But going back to the very beginning,

I ( ) the monitor levels, and that's why they were sold to us, that
they would be established so long as the water was available. But when the
surrounding land owners were permitted as to whatever law or whatever the
criteria allows it to have, the well field would give up the water. Now I'm
beginning to wonder if that's what you're saying or are you backing down.


SOMEONE ELSE: I'm not backing down and I'm agreeing with what you're saying,
but when you start saying the effect of that when it starts getting to that
point of cutting back, then which one cuts back first, and which one second
and by how much.


SOMEONE: Buddy, the first one is the permitted well field, the second one
is the permit we're about to give, or going.to give or whatever the case.


(Several people started to say things and you couldn't really understand what.)


BUTLER: That's the point, I don't have, we don't have a system here that
has two people adjacent to each other with regulatory levels.


BLAIN: Last month we were advocating setting the regulatory levels...


BUTLER: I beg your pardon sir. I never advocated that, in fact, I've advocated
the opposite.


SOMEONE: The point being that if go with gallonage following monitor levels,
the first permitted gives up the water. That's understood, and the record will
show that I asked St. Petersburg, Pinellas and others if they knew that at
the time they asked us for monitor levels, and they said yes. That one I


Page 14














stand on of any conditions in any debate. But I'm concerned that we are talking
apples and oranges now that Barbara brought up the fact that we're talking dual
monitor levels rather than gallonage versus monitor levels. Obviously the first
one to give it up is going to be the first permitted is the one that's going to
give it up. And if there's any question about that, we need to know it now.
Because the tip of the iceburg is the one that we're talking about now, 21, and
there's many more to come in the future for this District. Now I assume they're
coming, obviously none of know, but they're coming. So if you've got any
question, let's get it cleared up now ( ) to monitor levels

versus allocated gallons or whatever the word that you're looking for.


SOMEONE: I think here is a good example, I'm sitting nearest the red hole, this

is a good example where nobody cuts back and everybody just pumps what they want
to, before regulatory come in. And we do know now that some type of regulation,
these people are regulated better than they was at one time and this situation
is improved. One thing I'd like brought out, Mr. Butler, you show this water
going down, obviously flows the other way, you don't have it on the map, but
I'm sure it does, and you agree, and it flows at a faster rate under some soil
than it does the others due to the, well, I think you've got the word verocity
and all this kind of stuff, transmissivity, and all these kinds of words. But,
anyhow, you can, it's not as much resistance under the soil in certain areas.
The thing that... If the water flows this, of course, we have data to substan-
tiate this, some well fields pump and they don't have drawdown, practically
any, and some are more, but all are pumping, so the nature of the soil is quite
different.


BUTLER: No question. The geological column is critical in the analysis of
well fields' effects. ( ) to the District.


SOMEONE: And this is one thing, too, that you can't really take into consideration
when you, unless you are going by the monitor system. And the monitor system
wouldn't work at all in certain areas of the District, but it would work in the
areas where the water flows this way, is the only place that the monitor
system would work.


Page 15















SOMEONE ELSE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one comment, then I would
suggest that we move on to the regular agenda. Essentially, as I understand
it, you would explain your understanding of the water crop ( )
that is my understanding. And with one step further, that I think is signi-
ficant, a lot of this, you know, is in the Rules and Regulations, which some
of it ( ) it was in that one year of discussion during 1974
when the Board said, let's define our Rules and Regulations. And that is where we

said that when there was a well field with the ( ) concept, that as

the area developed around it, theoretically, at the ultimate development, the
well field would be cut back to the crop for that well field. Now, in reality,
we acknowledge that the water crop is a conservative crop so it probably
wouldn't be cut back that far, but theoretically, that's it. Now, there's one
thing further significant, and this was assurances we made and specifically
to the representatives on the Board that night for Pinellas County and the
well fields, that additionally, we're going to give them some protection and
this is significant. We said that we would not allow other borrowers in that
immediate area of influence of that well field. What we were saying that
the well field would take beyond the crop. Now, let's just a minute put this
in perspective, let's talk about several of the well fields that are 640 acres,
then the crop would be 640,000 gallons a day, but they are taking about 9,000,000
or 10,000,000 gallons a day. Well, that's how much the crop is. What we're
saying is all those other users around there, we ( ) to permit up
to 640,000 gallons per day, if it was a ( ) and not beyond that.

I doubt that that in any place is in the Rules and Regulations, but that was
an assurance that was discussed with this Board at that time.


SOMEONE ELSE: Then, did we ever solve the next question, following what you
just said, because that's the way I understand it. But that once you've
developed and put in the rooftops, and put in the streets, that the water
crop then changes on a piece of land, and we have not yet taken into consider-
ation in the northwest part of Hillsborough, how much pavement's going to go
in, how many rooftops, how much new gallonage, and is the water crop truly
going to be anywhere near 1,000 gallons per acre per day, under developed
as much as raw land, and that's what is worrying me now, particularly as it


Page 16




11 i-


Page 17


T ^, *., : : --* ..... .-. :, .- b i.*. ..l. .. ; -gy ^f. y -^ -... a 1 '. .... ..
11 r I 11 w W' 1 1I








relates to a well field. Nwe, we've just not usedthat particular factor in
determining to my knowledge, because the water crop certatily changes when
you go with discharge, with waste disposal off-site and with the streets, the
sewers, the rooftops. It can't be ~ywoere near what t was prior to that.
So I think that factor has got to become a primary one around the wmil fields
or you're really going to make soe mistakes.


TULERl: There's no question, you're changing the recharge whoe Yau do that and
that is changing the water that's going into a ( ) system.


SOMEONE ELSE: So I think you all are going to have to cae up with see
consideration that the water crop is severely modified, is modified in a
subdivision.


SOEONE ELSE: I think there's another variable as we go along too. it probably
doesn't have anything to do with hydrology, but again, going northwest, where
there is water, that is was prompted tb another political subdivision and
do you cause a whole new subdivision there to go elsewhere to get Its on
water.


BUTLER: ty answer to that is that the concept of ( .___
they can take their water within the cone of influence...


SOMEONE ELSE: ( ) let me continue ( ).
South Florida is C ) existing well fields from
another area. Now how are we going to cope with that.


SOMEONE ELSE: I thought we had coped with it, with the monitor levels and the
giving up the water as exceeded by the neighbors. Now that's what I
( ) that the meterss levels esta-
blished in the well fields would take care of what you Just asked by saying
if they want to put In down in criteria then Section 21 gives it up or whatever,
and if that was the concept we were under from the very beginning and the
argument for monitor levels while we're giving up when you need them. And that's
why the arguments have convinced ( -)














If it's not that way, then we'd better find out pretty quick, and that answers
your question, I think.


BUTLER: As you develop around Section 21, houses solid for 5 miles square

around it, the thesis would be that they would take their water where they

are and that they, I don't believe that they would go over the water crop,

because you can't use that much water, unless you are talking about a very

very dense development, I don't see highrises going on out there.


SOMEONE: ( ) we may end up modifying the

water crop as a result of the structure.


BUTLER: It's possible, but I expect they could take all the water they would

ever need and hope to need on the development, on that property and never get

any water crop, never get near any figure that exhaust the capacity of that

system out there to supply water. But, the impact of their taking would all

be on the well field, so that those that are within the confines or within the

area of the cone of influence of that well field would take their water where

they find it, and the well field absorbs that through their regulatory levels.


SOMEONE: I think some of these questions are going to have to be addressed

by you within house, Ms. Boatwright, as to what truly are we going to consider

the water crop to be when 13% of the land is going to be paved and 17% is going

to have rooftops on it, and so on and so forth. What are we really doing to

the water crop. In my mind, we're reducing it considerably, and that's a fact.

And as you say, maybe we don't need that water, maybe they won't need more than

what it calls for, hopefully won't, hopefully we can get by. The one we're

talking about now, with Hillsborough County, concerns me because if I understand
it, we've got the water crop right at 100%. And I believe that it's above the

water crop, that it exceeds the water crop, if it's developed to its fullest.

And that's something that I think we're going to have to address knowing that

whatever that number is, Section 21 is going to give up the water. How to go

from here, I don't know.


Page 18















SOMEONE ELSE: You also don't have increased storage capacity for instance in

a well field where you have drawn the water table down. Then when the rain

comes you have a greater recharge area there so the water crop in that area

has been significantly increased, unless you manage to drain it off.


SOMEONE: Monitor levels should have taken that into consideration in the well

field. Not the water crop of the neighbors. That was the way that we under-

stood that. And I agree with what you said, but I don't know that it needs

to apply to a subdivision building next door. I think it should apply to

original monitor levels that we set for any given well field. The fact is

what you say is true, it does follow to increase the water crop on that piece

of land. And if Bob is correct, we'll never draw it down to those numbers

We'll never restrict the pumping to those numbers. Only time will tell.
I guess it's been good, I think we better go on. I think it's good for

( ) have a better understanding of the water
crop than we had 45 minutes. I hope you do.


BUTLER: And I do qualify that all I said was my considered opinion.

( ) to understand how the water crop concept
benefits him. I'm glad Clarence ( ) was here so he could take you back

to Hillsborough County when the (_).


SOMEONE: Mr. Butler, I think you done a excellent job.


BUTLER: I've always said that's it's something that needs to be done, and I

don't think we're through with it yet.


Page 19


A




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