Title: Letter: Sept 9, 1993 Attached: Management Plan for a Southern Water Use Caution Area With Emphasis on Eastern Tampa Bay
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002344/00001
 Material Information
Title: Letter: Sept 9, 1993 Attached: Management Plan for a Southern Water Use Caution Area With Emphasis on Eastern Tampa Bay
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Letter: Sept 9, 1993 Attached: Management Plan for a Southern Water Use Caution Area With Emphasis on Eastern Tampa Bay, To: L M Blain From: J T Griffiths
General Note: Box 10, Folder 14 ( SF-Water Use Caution Areas-SWFWMD - 1993-1994 ), Item 59
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002344
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



CITRUS GROWER ASSOCIATES, INC.


2930 WINTER LAKE ROAD
LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33803
813-665-0709


September 9, 1993

Mr. L.M. Blain, Esq.
202 Madison St.
Tampa, Florida 33602

Dear Buddy;

Attached is a copy of a Water Management Proposal which I
have written. I've been concerned about the manner in which
staff has been handling their alleged water shortages in the
Southern Water Use Caution Area, and particularly in the
Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area This stimulated
me to put my thinking together so that I c uld enunciate, in
an organized way, some of the concepts I've been thinking
about for a long time.

I wanted to tie water use to land. I wanted to equate
citrus requirements with individual human being require-
ments and I wanted to provide a mechan sm which, through
market forces, would reduce the desirabi ity of using more
water than really necessary.

To that end I have created what I have called a "Basic Water
Right" of 10 inches per acre for citrus and 75 gallons per
person. I am deriving the 10 inches from Rod Cherry's old
water crop theory of 40 to 45 inches of evapotranspiration
and 50 to 55 inches of rainfall. I haven't suggested any
specific charges, but I would vary them by basin depending
on the magnitude of the perceived shortage, or the desire to
reduce use as the case may be. I would us the mechanism of
a predetermined fine for quantities above the "basic right".

The District staff seems determined to write more rules to
regulate us 24 hours a day on what we can 11 do. I thought
we needed an alternative. I'd be interested in what you
think about the situation.

I note in the newspaper that you are going to get to argue
the navigability of Fish Eating Creek again. I'm sure
you'll look forward to it.

Best personal regards.

Sincerely yours,


J. Griffiths

JTG/pw


~ __I


II 1 I




11 1 I I


For


Southwest Florida Water Management District
Board





MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR A SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA
WITH EMPHASIS ON EASTERN TAMPA BAY"


by



James T. Griffiths
Managing Director
Citrus Grower Associates, Inc.
2930 Winter Lake Road
Lakeland, FL 33803
813 665-0709













Table of Contents

Page
Number
I. INTRODUCTION .... .................... ........ 3

II. GOAL .............................................. 4

III. OBJECTIVES .................................... .... 5

1. Precise measurement data .................. 5

2. Insure water availability ..................... 5

a. high recharge land ........ ............ 5
b. reuse of water ......................... 5
c. storage of storm water ........ ........ 5
d. horizontal wells & surface reservoirs for Ag. 5
e. reduced drainage ........ .............. 6
f. expanded desalination ............... 6

3. Conservation ........... ....... ............... 6

4. Allow new CUP ................... ...... ...... 6

5. Reduce paper reporting ....................... 6

IV. ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES ............................... 7

1. rainfall less evapotranspiration ............... 7
2. land owner rights .......... ................... 7
3. building & development reduces recharge -
enhances run-off ....... ..................... 7
4. deterioration of water resource ................. 8
5. place value on water .......................... 8
6. allow current uses to continue and also allow
expansion ................. .......... ...... .. 8
7. supply is more than adequate .................. 8

V. IMPLEMENTATION ..................................... 9

1. Measurement criteria .......................... 9

Rainfall ......... ................. .. ........ 10
Surface water levels ............................ 10
Floridan and intermediate aquifer potentiometric
levels .......... .... ... ..... .............. ..... 11
Stream Flow ........................ ....... 11
Water Use .......................... .............. 11


- 1 -


iL L11











Page
Number
2. Strategy for increased water supplies ......... 11

a. Preservation of Current Recharge Lands .... 12
b. Reclaimed Sewage Effluent ................ 13
c. Expansion or Creation of Reservoirs ....... 14
d. Desalination ................... ......... 15

3. Allocation, or Restriction, for Reasonable
Beneficial Use: .............................. 16

a. Reasonable beneficial ......... ....... 16
b. Water Rights .............................. 17
(i) land owner .......................... 17
(ii) people ............................ 19
(iii) industry & mining ................... 20
(iv) agriculture.. ...................... 21
c. Consumptive Use .......................... 24
d. Allocation by the District ................ 25
e. Percent reduction based on permit or use.. 27
f. Market allocation ........................ 30
g. A specific market approach game plan ...... 33

VI. TABLES ............................................. 36

Table 1 Public Supply Usage in ETBWUCA ......... 36

Table 2 Agriculture Water Use in ETBUCA
for July 30, 1993 ...................... 37

Table 3 Estimated 1990 Ground Water Use and
Reduction Required to Reach Safe Yield.. 38

Table 4 The Effect of Different Concepts to
Reduce Ground Water Use by Agriculture
in ETBWUCA ...................... 39

Table 5 A Comparison of "Basic Water Right"
Amounts for Agriculture for ETBWUCA .... 40


- 2 -




I I ,1I .1 i ii


CITRUS GROWER ASSOCIATES INC.

MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR A SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA

WITH EMPHASIS ON EASTERN TAMPA BAY WUCA




I. INTRODUCTION



This plan has been prepared for the consideration of the

Southwest Florida Water Management District as a water

management strategy for a Southern Water Use Caution Area

(SWUCA). The area designated by the District should include

not only the areas south of 1-4, but should also incorpo-

rate all of Polk, Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, as

well as that portion of Pasco County which can currently be

considered to be affected by the large well fields supplying

the metropolitan areas of Pinellas County and adjacent

communities. While,initial and immediate emphasis is placed

on the Eastern Tampa Bay WUCA (ETBWUCA), there is a need to

provide a long term plan to satisfactorily and effectively

control the reasonable beneficial use and allocation of

water within the entire area described.



This plan does not agree, or disagree, with the safe yield

concept developed by the District for the ETBWUCA and upon

which the District's Governing Board determined that the

salt water interface should be held at it's present


- 3 -






O 6



location. Whether that salt water interface has been
properly located and whether or not it is progressing toward
the east ,is not an issue in the management plan discussed
herein. The potentiometric decreases in eastern Manatee
County, first found in southwestern Polk County in the
1960's, have continued at a magnitude such that there is
every reason to believe that past Consumptive Use Permitting
(CUP) practices by the District have been unsuccessful in
properly managing the water resource in the intermediate and
Floridan aquifers. The net effect of these practices has
been the lowering of surficial water tables and lake levels
on the Ridge and in northwestern Hillsborbugh County.


This plan builds on the suggested ground water allocations

of 150 mgd -for Eastern Tampa Bay and 550 mgd for the balance
of the sWUCA. Although, no such numbers has been derived'
for the Northern Tampa Bay WUCA, reduced pumpage for that
area must be managed in a manner comparable to the rest of
the SWUCA.


II. GOAL1 ':. .. .- : '


To halt further deterioration of the water resource from
both a quality and a quantity standpoint in those areas of
the Southwest Florida Water Management' District, which lie
south of approximately the Pasco-Hernando County boundary,
by maintenance, or restoration, of the potentiometric

4 -




I 1I


surface -of the Floridan, intermediate, and surficial aqui-

fers in a manner to prevent further salt water encroachment

from the Gulf of Mexico and to restore lake levels on the

Highlands Ridge and in northwest Hillsborough County,

wherever such may be demonstrated to be feasible.



III. OBJECTIVES



1. Establish precise measurement criteria to determine

monthly trends of the status of the water resource

which can in turn be used to dictate from time to

time the need to further restrict, or to relax,

procedures designed to insure "safe yield" from the

ground water supply.



2. Insure increased availability of water through:



a. Maintenance and expansion of high recharge

capability,



b. Expand and improve use-of reclaimed water,



c. Provide for the use of excess run-off water

through surface reservoirs or aquifer storage

and recovery (ASR),



d. Encourage use of surface water by agriculture
5 -











through substitution of horizontal wells,

deepening of ditches or digging of water holes,

to permit use as a source of irrigation .water,

and establish surface wate-rreservoirs on

wetlands.. .



e. Reduce the rate of drainage or run-off by

modifications in current drainage ditch

maintenance and use, and, ..



f. Expand desalination as feasible



3. Effective .cqnservatpon through procedures, wherever

possible, based on economic or market forces rather

than by regulation, to reduce the total current use,

initially by moving immediately toward the 150 mgd

use of ground water in ETBWUCA as based on current

safe yieJld euggegtions, bqt .ultimately by modifying

such policies through relaxation or tightening of

excess water use costs as dictated by the attainment

of desired local go ls .as outlined in .Sections III-1

(see pp 4) and V-1 (see pp 6)



4. Establish policy po, :ajLow additional new Consumptive

Use Permitting now and in the future.



5. Minimize reporting requirements and analyses

.- -6 -


~~~J*~~;diBUXhW~ii*~~7iir











required both by the permitted and by District

staff in any regulatory effort to micro-manage the

water resource.



IV. ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES



The implementation strategies discussed below are based upon

the recognition and acceptance of the following general

principles.



1. The amount of water available for use and reuse on

an annual basis is the difference in volume between

annual rainfall and evapotranspiration which can be

used prior to run-off through streams or discharge

to the Gulf of Mexico.



2. Reasonable land use establishes a presumption for

the land owner to be able to beneficially and

reasonably use the water which falls on his land,

which lies on the surface of his land, or which lies

below the surface of the land.



3. The establishment and continuous expansion of

buildings with roofs and adjacent paved parking

areas and roadways tends to enhance the rate of

run-off while at the same time reducing the amount

of recharge surface. When this expansion is coupled

7-




~a~- --- ----p~~--~ulr~ii~~w~.d


9




with increased artificial drainage, the net effects

are reduced recharge and reduced dwelL time for the

use of surface waters.


4. The perceived requirements for water by increased

population, industry and agriculture, when combined

with reduced recharge and enhanced run-off, has

resulted in some deterioration of the available

water resource as currently observed by reduced

potentiometric levels within the surfical,

intermediate, and Floridan aquiferst the necessity

for lowering pump in-takes in many areas, lowered

average lake levels, and increased salt

concentrations-in some specific areas.


5. The belief that procedures which place a value on

marginal use of waterwill more, effectively and

efficiently allocate water use than will arbitrary

regulations with unspecified penalties.


6. The essentiality that allocation procedures do not

deny adequate water for reasonable beneficial use by

current, ermitteas -nor the denial o. water for

expanded reasonable;beneficial use throughout

the Distict. '. t


7. The belief that the, proper management of there surplus

S8 -




lI J ,J ; II ,


rainfall within the District can sustain not only

Substantially increased populations, but also

increased industrial and agricultural development.



V. IMPLEMENTATION



1. Measurement criteria of the water resource status:



While models may be ,useful in anticipating goals or in

suggesting trends, either as to benefits or developing

problems, they are no better than the accuracy of the data

base from which they are derived. They are no substitute

for management based on measurement of what is actually

happening to the water resource. Therefore, it is essential

that an easily interpreted set of objective criteria be

established to recognize trends both in the long and the

short term. .Such accountability is essential. These

measurements should allow a clear determination as to

whether the management practices in place are successfully

managing the resource. Thus, it allows recognition of where

deterioration is taking place and where success is being

achieved.



The precise details of such a scheme are not developed here,

but some general suggestions are made to start a discussion

and ultimately to develop such a system.


- 9 -





0 0




It is probable that most measuring data points are already

in place. The specific data network to use may be refined

either by basin and/or by county, or by both.


It should be possible to establish goals for each of

the measurement data enumerated below. These would

categorize conditions, much as the low and high management

levels for lakes are currently being compared with normal.

They may be combined by basin or by county and can be used

to conclude each month whether management procedures are

resulting in maintenance of status quo, improvement, or

deterioration in the available resource.


Rainfall: There is a long history of average and abnormal

rainfall by year, month or season. Rainfall is meaningful

in the context of the individual month, the trend of the

last three months, the trend within the last twelve months,

and the trend over the last five years. These criteria may

be measured against historical averages. These offer a key

to what to expect locally regarding changes in available

water.


Surface water levels as measured by lake levels: A group of

lakes within any given area which are stressed and which

tend to fluctuate up or down in a similar manner offer an

opportunity to compare current trends for the month, for the

past three months, or for the past year with historical

10 -


I~~yryrarunr^ilrr




J N,


record. This fluctuation is helpful to determine whether

the resource is improving, static, or deteriorating.



Floridan and intermediate aquifer potentiometric levels:

Key measurement points within a county or a basin are

relatively well established. A selected sample can be used

within each basin or county to determine whether the

seasonal trend is improving, static or deteriorating.



Stream flow: The rate of stream flow and discharge to the

ocean need to be better measured on a weekly, or at least a

monthly basis. These may be compared with historic flow.

The seasonal trend is related to both rainfall and use.



Water Use: Actual monthly water use as measured and reported

by metering devices for all users, but segregated according

to agriculture, people, industry, recreation and by basin

and/or county is essential. This use should be compared on

a seasonal basis against historic use, but more particularly

against projected goals for the individual area as compared

with historic use. The establishment of such goals and

procedures for attaining those goals will be discussed

separately.



2. Strategy for increased water supplies:



Since there is no reliable method to actually increase rain-

11 -






0 0




fall throughout the Southwest Florida Water Management Dis-

trict, available water can be increased only through main-

tenance of high recharge land capability, the use of re-

claimed sewage water, expanded desalination, the expansion

of the storage of run-off either on the surface or in

aquifer storage facilities, and the substitution of surfi-

cial water for ground water.



Conservation by current permitted users is sometimes consid-

ered by the District to be a method for increasing supply,

but this discussion would prefer to consider conservation as

a procedure which represents a way to reduce use through

greater efficiency and knowledge of the amount of water

needed to be "reasonable". This can make available some

portion of current supply for expanded, or new reasonable

beneficial uses. Conservation does not affect total supply.

It allows broader and more effective use of the resource by

more individual users.


a. Preservation of Current Recharge Lands: The very least

which the District Board can do to improve recharge is to

recommend the implementation of the Bluebelt amendment in

the area of the maximum head pressure within the Floridan

aquifer. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to,


Polk, Orange, and Lake counties. Such implementation would

require the cooperation of the Boards of County Commission-

12 -


ui~~ad~i~~*~---"'~~Y*LIIUY '' -'~ji*i.~~nrri~.arr ui.~




I. 1 [ 1 i11U


ers in those three counties and the willingness of the South

Florida Water Management District, and the St. Johns Water

Management District to cooperate with the Southwest Florida

Water Management District in- sharing the burden of any

reduction of local revenues fpr the County Commissions and

the School Boarde ,within the three counties.



Long term the District needs to maximize maintaining high

sand land recharge areas in agriculture. Such plans must

include some method of compensation to the land owner for

his loss of development rights. These plans are needed now..



b. Reclaimed Sewage Effluent: Expand the use of treated

sewage effluent in such a manner as to offer maximum

enhancement of the water resource.. This involves some hard

choices. This may best be accomplished by the return of

such reclaimed water to the water source from which it

originally came.



It may be that the use of reclaimed water for unrestriction

lawn watering, golf course maintainence, or electric power

plant cooling ,is less beneficial and even less cost

effective than recharge. Thus, it may be best to recharge

the water source for the wells from which it came, or

returned to the stream above the point in that stream where

it was originally removed, or by return to a surface water

reservoir,, or an aquifer storage reservoir. Credit to the

13 -






9



public utility which accomplishes these reuse capabilities'

is essential either through increased pumpage right.


c. Expansion or Creation of Reservoirs: The establishment

of new or increased storage facilities for surface water-

run-off in a manner to reduce pumpage from the intermediate

or Florida aquifer is desirable. Such a program must in-

clude both public and private users. This should lead to

the establishment of new or expanded surface water reser-

voirs and/or aquifer storage and recovery facilities by

individuals, by public utilities, or by collective pri-

vate action.


Examples of such reservoirs would be those using water

obtained from streams which are not now being used, or by

the expansion of reservoirs which are currently in use.


The Myakka river is a very sensitive environmental area, but

there needs to be a way to skim off the surplus 10% of flood

water and put it to a reasonable beneficial use. This is

the one river in the Manasota area that isn't being used for

such a purpose. Since Sarasota-County already owns rights

and land to the Carlton Reserve, such ah opportunity needs

to be considered.


Another example would be for large, or for cooperative,

agricultural interests to use surface water as a replacement

14 -


^M*^T--^WNIB|IB^9B|lf.BWta^i^l^M|a|fflB^











for pumpage from the Floridan and/or intermediate aquifer.

This is particularly appropriate for flatwoods groves. It

is possible to substitute a surface reservoir for a deep

well in the Floridan aquifer. It is essential that the

construction of such agricultural reserviors be on a wetland

area. That land is less valuable, holds water better, and

can be filled and refilled to some extent by gravity.



This may best be accomplished through use of the proposed

DER rule on Mitigation Banking. This would allow collective

action of some kind to provide environmental land

preservation at a substantial distance from the actual

citrus groves and would provide a mechanism for a small

grower, or for one or more large growers, to use wetland on

their property for reservoir construction and then for a

source of irrigation water.



Horizontal wells which tap the surficial water or the use of

quite deep perimeter ditches or water holes are additional

procedures for using surficial water as a substitute for

Floridan aquifer wells.



d. Desalination: Desalination offers a mechanism to

provide additional fresh water in coastal areas. However,

if the facility lies between a severely depressed potentio-

metric surface in the Floridan aquifer and the coast line

itself, pumpage of large volumes of water can only result in


- 15 -





So0



increased salt water infiltration to the area where the

pumping takes place. Thus, the water is going to become

saltier over time. The District must question whether the

use of either the intermediate or the Floridan aquifer for

such a desalination facility is desirable. On the other

hand, use of brackish water along the coast line would not

pose a similar threat to the aquifer itself, but the

brackish water use may well require increased discharge of

fresh water into the bay.


There is. a continuing problem of disposal of the residual

salt from the operation. The benefits and the risks to-the

environment must be adequately understood and a proper

balance must be maintained.


3. Allocation, or Restriction, for Reasonable Beneficial

Use:


a. Reasonable beneficial: The term reasonable beneficial is

defined in 373.019 (4) F.S. as "the use of water in such

quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient
utilization for a purpose and in a manner which is both

reasonable and consistent with the public interest".


This may be useful in issuing a Consumptive Use Permit, but

it is difficult to apply this definition for the allocation

of a scarce resource when there isn't enough to go around.

16 -











However, when one considers the two words "efficient

utilization" one begins to find a mechanism to equitably

restrict usage by competing users. It must be "reasonable",

but it must also be "efficient".



b. Water Rights: Water rights as associated with efficient

use offer a basis upon which to allocate a scarce resource.

The statute is unclear as to water ownership, but it does

suggest that the first applicant who has a reasonable

beneficial use is entitled to continued use of that water

without diminution by a new user. This concept is enunciated

in the Tequesta decision.



What water right does an individual, a farmer, an industrial

or business interest, or a land owner have?



Land Owner:



It is difficult to escape the constitutional and the logical

implication that land as the recipient of rainfall must, by

its very nature, have some right to the use of the water

that has fallen on the land.



In very general terms plants, regardless of species or state

of cultivation, tend to create a situation in Florida in

which evapotranspiration amounts to 40 to 45 inches of water

per year. At the same time between 50-55 inches of rain

17 -


; 1. 1.










falls on an annual basis.


Thus each acre, on average, receives about 10 inches of

extra water over and above evapotranspiration, This water

may penetrate the soil and recharge a surficial or deep

aquifer, or it may move laterally through the soil to a

lake, or it may form a temporary pool, or run off the

surface to a ditch, lake, or stream.


How that land is used affects the amount of exposed soil

surface, water run-off and whether the use of the land

contributes to the water resource or actually diminishes it.

Thus, it is logical to adopt the principle that reasonable

beneficial users have a "basic right" to the use of 10 acre

inches per acre per year.


Another inescapable factor in determining reasonable bene-

ficial use in a rational and logical manner is the source of

the water which is being used. As previously noted, land on

a high sand ridge through recharge is feeding the aquifer

below it. As long as no more water is pumped than the land

recharges, the land is the mechanism through which the water

resource has been created.


Similarly, where a stream has been dammed or where water has

been diverted,. the agency which built the dam or created the

diversion facility establishes some right because it has

18 -











made a capital investment to prevent discharge to the ocean

and to allow an opportunity for the water to be used. There

has to be some right here.



However, the user of water from a stream or from a very

local water reservoir, may in the case of a Desoto county

citrus grower own land which furnishes all of the run-off

water to the reservoir. On the other hand, the dam in the

stream retains water which has fallen upon another owners

property. The citrus grower who furnished the land as

compared with the public utility who has simply made a

capital investment to capture the water from other owners

land are in a different position when it comes to the right

to use that water.



While it is recognized that these principles won't categor-

ically determine who has the right to water, they are prin-

ciples which need to be considered from the standpoint of

fairness, reasonableness and workability in planning any

allocation programming.



People:



Probably an individual human being has a "right" to 60 to 75

gallons of water per day for use in bathing, eating,

drinking, and flushing, but there is a real question that

the individual is entitled to any more than that. That

19 -


II





0 O



right can be exercised whether the individual lives on a

5,000 acre ranch in Hardee County or on the tenth floor of a

condominium on Bradenton Beach.


Thus, an urban dwelling on a 75 X 125 foot lot represents

about 21.5 percent of an acre. This equates to 21.5 percent

of 10 acre inches of water. Therefore that lot should be

entitled to 2.15 acre inches of water per year or

approximately 80 gallons per person per day if two people

are living in the house.


However, the presence of a driveway and a roof decrease the

recharge potential and increases the rapidity of run-off.

This has adverse implications for the water resource.


It is pertinent to note here that 75 gallons per day equals

about 1 acre inch per year. This is readily equated to the

"basic right" of 10 inches per acre on agricultural land.

However, when this homesite is on a parcelof land larger

than one acre, a water right as associated with the land

itself must be considered.


Industry and Mining:


The large volume of water required by an industrial install-

ation or by an an electric utility generator is recognized.

A prior right has been established here through use, The

20 -




I 1 .


same general concepts concerning efficiency have to be

applied here. It really comes down to what quality and

quantity of water is needed by industry to efficiently

accomplish its purposes, and how this quantity may be

minimized in terms of volume and competition.



For any industry, it should be possible to determine a fair

measure of productivity from the use of water and to be able

to establish limits on a gallon of water per ton of phos-

phate produced, or per box of citrus handled, or per mega-

watt of electricity generated.



Where large land areas are a part of the operations, the 10

inch right comes into play, but that "basic right" can apply

only to those lands where the mining operations are actually

taking place.



Agriculture:



Established agriculture certainly has a right to the amount

of water that is needed to efficiently produce a crop. The

District has been working with irrigation efficiencies, but

when no cost for the water is involved, efficiency becomes

difficult to define. Probably the minimal amount of water

needed to produce a crop is somewhat less than the amount of

water which the farmer would like to have at his disposal,

providing only that he doesn't have to pay anything extra

21-





O Q



for it's use.


Efficiency should really be defined as whether or not the

cost of applying the additional water can be recovered from

the value of the increased production. Thus, one must

consider a cost-benefit ratio.


Not only must efficiency of use be a factor, but there

appears to be good justification for relating land and water

use in -a manner to consider the effect of that water use.

upon the water resource itself. This concept should apply

to industry as well as agriculture.


Citrus groves in Polk and Desoto counties offer an

interesting comparison about how use of land relates to the

water resource. On a sand hill in Polk County, and for a

grove in which there is a clearly defined old sink hole,

there is little question, but that all the water applied to

the soil, be it rain, or irrigation, except for that small

amount which is lost through evaporation, will replace the

water in the surface soil ,or will penetrate to recharge the

aquifer. On an annual basis, the grove receives about ten
inches more in rainfall than it requires for evapotranspir-

ation. Any irrigation water which is applied tends to

decrease the rainfall amount defined as "effective", but it

increases the amount of water. which is available for

recharge through the sink hole. Thus, the land use, even

-22 -











with heavy irrigation, reflects a net gain to the water

resource.



Similarly, on a flatwoods grove in the southern part of the

District, if a reservoir is constructed on a wetland, the

excess rainfall can be retained in the reservoir and is

available for irrigation use as needed. Ultimately, the

grove will have to discharge the difference between

evapotranspiration and rainfall. That discharge may occur

at different times of the year than would have occurred if

the land had remained in pasture, but it will still occur in

approximately the same annual total quantity. Thus, the

land use makes the same contribution to the water resource

as it did before the grove was planted.



However, that same Desoto County grower, under current

permitting requirements has been required to pump water from

the Floridan aquifer. He has been forced to spend a great

deal of capital for a deep well, for a deep casing, and for

a storm water retention area on an upland. These

requirements cause a loss of crop land, temporarily reduce

run-off from the land, require storage which will be asso-

ciated with increased evaporation, force the use of slightly

salty water, allow the possibility for salt damage to the

tree, and because of the reduced potentiometric pressure in

the Floridan aquifer may result more in the up-coning of

evaporites rather than the downward recharge of surficial

23 -





0 O




water.



This is inefficiency forced by District regulation. It has

an adverse impact on the resource.

So long as the farmer uses only the rain which falls on his

land and uses it with no adverse effect to the resource,

restriction of use is not warranted.



c. Consumptive Use:



The term "consumptive use" has tended to become synonymous

with simply the word "use". Since allocation is going to

become an interval part of water management techniques in

those areas where shortages are apparent, there needs to be

some differentiation and understanding of the difference

between use where there has been no deterioration of the

resource as compared where there has been actual loss to the

resource as a whole.



Examples can be used to illustrate these differences. For a

citrus grbwer on flat woods lands where water is required to

be pumped from the Floridan aquifer with the net result that

there is increased run-off from the land on an annual basis,

consumptive use takes place. Water has been removed from

the aquifer which cannot be restored to the aquifer by that

same parcel of land where it was used.


- 24 -


"-L)~Usi~ICiri*l~.











Conversely, if that same grower had been allowed to use his

water retention reservoir for purposes of irrigation, rather

than for storm water retention, (and better yet if he'd been

allowed to place the reservoir on a wet land, rather than an

up land) there would have been no consumptive use. He would

be living off the rainfall and farming very satisfactorily.



Another example is that of the electric power plant. When

water is pumped from the ground and used in the cooling

process, it is heated and even though it be stored in a

reservoir and some portion of it reused, the evaporative

loss has been dramatically increased and consumptive use

takes place. In planning for who gets how much water and

under what circumstances, this difference between use and

consumptive use must be recognized and be taken into

account.



A final example is that of a individual living on a small

city lot. His use of water is totally consumptive. It is

only mitigated to the extent that waste water from the house

goes through a reuse process where it can be used again.

This changes that picture to some extent.



d. Allocation by the District:



It appears to be the intention of the District to allocate

water, but the proposal appears to lack the shared sacrifice

25 -





a 0



by all users which will be essential. When no market value

has been placed upon available water,,such arbitrary rules

assure that in times of real shortage further arbitrary cuts

for all users will be inevitable. This can only lead to

controversy, lawsuits, and failure to fairly allocate the

resource.


The District staff's third option which has been expressed

for the ETBWUCA proposes to reduce permitted quantities from

around 400 million to approximately 300 million gallons per

day. This is twice the amount,that is considered "safe

yield". They blithely suggest that within only 5 to 10

years they are going, to obtain 50 million gallons from

alternate sources so that current use levels can continue,

but they are suggesting that full usage, even with the

efficiencies which they are recommending, would amount to

300 rather than 200 million gallons per day. There is

something faulty with this logic. It isn't going to work in

eastern Tampa Bay and it certainly isn't going to work in

the SWUCA as a whole. There are no alternate sources.on the

Ridge unless one is going to continue to mislead by

suggesting that conservation is an alternate source.


It is essential that the District limit its immediate

regulatory procedures to just the ETBWUCA. The data for

even that limited area is insufficient to properly initiate

fair allocation procedures now. The data for the remaining

26 -











SWUCA as a whole simply magnifies that inadequacy. There is

no way to fairly begin the procedure throughout that entire

area. By limiting this to. the ETBWUCA, there is an

opportunity to define "efficiency", "water rights" etc. and

to use a small area as a trial for the larger SWUCA area at

a later time. The dilemma facing the District is how to

force a reduction in current ground water use within

ETBWUCA. That decision shouldn't be delayed. It certainly

shouldn't be postponed by the adoption of plans which have a

dubious chance of success. Although the District staff has

determined "safe yield", they do not appear to have a plan

which will reduce ground water within 2 3 years.


If the District can develop for ETBWUCA a fair and effective

way to reduce ground water use while allowing dsers to have

sufficient water for efficient use, it will have-properly

addressed the over-use problem and will have developed a

mechanism to allow substantial growth of the population and

of commercial, agricultural, and industrial enterprise

within the area.


e. Percent reduction based on permitted or actual use:


The ETBWUCA is comprised of about 844,000 acres. At 10

inches of surplus rainfall per acre, this equates to an

available water supply of some 636 mgd. The District's

estimate suggested about half this amount is currently used
27 -





0 0



from combined ground and surface water sources within the
area, but this usage represents a greater withdrawal from
the Floridan aquifer than there is recharge capacity to

replace. Therefore the District Board needs to reduce both
ground water withdrawals and total water usage.


It appears to be important to reduce current ground water
withdrawal .to such an extent that the potentiometric
pressure in eastern Manatee County improves and ultimately
returns to pre-overdraft pressures.


The prescribed reduction in use can be predicated upon land
use and the efficiency of that use. Alternate supplies are
no substitute for efficient use, but both are essential for
the future. Inefficient use needs. to stop, as soon as

possible.


Table 1 shows public supply usage within the ETBWUCA as tak-

en from the District statistics. About 9 percent of usage
was not specifically identified and is shown as "unknown".

The other ground water and surface water uses are identified

by permit number. These include transfers from one system
to another. Although, water loss through the reverse osmo-
sis process is not ,used.by people, it is pumped from the
ground and therefore has been. included in the per capital use
figures.


- 28 -




I i, I I


If ETBWUCA 1990 ground water use were reduced to 150 mgd, an

across the board cut of 27.15% would be required. Table 1

includes the 27.15% reduction and the effect on per capital

use. It also shows the volume of water which would be used

if per capital consumption from all sources was at only the

"basic right" volume of 75 gallons per day.



Table 2 shows ETBWUCA estimated agriculture acreage and use

for 1990 as derived from District sources. No clear

indication is available as to how the acre total or the

usage totals were derived, but the acre inches used compares

satisfactorily with the per acre use derived from the A.I.M.

data base. The Table includes the volume of water available

if all ground water use in ETBWUCA were reduced by 27.15%

and the inches per acre which would result.



Table 3 compares permitted quantities in ETBWUCA with 1990

usage for all users. If ground water use is to be reduced

to 150 mgd, then actual utse must be curtailed to 72.85

percent of that used in 1990, or to 36.59 percent of that

permitted at that time. Neither figure takes efficiencies

already in place into account and is therefore unfair, but

the ground water uses need to be reduced to 150 mgd and all

new and expanded use must come from alternate sources. This

Table suggests two procedures as a starting point for

assignment of reduced use goals. Two years should be enough

time to establish fairer allocation procedures based on

29 -





6 0




actual efficiency of operations and how beneficial use is

related to land use.


Table 4 shows the amount of water which would be allowed for

each agricultural use and compares this with the reductions

based upon permitted or 1990 usage.


While the two reductions suggested above could accomplish

the objective of 150 mgd, they are unfair and any procedure

for the allocation of water for efficient use has to be fair

to all users. All users, individuals, industry, agriculture,

power plants, golf courses, etc. who hold valid Consumptive

Use Permits need to be allocated their fair share of the 150

mgd safe yield.; This allocation should be based on their

relative efficiency of use, their net contribution to the

water resource, and some implication from "water rights" as

previously discussed.


f. Market allocation including "basic right" at no cost:


A successful program which results in reduced, but efficient

water use can best be implemented and maintained through a

market approach rather than through arbitrary-micro-managed

administrative regulations.


If one starts with the concept that each individual

inhabitant is entitled to one acre inch per year, or 75

30 -











gallons of water per day and that every acre used in a

commercial enterprise, when run-off is not increased, is

entitled to use 10 acre inches of the rain water which falls

upon that land, one has begun to establish a basis for all

users to a minimal allocation of water plus additional

amounts related to perception of economic need.



It is suggested here that the 10 inches per acre on citrus

is probably more or less comparable to the 75 gallons per

day per person suggested for public utilities. There is

insufficient data 'available at this time to accurately

suggest similar ?basic rights" for other crops as compared

with 75 gallons per capital per day or 10 inches per acre on

citrus, but it must be possible to determine comparable

figures by using all available data and then performing

research where such is necessary to establish critical end

points.



In order to demonstrate the effects of such a concept Table

5 compares possible "basic right" allocations for various

crops in ETBWUCA. No suggestion should be derived here that

these amounts are fair or are comparable to the 10 inches on

citrus or the 75 gallons per capital per day for people, but

they do offer a comparison with ground water usage today and

with the amount of water which would be used if there were

an across the board reduction of 27.15%.


- 31 -





6 0




Table 1 shows that for public utilities in ETBWUCA thei75

gallons per day "basic right" is only 43.5 million gallons

which is only 1.5 million more than currently being used

from surface water. Surface water essentially supplies the

"basic right". The additional water desired and used is

from ground water sources.


In a similar way, basic amounts comparable to the 10 inch

and 75 gallons can probably be established on the basis of

negotiation with individual commercial enterprises including

electric power plants. If negotiation does not prove to be

successful, a hearing process might have to be evolved.


Proposed-here is a market approach which requires that there

be a cost for the use of water whenever the amount used is

greater than the "basic right", as in previously described

examples of 75 gallons per capital or 10 acre inches on

citrus.


A market approach also requires that a transfer mechanism be

included so that, at the discretion of the user, some amount

of the "basic right" can be sold or transferred, at least

within an individual water shed. Dr. Gary _. Lynne has

proposed such a system and has explained it in some detail.

There is a need to work out equitable details to transfer

water use when leased land is under cultivation.


- 32 -


'---llf"LVI;- ~^fl- IIT~-UIIIPIIIT Dli-I~1I~111LI-l











This concept assures that all users would be permitted at

their "basic right" volume. Since there is currently no

legal mechanism by which the District can charge for water,

it may be best to consider administrative fines which may be

assessed against any CUP holder who has exceeded his "basic

right" allotment in any year. Therefore, the concept

proposed here suggests that all users would be permitted at

their "basic right" volume which is recognized to be less

than most users will ultimately want to use. The user will

be assessed a fine for the over-use. Failure to pay such an

assessment could then lead to a loss of the CUP, but on the

other hand any user, by paying the fine, could continue to

use the extra water which he perceived was needed and for

which he was willing to pay. He knows what it will cost and

he can decide whether it is worth the price.



Since such a system would impose the fine on the public

utility, the. District escapes the onus of the immediate

restriction of use by individual home owners. How the

individual utility passes along its costs,is-a function of

its own rate structure and its own management's desire. The

district has no responsibility for the allocation procedure

used within the individual utility.


g. A specific market approach game plan:



In ETBWUCA only the District shall:
33 -





6 0




1. Agree to have fully in place by 1995 a system for

reducing ground water use to 150 mgd.


2. At District expense install working meters for all CUP

holders by some time in 1994.


3. Establish "basic rights" for use with no penalty for

each and every class of users between now and December

31, 1994. Accomplish this by negotiation and research

if possible, but by hearing if necessary.


4. Establish a proposed schedule of fines to be put into

effect for calendar year 1995. These are to be

established for every CUP user and will be assessed

against any water use which is greater than the annual

"basic right" previously allocated. For every 10%

above the "basic right" the same rate per gallon would

be charged and at the same price for all users. Each

additional 10% would be fined for at an increasing

price per gallon.


5. All fines collected will be first used to reimburse

those users who were forced to install meters at their'

own expense, then to be used to install additional

meters as needed, and with a balance of such collected

funds to conduct research and for use in creating

additional sources of water.

34 -











For the entire SWUCA including Pasco, Pinellas, and all of

Hillsborough counties the District shall:



1. Consider implementing a similar system to that in

ETBWUCA throughout all of the district sometime after

1995.



2. At District expense, install working meters on all

CUP holders as soon as possible.



3. Consider fines being different from ETBWUCA depending

upon the stress of the waterresoutce in individual

counties or individual basins.



4. Based on changes in measured criteria determining

further deterioration, status quo, or improved water

resources, modify fines from time to time according

to county or district.



5. Create a mechanism to allow the transfer of water

rights from one user to another, with the district

to keep records of whose "basic water right" has been

decreased and whose has been increased, and by how

much. These may represent permanent shifts in "basic

water rights". The record is essential in order to

properly assess fines in the future.


JTG/CGA/pw
9/8/93 35 -

















Table 1


Public Supply Usage in ETBWUCA
Using Data from Table A-i (pp47) 1989-1990 Estimated
Water Use and Table 2-10 (pp2-69) ETBWRAP
(mgd million gallons per day)


WUP Utility


Population


Pumped
GW S


1990 Estimated Use
Export or
Import Net
W SW Use


per
capital


Reduce GW
by 27.151
GW per
mgd capital


Needed for
75 gallons
per day


4352 WCRWSA 130,149 18.9 --- --- 18.9 145 13.8 106 9.8
5387 Manatee Co. 183,690 0.2 + 36.2 13.0 '=' 23.4 127 0.1 127 13.8
6392 Bradenton 44,303 -- 5. + 0.4 5.7 131 --- 131 3.3
4318 Sarasota 54,186 10.0 -- -- 10.0 185 7.3 134 4.1
7411 Sarasota Co. 118,458 1.1 -- + 11.5 = 12.6 106 0.8 104 8.9
Other (unknown) 48.461* 5.8 + 0.5 --- = 6.3 133 4.2 118 3.6
Total 579,247 36.0 + 42.0 1.1 = 76.9 13 26.2 116 43.5


* estimated from 133 gallons per capital per day


0


i -Idl*n~ara~-- e I 1~3LaC e I I i ~ i I I I i It II i I 1












Table 2


Agriculture Water Use in ETBWUCA for 1990 Based on Personal
Communications from Ron Cohen dated July 30, 1993 as Compared
with a Reduction of Ground Water Use by 27.15 Percent


Usage mgd A.I.M. Gallons if Reduced Inches
in. per to 72.85% per acre at
Crop Acres GW SW Tot. acre GW SW Tot. reduced rate

Citrus 31,962 34.6 2.4 37 16 25.2 2.4 27.6 11.4 *
Nursery 2,851 16.8 1.2 18 83 12.3 1.2 13.5 62.7
Pasture 729 3.7 0.3 4 77, 2.7 0.3 3.0 54.5
Sod 5,456 16.8 1,2 18 45 12.3 1.2 13.5 32.8
Veg. 34,486 59.9 4.1 64 25 43.6 4.1 47.7 18.3 **
Straw. 1,287 3.7 0.3 4 43 2.7 0.3 3.0 30.9
Misc. 575 4.7 0.3 5 N/A 3.4 0.3 3.7 85.3
Total 77,346 102 9.8 T- 5.9 102.2 -~. 12 1.92


* Compares with estimated average evapotranspiration requirements of 13 and
12 inches on Immokalee and Myakka soils, respectively, in Manatee County.

** Compares with recommended 29 inches on spring tomatoes by Dr. Gary A. Clark in a
May 17, 1993 letter to Peter Hubbell.












Table 3


- .- ~ :


Estimated 1990 Ground Water Use and Reduction Required
to t ,O a %,afe Yield in Calendar 1995
m liongllr ,a) .. .


.. -.- -..iPqtipfied Use. -At sat
:.- -es or t 1 ,.;,-.: L in. f
of 1990
GW SW-- Total GW SW Total Use


GW Use at
36.59%
of
Permitted


A 1qT2 i. I ;', 7
:.gricultui', 297.0 ;6.0 03.0- 140.,v 9.7 10.0 1
.F ak rlic Suplaj 53.0 j-0.0 .. ;93.0 j 36.l.0 .0 77.0 26.;; 19.' ,
/-itning i4 t 38.1a 7l7.9 -,56.0 -4 19.2 9.8 '-29.0 14.'. 131i '
z7Qtecraatiow ine 11.01e, 7.0 i 18.0 7.0 o, .0 s1.0 V S.1: 43'9
I ..S1 try SE 10.9 8.8 8 :19.7 3.4 ,.\ 4.9 11.3 ,3 2.5 4 4-*'?
r'4':- otal t 410.0 78.7 489.q ,205.9,9.4 ;27 .3 51SrWI Xi506 '
31 53 1 ; 1 2 t' 5 3- 'W


,* )


. r( -,.


I4


I f,


-- ~ ~ I.*'*.-


* :* 'I; :s-r I` p -' .'- *' 2 a.: *.*
4 ; j,*"p. :L*C ; I a.' S
<;' *i }*. '*'*'f -"--* :i4 .i. 33" ', I. -- '( I I '' *f--' ,,;*,, a i?- tr
,S .- i^ .* .9 ;; '. ; ;, 1.ii r *, ;. ... ? a .r -(,.-: ,
s r


U
I












Table 4


The Effect of Different Concepts to Reduce
Ground Water Use by Agriculture in ETBWUCA
(mgd million gallons per day)


1992*
Permitted
mad


Usage in
1990 mgd
SW


Tot.


72.85%
of
Used


36.59%
of
Permitted


Citrus 31,962 57 34.6 2.4 37 25.2 20.8
Nursery 2,851 20 16.8 1.2 18 12.3 7.3
Pasture 729 16 3.7 0.3 4 2.,7 5.9
Sod 5,456 18 16.8 1.2 18 12.3 6.6
Veg. 34,486 183 59.9 4.1 64 43.6 66.9
Straw. 1,287 3 3.7 0.3 4 2,7 1.0
Misc. 575 6 4.7 0.3 5 3,4 2.2
Total 77,346 303 140.3 9.7 150 102.2 110.7


* from Table 2-11 on pp 2-70 ETBWRAP


Crnn


Acres


L














Table 5


A Comparison of "Basic Water. Right Amounts
for Agriculture for ETBWUCA*
(mgd million gallons per day)


Usage in 1990


GW SW


In. per
Tot. Acre


Basic Right* Consumption


In. per
Acre


Tot. = SW + GW


.16
83
77
45
25
43
N/A
23.9


10
40
10
20
20
20
20
16.5


23.8 =2.4 + 21.4
8.5'= 1.2 + 7.3.
0.5 = 0.3 + 0.2
8.1 = 1.2 + 6.9
51.3 = 4.1 + 47.2
1.9 = 0.3 + 1.6
0.9 = 0,3 + 0.6
95.0 = 9.8 + 85.0


* It isn't suggested that these figures are correct as equivalent to 10 inches
for citrus, but these offer comparative figures.


Acres


Citrus
Nursery-
Pasture
Sod
Veg.
Straw.
Misc.


31,962
2,851
729
5,456
34,486
1,287
575
77,346


34.6
16.8
3.7
16.8
59.9
3.7
4.7
140.3


2.4
1.2
0.3
1.2
4.1
0.3
09.
9.8


37
18
4
18
64
4
5
150


II -, i II IIII --




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