CITRUS GROWER ASSOCIATES, INC.
2930 WINTER LAKE ROAD
LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33803
September 9, 1993
Mr. L.M. Blain, Esq.
202 Madison St.
Tampa, Florida 33602
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.
II 1 I
11 1 I I
Southwest Florida Water Management District
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR A SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA
WITH EMPHASIS ON EASTERN TAMPA BAY"
James T. Griffiths
Citrus Grower Associates, Inc.
2930 Winter Lake Road
Lakeland, FL 33803
Table of Contents
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 -
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
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 -
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 -
required both by the permitted and by District
staff in any regulatory effort to micro-manage the
IV. ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES
The implementation strategies discussed below are based upon
the recognition and acceptance of the following general
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
~a~- --- ----p~~--~ulr~ii~~w~.d
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
lI J ,J ; II ,
rainfall within the District can sustain not only
Substantially increased populations, but also
increased industrial and agricultural development.
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
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 -
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
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
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
2. Strategy for increased water supplies:
Since there is no reliable method to actually increase rain-
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-
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
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
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-
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
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 -
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
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.
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?
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
; 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
with heavy irrigation, reflects a net gain to the water
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
If one starts with the concept that each individual
inhabitant is entitled to one acre inch per year, or 75
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
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 -
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
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:
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.
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
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.
9/8/93 35 -
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)
1990 Estimated Use
W SW Use
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
i -Idl*n~ara~-- e I 1~3LaC e I I i ~ i I I I i It II i I 1
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.
- .- ~ :
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
GW SW-- Total GW SW Total Use
GW Use at
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( -,.
-- ~ ~ 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 -(,.-: ,
The Effect of Different Concepts to Reduce
Ground Water Use by Agriculture in ETBWUCA
(mgd million gallons per day)
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
A Comparison of "Basic Water. Right Amounts
for Agriculture for ETBWUCA*
(mgd million gallons per day)
Usage in 1990
Basic Right* Consumption
Tot. = SW + GW
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.
II -, i II IIII --