| Material Information
||Memo: Northern Tampa Bay Water Uase Cautuion Area Rules
||North America -- United States of America -- Florida
||Memo: Northern Tampa Bay Water Uase Cautuion Area Rules, Jan 24, 1991 To: LMB and DPM, From: DAL
||Box 10, Folder 15 ( SF Water Use Caution Rule - 1990-1991 ), Item 5
||Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
TO: 'and DPM
FR: DAL *T
DT: Januy 24, 1991
RE: Norte Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area Rules
SWmFD has published a revised version of the December 18, 1990
draft of the Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area Rules.
The rule will be presented to the SWFWMD Governing Board for
approval on' January 30, 1991. The revised draft indicates, in
summary, the following changes:
A description of the Northern Tampa Bay Water Use
Caution Area by section, township and range.
Public supply customers receiving less than 25,000 gpd
from a wholesale distribution of water whose per
capital daily water use is less than the per capital use
specified by rule will be exempt from rate structure,
water audit and residential water use reporting
requirements. (This translates into community
customers with populations of less than approximately
160-190 residents, or 50-60 houses.)
Reclaim water generators are required to submit annual
reports listing the number of connections and total use
of the reclaimed water produced including effluent
that is not reused. The report shall also include
average daily quantity and peak monthly quantity for
each use category. Meters are required on all re-use
service connections 2" or larger.
All new withdrawal points constructed after September
30, 1989 (with the capabilities of withdrawing 500,000
gpd or more) will be equipped with non-resettable
totalizing flow meters, with a accuracy of 5%. The
meters will be installed at the permittees' expense.
The District is requiring 3 copies of the withdrawal
information be submitted with required reports.
The accuracy of meters is qualified with an "as
installed" phrase throughout the rule.
The changes noted in the rule seem to make sense but how did
this rule ever get this far without including XBar and Cypress
Creek Wellfields which are immediately upgradient from these
groundwater deficient areas?
I1I1 ii i.