Title: Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996-2020
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002373/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996-2020
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: SWFWMD
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996-2020, 1997
General Note: Box 10, Folder 16 ( SF Water Use Demands-SWFWMD 1997 - 1997 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002373
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text












.i I Ld


&


199S-2020




S- 2
a mI '


i~ -. -if~


-V


''J I ~


\ 1 "




















Water Use Demand

Estimates & Projections

1996-2020







Prepared by:

Resource Projects Department




January 1997

The Southwest Florida Water Managment District (District) does not disiiminae upon the basis of any
individuals disabMiliy Ms s. This haii atio licy involves evy aspect of the District's
functions, including one's access to, paticipation, employment, or treaoet in its poms or activities.
Anyoe qirig reasonable accommodation as provided for in he Amwicans With Disabiities Act
should comet Gwen Brown, Resource Projects Deptet at (352)796-7211 or 1(800)423-1476,
extension 4226; TDD ONLY 1(800)231-6103; FAX (352)754-6815SUNCOM 663-6885.


1_1 _










TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.

TABLE OF CONTENTS .. ........................ ......................... ..... i

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................... ..iii

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................. iv

PREFACE ...................................................................... vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................... ... ..... ...................... 1

2.0 PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE DEMANDS ......................... 2
21 PopulationPromc ..tions ....................................... ...... 2
22 Per Capita Water Use Rates ..................................... ...... 5
2.3 Public Supply and Other Potble Water Demand ............................ 6

3.0 AGRICULTURAL WATER USE ........................................... 24
3.1 Introduction ................................................ .. 24
3.2 Aricultural Land Use Proiections ....................................... 24


3.2.1 Historical Land Use Trends ....................................
3.2.2 Econo ics M odeling .........................................
3.2.3 Land Use Proiections ...........................................
PermittedWater Use Rates for Crops.....................................
Projected Agicultural Water Use .......................................


4.0 INDUSTRIAL WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS ............................
4.1 Introduction Explanaton of Cateories .................................
4.2 chemical Manufactug ..............................................
4.3 Food Prcessi n .....................................................
4.4 Power Geneation .....................................................
4.4.1 Forida Power and Light ...... .................................
4.4.2 Ta k .cti pany ....................................
4.4.3 FloridaPowerCo ration ......................................
4.4.4 HardeePowerPartners ................................. ........
.4.. LakelandPo er .................. ............. ...............
4.4.6 Othe power Facilities ........................................
45 Other Uses ......................................................

5.0 MINING WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS .................................
5.I Introduction .........................................................
5.2 Phobshate Mining .................................................
5.3 Limestne Miin ..... ...............................................
5.4 Cement Manufact/Sand Mining ......................................


- r _r -:l.lr,.--~----r- -;;-i----------*--" n -~I ~c ,;:~i .i-~T~frJ~"r r, ..1


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projeetions


1996 2020








Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 220


TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.


6.0 RECREATIONAL WATER DEMAND ..................................... 72
6.1 Introduction ................................................... 72
2 GolfCourse ........................................... ....... ....... 72
3 Landscape ........................... ............................ 75

7.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS ......................... 77

LITERATURE CITED .............................................. ........... 80


_ ~I~i ____ ~_i __
lli -? -. ~ ~ I ii r







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projectimins 1996 2020


Figure No.
Figure 3.2-1.





Figure 3.2-2(a).
Figure 3.2-2(b).
Figure 3.2-2(c).
Figure 3.2-3(a).
Figure 3.2-3(b).
Figure 3.2-4.
Figure 3.2-5(a).
Figure 3.2-5(b).
Figure 3.2-6(a).
Figure 3.2-6(b).
Figure 4.1.

Figure 4-2.
Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-3.




Figure 7-1.


LIST OF FIGURES


Page No.


Historical Citrus Acreage for the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. Northern Counties include Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Levy, Marion
and Sumter. Central Counties include Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas and
Polk. Southern Counties include Charlotte, DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands,
Manatee and Sarasota. Includes acreage not in SWFWMD ...................
Historical Citrus Acreage for the Northern Counties in the SWFWMD ..........
Historical Citrus Acreage for the Central Counties in the SWFWMD ...........
Historical Citrus Acreage for the Southern Counties in the SWFWMD ..........
Historical Tomato Acreage in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties .............
Historical Strawberry Acreage in Hillsborough County .....................
Intensive Agricultural Land Use in the SWFWMD .........................
Citrus Acreage Projections Through 2020 in Central Counties ................
Citrus Acreage Projections Through 2020 in Southern Counties ...............
Projected Tomato Acreage ...........................................
Projected Strawberry Acreage..........................................
Location of Active Industrial Use Sites Where Average Daily Permitted
Water Use Exceeds 0.5 mgd ................................... ......
Industrial Water Use Projects Through the Year 2020 ......................
Location of Active Mining Facilities Whose Average Daily Permitted
WaterUse Exceeds 0.5 mgd .........................................
Mineable Phosphate Area Within the SWFWMD ..........................
District-wide Historical and Projected Average Daily Mining Water Use
for the Period 1981-2020. Historical and projected use is also shown
for individual mining use categories including phosphates, limestone
and sand and peat mining ............................................
Total Projected Average Daily Water Use Through 2020 in
the Southwest Florida Water Management District .........................


26
27
27
28
28
29
30
49
49
51
51


71

79


j


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020







Wat~~~~~r_ Use_ DeadEtmtsadPrjci 96-22


LIST OF TABLES


Table 2.1-1.
Table 2.1-2.


Table 2.1-3.


Table 2.1-4.


Table 2.1-5.


Table 2.1-6.


Table 2.1-7.


Table 2.1-8.


Table 2.1-9.


Table 2.1-10.


Table 2.1-11.


Table 2.1-12.


Population Projections Used in Preparation of County Comprehensive Plans ......
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per ita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Charlotte County, Florida ..... ................ ................
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Citrus County, Florida ................. ... : ....................... ....
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for DeSoto County, Florida.......... ....... ... .. .... ...... ,............
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
forHardee County, Florida ............................ ......... .....
Projected Population, AveragePer Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Hemrando County, Florida .........................................
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Highlands County, Florida ............... .........................
Projected.Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable WaterUse Projections Through 2020
for Hillsborough County, Florida .............. ......................
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
forLake County, Florida .......................................
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Levy County, Florida .......... ....................... ..
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per CapitaProjections, *
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Manatee County, Florida ........... .............................
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Marion County, Florida ............. .............................


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020








Wae UeDeadEsiatsad rjetos 96 0


Table No.
Table 2.1-13.


Table 2.1-14.


Table 2.1-15.


Table 2.1-16.


Table 2.1-17.


Table 2.1-18.

Table 3.2-1.

Table 3.2-2.

Table 3.2-3.

Table 3.2-4.

Table 3.2-5.

Table 3.2-6.

Table 3.2-7.

Table 3.2-8.

Table 3.2-9.


LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page N
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Pasco County,'Florida ... .......... ...................... .
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Pinellas County, Florida ......... ......................... 1
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Polk County,Flrid ............ ............................... 2(
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
fdr Sarasota Cun, Florida ..................................... 21
Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections,
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections Through 2020
for Sumter County, Florida ................................... .2
Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use Projections by County in
the Southwest Florida Water Management District .................... 2..
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in
Charlotte County Through 2020 ..................... ..... .... ............ 3
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops 1
in Citrus County Through 2020 ..... ........... .................... 3:
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
inDeSotoCountyThrough2020 .. ................................ 31
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
in Hardee County Through 2020 ................................... 3!
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
inHernando CountyThrough2020 ................ ....:,.. .......... 3
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
inHighandsountyThrough 20 ................................. 3
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Cops
inHillsborough county Through2020 ..... .... ................
County.widd Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Ctops
in Lake County Through 2020 ........... .... ......... ......... 3!
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
in Levy County Through 2020 ....................................... 4(


r 31 1 I ,,,


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996- 02







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 2020


LIST OF TABLES (continued)


Table No.


Page No.


Table 3.2-10.

Table 3.2-11.

Table 3.2-12.

Table 3.2-13.

Table 3.2-14.

Table 3.2-15.

Table 3.2-16.

Table 32-17.

Table 4.1.

Table 4-2.

Table 4.4-1.


Table 5-1.

Table 5-2.

Table 6-1.

Table 6-2.
Table 6-3.
Table 7-1.


County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
in Manatee County Through 2020 ...................................... 41
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
in Marion County Through 2020 ............. ....................... 42
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
in Pasco County Through 2020 ....................................... 43
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
in Pinellas County Through 2020 ..................................... 44
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
in Polk County Through 2020 ........................................ 45
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
in Sarasota County Through 2020 ............. .................... 46
County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops
in Sumter County Through 2020 ....................................... 47
Agricultural WaterUse Projections by County in the
Southwest Florida Water Management District ........................ 53
Industrial Water Use Permittees Whose Average Permitted Quantity
Exceeds 0.5 mgdasofl992 ......................................... 57
Industrial Water Use Projections Through 2020 in the
Southwest Florida Water Management District ..... .................... 59
Projected Cumulative Additional Water Needs for Power
Generation for the Major Power Generators in the Southwest
Florida Water Management District through 2020 ......................... 61
Mining Water Use Permittees Whose Average Permitted Quantity
Exceeds0.5 mgdasofl992 .......................................... 67
Mining Water Use Projections Through 2020 in the
Southwest Florida Water Management District ........................... 69
Population, Golf Courses, and Golf Holes in the Southwest
Florida Water Management District for the Period of 1984 1992 ............. 73
Golf Water Use Projections in the SWFWMD ........................... 74
Landscape Water Use Projections in the SWFWMD ........................ 76
Total Projected Average Daily Water Use Through 2020 in
the Southwest Florida Water Management District ......................... 78


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020







W199-2020


PREFACE

*Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.) charges the Southwest Florida Water Management
District(SWFWMD) with management of the water resources of the Southvst Florida region. A key
element of this management is to optimize the resource to provide adequate supply for as many reasonable
and beneficial uses as possible without causing unacceptable impacts to the resource, associated natural
systems, and existing legal users. To assist in the proper management ofthe resource, the Technical
Assistance to Local Governments Section of Chapter 373 further requires that each water management
district complete and periodically update an "assessment of regional water resource needs and sources for
the next 20 years."

In 1990, the SWFWMD Governing Board identified district-wide water supply needs and sources
planning as a critical element in the Board's strategic planning effort. In response to this Board initiative,
needs and sources planning efforts were accelerated, and work on a water supply and sources plan of the
entire SWFWMD was started. The plan examined water demands and resources through the year 2020.
Water needs were estimated by comparing existing water supply capacities to projected future water use
demands. Potential sources to meet future needs were identified. Various water supply development plans
were developed and evaluated. In January 1992, work on the plan was completed and formally presented
as the "Water Supply Needs and Sources 1990-2020" report.

The District is currently involved in updating the 1992 "Water Supply Needs and Sources" report.
Work on the "future water demands" portion of the report has been completed while work on those
sections related to existing supply capacities, future needs, and potential sources continues.

The objective of this report is to provide an update of the water use demand projections
presented in the 1992 "Water Supply Needs and Sources" report. It is important to note that the
information presented in this report is intended to provide water use demand projections suitable
for developing long-range water supply plans.


Water Use Demand Estimates and Pr~gcdoins


991 6 2020










S 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Long range water supply planning is necessary in southwest Florida because we have reached a level
of water use such that water users are in competition with each other, and with the water resource-
related environment The purpose of the SWFWMD's 1992 "Needs and Sources" report (SWFWMD,
1992) was to provide a district-wide water supply needs and sources plan which will identify projected
water needs through the year 2020 and recommend appropriate resource management measures to meet
as many of these needs as practicable. A key factor in the success of this long range plan is that the
information used in its development is updated at regular intervals.

This report updates the current information available on projected water use demands (Chapter 2). To
accomplish this, wateruse is divided into six major categories. The categories are public supply, other
potable use, agricultural, industrial, mining, and recreational. Other potable use includes water
consumed by households which either have private wells (rural use) or are supplied by small public
supply systems (systems not exceeding the permitting thresholds for a water use permit (WUP) or
whose average daily permitted quantity is less than 0.5 mgd).

Presented here are the demand projections for each water use category and a description of the
methodology used in their calculation. The information used came from a variety of published sources
including local government comprehensive land use plans, regional water supply authority resource
development plans, BEBR Population Projections Bulletin No. 108, February 1994, SWFWMD's
regulatory data base, SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Report, numerous agricultural land use
projection reports produced by IFAS for the SWFWMD, and the Florida Commercial Citrus Inventory
and Agricultural Statistics report. In addition, SWFWMD staffhave met individually with over 100
interested parties (i.e., utility directors, local government officials, agricultural grower's associations,
water supply authority officials, etc.) to receive their direct input.


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996- 2020









2.0 PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE DEMANDS

2.1 Population Projections

A key element in projecting public supply and other potable water use needs is obtaining the best
available population forecasts. The two primary sources of population projections for water supply
planning purposes in Florida are projections based on permanent population projections compiled by
the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), and projections based
on equivalent residential units servedby a utility.

BEBR has been compiling county-wide population estimates throughout the state since the 1960s.
Historically, these estimates have been used for numerous efforts including infrastructure planning, and
more recently the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has recommended that these projections
be used by local governments in the development of the comprehensive plans. For water supply
planning purposes, BEBR projections are used as the permanent population and a multiplier is added
to account for seasonal population (i.e., seasonally adjusted population = BEBR population + [seasonal
population adjustment factor X BEBR population In general, counties include tourists and migrant
workers as pat of the seasonal population. Most counties list both permanent and seasonally adjusted
populations in their comprehensive plans. Table 2.1-1 lists the soiuce of permanent population and
seasonal adjustment factors in the comprehensive plans for the sixteen counties inthe SWFWMD.

The second primary method for calculating population projections is based on determining the
equivalent residential units served by the utility. Typically, all customers served by the utility are
converted to equivalent residential units. A multiplier of number of individuals who reside in an
equivalent residential unit is determined and then multiplies by the number of equivalent residential
units to find the projected population to be served.

Population estimates based on BEBR projections and/or equivalent residential units have been used in
the numerous studies on future water use demands.The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
(WCRWSA) "Water Resource Development Plan" prepared in July 1994 by Law Environmental, Inc.,
utilized the Authority member's population projections for estimating its future water demands
(Law Environmental, Inc., 1994). Population projections provided by the Planning Departments of
Hillsborough and Pasco counties were based on BEBR county-wide population projections. Both
counties disaggreated thecounty-wide BEBR data into smaller planning areas (e.g., census tracts,
traffic analysis zones, etc.) for use in their comprehensive plans. The City of Tampa used Hillsborough
County's population projections as a basis for its own water demand planning efforts. Pinellas County
also used county-wide BEBR data as a basis for projecting its future ppuliition. in examining the
BEBR data, Pinellas County's Planning Department felt that the County's population would grow at
a lesserrate than the BEBR data predicted. In addition,the overall population projections used by the
'Water Resource Development Plan" ire based on BEBR data.

The Peace River/Man!ainta Regional Water Supply Auf y (PRMRWSA) "Water Supply Master
Plan," prepared by Boyle Engineering in June 1990, iaed -a 'vaiety of population projections
(Boyle Engineering Corporation, 1990). Projections for Manatee and Charlotte counties were those
listed in these respective comities mprehensive plans. Sarajita County projections were basdon
-. ', '* ,' .s -


V0 UseDemand d itimates and Projections


19% me31








Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2


POPULATION PROJECTIONS COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

COMP PLAN STATUS as of 08-01-95

COUNTY Not in In Seasonal
Compliance Comspliace BEBR Other Pop.
Charlotte X Bull #83 Jan 1988 (8) _0.30 O m.nmmt (1)
Citrus X BuD #83Jan 1988 (9) 0.074 Penanent (1)
DeSoto X Bu #92 Feb 1990 (9) __0.33 rmanes (2)
Hardee X Bun #8990 May 1989(9) 0.25 Permanet (2)
Hemando X Bull #92 Fe 1990 (B) .06o6 Permnt (3)
Highlnds X Bull #76 April 1986(9) 0-.30 Pmi (a ) nt
Hilhsborough X fBf #76 April 1986 (9) 0.034 Penenuat (1)::
Lake X 1980Census 1980-891EBR 0.36625 Pemaeat (I )
Elec. Meter Coaneooions
Levy X t#83 J 19 (9) Q6 Pnaent ___it) .
Manatee X Bul#0 Matrch lP87(9 __ 0.24*P PmaiMM(5)
Mawio X Marion county Planning .069 PIera (7)
Paso X Bull #83 Jan 1988 (9) 0. 22 Pa mia(6)
Pinelas X 1980 TAZ 1980 Census 0.08 Prmauent()
Polk X Bu #88 March 1988(8) 0.06*Pemaat(l) (
Sarasota X Bu #80 March 1987(9) 0.2* Peanst(1)
Sumter X Bug #93-94 Ju 1990 (9) No Dean

(1) County Plsintg Dqn--f .
(2) Estiates and Pojectios of te Seasonal and Peak Pollukm of Desolto,Hndss, Hihlamds and OlresnobeCe:tuies:
1990 to 2000, Florida Applied Demogrphics, Talalassee, Florida, March 1990.
(3) Based on electric hookups Henmando County Planning Staff
(4) County Planning Depaiait Based on figrs at RV parks, e., dastaspplied by Florida HRS, 1988.
(5) Based on "Resideatand Seasonal Popatins by Ceasus Tract 1985- 200 Florida Land Design and Egineiag Ic.,
December 1917.
(6) Basedon M"Seaitl Resideats in Occasiol/Seanal.aMitry HomuingUnit, 1980 U.S. Census, PamoCony, Florida.
(7) Seasonal rae fiucor foma James Niclbs, Cuwer for Governmental Resposibily, Univry oFlorida Collegeof Law.
(8) Pemaent population based on BEBR high projections.
(9) Parmet population baed on BEBR medium projections.

Table 2.1-1. Population Proectios Usedin Prparation of CoutyQ Copebe ve Plans,

those contained in the County's Utility System Engineerig JRepo prepared by Dames and Moore
March 1989 to secure a bond issue for a water iiprvement pr~ gram. Finally, March 1989 BE)
projections wer :Us for DeSoto County andi City of Arcadi's utility service area beea
comprehensive plans were not developed A the time Boyle completed its study. Boyle Engineer
stated that, "It was felt that the best sourew for public and rural water demand projections vas I
individual counties, cities, and private utilities that supply water within the Authority area." Therefe
Boyle used population projections developed by the ocal authorities where they were availab,
BEBR where projections by local authoritiepawee ot available. ,

The Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply. Authity (WRWSA) "Master Pjla forlfater Suppi
prepared by Coastal Engineering in January 1996, also utilized BEBR projections quite extensive
(Coastal Engineering Associates, Inc., 1996). Population projections for Citrus, Herando and Sum


3


_j~i___~a~~__~_ i;l__ _~___ __


-1_









counties were all based on BEBR data. As with WCRWSA's plan, the BEBR county-wide projections
were disaggreated into smaller planning areas.

For the purpose of this investigation, the SWFWMD has utilized a combination of projections based
on both BEBR and equivalent residential units. The value of the county's total population projection
was calculated by multiplying the medium population projection value that appears in the-BEBR's
February 1994 Volume 27,,Number 2, Bulletin No. 108 timescthe county's seasonally adjusted
population value (BEBR, 1994). The seasonally adjusted population value equals 1+ one-third of the
seasonal population adjustment factor shown on Table 2-1.

Example
Charlotte County BEBR population Seasonal adjusted population value Charlotte County total population

153,600 (1 + .1) = 168,960

The purpose of multiplying the county's seasonal population adjustment factor by one-third is that
although counties build roads, recreational facilities, etc., to meet peak populations, peak water use
demand planning is accomplished through the use of peak rate factors. However, because water supply
planning is so heavily dependent upon per capital water use, it is important to have the best estimate of
population to identify per capital use. Taking into consideration a year-round weighted seasonal
population is believed, by these investigators, to be the best method to estimate population. Because
the "season" in west-central Florida is approximately four months, the annual county seasonal
adjustment factors are reduced by one-third.

The individual population projections were obtained from either the local government comprehensive
plan, the utility department, or calculated by the SWFWMD based on seasonally adjusted BEBR
projections. If the individual population projections were available in the comprehensive plan and the
utility concurred with these projections, they were used. If the utility had revised projections, then the
revised projections were used. Finally, if projections were not available in the comprehensive plan or
the utility was not comfortable with the comprehensive plan projections, and the utility did not have
long-term projections, projections were developed by SWFWMD staff

SWFWMD staff developed utility population projections by determining the average percent of the
total county population that the utility has represented in recent years. This percent of county
population was then held constant through the year 2020 and multiplied by seasonally adjusted
February 1994 BEBR county-wide projections (Bulletin Number 108) to get population projections
through 2020.

Seasonally adjusted population projections for all sixteen counties and major service areas in the
SWFWMD through 2020 are included in Tables 2.1-2 through 2.1-17. As can be seen in these tables,
the largest projected increase in population in terms of people will primarily occur in the heavily
developed areas surrounding Tampa Bay (i.e., Hillsboroizgh, Pasco, aid Pinellas Counties). Other
counties with significant population increases include Charlotte, Citrus,,Hemando, Highlands, Manatee,
Marion, Polk, and Sarasota counties.


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


19% 1 20201






Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections i 7 1 a 1996 2021


22 Per Capita Water Use Rates

Per capital calculations serve as measurements of water use efficiency. As used in this report, gross per
capital water use rates are system-level estimates of the average daily water use per p~orei Generally,
the gross per capital rates are calculated by dividing total water use by the estimated snsajl adjusted
population served. As published in the 1994 versionof the District's "EBtimated 'Wbrt.Use," the
average District-wide gross per capital water me rate was 134 gpd for 1994,' il letWn erage
District-wide adjusted per capit water use rate was 126 gpd (SWFWMD, 199W. "

Per capital rates used in the calculation of the projected water needs for this study originate from several
sources. For those areas located within the Southern Water Use Caution Area '(includes Eastern Tampa
Bay and Highlands Ridge) and all of Polk County, the values contained within the District's proposed
rule changes to Chapter 40D-2, Florida Administrative Code, Basis of Review for Water Use Permit
Applications, Chapter 3 of the Basis of Review, Section 3.6, Subsection "Permit Quantities and
Compliance Within Per Capita Daily Water Use Within the SWUCA" were used in estimating fiutre
water demands. For those areas located within the Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area' and
allofPasco County, the values contained within the District's Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution
Area Management Plal were used for estimating future water demands (SWFWMD, 1990). The per
capital rates ised in the SWUCA are 130 gpd for the time period of 2000to 2004, and 110 gpd for the
time period of 2005 to 2020. The per capital rates used in the NTBWUCA are 120 gpd for the time
period of 2000 to 2009, and 110 gpd for the time period of 2010 to 2020.

Estimating of the future public supply water demands for the rest of the District was accomplished
through the use of a conservation schedule that utilizes a stepped reduction in average per capital water
use similar to those of the "water use caution areas." it calls for the utilities to reduce average per
capital demand to 135 gpdby 2000, and to 115 gpd by 2010.

In order to credit the public supply utilities for environmental mitigation and significant non-residential
customers that use either a minimum of 25,000 gpd or accounted for fiye percent of the system use, a
per capital vale for the quantity of water listed under the column labeled "SIG.USE" and "ENV.MIT."
of Table A-1 of the District's 1994 Water Use Estimate Report was added to the per capital values
contained within above-mentioned documents. The "SIG.USE" and "ENV.MIT." per capital values
were calculated by subtracting the values of the Gross Per Capita columns from the Adjusted Gross Per
Capita columns ofTable A-I of the DistrIct's 1994 Water Use Estimate Report. For those utilities that
did not report a "significant use" volume, value of five gallons per capital per day was used as
Recommended on page 3.2-1 "of the District's November 15, 1994 report titled, Ecosnic Impact
Statement for Revisions to Chapter 40D-2f'FA.C, Water Use Permitting, and'Chapter 40D-8, F.A.C.,
Water Levels and Rates of Flow, Including Rules Specific to the Southern Water Use Caution Area"
(Hazen and Sawyer, 1994).

For those utilities with historical per capital rates that fall below the value mentioned: above, the
average of the 1989-1994 per capital estimates was used for projecting future water u demand.


1Per capital rates used in this report for both the SWUCA and NTBWUCA are dependmt on th final outcotof
the nrle-making process which was still underway at the time this report was published. Please check with district staff
prior to using these values for planning purposes.'










Per capital water use rates are included in Tables 2.1-2 through 2.1-17.

2.3 Public Supply and Other Potable Water Demand

The average daily public supply and other potable water use projections by county and water demand
planning area are listed in Table 2.1-18.

Total average day public supply projections, for permits whose average day quantities are greater than
0.5 mgd, increase from 398.3 mgd in 1994 to 560.3 mgd in 2020, representing a net increase of 162.0
mgd or 40.7 percent. The greatest increases occur in counties which currently have the largest
populations. Average daily demand is projected to increase by 38.7 mgd in Hillsborough County, by
24.6 mgd in Pasco County and by 23.8 mgd in Sakasota County during the period 1994 to 2020. During
that same time period, other counties with substantial increases include Charlotte (13.5 mgd), Citrus
(6.7 mgd), Hemando (7.6 mgd), Highland (1.7 mgd), Manatee (14.1 mgd), Marion (6.7 mgd), Pinellas
(13.0 mgd) and Polk (10.5 mgd). Projected average daily public supply demands in the remaining
counties are expected to increase by less than 1,0 mgd by 2020.

Average daily public supply demands in the regional water supply authorities jurisdictional areas are
projected to increase in 2020 to 49.1 mgd in the WRWSA (includes only area of Marion County in the
SWFWMD), a 79.2 percent increase over the 1994 demand of 27.4 mgd; to 317.0 mgd in the
WCRWSA, a 31.7 percent increase over the 1994 average daily demand of 240.7 mgd; and to 122.9
mgd in the PRMRWSA which represents a 73.1 percent increase of the 1994 demand of 71.0 mgd.
Projected average daily public supply demand in Hardee, Highlands, and Polk counties within the
SWFWMD, which are not currently in a regional water supply jurisdictional area, is 71.3 mgd in 2020.
This represents a 20.4 percent increase over the 1994 demand of 59.2 mgd.

Within the SWFWMD, projected average daily other potable water use is expected to decrease from
83.7 mgd in 1994 to 75.1 mgd in 2020.


I


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020



















CHARLOTTE COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
PO 'IO (1 ) POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1994 2000 2010 2020
22,568 25,872 32,824 39,776


PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
88 184 141 153 142 139


1,599 5,196 7,624 9,359 301 240 247 266 624 601 380


6,611 6,517 9,018 11,200


96 08 11I 98 152 19 109


PER CAPITAL
6 YEAR PROIECTONS (4)
AVO 2000-204 2005-2020
159 135 t11


REPORTED
USE (1)
1994
3.1


PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER
USE IN MOD

2000 2010 2020
3.5 38 4.6


135 115 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.1

1090 9 9 (10) 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.2


Chadae mNrbo (5)

Pon CharloutMurdook (6)


4,275 7.124 9,212 11,308 67 71 81 39 73 Ia

61,164 77,481 104,128 139.939 105 138 140 174 96 98


75 75 75 (11) 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8

125 125 115 (12) 6.0 9.7 12.0 16.1


16,925 19,325 22.325 25,325

24,817 25,900 32,238 29.933


73 85 104 95 78 86 7


87 87 (10) 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2

110 110 2.7 2.8 3.5 3.3


...J T""~ ~ 2395 16'3~PI


15.2


19.7 23.1 29.3


(1) Br m data reported by d utilty mt a SWWOO lresoue Ploject Dq M ft induion in he SWFWi 's 194 Simatid Water Use Ropo
Z() Pe Capita wamr u Mtimas a ponaed is sWWMD' 94 1)9 I latd Wter Un Repom
(3) I opulation Pmctias m bed on llnumtie dm tm of ie 19S 3 Boyle Engined a port i "City of Put Goodl Wa. Spply St dy
(4) Per mpa pjectons We based on water us clntmcl am lami.
(5) Peplton PmoeneJo b~s on coM mmmicalim wih Individal uiltim.
(6) Popultion pojecetous m buaed on di Iaenmala pnwided by ChJule County Utities.
(7) Oher potble repreaa pAe supply utilt liM pinild r average dly qlmttie l 05 ai d u.ral wer s. was detenminoed by sabthlia g dl projected population eavd by utiliiea
whome average daily pmnad qumatity mr ds 0.5 ai from eA sensally adjuMsed BEBR medium county-wide population etimates.
(8) Esimted nmar leaedd by nAitiplylother poablepopulation byar percaplt orf 10 pd.
(9) Potpuatio peojel equal 99.5pMt p of the ae ly aled BB medium coumy-wide popular estimate fom BEBR etie no. 141 do o put of the county being outside ofthe bisti.
epliMiMon uhael mmanid u l d byl pan ut aioa l population. The 10 percent adjustmn Is one4d of ti euamonl component contald in the Chmrlte County Conpehlenive
HwM
Plan,
(10) Pr cap projections are aed oin a veorag of dw 19-1994 per capia stimm.
(l)Per apimuje or rMMHNbor rae baed onthe avel of the per capia etm ton 1989, 1990 1991. 1993 and 194. 1992 wI notl nclded because of oincems over th accacy of its
S per capia etimae van.
(12) 2000-2004 per capitaploje s besed on te avemae v ofr d 1919-1994 per capta elimates. 2005-.020 per capital projections s bas on water use ion am critls.





Tabhl.1-2. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Publie Supply and Other Potable Water
Use Projections Through 2020 for Charlotte County, Florida.
ProL


UTILITY
Punts Gots (3)

Oaspuill bland (5)

Roltoda West (5)


Englwood (5)


OdMer Ple (7K)


C. ~.. ...1.~--~-- .-~.. .~- .-~`.-.~~t .. ~ ---- - .- -- ----- a--.- ~-I.----^_


'1I I .. 21N M


S.1. r% v 4














CITRUS COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
POPULATION)

UTILITY 1994
Crystal River (3) 8,880


Inveress (3) 6,901


Citrus Spring(6) 6,700


Sugannill (6) 6,015

Rollin Oaks(S) 12,783


Hoosssa(5) 3,443

WRWSA-Meadowcres NA
Hmnpan Jlb(5)


OierPoL~ble.(X8) 61,68

Toi------ 16.10


POPULATION PROJECTIONS

2000 2010 2020
6,279 6,853 7,427


10,641 13,347 16,053


4,959 6,023 7,180


14,259 19,529 25,062

15,282 19,453 20,852


5,067 6,288 7,411


27,762 36,346 40,693



41,886 50,370 65,603


120tJ3, 1SM09 190,211


PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2) 6 YEAR

19891990 1991 1992 1993 1994 AVG
166 173 15Z N/A 224 209 185


135 135 163 171 186 176 161


159 145 186 237 255 136 186


161 146 407 452 375 166 285

256 244 195 192 205 161 209


181 210 168 179 221 182 190


264 256 245 629 N/A N/A 348


PER CAPITAL
PROJECTION (4)

2000-2009 2010-2020
135 t11


135 115


135 115


135 115
135 IIS

135 115


135 115


135 115


REPORTED
USE (I)

1994
1.9


1.2


0.9


1.0

2.1


0.6


N/A


110 110 6.8

14.5


PROJECTED AVERAGE
WATER USE IN MGD

2000 2010 2020
0.8 0.8 0.9


1.4 1.5 1.8


0.7 0.7 0.8


1.9 2.3 2.9

2.1 2.2 2.4


0.7 0.7 0.9


3.8 4.2 4.7



4.6 5.5 7.2

16.0 17.9 21.6


(I) Based on data rpored by the utility to hIe SWFWMD Resource Projects Deparment for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Report.
(2) W u epMtiwa use imeitua usepead rtoSWWND 1l994 EB ated WaterUse R poL
(3) Population projections represent ftiaonal populations (peane population plus one-third of the seasonal population) from the local government comprehensive plan.
(4) Per capital projections based on conservation schedule.
(5) Populaion pnjctions repremnt fctionM l population (penmnset population pu one-lhid of he seasonal population) from the County Comprehensive Plan.
(6) Population projections baed on ilfnmation reesved fvom South SMa Ulilitie Conmany.
() Oer potable use represents ltie that re pmAiled fer average q4antie of less than 0.5 ngd phls ural water use. is determined by subtracting the projected population served by utilities whose
cuoent average daily penitted quantity exceeds 0.5 mgd from the seasonally adjusted BEBR medium county-wide population estimates.
(8) Estimated use calculated by multiplying other potable population by a per capital rate of 110 gpd.
(9) Population projects re eqal to the seasonally adjusted BEBR medium county-wide population estimate fom BEER Bulletin No. 108. Population estimates are adjusted upward by 2.5 percent to reflect
i etional population with 2.5 percent represeing one-thrd of the County's seasonal population.








Table2.1-3. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water

Use Projections Through 2020 for Citrus County, Florida.


.~~i'--'~-----n--:-r. r-^-r---*----- r:-r:------.._?~l~*pc~----l-r T-r^-IC-rXI~----I -W--- I -_ ___~i~T--liC Xi---~---rC--~I~-Ii~.-----__il-l-_--~- ~iT-----i-i~-^_l_----__-1).1_1_~-_11___ .~--CI--l--l-~. ------ .----*-~---^1111~------.----7:.


I -


















DESOTO COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
POPULATION(I) POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1994 2000 2010 2020


1,993 10,436 11,128


PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (I)
199 19 19 1991 1992 1993 1994


105 105 96 95 106 104 102


22.213 220,f1 26,001 29,172


PER CAPITAL
6 YEAR PROJECTION (3)
AVG 20002004 2000-2020


102 102



110 110


REPORTED PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER USE
USE (l) IN MOD
1994 2000 2010 2020

0.7 0.9 1.1 1.2



2.4 2.5 2.9 3.2



3. 3.4 4.0 4.4


(1) Based on da repoed by utility s the SWFW D Rsource Projec Depatment for inclusion in SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Rept .
(2) qi lle pectios m ~ nist wilk CIy of AIcdia. The projected populatio for the yer 2020 wea expuaporlated flom the increased projected from the yeas 2000 mnd 2010.
(3) Pr*ulBiha ttefai a e a aee a~u n u W e 1 m tW9M994 per capida ematMM.
(4) Q mqL pi iM i am pvr n Ir avera qle MaMinm of less dum 05 m plus ui wat use. t is determined by subytacting the projected population served by utilities whos cument avege daily permitted
"i0 l .5 alm o. r om ssaoal 4uume BImR meim conyum-wide population estimates.
(5) Bllmnd us asluaId by lmhiplying other posl populatioM by a pr capital rsoe of 10 lpd.
() a* on piMuj lnsr mspulIssid y IquUi BEBR medium comty-wide population estimate r om BEBR Bulletin No. 109. Population estimate are adjusted upward by 11.1 percent to reflect fictional population
~ t i dierdl County's seaom populaton













Table 2.1-4. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water
Use Projections Through 2020 for DeSoto County, Florida.


wnUY


Arcadia (2)


O Potable (4)MX


S28,756 'TA-I-IS4W441.S00


_ ~3~14 1 I


''I""""'U'~''U'~~~""""'











HARDEE COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
POPULATION(I) POPULATION PROJECTIONS
UTIITY 1994 2000 2010 2020


PER CAPITAL
PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2) 6 yea PROJECTIONS (4)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 AVO 2000-2004 2005-2020


REPORTED
USE(l)
1994


PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER
USE IN MGD
2000 2010 2020


5.754 3,851 3,957 4.063 I8 199 222 173 166 120 178


18,260 21,173 22,584 23,886


Toftls (7) 24,014 25,024 26,541 27,949


170 150 (8) 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6



110 110 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.6


2.7 3.0 3.1 3.2


(I) B aen data op ted by the utility to the SWFWMD Resource Pojects Depuartmt for inclusion in SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Wter Use Report.
(2) Per capit water estiWmati U reported in SWPFW D's 1994 EkMd Waler Ue Report.
(3) 200o 20 populq epo)eao tio D Ciky of Wiuc ul's 19919 ompnhensive plan.
(4) Per capitadIOjUloa e M teUmW lter uMsetdon aMsuilar .
(5) O0*trg I me ra s ulilUs iate paniad ftr aveege quantities of las than 0.5 mad plus nuaal water use. It is deemnnined by subtracting the projected population served by utilities whose current averae daily
pennnied quantity exceeds 0.5 mgd Ao it sea-onally adjusted BEBR medium county-wide population estimates.
(6) EashMld l euseraaid by multIplyig ohr poIblepuliMm by a per apha raisof 110 gpd.
(7) Popolli pomjl il ye I ald raemiMi*lti Uh B n ouisrsMty-widT pulation estima Irom BEBR Bulletin No. 108. Population estimates are adjusted upward 8.3 percent to reflect functional population
o w (.)3 p -mrene prmslg om.a4d of tne Cou uy' ssso l population.
(8) The City of Wauchul's per capia projection values include a significant non-residential customer credit of 40 gpdpc.










Table 2.1-5. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water
Use Projections Through 2020 for Hardee County, Florida.


Wauchu (3)


Other Potable (5X6)


-- I-rr;---...~.., ..~-~-~,..~~-~. I I


---- -- -- --------------- ---------- -------------------------- -- ;-,.I---~i, ~;=;ii;;--;~ii~=-ifi=-i~--,----------



















HERNANDO COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED PER CAPITAL
POPULATION() POPULATION PROJECTIONS PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2) 6 YEAR PROJECTION(4)
UTLITY 1994 2000 2010 2020 199 1990 1991 1992199 1994 AV 2000-20092010-2020
1


Brooksvi* (5)

Ridge Manor (5)


Sprig Hill (5)

Wed Herando (5)

Oher Potable (6)(7)


10,413 15,19 20,057 24,779 140 145 147 161 160 161 152

3,590 4.262 5,542 6,847 131 137 199 140 136 128 145

51,751 70,179 91,468 113,002 169 168 172 189 191 165 176

36,039 35,916 46,837 57,863 155 164 145 156 164 139 154


16,817 21,797 31,452 41,269


110


REPORTED
USE(1)
1994


135 115

135 11t

135 115

135 115

110 110


PROJECTED AVERAGE
WATER USE IN MOD
2000 2010 2020


1.7 2.1 2.3 2.8

0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8

8.5 9.5 10.5 13.0

5.0 4.9 5.4 6.7

1.8 2.4 3.5 4.5


Ioa() 118,10 147,563 195,35I 243,760 17.5 19.4 22.3 27.8
~~S -- --- -- -19-4y -22-3T- --27i8




(1) I rAmi wu' bdtI llps r ImSWFWIIMD Rem Pinas Deparamse for incus in tdie SWFWMD's 1994 Estimted Water Use Repo.
Stftp MiWe eadmims as m i SWPWMD'PtW Iti War Us Repeat
( ) iu psblit ur pll A Ipe pompa~eute~ae bm poeIgdm plis ornthi of the seasonal population) iom the local government comprehensive plan.
(4) lftepliedetJ.ed l un -iseleali .
( ithll(lllits 4eBW l t ltyea n 11m mlimae ddi. Wisr Uke Peuit Appliation.
(~t9p ..lM*1 la ladp6llbrn ma quaili oles dian 0.5 Ongd pls nnl wauer use. It is determined by sublrcting the projected population saved by utilities whose cunent
'*a ilse lily sbnlf agard t e l kmq4 sem b s o emu d O.e BilBR medium county-wide population estimates.
(7) Mlied u alleudtlbym liplyngat hr paMe* popular by apterupitte of 1oagpd.
(8) Iftapii B l*etI>irind mally aoilBl 33(l 3 md im nenmy- lM puollisn atheinaes fro BEBAR bulletin No. 100 Population ematut are adjusted upward by 2 12 pe recent to reflect
fialtional population with 2.12 peat represeting dithe one-third of the County's seasonal population.


Table 2.1-6.
.,


Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water

Use Projections Through 2020 for Hemando County, Florida.


---












HIGHLANDS COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS.


REPORTED
POPULATION() POPULATION PROJECTIONS

UTIjTY 1994 2000 2010 2020

Avon Prk(3) 13,334 14,641 15,855 17,170


PER CAPITAL
PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2) 6 YEAR PROJECTION (4)


REPORT
USE (1)


1919 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 AVG 2000-2004 2005-2020 1


162 141 187 150 128 125 149


3.197 5,503 6,599 7,682 272 193 116 210 223 168 197


Lake leaid (5)


Sebrig ()


Sun N Lte(5)


er Pouble (6) (7)


22.430 29,003 $3,263 36,$25


168 137 146 131 142 131 143


3.412 3,29' 3,954 4,402 274 247 208 239 203 221 232


31,979 32,333 42,943 $2,422


TodS (-) -- 74,352 4,82 I0io,714 T 11..01


135 115

135 115

135 115

135 115

110 110


rED
PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER USE
IN MOD
994 2000 2010 2020

1.7 2.0 1.8 2.0

0.5 0.7 0.1 0.9

2.9 3.9 3.8 4.2

0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5

3.5 3.6 4.6 5.3


9.4


10.6 11.5 13.4


(1) Based on dats reported by the utility to the SWFWMD Resource Projects Department for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Report.
() Per esps water e estimate au reported in SWFWMD's 1994 Estiated Wte Use Report.
( ) Population pojetIHns represent national populations (pemnn ent population plus one-hird of the seasonal population) rom the local government comprehensive plan.
(4) Per capital projection a based on water use caution are citeri.
it*IaMialMaipwr tio amr bsed on imnlahn io received fiom the individual utilities.
(6) Oter poetsUe raptems utis dota pmitmed Aor Mvergoqum ie of less than 0.5 mgd plus ural water use. It is determined by subtracting the projected population served by utilities whose current average daily permitted
t, gIeed 0.35 mgd fat the seasonally ads ed BBBR medium county-wide population estimates.
(7) Estnated uscalcued by midplylg other pole population by a per api te of It0 gpd.
(8) Population projections an equal to 90.3 percent of the County's seaonally adjusted BEER medium county-wide population estimate from BEER bulletin No. 108 due to part of the county being outside the SWFWMD.
PopMlir o en e d- adjusted upward by 1 papcent to reflect fmactional population with 10 percent representing one-third of the County's seasonal population.











Table 2.1-7. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water
Use Projections Through 2020 for Highlands County, Florida.


I I I II 1 31


" -- '


-

















HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
POPULATION(l)


POPULATION PROJECTIONS


UTILITY 1994 2000 2010 2020


PL Cities Water Co. (3) 4,147

N.W. Hills. Municipal (3) 106,349

Plt City Municipal (6) 26,337

South-Ct Hils. Mun.() 153,864


Taup Municlpl (7) 428937

TemplTean Mun. (8) 26,337

SbiLd MNMNW (3) 6,514
*, : a -

Qpt.a (S9Xi) 142.452



t-l-t-i "-) --- 03 -"'


4,147 4,147 4,147


149,300 173,200 190,500

27,121 31,475 35,941

221,500 301,700 379.100

444256 471.751 499,247

35,535 41,850 48,850


6,584 6,584 6,584


PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2)


199 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 AVG

226 120 226 120 104 150 158

116 120 116 120 108 123 117

210 184 210 184 187 185 193

131 131 131 138 131 11 131

174 ISO 161 161 165 166 163

125 151 125 151 138 127 136

104 78 104 78 114 95 96



-- -- ---- i- -


91.158 82,069 76,166



979,621 1,112,776 1,240,535


PER CAPITAL
6 YEAR PROJECTIONS (4)


REPORTED
USE (1)


2000-2009 2010-2020

125 115


PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER USE


IN MOD
1994 2000 2010 2020

0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5


117 115(13) 13.1 17.5 19.9 21.9


164 154 (14)


4.9 4.4 4.8 5.5


131 115(13) 18.2 29.0 34.7 43.6

156 146(14) 71.2 69.3 68.9 72.9


125 115 3.3

96 96 (12) 0.6

110 110 15.7


127.6


4.5 4.8 5.6

0.6 0.6 0.6


10.0 9.0 8.4



135.8 143.3 159.0


(1) Bsed on a rpetd by the uty to th SWPW D Resoure Preojeca Deprtnmt r incluson in the SWPWMD*s 1994 Estihated Waer Us Repon.
(2) #er ea p wate a Mitresm am poned In SWrWMD' 14994 m d Watr VUlRepon.
(3) Population ved as repod to the SWPWMD Renoug Projects Depa nt in the 1994 Estimated Water Use Report. The population served was hed at 1994 rates because the population served has not increased in recent yea.
(4) Per capia pojecions a d wm t r me craubm aMes cri* ri. The South-Cenl Hillsbomugh Municipal idd Seaboard Utilitis the SWUCA while the reminder of the utilities are in the NTBWUCA. Per capital projections
r the SWUCA a 135 gpdpcfLoam 20004004 and tlpdpc lar 2002 0O.
(5) Po~ ltion projectiok rpresen population provided by Hiitoough County Utility Deparment.
0() fpfpionl projections based on infamim lon Afm Pt CIty ilities Depamentl.
(7) Popr tio peojectios rpisent population provided by e City of Tamp's Utility Depatmnt.
(8m Popula projectioMn repr t ion populaion (pem populon plus onhd o seasonal popution) tm the local government comprhenive pln.
,9 01arg mld ae repres~s- aUilt dm a penit br wr a titi ofless tlhr 0.53 d plus nil water use It is detennined by subtracting d projected population served by utilities whose current average daily permitted quantity
mcsea 0.5 mag s the d y ua ed EA medin county-wide popular estimaem .
(10) End d use calculmd by matiplying oher potable population by a per cpita rae of 110 pd
(II) Papllean pImjess ms lto il sla a WirIay tdl MeIBR ldinm mounty.de pouls atonr e stmamr In BEBR Bulletin No o10. Population atlmatl e adjusted upward by 1.8 percent to reflect Bctiondi populli wih 1.8 percent
rapearentig one-w d of ha Coamy's MseM a population.
(12) Pwr caprapojections a based W i Impe ofthe 19-1994 p splr epa ames.
(13) 20S 09 per caplitpitjildms MI*e on L the veairutthrrelW1994-per capital stimMate. 201-20 pe capital projetions a based water use uion area u iter.
(14) d the Tamp l pe c pj o values include a sipifm non-redeil customer credit of 44 spdpc nd 36 gpdpc specely.



Table 2.1-8. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water
Use Projections Through 2020 for Hillsborough County, Florida.


_ _




IIIItsuin1eu..JIt .11 'III-- l I


LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


POPULATION PROJECTIONS
2000 2010 2020



2,239 2,752 3,260


Totals (5) 1,923 2,239 2,752 3,260


PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994


PER CAPITAL
PROJECTION(4)
2000-2020


REPORTED
USE (1)
1994


0.2


PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER USE
IN MOGD
2000 2010 2020



0.2 0.3 0.3



0.2 0.3 0.3


(1) Based on dat reported by the utility to the SWFWMD Resource Projects Department for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Report.
(2) Per capital water use estimate as reported in SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Report.
(3) Other potable rpeseas utilities permitted for average quantities of less than 0.5 mad plu rural water use. Lake County has no utilities permitted for average quantity of greater than or equal to 0.5 mgd in the SWFWMD.
(4) Estimated use calculated by multiplying other potable population by & per capital rate of 110 gpd.
(5) Lake County population projections equal 1.0 percent of Lake County's total BEBR Butt. No. 108 population due to pat of the county being outside the SWFWMD. Population estimates are adjusted upward by 12.08 percent to
reflect functional population with 12.08 percent representing onethird of the County's seasonal population.















Table 2.1-9. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water

Use Projections Through 2020 for Lake County, Florida.


UTEITY



Other Potable (3X4)


REPORtTED
POPUIATXINl)
1994


1,923


--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---


-------



















LEVY COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED PER CAPITAL
POPULATION() POPULATION PROJECTIONS PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2) 6 YEAR PROIECTION(4)
UTIITY 1994 2000 2010 2020 1989 1990199119921993 1994 AVO 2000-200920102020

Williston(3) 2,300 2,930 3,276 3,621 162 171 181 213 239 220 198 135 115


Other Potabe (5X6)


16,065 19,226 22,271


110 : 110


REPORTED
USE (1)
1994


PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER USE
IN MOD
2000 2010 2020


0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4


1.6 1.8 2.1 2.4


- -rot ------- -..-.-. --- ------ --- -- - ---- --- ---- -----" 2.2 2.5 2.8
Totls (7) 16,843 18,995 22,502 25,892 2.1 2. 2.5 2.8



(1) Based on data reported by tke utility to the SWFWMD Reource Projects Depamnt for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Repot.
(2) Per ci water m e estintes an repoea d in SWFWMD's 1994 Emted Waer Use Report.
(3) WiUston population projections am based on convesation wih City maaer.
(4) Per cata ieeion baee on conservation schedule.
(5) Other potable e sreprMa utities that am pemited Ibr average quantities of lss thua 0.5 mgd plus mral water use. It is determined by subtracting the projected population served by
utlies whose uament average daily permitted quantity exceeds 0.5 mnd fiom.the seasonally adjusted BEBR medium county-wide population estimates.
(4) 1ll1l liaesdacuhld bynlplyllgote r pitabl population by a perCapia raeofO1 pd.
Levy Ceuesy lal peuioM jeaioM equal 7cT.3 pemntedl Levy County's seanally adjusted BEBR medium population estimate flom BEBR Bulletin No. 108 due to pat of the county being outside the SWFWMD.
pu. elses ar e adustd upwad 2 percent to faect tina population wih 2 percent reprenting ontird of the County's season population.























Table 2.1-10. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water
Use Projections Through 2020 for Levy County, Florida.












MANATEE COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER PO

REPORTED
POPULATION(t) POPULATION PROJECTION
UTIUTy 1994 2000 2010 2020

Bradeon (3) 47,729 56,000 60,000 64,284

Manaee County <196,19g> <216,492> <263,334> <308,832>

Ann Maria () 2,573 2,786 2,786

Bradenon Beach (5) -2,428 2,464 2,464

Holma Beach (5) -6,566 6,666 6,666

ongb1 Key (~ b 14,417 15,083 15,083

Palmetto (5) 12,443 12,951 13,453

Unincorpomed (5) 178,065 223,394 268,380

Other mwlble (7) 5 0 5.500 5,300 5,100

TeLTm() 249,727 277,992 323,644 378 167


TABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2) 6 YEAR P
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 AVG 200

135 131 123 129 130 118 128

135 122 106 132 121 131 125


PER CAPITAL
OBJECTIONS (4)
0-2004 2005-2020

128 118

125 123

125 123

125 123

125 123

125 123

125 123

125 123

110 110


REPORTED
USE (I)
1994


(9X10)
(9Xlo)
(9XIO)


PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER USE IN
MGD
2000 2010 2020


5.7 7.2 7.1 7.6

25.7 <27.0> <32.4> <37.9>

0.3 0.3 0.3

0.3 0.3 0.3

0.8 0.8 0.8

1.8 1.9 1.9

1.6 1.6 1.7

22.3 27.5 33.0

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

320 348 401 461


(I) Baud on data nrpoted by the utility to the SWFWMD Resource Projects Depatment for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Estimaed Water Use Report.
fg 4 w-=lg hI M i -il me aspemin S W-Wh I 1994 btimla*ed Woa Use Repot .
m1p"%dgI' l sim bFle io ir pllM.1 i the i rvi mv e FpoIed in ther comprehenive plan. The comprehensive plan service are population is a functional population based on telecommunication with the Bradenton Planning Department
Tbolnpmh Jad gallMk fmaot thiie IO= 20 20 wae nlrapolalad Ao tshe rae of increase predicted for the yeas 2000-2010.
(4) Pr asha pie aien e ued on wasr use mion oe am ear
(5) projellons based e peanenat eM ident dal in each conunities comprehensive plan plus the percentage of seasonally adjusted population as reported by the Manatee County Public Works Department from 1996-2010 for
Ths pi jecjad ppsule hoes I ie yes 2010 0 2020 wa esrepolated fiom the increase projected from the years 2000 to 2010.
(f) gilMll i t I li eLr jy ispvid by the Ma ee County Public Wodk Depatnen. Therefore, it is included under Manatee County Demand Projections.
S mt ed Muaeiculaed by iipfieg eokh a poablepopulation by a per capi rate of 110 pd.
(t) PiullaUm ploaec ea t d0 se ally adjusted BEBR medium county-wide population etimana from BEBR Bulletin No. 10. Population estimate are adjusted upward 8 percent to reflect functional population with 8 percent representing
eaem d of the Cousy's season pop~
(9) 20004-2041r capital pueion an baed an the average of t 1989-1994 per capia estimate. 2005-2020 per capital projection are based on water use caution area criteria.
(10) Bnadeton and b( aM t County 2005-2020 per capit projections values include a significant non-rsidential customer credits of 8 gpdpc respectively.

Note: < > denote the sum of the pjected populations and projected water use by the population to be served by the Manatee County Public Works Department (i., Anna Maia, Bradenton Beach, Holmes Beach, Longbot Key, Palmetto, and
uninoeporated Manate County).



Table 2.1-11. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water

Use Projections Through 2020 for Manatee County, Florida.


--------------------------














MARION COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
POPULATON(I) POPULATION PROJECTIONS PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2) 6 YEAR
UTRJTY 1994 2000 2010 2020 19I9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 AVO


PER CAPITAL
PROJECTIONS(4)
2000-2009 2010-2020


REPORTED
USE (1)
1994


PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER USE
IN MOD
2000 2010 2020


3,914 7,928 12,928 12,928


3,150 12,234 30,163 50,117


5,299 8,909 12,623 16,337


18,905 31,13 19,693 10,S01
V...


225 330 235 272 345 251


350 312 272 719 287 248


159 148 138 113 129 95


276 135 115 1.0


365 135 115 1.0


130 130 115(8) 0.5


110 110 4.3


,7W


1.1 1.5 1.5


1.6 3.4 5.7


1.2 1.5 1.9


3.5 2.2 1.2


7A 8.6 10.3


0~ M el oa dela Md byM te tidly a the SWFrWlD Ri m Projecs Deparment for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water e Report.
(2) p r m*iu r im esdals U npost i h SWFWM r's 1994 Bltinad Wtr Use Report.
l lrp ijjrlems j r bhued on teloeman ilina whh the Individual uilities.
(4) Pr capso psejetils p bued o tensvanen sMi Ilt
(5) O r paH se remMeats utiies itt ae pelitd for average quanti of hn Itha 0.5 md plus urban water use. t is determined by subtracting the projected population seved by utilities whose current average daily pemitted quantity
xceu o.5 imd on the ememoelly adjule BEBR met i l rintywide population aimate.
(6) abtatedl u calplrited by amaiplyla o r potable population by a per capita rate of 110 d.
(7) M in CoC ty toll populoat projections are bed on 21.68 pecelt of Mrion County' to seasonally adjusted BBBR medium population due ion BEBR Bulletin No. 108 due to put of the county being outside the SWFWMD. Population
atinuee ure adjusted upward 10 percent to 1 flect inctioal population with 10 percent represntin one-ird of the County's seasonal population.
(8) 2000-009 pr capital pojecton based on the aveae of the t989-1994 per capita estimates. 2010-2020 per capit projections re based on a conservation schedule











TabIq 2.1-12. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water
Use Projections Through 2020 for Marion County, Florida.


Dec (O)


Top of the Word (3)


Marion Os (3)


Oher Poaoble (5X6)


It


*


1












PASCO COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
POPULATION(I) PROJECTED POPULATIONS PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2) 6 YEAR
UTILITY 1994 2000 2010 2020 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 AVO


PER CAPITAL REPORTED PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER
PROJECTIONS (4) USE (I) USE IN MOD
2000-2009 2010-2020 1994 2000 2010 2020


Aloha Utilities (3)


Dadq City Municipal (5)

East Pasco County (7)


Hudson Water Works (3)


West Pasco Co. System (8)

Zeplhydils Municipal (6)

Other Potable Use (9X10)


15,196 17,217 20,446 23,610 140 138 137 186 139 137 146


15,243 12,608 14,633 16,981


16,900 30,600 59,200 87,000


5,816 6,589 7,826 9,036


123,961 176,500 214,100 251,600

12,910 10,500 12,100 14,000

132,070 110,913 105,080 98,219


197 145 86 97 103 101 122


145 145 60 110 166 184 135


140 139 137 145 102 101 127

108 113 10S 117 112 96 109

162 161 130 139 III 113 136


------ ---- --- -- -


125 115


122 115 (12)

131 121 (13)


125 115


109 109 (14) 11.9


125 t11

110 110


2.1 2.2 2.4 2.7

1.5 1.5 1.7 2.0

3.1 4.0 7.2 10.5


0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0


19.2 23.3 27.4


1.5 1.3 1.4 1.6

14.5 12.2 11.6 10.8


Totals (11) 322,096 364,927 433,385 500,447


-----35.2 41.3 48.4 56.1


(t1Blut Ua data reported by the utility to the SWFWMD Resource Projects Department for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Report.
(2) Per capit wat use estimates s reported in SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Report.
(3) Populan projections are based o the percent of 1992 utility population, as reported to the SWFWMD for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1992 Estimated Water Use Reports as a portion of the total county seasonally adjusted 1992 BEEBR medium
county-wide population The percent of he utility population was then multiplied by the 1995-2020 seasonally adjusted county-wide populations which are based on the county-wide medium BliBR populations contained in the BEBR publication
Bulltin No 108
(4) r capit projections are based on water us caution area criteria.
(5) Populaion based on projections contaaed in he City's Comprehensive Plan.
(6) PopulaIion projects based on hifoation mcieved 0om City.
(7) Bat Pasco Systems includes service oreas retied to in Wst Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's March 1994 dnft report "The Water Resource Development Plan" by Law Engineering.
(8) Wet Pasco Systems includes service a rea nfeed to in West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's March 1994 draft report "The Water Resource Development Plan" by Law Engineering and include the City of New Port Richey Service Area .
(9) Oter potable use represents utilities that ae permitted for average quantities of less than 0.5 mgd plus rural water use. It is determined by subtracting the projected population served by utilities whose current average daily permitted quantity
aceeds 0.5 mgd from the seasonally adjusted BEBR medium ounty-wide population estimates.
(10) Estimaled u caldclatedby mtiplying other potable po pult by a per capital ra of 110 pd.
(I1) Population projections ae equal to the seasonally adused B R medium coumty-wide estimates rom BEBR Bulletin No. 108. Population estimates we adjusted upward 7.3 percent to reflect functional population with 7.3 percent
nepeentinMg oMn-thid of the County's seasonal populfon.
(12) 20004009 per capital projection i based on the veIage of the 199-1994 per capital estimates. 2010-2020 per capital projection is based on water use caution area criteria.
(13) East Paco County's per capital projection value include a signiRcant non-residential customer credit of I gpdpc.
(r4) Per capital projetin are based on the adme e of the 199-1994 per capital estimates.






Table 2.1-13. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water

Use Projections Through 2020 for Pasco County, Florida.


I II II I at -- --------------- -------------------- ---- --------------------


- ~ --





-~.-- -:- l~lnrecirs~sr;- _71, --


PINELLAS COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
POPULATION POPULATION PROJECTIONS

UTILITY 1994 2000 2010 2020


Bellear (3) 4,032 4,100 4.100 4,100

Dundin (5) 35,07 41,624 45,142 48,957


Clawater (5) 112,435 126.280 137.016 147,751


Taspon Spin (5) 26,465 24,085 28,318 32,616

OdaeMr (5) 8,710 12,000 13,500 15,000

Piellas Pas (5) NA 50,935 55,681 60,870

l HId r ) s.S5 20291 23,311 25,073

PinAmu (6) 347,025 328,651 345,286 355,482

IO fa fmbassa (I)- 2is95 335,717 351,563 364,794

OtMer Potable M 21.108 5,661 21,720 45,76

-------iT --- -" """'- "----- -------5- -I-------------
ToasS) U89S53 949,344 1,025,659 1,100,412


PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2)


1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994


212 203 215 202 215 202

131 131 135 138 117 110


138 134 129 138 125 128

156 131 136 142 118 114

122 133 108 114 118 119

98 95 90 93 94 92

162 150 125 139 133 123

160 157 144 136 128 136

130 11 99 120 99 120


PER CAPITAL
6 YEAR PROJECTIONS (4)
AVG 2000-2009 2010-2020


208 142 132 (10)

128 128 121 (0IXI)


132 132 122 (10)

133 125 115

119 119 115(11)

94 94 94(12)

139 125 115

144 125 115

114 114 114(12)

110 110

.---- -------


REPORTED PROJECTED AVERAGE
USE (1) WATER USE IN MOD
1994 2000 2010 2020


0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5

3.9 5.3 5.5 5.9


14.4 16.7 16.7 18.0


3.0 3.0 3.3 3.8

1.0 1.4 1.6 1.7

N/A 4.8 5.2 5.7

2.0 2.5 2.7 2.9

47.2 41.1 39.7 40.9

35.8 38.3 40.1 41.6

3.0 0.6 2.4 5.0

111.1 114.3 117.6 I263.


(I) Baed on dta repoted by the utility to the SWWMD Rsce Projects Department for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Etinated Water Use Repon.
(2) Fer capt water us estimates a reported in SWPWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Report.
() The poplaio projection is as ported to e SWFWMD by tle City of Belleir.
(4) Per capit pojection ae ba wd on wer s cation are criteria.
(5) Population projections present fSctional population (prmnnt population plus one-third of the seasonal population) fom the local government comprehensive plan.
(6) RPlpu t l represent populatlo provided by Pinelas County Planning peparmnent and West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's March 1994 draft report The Water Resource Development Plan" by Law Engineering.
(7) Oe poable represent public supply utilities permitted for average daily qunit less than 0.$ mgd and rural water use It is determined by subtracting the projected population seved utilities whose current average daily permitted quantity
ereds. mad fom te seoamnaay adjusted BEBR aediumn couny-wide population estimates.
(8) Ppongii projections ae based on tbdo se nadly adjusted BEBR mediusm county-wide population estimates fm BEBR Bulletin No. 108. Population estimates are adjusted upward 2.6 percent to reflect functional population with2.6 percent
repenti oneAthird of the Couty's seonal population.
(9) Entimnaed ue calkulatedby muldplying other polable population by a per capta rate of 110 gpd
(10) BDelieR Duandiea.u CI e eap pejto m daes Inhidaa alasiu fisat pon-residenal customer ctdit of 22 pdpc, 1 ipdpc and 12 Spdp respectively.
(11) 20(W 4 per capital projeciake mloun asa the avage of elPM4 er capit estma 2005-2020 per capital projections e based on water use cauion ara criteria
(12) r aP h, pijecto a based ir taeag f the 19- 4 per pi estimla.



Table 2.1-14. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water
Use Projections Through 2020 for Pinellas County, Florida.












POLK COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
POPULATION(1) POPULATION PROJECTIONS

UTILITY 1994 2000 2010 2020


'11,500
2,287
2,685
3,196
5,525
3,089

12,629
1,743
11,917
3,959
141,224
16,375
3,213
36,584


Batow (3)
Bsew Airport (5)
Davenport (3)
Dundee (3)
Pot Meade (5)
Frotproof (3)

b Grove (5)
emoodeds (5)
HaMe City (3)
Laid Aled (3)
Ldmlw (3)
Ldm Wet (S)
Mulkery (
Polk Co. BOCC-6S05
Noth Ldaelnd (5)
Bfk Co. BCC-6506
SoUt Laehled (5)
0 Polk Co. BOC4507
Lake Cao (5)
Polk Co. BOCC-650
Lak WA. (5)
Polk Co. BOCC-6509
I PdMktC.. (5)
Polk Co. BOCC-7119
Anudh..de (5)
Winter Havn (3)

0*wrPotl*k (7X8)


18,680
2,726
2,990
3,192
6,962
3,611

24,342
4,527
16,072
3,788
144,000
15,092
4,570
25,340


20,390 22,100
3,071 3,386
3,508 4,026
3,670 4,148
7,843 8,647
3,897 4,183

17,423 30,233
5,100 5,623
18,260 20,448
4,075 4,362
166,000 188,000
17,002 18,744
5,185 5,800
36,520 47,700


N/A 21,078 26,438 31,798.


PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994


247 163
260 251
262 228
222 219
172 168
458 466

166 160
834 799
193 200
189 161
210 210
317 313
199 164
105 105


181 179 185 212
233 101 233 101
198 233 226 202
248 135 129 135
150 150 151 123
529 464 416 411

234 211 227 228
491

196 185 196 185
156 160 138 133
169 156 168 146
187 178 168 155
184 184 151 121
176 148 132 202


PER CAPITAL
6 YEAR PROJECTION (4)
AVG 2000-2004 2005-2020


195 135


115
115

115
113
113



115
113

115

120 (10)

115
115
115


REPORTED PROJECTED WATER USE
USE (1) DEMAND IN MGD
1994 2000 2010 2020

3.7 2.5 2.3 2.5
0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0
1.3 0.5 0.4 0.5

2.9 3.3 3.2 3.5
0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6
2.2 2.2 2.1 2.4
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
20.6 20.2 19.9 22.6
2.5 2.0 2.0 2.2
04 0.6 0.6 0.7
7.4 3.4 4.2 5.5


115 115 122 149 N/A A 125 125 115 (11) N/A 2.6 3.0 3.7


N/A 9,648 12,098 14,548 205 203 170 150 170 150 175 135

N/A 3,690 4,350 5,010 215 215 231 150 223 N/A 207 135

N/A 15,550 22,410 29,270 170 169 138 150 251 N/A 176 135


115 N/A 1.3 1.4 1.7

115 N/A 0.5 05 06


0.6 2.1 2.6 3.4


16,758 15,445 17,400 19,183 175 174 147 143 143 143 154 135 115 2.4 2.1

44,796 57,096 66,498 09,200 249 245 177 126 123 132 175 143 123 (10) 5.9 8.2
115,495 85,063 83,256 86,907 110 110 110 110 12.7 9.4


r --------- .95 483462 554.3------------93 623316
S---4 975 483,462 554.393 623.316


2.0 2.2


- _65.3 64. 64.7 72.7


(1) Based on dt reported by he utility to de SWPWMD Resource Pojects Dpartment for inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Etimated Water Use Report
(2) ar capit water use em iam M reported in SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Report.
0) ftJipmrojections represent laional pepaleon (pega nnt populatn plus one.dbird ofte seasonal population) from the local itvernmet compreheusive plan,
(4) Per capital water poejectn ae based on water use caution mare cria.
( Pr cton based on ction population reported in ihe individual communities comprelhenive plia. The projected population for the yean 2010-2020 is exrapolated form the increase projected from the years 2000 to 2010.
,.(7) Other potablee U rep rent utilities tat re pmenlted for avage quantities of les thm 0.5 msd plus mrl water use. It i determined by subtrating the projected population served by utilities whose current average daily permitted quantity
eceeds 0.5 ngd fo lie scaionally adjted BEDR medium county-wide population estimates.
(8) Estimotdtoe calculaed by multiplyin other potable population by a per caita rate of 110 gpd.
(9) Polk County populaiib projections eual 95 8 pucent of Polk County's seasonally adjusted BBBR medium county wide population estimate fonn BER Bulletin No. 8 due to part of the county being outside the SWPWMD. Population
estimates adjusted upward by 2 pecesnt to reflect Amnctionl populaon wiih 2 percent repredag one-thshd of the County's seasonal population.
(10) Lakland mad Winter Haven eri projecton values inchlde a signifcant mon dental customer credit of 10 gpdpc nd 13 gpdpc respectively.
(11) 2000-2004 per capit projections e based on the average of the 1989-1994 per cpit estimas. 2005-2020 per capital projecons are based on water use caution ae criteria.

Tablee2.1-15. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water

Use Projections Through 2020 for Polk County, Florida.


I*I r n 1 ~ aD II Nsr r R lan a ~ ~ ~ i........ ..~~-


----------- "'--------- -- -


Vss ~r
-


--














SARASOTA COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


IREORID PER CAPITAL REPORTED
POPULATIO(I) POPULATION PROJECTIONS PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2) 6 YEAR PROJECTIONS(4) USE (1)
U TJTY 1994 2000 2010 2020 1919 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 AVO 2000-2004 2005-2020 1994


PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER USE
IN MOD
2000 2010 2020


14,015 15,061 17,101 19,035 73 85 104 95 78 86 I7


10o.80 18,392 31,407 48,533 10 s30 196 239 339 195 205

60,370 60,69 67,039 73,314 196 155 12 128 126 113 141


120,545 173,182 232,909 276,091 105 106 126 141 129 105 119


20,533 20,341 23,341 26,341


89 116 131 95 93 104 105


0 0 0 128 128 147 133 180 106 138


79,779 69,599 43,648 28,355


87 7 (9)


135 115

135 115


119 115 (10)


105 105 (9)


135 115


110 110


1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7


2.1 2.5 3.6


6.8 8.2 7.7 8.4


12.7 20.6 26.8


2.1 2.1 2.5 2.8

1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


8.8 7.7 4.8 3.1


320-- 35-,272 41544 471,669


35.2


42.4 46.11 53.3


(Ij aWgpWllmaad by te uillity to te SWFWMD o omm Projet Depuarmn for inclusion In the SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Use Repot.
(2) P.r epMi a w IM tim ul npo mstd iN SWlWMD's 1994 Estimted Water Use Report
(0) 1p ueid t p iom m based on iAmuai-eni mclvii f*am City
(4)0terpitag nmjtm in based n w aer cuts ionam aiatei.
(5) Sind t bomad on bimMliomn poidl by dL County's Utility DIepatmn..
())'CAM pe iqbl npre publiHe uply mlhle pemiled hr mere doly quaiti s tan 05 m d ndsl watr It wsM determined by subtrating the projected population served by utilities whom cunrt avel daily pennined
- e maeb 0e.5s g rs b .m am eoui aenmuud ela .ueea omnuy-wide rpopulaaon eutimaa.
(7) ~iati 4 m calculated by mdplyiM oder potble population by a per capital rte of 110 gd.
(8) Population pIojec e equal to he seaonaly adjusted IBR medium county-wide estines Rfom BEBR Bulletin No. 108. Population estimates ae adjusted upward by 8.3 percent to reflect the functional population with 8.3 percent
puesimbg Ome-t4ird of theComety's jsaonal popul n.
(9) Pw ai pe~ation we nba ed on J* n u oflt 196-1994 per capital esmtes.
(10) 2000-2004 per capital peecio an s based on the msverge of the 1919-1994 per capital estimates. 2005-2020 per apita pojectiouh wre based on water use caution re criteria.


Table 2.1-16. Projected Population, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water

Use Projections Through 2020 for Sarasota County, Florida.


glewood (3)


ODUortlh Post (3)


SeasenW City (3


Seqasto County (5)


Venice (3)


Vaetreo oG ard ()

Odwr Piabl (6)X)


I
Hi


1 i. 7~-.--~-~5op ;.i
~-~-I~.------1 r~---r-._i.~~_~










SUMTER COUNTY PUBLIC SUPPLY AND OTHER POTABLE WATER USE PROJECTIONS


REPORTED
POPULATION() POPULATION PROJECTIONS
UTILITY 1994 2000 2010 2020


WilMdwoo ()


3,853 7,506 10,776 14,046


Continental C.C. Inc. (3)

Other Potable (5X6X7)


PER CAPITAL ESTIMATES (2)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

175 181 163 168 181 193


2,303 2,500 2,500 2,500 287 200 185 201 .148 155


38,520 48,541 64,653


PER CAPITAL REPORTED PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER USE
6 YEAR PROJECTIONS(4) USE (1) IN MOD
AVG 2000-2009 2010-2020 1994 2000 2010 2020


135 115 0.7

135 115 0.4

I10 110 3.1


1.0 1.3 1.6


0.3 0.3 0.3

4.2 5.3 7.1


Totbls(,)(<) 3 4,507 48.526. 61,817 11299F.


-------------4.2-------- -6 6.9 9.0------------
4.2 5:6 6.9 9.0


(1) Based on dat report by the utility to the SWFWMD Resource Projects Department fbr inclusion in the SWFWMD's 1994 Estimated Water Ue Report.
(2) Ph piats water Me stsI au repoaed la SWPWMD's 1994 Estimated Waer Use Report
(3) Populatio Pojoteio bmed on oinfMbatio mtera d Bom individual ullitwie.
(4) Per capipt poj tios biMd o I conservatioescedula
(5) leclude population projeclon for future lal ment of the planned community "The Villages". Projectios are based on information from Coastal Engineering's Withiacooches Regional Water Supply Authority Mater Plan" update.
(6) Other potable use repremnt s idual utilities permlitted for average quantities less than 0.5 MOD plus rura wer ue.
(7) Estimated ue al ule by mullplyln other potable population by a per capital rate of 110 gpd.
(8) Population projects se equad o the BEBR medium county-wide population timates ftom BEBBR Bulletin No. 108.











Table 2.1-17. ProjectedPopulation, Average Per Capita Rates, Per Capita Projections, Public Supply and Other Potable Water

Use Projections Through 2020 for Sumter County, Florida.










i


~csr;--------------- -- -- a e a n r 1~111 I Irnaa a r n


---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----











1994 1994 2000 2000 2010 2010 2020 2020
PUBLIC SUPPLY OTHER POTABLE PUBLIC SUPPLY OTHER POTABLE PUBLIC SUPPLY OTHER POTABLE PUBLIC SUPPLY OTHER POTABLE
COUNTY AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AV GE AVERAGE

CHARLOTTE 12.5 2.7 16.9 2.8 20.3 3.5 26.0 3.3

crIus 7.7 6.8 11.4 4.6 12.4 5.5 14.4 72

DESOTO 0.7 2.4 0.9 2.5 1.1 2.9 1.2 3.2

HARDEE 0.7 2.0 0.7 2.3 0.6 2.5 0.6 2.6

HERNANDO 15.7 1.8 17.0 2.4 18.8 3.5 23.3 4.5

HIGHLANDS 5.9 3.5 7.0 3.6 6.9 4.6 7.6 5.8

HsLtLsoROUH 111.9 15.7 125.8 10.0 134.3 9.0 150.6 8.4

LAKE 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3

LEVY 0.5 1.6 0.4 1.8 0.4 2.1 0.4 2.4

MANATEE 31.4 0.6 34.2 0.6 39.5 0.6 45.5 0.6

MAMoN 2.4 4.3 3.9 3.5 6.4 2.2 9.1 1.2

S ASC '" 20.7 14.5 29.1 12.2 36.8 11.6 45.3 10.8

FN AI ; 108.1 3.0 113.7 0.6 115.2 2.4 121.1 5.0

PoM 52.6 12.7 54.7 9.4 55.5 9.2 63.1 9.6

SARASOTA 26.4 8.8 34.7 7.7 42.0 4.8 50.2 3.1

SMI1.1 3.1 1.4 4.2 1.6 5.3 1.9 7.1

N.mSTRICT WDPA 27.4 17.8 34.1 16.7 39.6 18.9 49.1 22.7

WC MSTWDPA 240.7 33.2 268.6 22.8 286.3 23.0 317.0 24.2

.C.DIST.WrPA 59.2 18.2 62.4 15.3 63.0 16.3 71.3 18.0

.DIST.WDPA 71.0 14.5 86.7 13.6 102.9 11.8 122.9 102

DISTRICT TOTALS 398.3 83.7 451.8 68.4 491.8 70.0 560.3 75,1



Table 2.1-18. Public Supply and Other Potable Water Use projections by County in the Southwest Florida Water Management










3.0 AGRICULTURAL WATER USE

3. Intduction

Vegetable.production declined for all of the fifteen major crops with 1994-95 published estimates,
except cucumbers. Tropical Storm Gordon passing over the State around mid-November 1994, and
freezes during February 1995, lowered harvested acreage, yield and production for most crops
estimated. As a result, the value of vegetables, watermelons, potatoes, and berries produced in
Florida during the 1994-95 season totaled $1.48 billion, down five percent or $80.9 million fkrm the
1993-94 value of $1.56 billion.

The acreage of commercial citrus in Florida increased to 853,742 acres in 1994 from 791,290 acres
two years ago. This 8 percent increase in total acreage is largely attributed to the continued high rate
of new plantings in the Southern and East Coast areas.

Irrigation usually occurs only on highly valued crops due to the high costs associated with
developing and operating an irrigation system. Irrigation systems provide agricultural crops with
the required supplemental water and may also be used for cold weather protection, crop
establishment, and as a means for applying fertilizer and pesticides (Pitts and Smajstria, 1989). The
amount of water needed for irrigation varies with the crop, soil, temperature, type of irrigation
system, and amount of rainfall received during various phases of the growing season.

Estimating future average daily agricultural water use is accomplished by projecting annual
(seasonal where appropriate) irrigation requirements and acreage on a per crop basis. Projected
acreage is multiplied by the annual (seasonal where appropriate) irrigation requirement to get total
annual water use. This quantity is divided by 365 days to obtain average daily water use.

The SWFWMD contracted with IFAS to develop acreage projections. Acreage projections were
based on 25 to 30 years of historic land use data, historic price and production costs, demographic
data and freeze data. The SWFWMD's Permitting Water Use Model (AGMOD) was used to
determine the irrigation requirements on a per acre basis for citrus, sod/turf, pasture, nursery,
strawberries, tomatoes, and other vegetables, which include melons, peppers, squash, cabbage, and
cucumbers Disossed below are agricultural land use projections, agricultural water use projections
and the methodologies used to develop the projections.

3.2 Ai. Multmr Land Use Proiections

The methodology used in obtaining the land use projections was developed by IFAS and is presented
in the July 20, 1990 IFAS report entitled "Agricultural Land Use Projections for the Southwest
Florida Water Management District: A MethodologicalOverview," and the Septembr 15, 1990
IFAS report entitled "Agricultural -Land Use liojectins for the Southwest Florida Water
Management District" (Taylorandthers, 1990) (Taylor and Reynolds, 1990). The latestadaptation
of IFAS's methodology is presented in the November 17,. 1994 edition of the "Agricultural Land
Use Projections for the Southwest Florida Water Management District" report (Taylor and Linn,
1994).


1996' 2W


Water~ Use Demand Estimates and Projections







W4tr Use Demand Estimates aid Projections .- 1996-..


To briefly summarize, IFAS developed econometrics models to generate land use projections.
Econometric models are statistical models that utilize the relationship between past agricultural land
use decisions and economic factors (historic land use data, historic price and production costs,
demographic data and freeze data) to project future agricultural land use. The econometrics models
developed in the November 1994 "Agricultural Land Use Projections for the Southwest Florida
Water Management District"reportused 1992 estimated agricultural acrageas starting conditions
for projecting future acreage. Models were developed for citrus, nursery, tomatoes, strawberries,
watermelons, and other vegetables. Because of the econometric model's strict data requirements,
alternative methods were developed for those crops without an adequate historical data base. The
rate of growth used to project future nursery acreage was assumed to remain constant and wasbased
on the assumption that future nursery activities will grow in proportion to the population changes
within each county.

Described below are the historical land use trends, econometrics projection models, and agricultural
land use projections based on the models.

3.2.1 Historical Land Use Trends

Historical agricultural land use trends were the basis for agricultural land use projections. Abundant
historical data exist for citrusand some vegetable crops. The Flbrida Agricultural Statistics Service
(FASS) data on citrus and vegetable land use since 1970 was used for this report (FASS, 1992e8
1992b). Long-term historical data does not exist for agronomic crops, nurseries, aquaculture,
pasture, and sod. IFAS defines Florida's agronomic crops as corn, deciduous fruits and vineyards
grain sorghum, pasture, hay, peanuts, small grains, soybean, sugarcane, tobacco and turf (Rogers
and Harrison, 1977).

Figure 3.2-1 shows the trend of citrus acreage since 1970. The northern counties of Citrus,
Hernando,. Lake,- Levy, Marion, and Sumterushow a significant decrease in citrus createe.
Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinollas, and Polk counties, which are representeda the central counties, show
a moderate decrease in citrus acreage. The southern counties including Charlotte, DeSoto, Hardee,
Highlands, Manatee, and Sarasota all show an increase in acreage.

The graph reveals that the northern counties have lost citrus acreage while the southern counties
have gained citrus acreage. The years 1971 through 1973,1983 through 1985, 19m through 1987,
and 1989 through 1991 show a decline in citrus acreage that generally corresponds to the freezesof
January 1971, December 1983, January 1985 and 1986, and December 1989. Others fiw repoded
by Citrus Mutual since 1970 occurred during January of 1977 and 1981. Individual county historical
trends are shownin Figure 3.2-2(a) through 3.2~2(c). o

Vegetabledata since 1970 are generally limited to those counties with large agricultural production
capacities and major crops. The majority of the tomato acreage found in SWFWMD is located in
Hillsborough and Manatee counties. The majodty of the srawbetry areage is in- Hisborugh
County. Figure 3.2-3 presentsAhe historical acreage data for tomato ad stadmry crop 'in
Hillsborough and Manatee counties. ,omato aoeage has risen ib-HillaboPoigh and Manatee
counties from approximately 6,300 acres in 1970 to the all-time high 23,000 aces in 1989 In
contrast, strawberry acreage has remained relatively constant at roughly 4,500 acres since the early











1980s. Although most strawberries are grown in and around the Plant City area, Hardee, Manatee,
and Citrus counties have had acreage devoted to strawberries. The remaining counties have little
historical data except for the melons.

The melon acreage is distributed throughout the District. Data on melon acreage are available for
most counties. In 1992, DeSoto, Hardee, Manatee, Levy, Marion, and Sumter counties each had
estimated melon acreage of greater then 1,000 acres. Melon acreage in the southern counties has
increased rapidly, while it decreased gradually in the northern counties.

Figure 3.2-4 illustrates the intensive agricultural land use within the SWFWMD in 1994. The
intensive agricultural land use is defined as requiring irrigation to sustain a marketable crop yield
and includes citrus, tomato, strawberry, and some vegetable crops.


Figure 3.2-1.


Historical Citrus Acreage for the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Northern Counties include Citrus, Hemando, Lake, Levy, Marion and Sumter.
Central Counties include Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas and Polk. Southern Counties
include Charlotte, DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, Manatee and Sarasota. Includes
acreage not in SWFWMD,


------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------

CENTRAL SOUTHERN

ORT---------------------- HERN---------------------------------
----------- ------------------------------- I------------ ------------------------------------
. . . . . ..R N


HISTORICAL CITRUS ACREAGE


ACRES (Thousands)
.I


600


500 -

400 -

300 -

200-

100 -

0*


--


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020


1970


g I


S 1975'


1980 1985


l990








Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


Figure 3.2-2(a). Historical Citrus Acreage for the Northera Counties in the SWFWMD.


60

50


40


30


20



10
0


HISTORICAL CITRUS ACREAGE
(NORTHERN)

ACRS (Thousands)


--------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

LAKE
----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------r-- --- ------------- -------
MARION



SU MTER .

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990


'-------------------------

Figure 3.2-2(b). Historical Citrus Acreage for the Central Counties in the SWFWMD.


HISTORICAL CITRUS ACREAGE
(CENTRAL)

ACRES (Thousanmd)




POLK
40 -
100 0-s--------.---------. -------- -------
100 -------------------------- ---------------- --------------------- -------

80 ------------------ --------------------------

60 ----------------- --------------------------------------------------------


S40 ------------------------- --------- -------
20 ----- -------------------- ------- --------------------
PINELLAS

1970 1975 9098 1985 1990


I I


19%-~










Figure 3.2-2 (c). Historical Citrus Acreage for the Southern Counties in the SWFWMD.


HISTORICAL CITRUS ACREAGE
(SOUTHERN) -
ACRES (Thousands)
80

70 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -----------

50 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40 ------------- ----------------------------------- ------------ ------

30 ---------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

10 -------------------- -------------------------------------- ----
-SARASOTA

1970 1975 1986 1985 '1996



Figure 3.2-3(a). Historical Tomato Acreage in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties.


HISTORICAL TOMATO ACREAGE
HILLSBOROUGH & MANATEE COUNTY
ACRES (Thousands)
25



20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------


5- ----------------------------- --------------------------


10 -------------- ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------------



1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
s


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996- 2020







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 -


Figure 3.2-3(b). Historical Strawberry Acreage in HillsboroughCounty.


HISTORiCA .STRAWBERRY ACREAGE
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

ACRES (Thousands)


4 ------------------------------------------------ ---------------- ------------------------


3 --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------


2 ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- -



0------- ------------------------- -- ---- -----

1970 1975 1980 1985 1999








Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 2020


Scale 1: 1,500,000


10 0 10 20 30 Miles
1, ,I


Intensive Agricultural Land Use in the SWFWMD.


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020


Figure 3.2-4.






Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 20


3.2.2 Econometrics Modeling

Land use projections for the major water use crops in the SWFWMD were developed based on
econometric models developed by IFAS. Individual models were developed for each county and
for each crop. Individual model variable values varied slightly from county-to-county and crop- to-
crop. County population was the main exogenous factor used to explain historical variations in
agricultural land use. In certain instances, individual models used a lagged (previous year) acreage
variable and/or a binary freeze variable. The binary freeze variable was used by citrus acreage
models only. The final determination of whether or not to include these latter two variables in any
given model was based on statistical significance and goodness of fit.

3.2.3 Land Use Projections

Tabled 3.2-ithi~ugh 3.2-16 lists county-wide agricultural land use projections for all major crops
in the SWFWMD through 2020. Also included is average daily projected water use. The
agricultural land use projections include revisions to the estimated acreage as reported in the IFAS
reports.

Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS) provided the most updated acreage reports in 1994
for citrus and various vegetable crops (Commercial Citrus Inventory and Vegetables Summary,
1994). Nonetheless, because of time constraint, all of the land use estimates 1995 through 2020
were projected on the basis of the 1992 estimated acreage (FASS, 1992). Citrus acreage projections
for Charlotte, Highlands, Hillsboroug, Pasco and Polk counties were revised based on personal
communication with IFAS Cooperative Extension Agents and Florida Citrus Mutual.

The citrus acreage in Charlotte County in the SWFWMD is projected to increase from 13,796 acres
in 1994 to 22,359 acres in 2020. This projection assumes 69 percent of the total citrus acreage will
be in the SWFWMD. This percentage reflects the reviews ofSWFWMD permitted acreage in
Charlotte County. On the other hand, the county extension agent pointed out that a significant
amount of citrus is preentlbeing planted in the county and that ost of that is in the SWFWMD.
Therefore, the percentage may have to be increased in the next revision.

In Highlands County, 60 percent of the citrus acreage is estimated to be in the SWFWMD.
percentage was obtained by the extension agent from the Highlands County property appraiser'
office. The extension igent and growers in the county project minimal growth in citrus acreage
the SWFWMD. Based on cowousations iith the agent and growers, the SWFWMD projected
additional growth of 17,300 acres of citrus over th next thirty years. The agent also indi,
the existing overhead irrigation systems ii being replaced with low volume irrigation sysi
trend is expected to continue with virtually no overhead irrigation systems projected in Ji fg

In Hillsborough County, the citrus acreage projections wereevised to reflect the recent
acreage increases published in the 1994 Citrus Inventory. Citrus acreage increased by 737
from 1986 to 1988, and 1,058 acres from 1988 to 1990. An average of an 898 ace increase
two years (450 acres per year) was used for the citrus acreage projections. The projected ci
acreage was capped at the year 2000, or 30,720 acres. Otherwise, further citrus acreage incs
the county is not considered reasonable.












CHARLOTTE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS


ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) Efficiencies PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MOD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Agronomics 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Aquaculture 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Oitrus (4) 13,796 14,605 18,614 22,359 75% Avg. 14 14 14 14 14.4 15.2 19.4 23.3
75%/80% Dry 20 20 19 19 20.5 21.7 26.3 31.6
Nurry 116 143 199 251 75% Avg. 68 68 68 68 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.3
:75%/80% Dry 69 69 67 67 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.3
Pasture (6) 150 150 160 150 76% Avg. 12 12 12 12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Sod (5) 1,679 2,348 3,284 3,884 75% Avg. 36 36 38 36 4.5 6.3 8.8 10.4
75%180% Dry 40 40 39 39 5.0 7.0 9.5 11.3
Strwberries 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tomatoes
Spring 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pai o 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 .o o0.0
Other Vegetables (5)
Sprig 944 822 576 571 75%/80% Avg. 40 40 39 39 2,8 2.4 1.7 1.7
Fall 379 330 232 229 75%/80% Avg. 37 37 3 6 36 1.0 0.9 06
TOTAL
Avg. 23.4 25.7 31.6 37.4
Drv 30.1 32.9 39.3 46.8
(1) 194 acreage nr report of Flodda Agdrulural Staltics Service. 2000-200 areagprpmJocted by IFAS In "Agerultumal Lend Use Projections in the SWFWMD", Univeity of Florida,
Seftambr igt4.
(2)~ er use rte (cre-InchlVcre-season) determined from SWFWMD's Permitting Water Use Model (AGMOD). Within District's Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA),
Ssome crops are permitted with two use rates, average-year ad dry-year based on rainfall probability. Dry-year use rate can only be used against available credits.
Also, to promote conservation, higher Irrigation efficiencies are phased In beginning in year 2000 and 2010.
(3) Projected water uses are calculated by multiplying projected acreag, water use rate, and 0.0000744.
(44topresent -S of county total acreage based on permits records and cirus extension agents.
(5) Acryage adapted from the previous version of "Water Supply Needs and Sources, 1990-2020" SWFWMD, January 1992.

Table 3.2-1. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Charlotte County Through 2020.


II 1 111 "01 i


t~T~T~ ----------~-3~------ ----i-~-`











CITRUS COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS


ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) ecnes PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MOD (3)


CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Agronomls 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

Aquaculture 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Citrum 233 400 400 400 Avg. 20 20 20 20 0.3 0o 0.6 0.6

Nursery 84 96 126 151 Avg. 64 64 4 640.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

eture(5) 53 53 63 53 Avg. 19 19 19 19 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Sod (S) 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Strwberrles 60 60 60 60 Avg. 47 47 47 47 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Tomatoes
Spring 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pall 40 40 40 40 Avg. 38 38 3 38 3 0.1 0. 0.1 0.1

01ber Vegetables
Spring 446 469 468 512 Avg. 40 40 40 40 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5
Pa 49 43 Ava. 37 37 37 37 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
TOTAL
2.6 3.0 3.1 34


(I) 194 iaunr from Mpeds of Fiet'I ArlEultuml Statice S l ece. 2NO-2029 argep projected by IA8 In "Agricultwa Land Use Projections In th WFWMD
umemnifc of Foarie, Saptelaer ai?. i1
(2) ItY .use r (acrn cr ) dellrmined from SWFWMD Permttng W atr Use Mode (AGMOD), based on normal rainfa probability and
typicK Iridgllon w syiemu plming deeM~, iand in thii unty.
( Pul M u*r eom e id by lIlUsiwaig prqe M dM acreoae water u rto, and 0.0000744.
(5) Ac e adopted ftm the preous version of Walr Supply Needs and Sources, 19902020"FW D, Janu 12.

Table 3.2-2. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Citrus County Through 2020.


il-~lllll _








DESOTO COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS


Assumed
ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) Efficiencies PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MGD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020


Agrononics
Aqatulture (5)

CitruS


0 0 0


40 40 40


62,407 66,622 75,826 84,071


102 126


Pastur (6)

Sod (


Stre worries
nt- i
T ,* -'
4 mkm


178 222


75% Avg.
7t8m0% Dry
75% Avg.
756%/80% Dry


1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 76% Avg.


11,234 12,620 14,178 15,027

0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0


76% Avg.
75%/80% Dry


33 33 33 33

12 12 12 12
18 18 17 17
65 65 65 $6
67 67 66 66
12 12 12 12

43 43 43 43
47 47 46 46


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1


.5.7 59.5


67.7 75.1


88.6 89.2 6.9 106.3
0.6 0.6 0.9 1.1
0.5 0.6 0.9 1.1

1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

36.9 40.4 46.4 48.1
39.3 44.1 48.5 51.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0


00W VegstaMb (5)

Fll


4,140 4,941 5,006 5,209 756%10% Avg.
1.961 1.982 2.042 2.100 75%/80% Ava.


40 40 39 39
37 37 36 36


TOTAL
Avg. 113.1 121.7 136.3 146.1
144.) 15.2 166.6 tIM1


(1) 1t 4 acreage onm reports of Flodda Agricultural Statistic Selco. 20002020 acreage projected by IFA8 In Agricultun Land Us Projections In the SWPAMD", University of Florida,
a sptemb 194.
(2) Water use rat (acro-nchlacro-seaon) deatnnind from SlWMD's Penitting Water U is Model (AGMOD). Within District Southern Water Use Caution Area (WUCA),
some tUp am permitted with two ue rnaes, avemge-year and dy-year based on rainfall probability. Dry-year ue rate can only be used against available credits.
Also, to promote conservation, gher bgtlon tmefflencies are phased In beginning In year 2006 and 210.
Sl)PiqieM water us are calculated by multiplying project acreage, water use rte. and 0.000044.
(. Acrm e adopted from the previous vernlon of "Water Supply eds and sources, 1990-2020" SWFWMD, January 1992.


Table 3.2-3. County-wide Agricultural Water UseProjections for all Major Crops in DeSoto County Through 2020.


_ I I I I I I II II sr n r law


I











HARDEE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS


Assumed
ACREAGE PROJECTION (1) EfSalancoa PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MGD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020


Aquaeultuw.
*A i ,--^ i.
CttVT bu
CKM I


Pasture (5)

Sot (N



spring



Oie* Vegetables (5)
SOhrking~ 8


0 *0 0 0
0 0 0 0

54,211 66,748 57,734 62,936


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


75% Avg.


S75%o% Dry
375 414 420 383 75% Avg.
75%/80% Dry
300 300 300 300 76% Avg.

863 634 713 767 75% Avg.
75%/80% Dry
6 0 0 0


416 523 819 1,784 75%180% Avg.
16* 214 335 728 75%80% Avg.

3,228 3,219 3,192 3,159 78%40% Avg.


12 12 12 12
17 17 16 16
6 6 65 68
67 67 66 66
11 11 11 11

36 36 36 36
40 40 39 39



33 33 32 32
21 21 20 20


40 40


39 39


0.0 0.9
48.4 50.7


0.0 0.0
51.5 56.2


66.6 718 ~68.7 74.9
1.8 2.4 2.0 1.9
1.9 2.1 2.1 1.9
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

1.6 1.7 .1.9 4.2
1.7 1.9 2.1 .2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


.6 9.6 9.3 9.2


F it 1,31 1,27 1,287 1,273 76%/80% Avg. 37 37 36 36 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.4
TOTAL
Al. 66.4 6.4 70.9 78.2
OI &. .II7 a",s 97.1


(1) 19T4 aeae Hom mrpots of Florda Agdoultunrl atiecs Sewrvic. 2004e62 acreage projected b IFAS in "Agrcltudn l Land Use ProJectons In the SWFPMV, UnUvera f Florfdf

ulollJ ArIan) demned rom nSWF s Pelng We Use Model (GMOD). Withi Dstrct's Souerwn Wtero Use Caution AMre UCA).
i ei iLirM pemnltd wlliftwo use sales, avuy r and dy-year based on rinll probablly. Dy-yeer use rate can only be used against available credls.
Al a to protme conseuvad i r vtigml n ofllcdwl are phased n beginng In yew 2000 and 2010.
(I P*dMw* pem are crlksd by munplM yg prolcd acege, water m rate, and U00044.
() Ace ie. a d from Be imlre vesia of awr Supply Needs and Sources, 1990.00- WFMD, January 192.

Table 3.2-4. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Tr9kctions for all Major Crops in Hardee County Through 2020.


.1~''








HERNANDO COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS

ASSUmed
ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) Effciencies PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MGD (3)

CROP TYPE 191 .2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Agranomlos 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
AquacultWu 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Citu 1,109 825 446 446 Avg. 20 20 20 20 1.7 1.2 0.7 0.7

Nursery 107 100 100 100 Avg. 66 65 65 65 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

PaStue (6) 60 60 50 60 Avg. 22 22 22 22 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

od (r) 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Strawberries 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

o o o o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sprbg 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fall 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
OthI Vegeables
Spring 321 462 560 668 Avg. 40 40 40 40 1.0 1.4 1.6 2.0
0,( ii 73 73 03 73 Avg. 37 37 37 37 0,2 0.2 0.2 0.2
TOTAL
3.4 34 3.1 3.4


(1) 414 acmsag from report of Flrida Agrculural Stattics Service. 2000-020 acreage projected by WAS In "Agricultural Land Ue Projections In the SWFWMD", Unlverity of Florida,
aptelhbor 14. *
(2) Waer use ra (acr-.nchkcremonason) delenined from 8WFWMD'* Permitting Water Use Model (AGMOD). Within Distrdct's Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA),
om elops am permilted withtwo uae mais, avermaglyearand dry-year based on rainfall probability. Dry-year use rate can only be used against available credits.
AMorto promote consmrvatq, higher Irrlon effMlence are phased n beginning n year 200 and 2010.
3) Projected water uses are calculated by mulplying projected acroae, water use rate, and 0.0000744.
(6) Acreage adapted trom the previous versn of "Water Supply Needs and Sources, 1990-2020" SWFWMD, January 1992.



Table 3.2-5,i County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Hernando County Through 2020.













HIGHLANDS COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS
1']. -I > I. III I I I li .. .. .... -. I '--l-- Ai-
ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) Efflicences PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MOD (3)

CRP TyPE 1994 2000 2010 2020' 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

AgWomI (5) 1,750 1,760 1,760 1,7"0 75% 0% Avg. 14 14 13 13 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7
Aqaeuitur (5) 8 98 8 8 Avg. 33 33 33 33 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Cltrs (4) 44,421 48,123 52,107 67,722 76% Avg. 19 19 19 19 2.8 68.0 73.7 81.6
75%80% Ory 23 23 22 21 76.0 82.3 85.3 94.5
Nursry 549 598 679 770 78% Avg. 66 66 66 8 2.7 2.9 3.3 3.8
75%800% Dry 67 67 66 6 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.8
Pastuh (5) 210 210 210 210: 76% Avg. 11 11 11 11 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Sod () 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SbSlries o0 0 0 0 0.0 0O 0.0 0.0
TbA
OalrpR 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fall 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9io o o o0 o .o o.o o.o o
OMw iVegetamle
Spring 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0
TOTAL
Avg. 67.7 73.2 79.1 87.5
Div 81.0 87.6 90.7 100.4

( i agr *Gm reports of Florida Agriult url Stat1tic Service. 2000-2020 acreage projected by FAS In "Agrdculturn Land Ue Projections In the SWFWMD", Univerlty of Florda,
(NIa i Mte (acireMl eacueeeaon) daemlgned from SWWMDo Penmltfng Water Use Modl (AGMOD). Within Distrt' Southern Water Use Caution Are (SWUCA),
ir emp m pnm d with two use rn avmragaear andm dy-yar b d on ranfal probably. Dyyear use rate can only be usd against available credits.
? RiptiUnuelam onrvion, hWr Inlgaton eMlleucl ar phased In beginning In yer 000 and 2010.
(3) 9_ ad waer ues are calic ld by muilplyng project acae, water u rate, and 0.000744.
(4) Mfst 0% of county toMel diage bagd on pnN rel mcori ant citbrienelem agents.
(s) Aie adapted fromn the prevoua vralto of "Water apply Needs and Sources, 1990-2020" SWFWMD, January 12.
'^ ". .-.


Table 3.2-6. County-wide Agricultural
:"' ..f -' "
a -i..,^ ..^5^ ;*;,^ .~ Q Ui; -; .


Water Use Projectiois for all Major Crops iinHighlands County Through 2020.
'' L- 1% -. -L' ,' 1 I I


1 1---~









HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS

Asmmss@
ACREAGE PROJECTIONS () Eficlncie PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MGD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020


Aquasucturt (6)






PaSero (5)



Strawberries
;,, z





OtherViggtable (5)
ahida *


4 0


0 0


669 669 669 669 Avg.
27,739 30,720 30,720 30,720 75% Avg.
76%/80% Dry


2,057 2,181 2,181 2,181


78% Avg.


75%I80% Dry
1,298 1,295 1,295 1,295 75% Avg.

2,24 2,615 2,615 2,615 75% Avg.
75%/80% Dry
5,300 5,983 7,099 8,045 76%/80% Avg.


1,922 1,875 1,574 1,574 75%180% Avg.
1,178 1,150 964 964 75%/80% Avg.

4,0 4,972 4,899 4,829 75%80% Avg.
am a0 4A 3 42M 0A 7JR/JIW. Av.


33 33 33 33
11 11 11 11
17 17 16 16
64 64 64 64
67 67 66 66
11 11 11 11

36 36 36 36
40 40 39 39
44 44 42 42


32 32
20 20


39 39
36 36


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
22.7 25.1 25.1 25.1
15.1 38.9 36.6 36.6
9.8 10.4 10.4 10.4
10.3 10.9 10.7 10.7
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

6.1 7.0 7.0 7.0
6.8 7.8 7.6 7.6
17.4 19.6 22.2 25.1


a n, ,... .. .
TOTAL
Avg. 86.9 94.7/ 95.1 97.8
Dry 1004 109.7 107.6 110.1


(1)M sMM crag freports of Florida Aglricultural St~M s Service. 2000-2020 areage projted by IFAS in "Agricultural Land Ue Projections in the SWFWMD", Univerity of Florida,

(2 r un r (arinchke a-W n) d nmlmd fom SWFWMD e Pennitting Water Ui Model (AMOD). Witn Distit's Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA),
swmou p sre permited with two use rtes, average-year and dry-year based on rainfall probability. Dry-year use rate can only be used against available credits.
Alse; promote conservaton, higher na n efficleIrtele am phaaed In beginnA g in year 2000 and 2010.
(3) Pr td water uses am calculated by multiplying projected acreae, water use rate, and 0.000744.
(6) Acmeage adapted from the previous verlson of "Water Supply Needs and Sources, 1990-2020" 8WFWMD, January 1992.



Table 3.2-7. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Hillsborough County Through 2020.


~-~---i~-----i ----~,--------~---- --- ~-e ar II at II I I II I I I










LAKE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS


ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) Efflceimnc PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MOD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Agr om* 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
AquWcuAue 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mus 760 283 283 283 Avg. 20 20 20 20 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.4

N wry 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Partm () 467 467 467 467 Avg. 22 22 22 22 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Sol (t 29 34 40 43 Avg. 33 33 33 33 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

beitsI 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
:+0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Oler Ve-hbles
SprnAg 184 184 184 184 Avg. 40 40 40 40 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
FiM 23 23 23 23 Avg. 37 37 37 37 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
TOTAL
2.5 1.8 1.8 1.8

t) 4W4 ga n spo ft n of Fltda ApCll$ul1r 0 Stat1 Service. 20004u acrage projected by WAS in "Agrcultufrl Land Use Proections In tOe SWFWD", University of Florida,
W() in~ gr am ar l bcr a e) d(tenamlne from SWIFWMs Permttith Wat Use Model (AGMOD), based on normal rnfai probablity and typical Ilgailon systems, planting
- defend sofe In dthw cov*.
(3) P i wate uses aala ula.d by midiplyAI pr tsd aiinge, water us rate, and 0.0000744.
(4 ,M-416 of**y total @ e eg b-sd eia permi records.
Aeg adaped toai m the prtu r of W0a1r Supply Needs and Souses, 90-2W S"WFWMD, Janry 192.-



Table 3.2-8. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projeqtions for all Major Crops in Lake County Through 2020.
*o Crops|& i n Lake Conty Through 2020.


I 111*11
I Ilanlllrrm*m*csprsraann*w*ll*anc~~P ---:---'-~- --~~ -`- i :: :- --- ~ I .








LEVY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS

Assumed
ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) Efficiencies PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MOD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Agrononmics () 4,105 4,108 4,105 4,106 Avg. 14 14 14 14 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3
Aqiacuture 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ctrus 0 0 6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nuery 31 36 42 46 Avg. 65 65 65 65 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Peatre (5) 60 60 60 60 Avg. 22 22 22 22 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Sod (So 471 556 654 710 Avg. 33 33 33 33 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7

Strawberries 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tomtoes
Spring 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pa1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Othr Vegetables
Sping 1,618 2,469 2,469 2,469 Avg. 40 40 40 40 4.5 7.3 7.3 7.3
Fal 206 338 338 338 Avg. 37 37 37 37 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.9
TOTAL
10.8 14.; 14.5 14.6

(1) 14 screge from reports of Florida Agricultural Statistics Servce. 20002020 rerge projected byIFAS In "Agricultural Land Ue ProjectIonsn the SWFWMD", Universty of Florida,
September 1994
(2) Water use rate (acre-inch/acreseason) determined from SWFWM's Permitting Water Use Model (AGMOD), based on normal rainfall probability and typical Irrigation systems, planting
S alets and sells In the count.
(3) Projected water uses are calculated by multiplying projected acreage, water use rate, and 0.0000744.
-f Alraga adapted from the previous veles of Wter Supply Needs and Sources, 19-2020" SWFWMD, January 1992.


Table 3.2-9. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Levy County Through 2020.


T1Xnrr- -r-----I----:-~u--n (--._ .ri~-l*--R--C~-~,.-..P~i~TII--r_l__ I_~--_~_~~~ ~C__~FI-l-l -~TI- ~ ---... ~-.__11~-~.~---1.--1_-_--- ~.-1 lrr_~~_711~__r_~ 1~~~___._1~ IT~ ICTr-- :R~~D~-~h~










MANATEE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS


ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) EflicencIes PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MGD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Armonori(5) 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 785%0% Avg. 14 14 13 13 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9
Aqua tur (5) 10 10 10 10 Avg. 33 33 33 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Citrus 23,940 24,1t7 24,178 24,178 75% Avg. 12 12 12 12 21.4 21.6 21.6 21.6
S78%0% Dry 16 15 15 1i 27.0 27.0 27.0
Nurery 1,411 1,937 1,937 1,937 75% Avg. 62 62 62 62 6.5 8.0 8.9 8.9
75%/80% Dry 84 64 3 63 6.7 9.2 9.1 9.1
Pasture () 1,480 1,480 1,40 1,450 78% Avg. 13 13 13 13 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Sod (S) 3,200 3,20 4,881 8,448 75% Avg. 36 36 36 36 8.6 10.2 12.2 14.6
75%/80% Dry 40 40 39 39 9.5 11.4 13.2 15.8
Streberres 350 350 350 350 75%80% Avg. 44 44 42 42 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Tomatoes
Spring 8,520 7,766 5,202 5,202 75%/80% Avg. 32 32 31 31 20.3 18.5 12.0 12.0
Fdi 3,480 3,172 2,125 2,128 75%/80% Avg. 21 21 20 20 5.4 5.0 3.2 3.2
Other Vgetbln (5)
S n7,266 7,276 7,330 7,375 75%/80% Avg. 40 40 39 39 21.8 21.7 21.3 21.4
Fai 2,984 2,9 3,011 3,030 76%80% Avg. 37 37 36 36 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1
TOTAL
Avg. 96.7 98.7 91.7 94.2
SD....v.. 10= l2 1g.6 9.2 101.0
(1) 1 a#AMre fem reports of Florida Ariculturvl Statistes Sevic. 2000220 arg projected by IAS In "Agricultural Land Use Projection in te WFWMD", University of Florda,
i ergmto ( ri ncshlac.teJseson) dermlned frmn SWFWMDI Pentting Water Ue Model (AGMOD). Within Dstricts Southern Water U Caution Area (WUCA), some crops
aw V uim b with two use rtes, aver er and dry.yer band on ndlN problpbtllly. Dyer use rate can only be used against available credits. Also, to promote conservation,
flhr illw elMon nices phied In beginni ig yew 2000 and 2010.
(3TP ne wm r uses ae o*alC id by mlplyii proJcted acreage, water use rnts, and 00 44.
(6) Acrme adopted from th previous vlon of Water Supply Needs and Sourcs, 19" -2020" SWFWMO, January 1M2.



Table %S-10. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Manatee County Through 2020.







MARION COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS



ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) Eiciences PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MGD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Agronomics (6) 60 60 60 60 Avg. 14 14 14 14 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Aquaculture (5) 10 10 10 10 Avg. 33 33 33 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ctr" 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Nu2ry 256 321 628 748 Avg. 63 63 83 63 1.2 1.6 2.5 3.5


Pasture (5) 472 .472 472 472 Avg. 22 22 22 22 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Sod (5) 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Strawberrs 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Tomatoes
Spring 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fal 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other Vegetables
Spring 1,255 1,147 887 618 Avg. 40 40 40 40 3.7 3.4 2.6 1.8
Fall 171 1 121 84 Ava. 37 37 37 37 0.5 0.4 0a3 0.2
TOTAL
6.3 6.2 6.3 6.4
( + : I ii


(1) 1i4wasage from reports of Florida Agricultural Statistics Servce. 2000-2020 acreage projected by FAS In "Agricultural Land Use Projections In the SWFWMD"
Univers ty of Florta, September 194
(2) Water e rate (acre-nchtacre-seaon) determined from 8WFWMD's Permitting Water Use Modl (AGMOD), based on normal rainfall probability and
pical Irrigation system, planting dates, anmr olls In the county.
(3f Proced water uses am calculated by multiplying projected acreage water use rate, and 0.0000744.
(6) Acrebge adapted from the previous version of "WaterSupply Needs and Sources, 1990-2020" SWPWMD, January 1992.


Table 3.2-11. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Marion County Through 2020.
X"ae


1 111 1 I I I I I I a I I I I a ma












PASCO COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS
Assumed
ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) Efficiences PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MGD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 -994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020


Agrofomlca (6)

Aquaciiltre (b)

Cilrus


80

32

11,555


60

32

16,900


60

32

16,900


60

32

16,900


Avg.

Avg.

Avg.


Avg.


Avg.

Avg.


913 1,244 1,546


Pature (5)

S" (5)


538 538 538

1,300 1,929 2,864


538

4,251


100 100 100 100


Tomatoes
Spring

Other Vegelables
p8 0
P"g 1


47 473
S a72


Avg.



Avg.
Avg.


14

33

19


63 63 63 63 3.4 4.3 6.8


44 44 44 44 0.3 0.3 0.3


33 33 33 33 0.2
0.0


S" TTOTAL
S. ;.26.1 36.0 39.9 44.7


^i h~ d Iig U Wt g agtpidBSWW gla 'KWyH'd Ob Pepnciloveaa SmWD"
111 JmI I.... w 1. s. .. n rbJa pbab y W



ssinC umie UlmmbUdbinmilp Eg!f3Wh am w g' .S&m, I-Cwo ..
beby 11 100 a oSwSAmyi f Ma,


Table 3.2-12. 'ounty-wide Agriculfural 4ter U& tirojections for all Major Crops in Pasco County Through 2020.


Nuwrry


!3.9


7.2


l:np






lAqL T*l fR USk PROJECTIONS
Assumed
aiarils~ww~e~^wi*^"do^-w~^--^^"~
i-; -" *,-.. A-o~m i


ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1)


Effcleadoc


1494 209 2010 2020


PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2)


1994


2000 2010 2020


PROJECTED WATER USE IN MGD (3)

1994 2000 2010 2020


Agronomis (5)

Aquaculture (5)


0


0 0


3 3 3 3


248 200


Nurery


Pasture (8)

Sod (5)


Stmawieries

Tomatoes
spring
Fall
Other Vegetables
Spring
PjM '


100 60


Avg.

Avg.


195 180 157 131


0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0


33 33 33 33

14 14 14 14


63 63 3 63


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1


0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


TOTAL
1.2 1.1 0.8 0.7
I- -- [ I'(F 1 [1 I I I lIII H [ ] I .. I I


(1) 9 aelae from reports of Florida Agricltral Sta c Service. 2000-0M acirage projected by IFAS In "Agricultural Land Use Projections in the SWFWMD"
u nthvesr y of Plorikd, eptember L4...
(2) W us rate (sam e4ncMi aes-Ia n) determined flrm SWFWM Pemifng Water Use Model (AOMOD), based on normalranfall probabity and
typical rilon systems, pflng des, and sol In the county.
(3 Projected water ss e calculated bym ling prolctd ace writer ue rate, and 0.0000744.
() Afradne adapted from the pvimoum version of "Water Supply Needs and urces, 190-2020" SWFWMD, January 192.


Table 3.2-13. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Pinellas County Through 2020.
_-.3 .


CROP TYPE


3T


ir-.i


:













POLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS

ACEAGE PROJECTIONS (I) EMfficencI PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MGD (3)

CROP TYPE 1994 2 20 2010 2020 194 2000 2040 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Agrovanics (1) 0 0 0 785%0% Avg. 14 14 13 13 0.0. 0.0 6.0 0.0

Aqialtu (5) 81 81 81 81 Avg. 33 33 33 33 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

CItiu (4) 88,406 98.800 114,000 114,000 76% Avg. 18 18 18 18 118.4 1323 12.7 152.7
76%80% Dry 22 22 21 21 144.7 161.7 178.1 178.1

Nuerry 726 682 641 541 75% Avg. 64 64 64 64 6 3.2 2.6 2.6
765%10% Dry 65 65 64 64 3.8 3.3 2. 2.6

Pasture () 200 200 200 200 75% Avg. 10 10 10 10 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Sod (8) 1,827 2,087 2,383 2,647 75% Avg. 36 36 36 36 4.9 6.6 6.4 6.8
76%180% Dry 40 40 39 39 6.4 6.2 6.9 7.4

Strwbwrtne 85 86 86 8 75%/80% Avg. 44 44 42 42 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Tomatoes
Spring 52 52 62 52 75%60% Avg. 32 32 31 31 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
a 6 B 8 8 '8 785%80% Avg. 1 21 20 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
OUer Vegeulm (6)
6r 7 n 7 889 7 %M0% Avg. 40 40 39 39 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.6
...... .. l .... 7. S n 38 36 0.3 U 0.3 04


'iJ~w~aiume+ i 2


TOTAL

Dm


12La


144.2
17.2


166.0
18.0
4i0.a


168.7
191.8


I- -. ~ -


b" m wow~ m n FAra (SWICA),




rle 1T4.'V CoLuy A ... ... mam *fo- all Major l
Table 3.2-14. County-wide Agricultural Water Ose Projections for all Major Crops in Polk County Through 2020.


_ I __~__L_ __ _


xr~ollr ---------------- -----~ ------~~-I~ ~I~c" ~^~I~"""'- c







-SARASOTA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS
Assumed
.... ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (1) Efficencies PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MOD (3)
CROP.TYPE 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Agronomics (6) 200 200 200 200 75%/80% Avg. 14 14 13 13 0.2 0.2 0.2 02

Aquaculture (5) 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Citrus 2,516 3,527 3,768 3,986 75% Avg. 13 13 13 13 2.4 3.4 3.6 3.9
75%/80% Dry 17 17 16 16 3.2 4.5 4.5 4.7

Nursy 594 730 730 730 75% Avg. 64 64 64 64 2.8 3.5 3.5 3.5
S75%/80% Dry 66 66 65 65 2.9 3.6 3.5 3.5

PaatuW (6) 655 566 555 555 75% Avg. 13 13 13 13 0.5 0 0. 0.6 0.5

Sod (5) 6,250 7,813 9,766 10,918 75% Avg. 36 36 36 36 16.7 20.9 26.2 29.2
75%680% Dry 40 40 39 39 18.6 23.3 28.3 31.7

Strawberries 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Tomatoes
Sp 1ng 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fall 0 0 0 0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0
Oter Vegetables (8)
WSlng 2,210 2,210 2,210 2,210 75%080% Avg. 40 40 39 39 4.6 6.6 6.4 6,4
Fall 80 890 890 890 75%/80% Avg. 37 37 36 36 i.4 .4 2A 2.4
TOTAL
Avg. 31.8 37.6 42.8 46.1
Driv 3-_. 41.1 49.. 49
4- ,J . .. + ;- . . .. .l


- 'i1 acreage wmi repon* orf lrin Agnoumwu mrai I Service. 2000-2020 acreage projected by FAS In "Agricultural Land Use Projections In te 8WFWMD)
Unlverlty of Florida, September 1994.
(2) Water usM rate (acre nchtmacd eae dtermnd from SWP D's Pernlltng Water U Model ~ ( MOD). ,ithn Oltrits Souther Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA),
some crops an peimted wMih two use rites, average-yr and sm yyear based on rainfall probabilu. y-y ear us re t can only be used againsavailabl credit .
Also, to promote coermvation, higher Irgation effciencies re phasd In beginning In year 2000 and 20.1
(3) Projected water usear a calulate I t I mlUtMIyg njuiteda age watr use r and 0. 744.
(5) Acreage adapted from the previous version of "Water Supply Needs and Sources, 1O-2020" SWWD, January 1992.

Table !3 -15. County-wide Agricultural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Sarasota County Through 2020.


I II I a II n41 r b mran ~--.----~ -~--- ~a~mrrr~


-----~------r~----____ ____-------__ -----,-__,~ ~I_~,_-~_____;____;;~_~,, -;-- --I ~ L~ii~i C~~__~--~_ ~~---1II_~--- ~-~i
- -- -----. --- __ I -- ._-- --I---`--~-__ -~-=-I=I'=-' I--"
-; --- ..,_. ----- -' ~1' "--8~n~-Pl~irpa~K~~;~Es~i~B~.~7'1~- *











SUMMER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL WATER USE PROJECTIONS

ACOEAGE PROJECTIONS (I) Elflclnche PERMITTED WATER USE RATE (2) PROJECTED WATER USE IN MOD (3)

CROP TYPE1 2100 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 220 14 2000 2010 2020


Agronomics (8)

Aquaculture (6)

Citnru


Nursery


P tu (5)

Sod (8)

-a^-


Avg.

Avg.


973 973 973 973

108 108 108 108

0 0 0 0


136 171 256 338


312 312 312 312

877 1,026 1,200 1,298


Avg.

Avg.


14 14 14 14

33 33 33 33


63 63 63 63


22 22 22 22

33 33 33 33


0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Tomato
,Sf .0 0.. 0 9
FaD 0 0 0 0
Othw Vegetable
AagU A M3, 3= MR
F r -M 'Is -M I


Avag
Ava.


40 4 40 40
37 37 37 37


TOTAL
ri- ._ --t '--. .... r .8l
W W^Wi 6 t; *. 1.9 18.2 19.3


eojee bAIK "AuRwel Lann d U Projectons hre 8WF W

SrP~~C"eng 1herwe owA bolbpud a.n mmmu inlt I pnmabumD and

ilu~e .6 Coly-ili pde imMII wagr uWt rUob, and .3a.ll. a-
-te sle pulvwioe v eri "-=- wu-ppni 56d- anok d -eesM 0.2Sg IgD-, Jnuiuu y -132.

Tib6 3.2-126. County-wide Agriciltural Water Use Projections for all Major Crops in Sumter County Through 2020.


p 0


0 0


------------;"----









In Pasco County, citrus acreage went from 3,903 acres in 1986, to 9,371 acres in 1988, and 6,937
acres in 1990 after the Christmas 1989 freeze The 1986 to 1990 FASS citrus acreage estimates
represent a 3,034 acres over four years, or 758.5 acres per year. This increasing citrus acreage trend
in the county is expected to continue. Allowing for a 760 acre increase each year in citrus acreage,
the total citrus acreage in the county increases from f1,553 acres in 1994 to 16,900 acres in 2000.
The projected acreage was capped in the year 2000 for the same reason as in Hilsborough County.

For Polk County, the cooperative-extension agents and growers reviewed historical acreage from
FASS. FASS reported 129,912 acres in 1984, 106,993 acres in 1986, 108,546 acres in 1988, 99,732
acres in 1990, and 91,900 in 1992 for all citrus in Polk County. The extension agents and growers
estimate that citrus acreage has the potential to reach 120,000 acres. The county property appraiser's
records indicate that 85 percent of the citrus in the county is in the SWFWMD. This coincides with
permitted data. As such, the Polk County citrus acreage in the SWFWMD is expected to increase
from 88,406 acres in 1994 to 114,000 acres in 2000.

Land iise projections for acreage devoted to citrus production in the SWFWMD suggest a significant
southward movement ofcitrus production. Those counties north of Hillsborough County have either
ceased production of citrus or, with the exception of Pasco County, are projected to have no
significant acreage in citrus within-thenext ten years.

Total citrus acreage in the SWFWMD isexpectedto increase from 328,991 acres in 1994 to 371,888
acres in 2000 and 417,718 acres in 2020. In the central portion of the SWFWMD, citrus acreage is
projected to increase in Hillsborough, Pasco and Polk counties (Figure 3.2-5(a)). Freeze damage
has significantly reduced the citrus acreage in these counties. There is evidence that some of the
acreage will be replanted. However, the citrus acreage is not expected to reach the historical acreage
which existed prior to the freezes. Although the acreage will be less than in the past, the number
of trees may be higher than in past years because citrus groves are being platted with a higher tree
density. Since 1965, Pinellas County has not produced any significant amount of citrus, nor is it
expected to in the future.

The counties south of Hillsborough and Polk are all expected to exhibit increases in citrus acreage
(Figure 3.2-5(b)). Manatee apn Sarasota counties are projected to show slight increases in citrus
acreage over the next 30 years. The other four counties ( DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, and Charlotte)
are projected to have gradual increases in citrs acreage over the 1994 to 2020 period.

Hillsborough and Manatee counties are the-predominate tomato-producing areas within the
SWFWMD. There is some acreage in Citrus and Pasco counties, but it is ~iirimal. Projected
tomato acreage in Hillsborough and Manatee counties is expected to greatly decrease by the
econometrics model. Some of the reduced acreage may move into the Hardee County. The
extenion agents acknowledpgtis trend in light of the District's recent management plans; however,
they can not agree on the-~mgnitude of the reduction- As a result, projected tomato acreage in
Hillsborough and Manatee counties has been revised and maintains at a constant level after year
2000. The final tomato acirea projletion is sbsni.igure 3.2-6(a). Total tomato acreage in the
SWFWMD isopectedto decrmvasomn 15,684 acres n 1994 to 10,701 aces in 2020, and thereafter
gradually increase again to 12,487 acres in 2020.


Water U~se Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 -2020








Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


_ __ _.. I


Figure 3.2-5(a).


Citrus Acreage Projections through 2029 in Central Counties.


Figure 3.2-5(b).


Citrus Acreage Projections through 2020 in Sogithrn Counties.


PROJECTED CITRUS ACREAGE
(CENT RA L)

ACRES (Thousands)
120
lPolk
100



80 - -----------------

4 -- - - - -- -- -- - -in- -7 -i - -
80 ..- - ---- -


S Pase*
20


0
; 1SIb4 20 20 2 0


PROJECTED CITRUS ACREAGE
(SOUTHERN)

ACRES (Thousamds)
100


100 --- - - - ---- -- -

Hard**
so -





0 -
4 0 ,. o. . l ..

2 _,"+.. +?:. + +
0+ ---- U ,.,... i^ -
0 I 20 2 0,1 1 1y, .
++~ ~r i+ ++++, < :,


1996 2020


1




F-


er Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 2020


The strawbeny acreage will remain concentrated in and near Hillsborough County's Plant City area.
Acreageprojection in this area will increase from 5,300 acres in 1994 to 8,045 acres in 2020, while
some acreage in Pasco and Citrus counties remains unchanged (Figure 3.2-6(b)). Total strawberry
acreage in the SWFWMD will be 6,143 acres in 2000 and 8,205 acres in 2020.

Watermelons are the most widely produced vegetable crop in the SWFWMD. There is no clear
correlation between acreage projections and geographic location. In any given sub-region of the
SWFWMD, individual counties are projected to have increases and decreases in watermelon
acreage. This type of variability is consistent with historical acreage data on watermelons.

There are a variety of other vegetables produced on small acreage throughout the SWFWMD. No
clear trend can be discerned in the acreage devoted to the production of other vegetables in this
category. It is anticipated that acreage of other vegetables will remain constant to 2020.

As population continues to increase, land use in sod and nursery production is expected to increase
throughout the SWFWMD. Virtually all counties in the SWFWMD are projected to realize
substantial increases in acreage devoted to these land uses. But, in the opinions of growers and
extension agents, the increases may be slowed down in the Greater Tampa Bay Area by water use
and other governmental regulations. Acreage projection for sod and nursery production, therefore,
remains at constant levels after year 2000 for Hillsborough, Manatee, Sarasota, and Polk counties.
District-wide, the irrigated acreage for nursery and sod is expected to increase approximately 60
percent from a combined 11,538 acres in 1994 to 18,489 acres in 2020.

Agronomic crops are mainly produced in the northern region of the SWFWMD with the exception
of Manatee County. Of greatest importance are corn, peanuts, soybeans, and tobacco in the northern
district, and potatoes in Manatee County. Without government support programs, the ability of
Florida producers to profitably produce these cross will decrease over the next few years. The more
distant future is almost impossible to predict. For this report, it is assumed that land devoted to
agronomic crops within the SWFWMD will remain constant over the next 30 years..

The acreage in irrigated pasture within the SWFWMD is also assumed to remain constant until the
year 2020. The economics underlying the agricultural uses of irrigated pasture for activities such
as livestock production suggest that any expansion of acreage to irrigated pasture is unlikely.
However, no substantial decline is evident either.

A relatively small amount of land within the SWFWMD is devoted to aquaculture and there is scant
information available on this activity. At present, it appears that the acreage devoted to aquaculture
will show little change from the levels reported in 1994.










50


71
























A,
Ii
liii

II!















































I








Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996- 2020


Figure 3.2-6(a).


Projected Tomato Acreage


Figure 3.2-6(b).


Projected Strawberry Acreage


PROJECTED TOMATO ACREAGE

ACRES (Thousands)
18



Total







e --- ------------------_---- ---- ------- -


Hllla er uh
10






1 20b o. .o' o


PROJECTED STRAWBERRY ACREAGE

ACRES (Thousands)















2

PasolC Itnry
0
7i 1^ ^^ ^^ 71^ "t^"i^ 210'll ^^ ^


-- i 1







j' ---- i.~ ,, ....^ ---- ----------v ---------

3. Permitted Water Use Rates for Crops

Permitted irrigation rates (acre-inch/acre-season) are dependent upon crop type, irrigation system
type, soils, climate, and other irrigation management variables. Irrigation rates to produce optimum
crop yield were developed usingthe SWFWMD's Permitting Water Use Model (AGMbD). This
model is based on a modified Blaney-Criddle procedure and utilizes historical temperature, rainfall,
and solar radiation data to calculate irrigation requirements necessary to produce optimum crop yield
during an average year (avg.) and a low rainfall year (dry) that occurstwo out of ten years. A more
detailed explanation of the AGMOD can be found in the SWFWMD's Water Use PermitManual.

Irrigation rates for a crop in a county are shown in Tables 3.2-1 through 3.2-16. For those areas
located within the Southern Water Use Caution Area2 (includes Eastern Tampa Bay and Highlands
Ridge), the values contained within the District'srproposed rule changes to Chapter 40D-2, Florida
Administrative Code, Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications, Chapter 3 of the Basis
of Rview, Section 3.3, Subsection "Irrigation Agriculture and Self-Provided Non-Public Supply
Within the SWUCA" were used in estimating future water demands. Within the SWUCA, irrigation
systems are permitted with an efficiency of 75% and are expected to be improved up to 80% before
year 2010. Accordingly, water use projection is planned with such scenarios.

For each county, the crop permitted irrigation rate is calculated based on a generalization: the
predominant soil in the county, conventional irrigation systems) for producing the specific crop,
and typical cultural practices including production seasons. As such, the irrigation requirements
listed in Tables 3.2-1 through 3.2-16 are typical irrigation rates and are intended for regional
planning purposes only. Actual permitted irrigation uses are determined on a site-specific basis.

3.4 Proected Agricultural Water Use Results

Future agricultural water use by county is projected on Tables 3.2-1 through 3.2-16 for all major
crops in the SWFWMD from 1994 through 2020 in an increment of 10 years. To summarize for the
total in the District, Table 3.2-17 presents average daily agricultural water use by county and crop
for each time planning horizon through 2020.i In this table, permitted water ise is presented, based
on average-year weather and rainfall pattern. Although additional water quantities may have been
permitted in case of the extreme weather/rainfall as shown Tables 3.2-1 through 3.2-16, they can
only be used against available irrigation credits.

The average daily agricultural water use is expected to increase from 684.8 mgd in 1994 to 847.3
mgd in2020, a 24 percent increase (or 162.7 mgd) over a period of nearly 26 years. Citrus accounts
for almost 62 percent of the increase, with an increase of 100 mgd. Sod and nursery water use will
increase from current 120.3 mgd to 181.4 mgd in 2020. An increase of 7.7 mgd of water will be





irrigationn rates used in this rpgrtO or the SWUCA re dependent on the final outcome of the rule-
making process which was still uihderway battle time this report was published. Please check with District staff
priorto using these values for planning purposes.


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020











TOTAL AGRICULTURAL WATER USE (MGD) PROJECTIONS IN THE SWFWMD
1904 2000


Sod & Straw-
Citru Nursery berries


Other
Tonmto Vegets


Misc. TOTAL


Sod & Straw-


Citrus Nursery


Other


berries Tomato Vegets


Misc. TOTAL


Charlott
Citrus
Deoboto

Ha'eride



LaW

Matu ri

Phnm
PoC*
Salrtlar
uger
DI IRIST


14.4 5.1
0.3 0.4
55.7 36.4
48.4 3.3
1.7 0.5
62.8 2.7
22.7 15.9
1.1 0.1
0.0 1.3
21.4 15.1
0.0 1.2
16.3 6.6
0.3 0.9
118.4 .4
2.4 19.6
0.0 2.8
"Wa a 123A_


0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
10_


0.0 3.9
0.1 1.5
0.0 19.8
1.3 13.2
0.0 1.2
0.0 0.0
6.6 21.7
0.0 0.5
0.0 5.1
25.7 29.8
0.0 4.2
0.2 1.6
0.0 0.0
0.1 2.2
0.0 9.0
0.0 11.6
3L.n 15._1


2010


0.1 23.4
0.1 2.6
1.2 113.1
0.2 66..
0.1 3;.
2.2 67.7
2.7 86.9
0.8 2.5
4.4 10.8
3.5 96.7
0.9 6.3
1.0 26.1
0.0 1.2
0.3 129.7
0.7 31.8
1.8 16.2
n I MAL


15.2
0.6
59.5
50.7
1.2
68.0
25.1
0.4
0.0
21.6
0.0
23.9
0.2
132.3
3.4
0.0
A0M 2


7.0
0.5
41.0
3.7
0.5
2.9
17.4
0.1
1.5
19.2
1.5
9.0
0.8
8.8
24.4
3.3
IL1 7


0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.6
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
V1_A


0.0 34
0.1 1.5
00 20.1
1.6 13.2
0.0 1.6
0.0 0.0
6.4 23.5
0.0 0.5
0.0 8.3
23.4 29.9
0.0 3.8
0.2 1.6
0.0 0.
0.1 2.3
0.0 9.0
0.0 11.8
1i o 1in 0,


0.1 25.7
0.1 3.0
1.2 121.7
0.2 69.4
0.1 3.4
2.2 73.2
2.7 94.7
0.8 1.8
4.4 14.2
3.5 98.7
0.9 6.2
1.0 36.0
0.0 1.1
0.3 146.2
0.7 37.6
1.8 16.9
on 7L7 0


2020


19.4 9.8 09 0.o 2.3
0.6 0.6 0 2 0,1 1.5
67.7 .46.2 O.O ..0 20.2
51.5 39 0.0 2.4 12,7
0.7 0.5 0.0 O0 1.8
73.7 1 3.3 00 0.0 0,0
25.1 144 22.2 5 A 22.5
0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5
0.0 (.8 00 0.0 8.3
21.6 21Z2 1.1 15.2 29.3
0.0 2.5 0: 3..
23.9 11.9 1 0, 2 %-a 1A
0.1 t +: o0.0o
152.7 91 0.3 0.4 2L.6
3. L6' J 0.0 0.0 L8
0.0' 411 0.0 0.0 12.3
441.0 t63.6 24.1 232 127.5


0.1 31.6 23.3
0.1 3.1 0.6
1.2 135., 75.1
0.2 70.9 56.2
0.1 3.1 0,7
2.1 79.1 81.6
2.7 95.1 25.1
0.8 At 0.A
4.4 14.5 0.0
:3.4 91.7 21.6
0.9 46. 0.4
1.0 11.9 23,9
0.0 90. 0.1
0.3 10S. 152.7
0.7 42,. 3.9
1.8 18.2 0.0
19.8 799.2 465.0


11.7
0.7
49.1
3.9
0;5
3.8
17.4
0.1
2.0
23.5
3;5
ILI
17.7
0.6
9.4
32.7
4.8
181.4


0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0


0.0
25:.


1.1
0.0
0,3

03
0.0
0.0
27.0


0.0 2.3
0.1 1.6
0.0 / 20.7
5.3 12.6

0.0 00
5.2 22.2
0.0 0.5
0.0 8.3
15.2 29.5
0,0 2.1
0.2 1.6
0.9 0.0
0:. 2.9
0.0 8.8
0.8 12.7
26.1 128.0


0.1 37.4
0.1 3.4
1.2 146.1
0.2 78.2
0.1 3.4
2.1 87.5
2.7 97.8
0.8 1.8
4.4 14.6
3.4 94.2
0.9 6.4
1.0 44.7
0.0 0.7
0.3 165.7
0.7 46.1
1.8 19.3
19.8 847.3


Ch"kiit

NIU*dSof
MMd-


Noe: Prmtsed water uses of f varge yr we used for pr ajafn.

Table 3.2-17. Agricultural Water Use Projections by County in the Southwest Florida Water Management District.


;p-;~--~-I~Pa-~e-,,- I- ~ ill


2020
i, i i m J i







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 2020


used for strawberry production in 2020. Vegetable water use, including tomato, will likely maintain
at a level of 159.1 mgd of 1994 in the future, partially because of price competition of vegetables
imported from South America.

The water use in the southern portion of the SWFWMD, including Hillsborough and Polk counties
and to the south, accounts for approximately 90 percent of the total agricultural water use. Pasco
County is one of the larger agricultural water users in the northern District. District-wide, in the
order of agricultural water use, Polk County will be the largest user (165.7 mgd), followed by
DeSoto (146.1 mgd), Hillsborough (97.8 mgd), Manatee (94.2 mgd), Highlands (87.5 mgd), and
Hardee (78.2 mgd) counties in 2020.


I







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 2020


4.0 INDUSTRIAL WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS

4.1 Introduction: Explanation of Categories

For the purposes of this report, industrial water use is subdivided into four categories: chemical
manufacturing, food processing, power generation, and other miscellaneous uses. Figure 4-1
depicts the locations of the industrial facilities in the SWFWMD whoie average daily permitted
quantity exceeds 0.5 mgd. Tabl 41 lists the industrial facilities by name, WUP number, average
and maximum daily permitted quantities, and 1994 average daily flows of other major industrial
facilities whose average daily water use exceeds 0.5 mgd.

Projections for industrial water use are based upon the SWFWMD's Annual Water Use Estimates
Reports, permit data, industry planning documents, and substantial feedback from industry
representatives, including the SWFWMD's Industrial Advisory Committee. Following is a
presentation of historical and projected use for each major industrial use category. The
methodologies used to project trends are discussed.

42 Chemical Manufacturing

Chemical manufacturing is closely associated with the phosphate industry and consists mainly of
phosphate processing plants. There are seven different companies that operate eleven chemical
fertilizer plants in the SWFWMD. The principal products of these plants are phosphate
fertilizers, although other products are manufactured, such as chemicals and animal feed
supplements.

According to the Florida Phosphate Council, the mining of phosphate is expected to decrease
through 2020. The projections for chemical processing water use were assumed to be directly
proportional to the phosphate rate projections that are presented in Section 4.2. District-wide,
historic and projected chemical manufacturing water use is graphed in Figure 4-2. Projected
chemical manufacturing use on a county basis is tabulated in Table 4-2. Nearly all water use in
this category occurs in Hillsborough and Polk counties. Due to public concern, economic
considerations, and regulatory permitting requirements, the established chemical plants will most
likely remain at their present locations, while some companies may seek to establish new
chemical plant locations (Long and Orne, 1990).

4.3 Food Processing

Water use for food processing is primarily associated with washing and preparing fruit and
vegetables. Figure 4-2 shows past and projected locations of food manufacturing water use for
the SWFWMD. The historic values were based upon the SWFWMD's Annual Water Use
Estimates Reports. As can be seen in Figure 4-2, district-wide food processing water use has
remained relatively constant, and less than 3.1 mgd from 1978 to 1994. The lowest av ge daily
waer use was recorded in 1994 (1.9 mgd). For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that food
processing water useof. approximately 2.0 mgd will increase slightly to 7.0 mgd over the next
twenty years, .


I,,,,







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 2(flO


INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
WITH AVERAGE PUMPAGE
GREATER THAN 500;000 GPD
IN THE SWFWMD


10 l0 40 m i


Figure 4.1.


Location of Active Industrial Use Sites Where Average Daily Permitted 'W er Use
Exceeds 0.5 mgd.


1996.- 2020


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections











Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 "-2020


INDUSTRIAL PERMITS>0.5 MGD WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT



S- -rWnrmT- 1994 TOTAL TOTAL PEAK
WUP s L AV. MAX. MONIH
OBS NAME NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE TYPE USE PERMITTED PERMITTED


I FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
2 FLORDA POWER CORPORATION
3 DXI LUME & STONE COMPANY
4 CUSER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
5 FLORIDA CRUSHED STONE COMPANY
6 SOUTHDOWN, NIC (ROOKSV-LE)
7 FLODA CRUiSED STONE WANY
8 FLODA CRUED STONE COMPANY
9 HA INDUSTRIES (MILLS)
10 LYKS PASCO, INC.
11 PASCO COGEN LDIED
12 PASCO CO SOLD> WASTE RIS RECOVER
13 FLORIDA DEPT. OF CORRECTlONS
14 CF INDUSTRIES IC
15 ALPHA RESINSCORPORATION
16 FLORIDA DISTILLRS COMPANY
17 CITYOF LAKEL.AND POWEFT NT
1l UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
19 SFE6rUJS
20 COCA-COLAFPObD4K BUtRDALE)
21 AU1 URNDALErOWtRPARTNERS
22 FLORIDA DISLLERS COMPANY
23 THE STROH BREWERY COMPANY
24 CITY OF LAKELAND
25 REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY
26 FLORIDAJUIcE NC
27 PUBLKX SIERMARRETS.INC.
28 RID GENERATING STATION LIMITED
29 CRYSTAL INTERNATIONAL, INC
30 TREASUlEISLE. INC.
31 CORONET INDUSTrlES, INC
32 NITIAM, IC *
33 CARG.LL PERTLi., INC
34 IMCAGR1O COMPANY (PORT SU17ON)
35 CARILL FERTBIZ INC.
36 MULBERRY PHOSHIATES, INC
37 IMC.AG O COMPANY (NEW WALES)
38 ORANGE COMIEATION LIMITED
39 CAROII. FERTBI R INC
40 MOr. MINING A MINERALS COMPANY
41 CF INDUSTRIES INC
42 POLK POWER PARW1 S LInED
43 FARMLAND HYDRD LIMITED
44 KAPLAN NDUSTRIS. INC
45 IMCFERLIZER, INC.
46 TA~PAELECEICCOMPANY
47 TAMPA ELECIC COMPANY
48 MOpiL MINING MINERALS COMPANY
49 IMCAOGRIMC COMPANY (SOUH PWCE)
50 IMCARICO COMPANY & AMERICAN
51 CENTRAL FLORDA POWER LIMITED
52 U.S.AGKI.EMALS CORPORATION
53 LEY HELL CORPORATION
54 DidpERTILus INC.
55 FLVOWR A LINIT COMPANY
56 PENY POINT PHOSPHATES. INC
57 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION (AVON)


213
2286
7015
215
7822
451
10413
9087
494
1415
3641
10555
47
1960
2345
493
10604
10347
148
295
8(09
225
5791
10631
3118
229
1861
1930
2224
3050
1532
3195
3767
10948
1533
.317
610
10700
1539
2407
3053
6233
5379
11046
678
781
10840
438
2214
3573


285736
285735.83
284563.38
284039.07
283938.14
283834.82
283528.56
283501.12
283140.08
282235.
212230
282157
211129.5
280957.91
280606.5
210551
2104462
210356
280333.03
20317.92
280314.17
28030933
210259
290255.02
210246.65
2802253
210223.9
210135
2W0045.51
27592.1
275917.19
275439
275425.19
27541843
275320.55
275314
275252.61
275214
,275158.94
Z75151.38
27514.13
275054.5
27502229
275020.07
274781.11
274756.6
274740
274738.29
274546.23
274529.22
274443
2744409
274155.86
2"".S19t


5302 273818
9311 273794.3
4950 273440.82


OOROUNDWATR
S-JRFAC WAfLER


823730.14 G
823826.95
82024 48 0
820852.37 G
820044.08 S
.122824A01 -
822616.13
822595.89 O
820927 S
821121.41 G
821123 G
823429.94 G
814707.5 G
820824.67 G
820030 G
814321.66 0
815525,31 O
822443.49 O
814756.97 G
814754.4 G
814824.5 G
81401 O
8225.27 G
815523.63 S
822509.61 G
820137.75 G
82003031 0
815053.5 G
20756 G
821417.52 O
820478.95 0
822335 0
815503.93 G
822458.56
821811 S
81565202 G
820174.37 G
814927.5 G
821353.88 G
822045.18 0
815575.66 0
SS1242 G
815442.99 0
814943.45 G
820139.9 O
122346.87 G
822356 G
815404.36
815615.83 0
820037.96 G
815058.5 G
815105.8 G
122957.87 O
20520 d
821939 S
823209.23 0
81293418 G

TOTALS


1,000,000
1,040,000
2,079,000
136,300
4.000
330,o000
20,080,000
1,000
3,000
15,493,000
762,000
720,000
142,000
6,292,000
800,000
999,000
2,900,000
1,032,000
998,500
3,810,000
1,800,000
1,309,000
666,000
16000
o00,000
469,000
750,000
1,11 ,200
11340,000
2,640,000
35,900
740,000
612,000
,160,000
4,00000
1,160,000
1,991,000
6,295,000
660,000
4,880000
10,767,000
7,800,000
761,000
5,50000
511,000
19,166,500
234,000
8,640,000
1,05,000
2330,000
6,840,000
1,701,000
1,510,000
000
16,050
'40,odb8
8,519,000
ioOmo
.kgaooo;


3,000,000

40,000,000
1,5s0,000



27,178,000





1,070,000
1,100,000
8,000,000
1,000,000

4360,000

3,000,000





270.72o.00
858,000




4.02,000


1,820,000


34,576,000
3,800,000

10,700,000
1,170,000
24,000,000
902,000





1,500,000

4,194,000

6,100,000
1,900,000
1,900,000
790,000


1,350,000
957,000
1.610,000


1,000,000
1.040.000
27,100,000
826,000
32,845,000
3,230,000
20,080,000
8,000,000
600,000
15.493,000
762,000
720,000
550,000
6,350,000
8000000
999,000
3,000,000
2,880,000
1,000,000
3,810,000
1,0,00000
1309,000
666,000
172,868,000
750,000
750,000
762,000
1,40,000
2,640,000
555,000
740,000
612,000
5,200,000
4,000,000
1,440,000
1,991,000
6,300,000
660,000
5,822,000
13,260,000
7,890,000
761,000
9.500,000
1,00000
20,736,000
1,000,000
8640,000
1,805,000
S2330,000
9,320,000:
1,700,000
8,640,000
1,400,000
It1o,sooo
10,10,000
,519,000
1,500,000
U-~g~e


187,04,450 454,581.000 JA661.661. 2 o

TOTALOPMAXANDPEAK 715,423,000


Table 4.1. Industrial Water Use Permittees Whose Average Permitted Quantity Exceeds 0.5 mgd.

as of 1994.


~qJI~:_


658,000
1,100,000
664,000
6420,000
4,5000



10,500,000
775,000
5,904,000

t100o00
1,010,000
15,000,000
1,400,000
32,000,000
1,90000,000
10,800,000
3,410,000

11600,000
2,100,000
I2,000,000

15,010,000

122,400,000
2,000,000
mmwmmm "LO-0







a-.1


A

















,1<

0


Z IM

LJ 4


:1


r S 1 1 2611 261 261I 22 *
YEARS


INDUSTRIAL WATER USE


-- -- -- -- - - -- ------ -- ---.




-- --- -- --.----------- - -- - -- - -




-----'----------- -- -




- - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - -


------------------


!


- -:-- -~ .--~ -1- -? / ,--......


"


I








PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL VWTER USE
5 i ma 8 -- --......--- --.
la 19e0 199 TV 2000
,, ChemIceI Food PowIer *-.Other" f Chmiw Food Power Other Chbemnll Food Power Olher I
S COUNTIES Mfg. Proc. Gene. Misc. TOTAL MIt Proc Gener. Misc. *TOTAL_ MfgP. Proc. Gene Misc. TOTAL II
:: CHIIDTTiE : 0. 0 0.0 : .O 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 : 0.1 0.1 ~" 0.0 0.0 .0 o.o 0.0
CITRs o 0.0 o 0.0 1.5 0.0o 1.5- I 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.8 o.o 00.0 o.o : 0.0 0.0 o
DESOTO 0.0 0.0i 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0o: '
HARDEE 0.0 0.1 0.0 : 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 0.2 3.8 1.3 7.2 0
1 HERNANDO 0.0.0 0.0 0.0 1 3.1 3.1 : 0.0 0.0 4.4 2.2 6.0 0.0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 I
: HIGHLANDS 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.2 2.1 : 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 o 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.7
l HILL8OROUGH 14.2 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.5 14.7 U 19.9 0.2 1.9 6.6 28.6 j1 16.3 0.4 0.0 10.4 27.1 ,
AKE 0.0 0 : 0.0 0.0 0.0 o. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 : 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :i
LEVY 0.0 0.0 00 i0.0 0.0 f- 0.0 0.0 0.0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0
MANATEE 1.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 4.8 0. 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.4 2.7 0.0 0 .0 0.1 2.8 I
MARION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 o : 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 .s 0.0 .0 0.0 0.1: 0.1:
PASCO ,0.0 0.2 0.0 14.1 44. 0.0 0.7 1.1 11.61 13.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.7 3.9

POLK 51.8 1.8 7.2: 2.6 63.4 15.6 0.9 11.5 15.3 43.3 14.2 1.0 16.0 17'.2 48.4, 01
S SAR.OTA 0.0 00 0 0.0 0.0 0.1: .0 0.1 0:0 0.0 0.1 ':0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2:'
I S MER 0.0 0.0 0.0 01 0.1 0 00 00 00 1 0.1 -0.1 ': 0.0 0.0 00 o 0.6 0.6o::
S 1 14 22.1 105 36.4 I 9 19.6 : 39A 97.3 1351 3.2" 19.8 33.0 91.2
,.. :" 2010 2I 2020 lI


.a C. vCmcoall Food 1 Power! Other -
II I Cha~aI' I Power 1,r Ouverl


S QQUNTIES i Mfg.
! CHARLOTTE : 0.0
. 'CITRUS i' 0.0
DESOTO 0.0
I M HARDEE 1.4
: HERNANDO 0.0
II HILANDS 0.0
" HILLSBOROUGH 14.6
LAKE I 0.0
" Lf 0.0
. MANATEE 2.7
S-. MARION 1 0.0
" PASCO I 0.0
S PINEL AS 0.0
P': PQ 43.7
" SARASOTA : 0.0
I SUMMER 00


Pman? i flmw Mlsa i TOTAL


U CIhmical: Food Power
!I Mfg. Proc. Goner.!


I ...Ge. --!-- Ms --


S 0.0 0.0
I o.o o.o I

0.0 1 20.0 1
I 0.5 3.8
to :0.0
0.8 0.0
I0.9 0.0
0o.0 0.0
I o.o o.o I:
1 0.0 0.0
1 0.0 oQ 0.
1 0.0 0.0
So.o6 0.o
{ 0.0 0.0
I 3.4 32,6
0.0 0.0 I
0.0 0 00


0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.1
0.3
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
2.1
0.1
11.3
0.5
1.0 1


o.o g

7.8 i-
0.1 !l
1.1 :1
21.1 :
0.0 :
o.o0
2.8 a
0.1 !i
3.7 II
0.1 II
60.9 8
0.5 i
1.0 :1


0.0
0.0 -
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
14.6
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.7
0.0
0.0


------------- --r


umer ; ;;
Mhc. | TOTAL II


0.0 00
0.0 0.0
0.0 27.0
0.5 3.8
0.0 0.0
0.8 0.0
1.2 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
1.2 0.0
0.0 0.0
3.4 i 32.7 1
0.0 0.0
0.0 00


0.0 :
0.o0 I
28.6
9.4 ,
2.2 2
1.1
le.9 -
0.0::
0.0",
2.8
,9.1a
3.31
0.1 1
57.2,
1.0 U
0.3 -


Tab4-2. Industrial Water Use Projections Through 2020 in the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Table 4-2. Industrial Water Use Projections Through 2020 in the Southwest Florida Water Management District.


: TOTAL 1 32.4 7.2- 68.31 23.3 110.2 ; 32.4 1 71 63.5: 23.0 112.1 1
SOE.ER MISC. INCLUDES COMMERCIALINSTITUTIONAL USE NOT SHOWN INDEPENDENTLY.


A +L ___ I


-------


--


I . .. .... .. II "- "+


---'---I-'Y"


.,,,,,,,,U------u----------------------- .


1 11~1~ -- I I = --


II










As can be seen in Table 4-2, nearly all food processing water use occurs in Pasco, and Polk
counties.

4.4 Power Genration

Water use for power plants can vary tremendously depending upon the technology implemented,
fuel type, and the location of the plant. Coastal plants use very large volumes of water, but are
of little concern to this study since they use almost all saltwater. Given the environmental
consequences of such plants, however, future construction of coastal plants may not be an
allowable alternative in many areas.

Water is used in power-generating facilities for condensing the spent steam from turbine-driven
generators. The quantity of water required by the facility depends on the type of cooling system
used. Three types of cooling systems are generally based in Florida; cooling ponds, cooling
towers, and once-through cooling. Once-through plants, where water is withdrawn from a
surface water body and returned downstream, use large quantities of water, but do not actually
consume much water. :Because the cooling system is closed, the amount of water actually lost
through evaporation is small. The amount of water lost through evaporation is difficult to
determine. For purposes of this report, water loss is assumed to be about one percent.

Due to the tremendous volumes of water required for these plants, most are located along the
coast and use little or no fresh water. However, cde to environmental concerns in coastal areas,
the recent trend is to site facilities in inland areas. Two large power nerators within the
SWFWMD, the City of Lakeland and Tampa Electric Company, use lakes for their cooling water
needs. (Lake Parker and Dinner Lake, respectively).

The two remaining types of water use systems are cooling towers and cooling ponds. Although
these systems use less total water than the omce-through cooling system, they are open systems
and require significant amounts of makeup water to compensate for evaporative losses. Make-up
water requirements are somewhat gbter for cooling towers than for cooling ponds since all of
the heat load of the condenser cooling water is transferred to the atmosphere by evaporation and
condensation.

Future water use projections are difficult due to the long and ever-changing process of power
plant siting. Due to the competitive market i ind purrasing power compages aereluctant
to disclose site information until land purchases are either final or under contract Companies
often consider many. sites during the siting ppoess, including sites out of the SWFWMD.
Projections are often limited to ten years, but due to the lengthy siting process,projctions '
through 2020 should be reasonable.

District-wide historical and projected power renton water use is presented in Figure 4-2.
Historical projections are based on data coptamed in the SWFWMD's Annual Water Use
Estimates Reports. Projections were baqed upoi the best available information on probable or
possible site locations and plant sizes A review of water use estimates for several inla power
plants shows that a water use po 1.5 mgd per f100 $r of power production is reasonablV This
rule-of-thumb assumes the use of cooling towers; and was used when specific information wai

60


Water U~se Demand Estimates and Projections


.0%-2020










not available. In addition, water use was increased slowly for most large plants, since most
companies build plants in several stages. With the exception of the two City of Lakeland power
generator sites, plants currently in use are assumed to continue using 1994 rates of consumption.
Since the City of Lakeland uses a once-through system, it was considered separately (see below).

As depicted in Figure 4-2, water use for power generation is projected to increase substantially
from 14.6 mgd in 1990 to approximately 64 mgd in 2020& By the year 2000, water use for
power generation will exceed water use for chemical processing, becoming the largest industrial
water use category.

The following is a breakdown of the future water use plans for the five largest power generation
companies. -When the cooling-water source is not yet known, a cooling tower system is assumed.
Due to growing environmental concerns and property costs, coastal sites may not be considered.
Table 4.4-1 summarizes this discussion.

Table 4.4-1. Projected Cumulative Additional Water Needs for Power Generation for the Major
Power Generators in the Southwest Florida Water Management District through
2020.

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Probable
County

FPL 0 6.0 20.0 27.0 27.0 DeSoto
TECO 5.2 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 Polk
FPC 2.5 12.0 17.5 17.5 17.5 Polk
HARDEE 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.1 3.8 Hardee
POWER
LAKELAND* 0.8 1.0 1.1 12 1.3 Polk
OTHER 7.5 7.1 7.5 7.5 7.5 Polk
TOTALS 19.8 36.7 56.3 63.4 63.4

Equal to one percent of totai flws.

4.4.1 Florida Power and Light

Florida Power and Light (FP&L) is focusing on plant, expansions at their current locations:t
meet their needs through 2000. Other possible expansions, within the SWFWMD, include a 1600
MW plant to be started by the year 2005. This plant would mos likely use ground water as a
makeup source for either a codling pond or tower system, although other systems are possible.
A company representative estimates the ultimate water use to be approximately 27 mgd
(telephone conversation with Florette Braun, FPL, September 1996). Several locations are
proposed, within and outside of the SWFWMD. Te coniiiy already owns property in DeSotq-
County, so this appears to be a like y candidate. The DeSotb locaon is assumed in this analysis.


I _


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


996 2020









4.4.2 Tamp ElectricCompany

Tampa Electric Company (TECO) has initiated the construction phase of a power plant with an
ultimate capacity of approximately 1,150 MW, using a pond system. This plant is located south
of Bradly, in southwest Polk County. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with the first
unit becoming operational in late 1996. Thl plant should be at full capacity by 2010. As per
TECO's preliminary estimates, the maximum water use for the completed plant will be
approximately 6.4 mgd (telephone conversation with Scott Laidlaw, SWFWMD, August 1996).

4.4.3 Florida Power Corporation

Florida PowerCorporation (FPC) has broken ground on a new 3000 MW power plant southwest
of Bartow. This plant is estimated to ultimately use approximately 23.6 mgd and has been
permitted for 17.5 mgd at build out. The remaining 6.1 mgd will be purchased from Bartow
and/or Lakeland. It is anticipated that 5 mgd of the remaining 6.1 mgd will be provided by a
Bartow reuse project which is co-funded by the SWFWMD. The plant should he at full power
by 2013. Also, FPC plans to ask for an increase in fresh water uswat the Crystal River Power
Plant. The current fresh water use is very small (1.04 mgd in 1994), so the increase is assumed
to be no larger than 1 mgd (telephone conversation with Scott Laidlaw, SWFWMD, August
1996).

4.4.4 Hardee Powe PweParters (TECO/Seminole Electric Service areas)

Hardee Power Partners plan to construct an 880 MW power plant in Hardee County sometime
after 2003 (telephone conversation with Anetha Lue, TECO Power Services, and Scott Laidlaw
SWFWMD, 1996). The power plant will be built in two stages. The first stage, which is
currently on line, is a 220 MW facility. The proposed second or final stage will increase this
facility's capacity to 880 MW by 2003 and ultimately require an average annual water use of 3.8
mgd, according to site certification permit number PA#9-25. The Hardee Power Partners have
cited the need for 2.37 mgd of reclaimed water at build out, if available.

4.4.5 Lakeland Power

The City of Lakeland currently uses a once4rough flow system, with a small amount of ground
water for boiler makeup. The city is now supplementing the ground water use with treated
wastewater.

The City of Lakeland's power facilities are located at two plants; the MacIptosh plant and the
Larson Plant Theb.MacIntosh plant has three turbines; one using a once-through coWling stem
on Lake Parker snd two utilizing eluent from a nearby wastewater treatment plant for ikeup
water. The twoturbines' cooling yst were converted to effluent water in 1988, but still use
Lake Parker as a backup water source. All three generators also us ground'water as a,.second
backup source. The water use permit for tme bO Oy4 system was renewed, with acorditiqn
attached to report both total.flow4mropuh water a a as water lost through evapora The
latter quantity is assumed to be one percent of the total flow. '7


Water Um.,]Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 -Mt6










The City's other plant, Larson, consists of four turbines; one capable of pumping 80,000 gallons
per minute, and three capable of pumping 36,000 gallons per minute. All cooling water is
provided by a once-through system on Lake Parker. This plant is currently operating below its
maximum capability, and is expected to be used more in the years ahead.

Since pumpage quantities reported to the SWFWMD in the past are total flow quantities, the City
of Lakeland's power generating water use as shown. in Table 4.4-1 is considered to be one
percent of total flow., As mentioned above, one percent is assumed water loss through Lakeland's
closed once-through system. Future quantities needed are expected to grow at a twenty percent
rate totaling approximately 1.3 mgd by 2020 (telephone conversation with Bill Rodriguez,
Lakeland Utility, July 1994).

Projected power generation water use on a county basis is tabulated in Table 4.4-1. Nearly all
fresh water used for power generation is projected to be used in DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands,
Manatee, and Polk Counties, with the greatest increases projected in DeSoto and Polk Counties.

4.4.6 Other Power Facilities

Several smaller power plant facilities are scheduled to become operational within the next five
years within the SWFWMD. A total of six small power plants have been proposed in Polk
County, of which most are either under construction or completed. These facilities have a total
combined capacity of 751 MW. Total water use from other power facilities is anticipated to be
less than 8 mgd. Anticipated reuse demands will replace an estimated 2 mgd of the total
cogeneration water use.

Ridge Energy International has a 45 MW plant in service, south of Lakeland that utilizes
agricultural and yard wastes for power generation. This facility is permitted for 1.34 mgd of
groundwater withdrawals.

Mulberry Energy Company, Inc., has constructed a 200 MW cogeneration facility south of
Lakeland. This facility will utilize natural gas for power production and is permitted for 0.761
mgd of groundwater withdrawals.

Eldorado Power Company has constructed a 150 MW cogeneration plant located on the west side
of Auburndale. This facility will utilize natural gas for power production and is permitted for
1.8 mgd of groundwater withdrawals. Eldorado has identified reuse water as a possible source
for their water demands.

Panda Energy Corporation has a power plant with an expected ultimate power capacity of 110
MW, near Lakeland. The ground water use permitted for this facility is 1.22 mgd. The plant
will service FPC customers until their major power facility is constructed in the late 1990s.

Tiger Bay Power Company has a 147 MW cogeneration plant located on the west side of Fort
Mead. This facility utilizes natural gas for power production and is permitted for 1.8 mgd of
groundwater withdrawals.


63


__


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 2020


Orange Power Company has a 99 MW power co-generation plant located on the southeast side
of Bartow. This facility is permitted for 0.66 mgd of groundwater withdrawals.

4.5 Other Uses

Other uses include all water use that does not readily fit in any of the above categories, such as
general manufacturing, boiler makeup wate vequipment cleaning and maintenance, etc. Figure
4-2 and Table 4.4-1 illustrate histic and projected water use for the other category. Water use
in this category is projected to increase over the next twenty years to a rate of 41 mgd, in 2020.



































. : ** '. 9







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 199 202


5.0 MINING WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS

5.1 Introduction

For the purposes of this report, mining use is subdivided into three major categories: phosphate,
limestone, and cement manufacturing/sand mining. Figure 5-1 includes locations of all mining
facilities in the SWFWMD whose average daily permitted quantity exceeds 0.5 mgd. Table 5-1
lists the facility name, WUP number, average Mid maximum daily permitted quantities, and 1994
average daily flows of all mining facilities whose average daily permitted water use exceeds 0.5
mgd.

Projections for mining water use are based upon the SWFWMD's Annual Water Use Estimates
Reports, permit data, industry planning documents, and substantial feedback from industry
representatives. Following is a presentation of historical and projected use for each major mining
use category. The methodologies used to project trends are discussed.

5.2 Phosphate Mining

Phosphate mining operations use water for slurry preparation, transportation, washing, flotation,
and preparation. Of the rock mined, 90 percent is used to make fertilizer. Another 5 percent is
used in livestock feed supplements, and the balance is used in a vast array of consumer goods.
Currently, 7 companies are operating 16 mine sites within the SWFWMD (Figure 5-1). The
mining of phosphate rock has occurred within this area for over 100 years and will continue into
the next century. Within the five county area, the phosphate industry owns about 466,440 total
acres (Long and Orne, 1990). Of this total, 241,149 acres are in active mining areas and 19,034
acres are in chemical complex areas. Industry and DEP data indicate that a total of 218,229 acres
have been mined, with 149,130 acres mined before July 1, 1975, and 69,099.acres mined since
1975. Present day mining operations have the capability to mine over 6000 acres/year. Figure
5-2 depicts the minable phosphate area within the SWFWMD.

The tonnage production of phosphate rock has fluctuated over the years, due to various factors.
The high was reached in 1980 when 43.0 million metric tons (mmt) were produced while 1992
was the lowest tonnage production in the last 15 years, 25.2 mmt These swings in the industry's
production were driven by circumstances of weather, farm and monetary policy, and situations
over which the industry has virtually no control. Because of these factors, future phosphate
production rates are very difficult to predict.

According to the Florida Phosphate Counc, the best estimate of future phosphate production
rates and water use within the SWFWMD are that phosphate production and its water
consumption will continue the trend of the last five years, and drop below today's use of 37.7
mgd. This amount may be offset by as much as 23.5 mgd of reuse water as it becomes available
(Envisors, Inc., 1994). District-wide, historic and projected phosphate processing water use is
graphed in Figure 4-3. Projected phosphate mining water use is tabulated on a county basis in
Table 4-2. Estimates of future phosphate water use by county were based on information
provided by the Florida Phosphate Oouncil, and members of te SWFWMD's Industrial Advisory
Committee.








Water Use Demand Estimates and Prejections 1996 2020


MIING WATER USE WITH
AVERAGE PUMPAGE
GREATER THAN 50000 GPD
IN THE SWFWMD


10 0 10 20
sicmnmin ln


Figure 5-1.


Location of Active Mining Facilities Whose Average Daily Permitted ter Use
Exceeds 0.5 mgd.


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020


i,










Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


MINING PERMITS>0.5 MGD WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


WITH- 1994
WUP DRAWAL MINING TOTALAVG. TOTALMAX PEAK
OBS NAME NO. LATTUDE LONGIUDE TYPE USE PERMITTED PERMITED MONTH


G-GROUND WATER
S-SURFACE WATER


2,500,600
2,160,000
1,160,000
7,00,200
7,500,000
40,00000
15,000,000
13,800,000
8,640,000
3,500,000
2,297,000
14,000,000
11,460,000
2,160,000
1,370,000
1050,000
9,120,000
720,000


1 INDEPENDENT AGGREGATE
2 CIrUS RECREATIONAL MARINA, INC.
3 CRYSTALRIVER QUAES, INC.
4 FLORIDAROCK INDUST INC.
5 VULCAN ICADTIBTIONCOMPANY
6 FLORIDACRUSHED STONE COMPANY
7 OMAN CONSTRUCIN COMPANY
8 VULCANACA
9 DALTONE KNOWLES
10 DAC FERTIL12ER INC.
11 CONECORPORATION
12 HOWARD BROS. MINING & MATERIALS
13 PLAZA MATERIALS CORPORATION
14 STANDARD SAND & SILCA COMPANY
15 SUNSIN PEAT, INC.
16 WILLIAML. JACOBSEN
17 E JAHNA INDUSTRIES, INC
13 STEARNS, WILIAM
19 rIMC ERTILIZEINC.
20 IMC-AGRICCOOMPANY & DAVID C. &
21 FLORIDAROCMINDUSTIES, INC.
22 STANDARD SAND& SILICACOMPANY
23 INC-AORIC COMPANY & FARMLAND
24 MOBL MINING & MINALSCOMPANY
25 MOBL OIL CORPORATION
26 IMC-AGRICOCOMPANY AMERICAN
27 CARGILLPERTILi INC.
28 AGRIO CHEMICAL COMPANY
29 AGRICOCHEMICAL COMPANY
30 MOBL MINING MINERALS COMPANY
31 DODDC HAMMOND
32 CF INDUSTRIES, INC
33 NUGULFINDUSTRIES, INC.
34 TUBBS FAMILY ENTERPRISES
35 QUALITY AGGREGATES, INC.
36 QUALITY AGGREGATES, INC.
37 MYAKKARIVERRESOURCV INC.
38 GOORGOCOLIAN& ADRIANR.
39 LUNIERPAUL
40 LEWSHANEHALL
41 HANDY PO, INC.
42 AIAXPAVINGINDUSTRIES,INC.
43 HARPeERBROS.INC.


7819 29045.46 824115.18 G
359 290045 823916 S
7687 284909.51 82285252 G
199 233822.93 822511.69 G
2288 283813.17 82212131 G
891 283579.6 121011.6 S
1929 282917 X23835 S
7301 281940.15 814719.59 S
9104 28D17.9 182005.01 G
9647 281748 820263.67 G
10679 281729.18 822949.15 S
7095 281355 82055639 G
4826 -3125.02 820815.94 S
196 281139.52 814631.86 G
9083 28080273 813623.94 S
6960 210695.91 82337.41 G
6054 20516.16 $15368.78 G
10191 280052 821301 S
838 275539 814757 G
1039 275452 820755 G
5173 275448.55 813294.47 G
10482 275431.54 813015.54 O
3049 275056.1 815078.33 G
2318 274627.17 814818.44 G
332 2744706 20370.56 O
203 274377.26 20671.16 G
2297 274131.15 81511629
1078 274024.41 815609.98 G
1081' 273"95.9 820060.93 O
5403 273975.12 814561.46 O
5202 273800.22 321430.09 G
3669 273639.45 s1564433 O
3740 27290.51 820737.2 G
10547 272628.98 812546 S
8311 272340.19 822599.21 S
8817 272144.58 322532.42 O
9766 270953.96 322254.49 O
10905 270210 314855 S
9402 265709 815819 S
10218 265626 114106 S
977 265444.14 82183036 S
9283 265421.12 821893.U S
9653 26620 nnM 7 s

TOTALS


Table 5-1. Mining Water Use Permittees Whose Average Permitted Quantity Exceeds 0.5 myl

as of 1994.


1996 220


2,000,300
2,000000
32,600
6,155,200
5,070,000
25,041,400
7,000,000
9,700,000
800,000
2,400,000
1.360,000
4,997,000
8,860,200
11,01000
990,000
144,000
3,910000
501,o00
522,000
2,761,000
9,140,000
13,301,000

1,360,000
6,3Mooo

6,29,000
4,000,0
15,300,000
8,979,000
13,773,000
11,507,000

1,46000
1407,46000
6,410,000
1.440,000
198,000
2,392.000
1,210,000
1,197.000
1,730.000


2,40000
um


2,000,300
2,00,.000
8260,00
6,155,200
5,070,000
28,120,000
S7,000,000
9,700,000
1501,000

1,360,000


18,60,000
1.700,000
990,000
843,000
5,750,000
501,000
522,000
2,764,000
5,796000
13,800,000
23,300,000
1,360,000
6,370,000
6,000,000
12,000,000
9,000,000
13,804,000


,730,000
6.410000
1,441,000
4,500,000
1,280,000
1,210,000
1,197,000
1,730,000
2,160,000
540,000
2,460,000
U=0


725,000
3,96,000
3,230,000

27,000,000

7,920,000
7,700,000
15,000,000
12,000,000
17,24,000
19,000,000
2,420,00
10,300000


6,320,000
2,880,000


1,197,000
1,730,000
2,160,000
720,000
2,950,000
60g


13,800,000

1,620,000









10,630,000
2,161,000


23,473,100 236,160,500 23l.85.00 95.

TOTAL OF MAX AND PEAI 46,045,500








Water Use Demand~ Esiae an Pojcios 96 2


PROJECT STUDY AREA
WITHIN MINEABLE LINE


Mineable Phosphate Area Within the SWFWMD.


1996 -2020


''


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


Figure 5-2.






PROJECTED MINING WATER USE
S990 1994 2000
Sment o eT t neT T Cement TPh teLetone T c TCen t hoeston
U COUNTIES Mfg. IMIIng Mining Other TOTAL I: Mfg. MkMing Mking 1 Other TOTALtI Mfg. Mining Mining Other TOTAL
, CHARLOTTE 0.3 0.0 0.3 4.60 0.0 0.2 00 4.7 | 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6
: CITRUS 0.0 I0.0 2.1 0.0 2.1 fl 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.3 00.0 0.0 1.4 3.1 4.5
S DESOTO 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '0.2 I 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 :: 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.9
, HARDEE 0.0 '0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 o0.0 I0.0 i 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 5.2
SHERNANDO 2.7 1 0.0 17.5 0.0 20.2 I 0.0 0.0 3.9 5.1 8.9 3.5 0.0 2.3 4.3 10.1
SHIGHLANDS 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0. .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
I HILLSBOROUGH 0.2 12.8 0.0 i 0.0 13.1 II 1.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 8I .8 2.3 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 2.3
I LE 0.0 0.o0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LAKE o.o oo o.o I 0 o.o .0 0 0.0 I 0o.oo.ooo0 1 .o oo 0o.o0
L LEVY 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0o.000 0.0 0.0 10 0.0 0.0 .
SMANATEE .1 0.8 00 0.0 10.0 0.8
. MARION 00.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 .0 6"0 1 0 00. 0.0 0.0 0.0
, PASCO 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 I 7.2 1 0.7 0.0 I 0.0 12.9 13.6 8 11.2 0.0 18.3 4.1 31.8
: PINELLAS 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 J I o.o : 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4: 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
:" POLK 18.9 63.7 : 0.2 0.0 L 82.8 e 17.2 30.0 2.5 11.1 10.8 6.2 29.0 0.0 8.2 43.4
,, SARASOTA 2.3 I 0.0 J '0.0 I 0.0 293 4.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 4.0 : 1.6 0.0 0.0: 0.0 1.6
S SUMTER 0.0 0. 80.0 1 0.0 80.0 0.0 I 0.0 8.7 122.1 30.8 I 0.0 0.0 12.0 15.1 27.1
, T S-1 --- T- 7 W-" a1-T -" -T 8 29.1,3 7T0 T. 14 i 4 32.0 1 3. 134.4
I II 2010 | 2020 =
IT- ce ent T... T emen-:: F-Fhato imet-ne-T
., COUNTIES Mg. IM I MinlS I OthrI TOTAL Ih MU IM Mhrng MI M' ITOTAL-
-a -7 7;--------- -r----I"---
: CHARLOTTE 5.86 0.I5 0.0 0.0 T 5.6 8 56 0.0 00 115 6:
:I CITRUS 0.0 .o.o 1.4 6.9 0.3 Ih', 0.0 I0.0 1 .8 8.7 I
S DESOTO 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 19 : 0.7 1.2 0.0 1.9 II
SHARDEE 0.0 2.9 8.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9 I
HERNANDO 2.1 0.0 2.3 1 .1 7.6 8 2.1 0.0 2.6 I 7.8
I G HI ANIDS 0.0 0.0 o0.0 0o .2:,- 0.2 S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 02
HILLSBOROUGHI 2.3 : 0.0 0.0 t .0 2.3 S 2.3 0.0 .0.0 2.3
' IAKE 0.0 0.0. 0.0 .0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 :
Il LEVW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 A4 A4 0o.- .0o 0.0 0.4 :
I MANATEE I 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.68 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 6
I N ~ RION o00 0 1 0.0 1 S.3 5.3 0.0 0.0o 0.0 s.3 :
: PASCO 4.2 I'0.0 6.8 6 4.6 14.4 |" 4.2 1 0.0 5.8 14.0 :
SPINELLAS 0.3 0.0- 0.0' 1 0.0 0.3 : 0 0. .0 0.0 0.3 :
" POLK 6.8 28.1 0.0 I .2 39.9 1 6.6 28.1 0.0 39.9 .
" SARASOTA 1.8 0.0 0.0 .0 1.8 || 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.68
, SUMTER 0.0 ; 0.0 J 7.9 17.8 1 25.7 1| 0.0 I 0.0 5.3 23.1 :
STOTALr TS'--T' -0T T"T 73r"T--' -T 1 i.3 "r-""r isr o
II I11 I I 111 I E I a -r1 11, 2 ,. ,.


Mining Water Use Projections Through 2020 in the Southwest Florida Water Management District.


I _~-~-lc


Table 5-2.









As reserves are exhausted in Polk and Hillsborough counties, mining activity will increase south
into Hardee, DeSoto, and Manatee counties (Long and Orne, 1990). Eventually, a reduction will
occur because the industry cannot find enough new land to replace present mines, and because
deposits in the south are not as good as those already mined.

5.3 Limestone Mining

Limestone mining water use was determined by reported pumpage and predicted mining water
use of current operations. Predicted water use was determined through the working knowledge
of the SWFWMD's Resource Regulation Department, based upon permitting interactions with
the limestone mining industry. Figure 5-3 shows historic and projected limestone mining water
use. As shown, water use rates are expected to fluctuate over the next ten years and then
stabilize at current rates. This fluctuation is due to the large scale (Suncoast Corridor
Expressway) construction project anticipated to be built within the northern segment of the
district.

Much of the water pumped in limestone mining is quarry dewatering, and is not actually
consumed. Some mining operations must discharge water offsite. The discharge quantities are
the only significant impacts to the hydrologic systems, since the remaining water does not leave
the original system. The degree of significance is determined by the ability of the discharged
water to return to the aquifer from the receiving water body. For example, although the total
permitted water for limestone mining for 1994 was approximately 105 mgd, the discharge or use
was only 15.37 mgd, of which all is either returned to the aquifer via sinkholes or into nearby
streams. The latter value of 15.37 mgd is probably a better estimate of actual water consumption,
and has been used in Table-5-2 and Figure 5-3. Essentially all limestone mines are located in
Hernando, Pasco, and Sumter counties.

5.4 Cement Manufact Sand Min

Cement manufacturing and sand mining have been grouped together by past water use estimates
to represent the remaining mining operations, although cement manufacturing does not necessarily
include any mining. Figure 5-3 and Table 5-2 contain historic and projected water use for
cement manufactugrria mining. Since this is a relatively small use and mines may move or
discontinue depending on-market and eemvse i ll be assumed that the water use will fluctuate
slightly through te anticipated largecale construction efforts within the northern District before
leveling off at approximately 24 mgd. The increase in ate use front 1992 to 2000 is due
primarily to thestartup of new mines in Pasco and Hernando Counties. These mines were built
to support the Suncoast Corridor Expressway d otaer construction projfts within the area. As
with limestone mining, much of the water use for sand mining may be dewatering pumpge, and
may not be actually consumed or removed fioni the hydrologic system ..


Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996-2-020









MINING WATER USE -
PHOSPHATE I
S-2506

....................... ........... ...........--- iiiiii viiiiiviiiii iiiiiiiv-------- LP4_EffNE

Cr I tv ------- -------
2 09 ------------------------- -------------------------------- -------- SAND

......... ... o....... I............ ........
0C OTHER
S---------- ------ --------------------------------------------------- U o
>8( 1 6 ----- -- -- -^^


SZ ... ........-. .. -TO..T.AL





-



1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 202 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020
.ii YEARS

Q. S
3.^I----------- ----------------------------i ____________________-J_


177,7-7.U"v"zt 777, 772?l-







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996- 2020


6.0 RECREATIONAL WATER DEMAND

6.1 Introduction

Water demand for uses classified under recreation are principally for irrigation of golf courses and
other large scale landscaped areas. Projections for recreational water use demand are based upon
historical use reported in SWFWMD's annual water use estimates reports, Florida Golf Guide, and
other pertinent data (GOLFWEEK, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994). Additional information was
provided by the SWFWMD's Green Industry Advisory Committee. Following is a presentation of
historical and projected use for each recreational water use category, including a description of the
methodologies used to calculate water use projections.

6^ Golf Course

For the sixteen (16) counties of the SWFWMD, the number of courses has increased by 55 percent,
from 192 courses in 1984 to 298 courses in 1994 (Table 6-1). During the same period, the
population has increased by 27 percent in these 16 counties. Six of the counties are not entirely
encompassed within the SWFWMD.

Golf course water use is projected for each county separately. The projections are based on the
projected number of holes and the estimated average water use per hole per day. The total number
of holes per county was calculated by multiplying the number of golf courses holes per capital by the
county's population projection.

Using the data in Table 6-1, the holes per capital are calculated by dividing the number of holes by
the estimated population for each county. The 1994 year per capital average is used for the future
golf course expansion, (Table 6-1). The total number of holes is obtained by multiplying the per
capital avtagewith county population projected by the BBR. Table 6-2 shows the number of golf
course holes for the entire District is expected to increase from 5,448 in year 1994 to 7,667 for year
2020.

The average water use per hole is determined from unpublished SWFWMD pumpage data at 71 golf
courses with 1,413 holes. As shown in Table 6-2, the water use per hole varies from 6,802 gallon
per day (gpd) in Manatee County to 14,686 gpd in Citrus County. The water use for golf courses
irrigation averaged for the SWFWMD is 10,736gpd per hole (SWFWMD, 1992).

Golf course water use is determined by multiplying the number of holes for each county by the gpd
per hole (GPDPH) for that county. The total golf course water use in the SWFWMD is projected
to demand from 53.4 mgd in year 1994 to 80.9 mgd in year 2020, equivalent to a 51 percent
increase.




; ,* r *:


JJ














1984 1985
...o..... ........ .. .. .. ....... ............................. .....
Courses Holes Population Courses Holes Population

9 162 74,060 9 162 78,475
9 162 68,683 9 162 72,278
3 54 21,125 3 63 21,574
1 9 20,803 I 9 21,146
9 144 61,945 9 153 67,742
11 180 56,P09 12 180 58,151
23 477.. 721,990 26 540 748,974
9 144 119,902 10 162 124,278
2 27 21,942 2 27 22,460
12 207 165,515 15 261 170,165
8 126 148,864 9 144 157,853
II 225 225,821 13 261 233,272
37 756 783,265 38 774 799,933
18 360 355,413 18 360 366,268
28 603 231,153 28 612 238,013
2 6 26.22 2 36 27.432


--------------------------


DIS 'lCr 17A 3672 3,103,7 214 3,906 3,23,414 209 4,23 3,32,102 217 4,257 3,430,055 243 4,575 3,573,30
.... ._------...----- -a-all------------- --m


1990 1991
....................... .o................ ......... ....o o............. ......
Courses Hle Populaton Courses Holes Population

12 316 110,975 12 216 115,557
10 198 93,515 10 198 95,915
3 54 23,865 3 54 24,534
1 9 19,499 I 9 19,812
II 189 101,15 11 189 104,394
14 216 68,432 13 216 70,609
31 648 834,054 32 666 843,203
15 270 152,104 16 288 157,061
2 36 25,923 2 36 26,682
20 360 211,707 19 324 215,130
12 207 194,833 12 207 200,314
22 423 281,131 23 432 285,407
42 828 851,659 42 828 855,763
31 498 405,382 33 552 414,700
32 711 277,776 32 711 283,140
2 36 315177 2 36 22.015


1992 1993 1994
...........o........ ............ .O........ ...................... ...................... .... 9...o..*.. -.- .. ......................

Courses Holes Population Courses Holes Population Courses Holes Population
- --- -- -- -------------------- ---------------------
12 216 118,682 14 253 121,695 IS 307 124,883
11 216 98,623 12 243 100,829 12 243 102,846
3 54 24,830 4 63 25,461 4 63 26,260
1 9 21,058 2 18 22,035 2 18 22,454
II 189 108,112 11 207 111,695 12 234 114,866
15 225 72,157 13 225 73,208 15 234 75,860
33 684 853,990 35 711 866,134 36 729 879,069
16 288 162,579 18 315 167,167 20 342 171,168
2 36 27,457 2 36 28,236 2 36 29,111
21 360 219313 23 414 223,508 24 441 228,283
12 216 206,642 13 216 212,025 13 216 217,862
24 450 290,274 22 414 293,966 22 414 298,852
42 828 160,736 42 801 864,953 43 855 870,722
33 552 420,885 37 606 429,943 41 732 437,204
32 711 287203 34 801 290,612 35 765 296,002
2 36 33,057 2 36 3336 35189


260 4-599 3,-683,47 263 4,962 3,4423_6 2710 5,070 3,805,593


234 5,359 3,805,281 293 5,665 3,930,63k


So iR:Te- Ofioi Florida o 0f auio, OURWa ~if ruMcaaosi a coopaeano wio mn nona upvunrew o0 tonmmrr.
Florida Estimates of Popuhatioa, Bureau of Ecoosmic and Busimes Reeaeh, University of lorida.
x -


Table 6-1. Population, Golf Courses, and Golf Holes in the Southwest Florida Water Management District for the Period of
1984 1994.


COUNTY


Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernando
Highlands
Hitlsborough
Lake
Levy
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
arasota
Snter


COUNTY


Charlotte
Citrus
DeSoto
Hardee
Hemando
Highlands






Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarsota

Ul5TlRI-l


,---


-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --


1986 1987 1989
.....**.................... .......... .. ....-o. ............... .... ....... ...... ................. ........ .... ...... ......
Courses Holes Population Courses Holes Population Courses Holes Population
10 180 82,968 10 180 88,30 198 99,200
9 180 77,275 9 180 81,863 10 198 91,500
3 63 22,287 3 54 22,890 3 54 24,300
I 9 21,817 1 9 22,095 1 9 22,700
8 135 73,646 8 135 79,718 9 153 90,500
13 198 60,192 13 198 63,540 14 198 67,100
25 531 775,269 25 549 801,392 30 603 821,000
11 171 130,079 11 189 137,138 12 198 146,300
2 27 23,205 2 27 23,879 2 27 25,200
16 261 175,893 17 315 181,684 17 315 192,700
9 144 166,606 9 144 174,614 10 162 190,700
16 324 245,093 17 333 254,696 23 423 272,400
39 774 816,015 40 819 828,700 41 837 845,400
18 360 377,583 22 414 389,056 30 489 394,600
27 630 244,634 28 675 251253 28 675 263,900
2 36 28.540 2 36 29.307 2 36 31,300


-------


---------


- - -- -- -- -


-


C -I-------------~


~Y~


-------I


---------




flI rr,,-r 1 I aas I I I


NUMBER OF HOLES PER WATER USE (MGD)
COUNTY CAPITAL GPDPH
1994 2000 2010 2020 1994 2000 2010 2020

Charlotte* 307 378 488 599 24.6 9,440 2.9 3.6 4.6 5.7

Citrus 243 291 365 439 23.6 14,686 3.6 4.3 5.4 6.4

DeSoto 63 68 79 89 24.0 9,398 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8

Hardee 18 19 20 21 8.0 10,736 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Hernando 234 294 390 486 20.4 14,339 3.4 4.2 5.6 7.0

Highlands* 234 263 316 368 30.8 9,040 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.3

Hillsborough 729 798 906 1011 8.3 13,121 9.6 10.5 11.9 13.3

Lake* 342 0 0 0 20.0 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Levy* 18 18 27 27 12.4 10,736 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3

Manatee 441 497 588 677 19.3 6,802 3.0 3.4 4.0 4.6

Marion* 48 55 68 81 9.9 12,229 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0

Pasco 414 471 560 646 13.9 10,187 4.2 4.8 5.7 6.6

Pinellas 855 903 978 1051 9.8 9,452 8.1 8.5 9.2 9.9

Polk* 701 772 885 995 16.7 9,619 6.7 7.4 8.5 9.6

Sarasota 765 852 991 1125 25.8 10,327 7.9 8.8 10.2 11.6

Sumter 36 40 47 54 10.2 10,736 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6

DISTRICT 5448 5719 6707 7667 53.4 60.0 70.6 80.9
*Accounts only for the portions in the SWFWMD. Used 100% in Charlotte and Highlands counties; 57% in Levy County;
22% in Marion County; 96% in Polk County; and 0% in Lake County.


PER CAPITA: the number of holes per 10,000 people; GPDPH: gallon per day per hole.

Table 6-2. Golf Water Use Projections in the SWFWMD.


-7- 77,~~r;;-:Tl-7 -I-~T~~~ip6~!=_g~jlPEs~ag~f~~:I~j ~~~ 1,~~







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 20


6.3 Landscae

Landscape water use includes irrigation for parks, medians, attractions, cemeteries, and other large
self-supply green areas. The projected water use for this category is determined by per capital data
multiplying with future population projection. Per capital water use expressed in gallons per day
(gpd) per person is obtained from unpublished SWFWMD's pumpage data for a county, dividing by
the BEBR population estimate for the county. Per capital water use (Table 6-3) employed for
projection is the six year average. The SWFWMD's average per capital water use is 3.1 gpd per
person.

Table 6-3 indicates that landscape water use projection is expected to increase from 11.4 mgd in
1994 to 14.2 and 16.1 for 2010 and 2020 respectively, representing equivalent percent increases of
24% in 2010 and 41% in 2020.


r




nwrrawr 1 n-7 -- I. trr' j ,


POPULATION PROJECTION WATER USE (MGD)
COUNTY PER
1994 2000 2010 2020 CAPITA 1994 2000 2010 2020

Charlotte* 125,417 152,832 197,607 242,581 3.9 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9
Citrus 103,814 123,100 154,400 185,700 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
DeSoto 25,881 28,500 32,800 36,900 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Hardee 22,173 23,100 24,500 25,800 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Hernando 116,147 144,500 191,300 238,700 3.1 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7
Highlands* 67,592 77,116 92,467 107,638 4.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5
Hillsborough 879,217 962,300 1,093,100 1,218,600 3.4 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.1
Lake* 1,715 1,998 2,455 2,909 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Levy* 16,512 18,623 22,061 25,384 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Manatee 231,228 257,400 304,300 350,200 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Marion* 47,243 56,166 69,564 82,918 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Pasco 300,183 340,100 403,900 466,400 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9
Pinellas 872,376 919,500 996,200 1,070,300 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Polk* 430,367 460,990 528,624 594,343 9.5 4.1 4.4 5.0 5.6
Sarasota 295,988 329,800 383,500 435,400 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Sumter 34,507 38,900 45,900 52,700 7.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4

DISTRICT 3,570,360 3,934,924 4,542,678 5,136,473 11.4 12.3 14.2 16.1
*Accounts only for the portions in the SWFWMD. Used 99.5% in Charlotte County; 90.3% in Highlands County; 1% in Lake County;
57% in Levy County; 22% in Marion County; and 96% in Polk County.

PER CAPITA: water use in gallon per day per person.


Table 6-3. Landscape Water Use Projections in the SWFWMD.


41
!, ... .4







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections


1996 2020


y^. -"--- ------ "--1 i1.111---~--------------------

7.0 .SUMMARY OF PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS

Average daily water demands for each of the six major water use categories are summarized in Table
7-1 and Figure 7-1. The projected demands listed in Table 7-1 are used later in this report to
estimate future water needs in the SWFWMD. These projections are based on currently available
data. Actual water use may be substantially different from these projections due to variations in
population growth, per capital water use rates, agricultural application efficiencies, or general
economic conditions.

The total estimated average daily demand is expected to increase from 1468.4 mgd in 1994 to 1820.7
mgd by 2020, representing a net increase of mgd 352.3 mgd, or by 24.0 percent. The largest
increase in demand occurs in counties located within the southern portion of the District.

Average daily demand is projected to increase by 63.9 mgd in DeSoto County, 40.8 mgd in Polk
County, 35.0 mgd in Sarasota County, 32.5 mgd in Pasco County, 32.1 mgd in Charlotte County,
31.9 mgd in Hillsborough County, 25.3 mgd in Highland County, 23.6 mgd in Hardee County, 16.5
mgd in Pinellas County, 15.1 mgd in Manatee County, 13.4 mgd in Citrus County, 8.7 mgd in
Hernando County, 8.0 mgd in Marion County, 5.0 mgd in Levy County and .7 ngd in Sumter
County by 2020. Lake County's average daily demand is predicted to decrease from 2.7 mgd in
1994 to 2.5 mgd in 2020.

Average daily water demands in the regional water supply authority jurisdictional areas are
predicted in 2020 to increase by 35.6 mgd in the WRWSA (includes only area of Marion County
within the SWFWMD), a 23.7 percent increase over current demand; by 80.9 mgd in WCRWSA,
a 16.9 percent increase over current demand; by 146.1 mgd in the PRMRWSA, which represents
38.7 percent increase over the current demand.

Projected average daily water demand in Hardee, Highlands, and Polk counties within the
SWFWMD, which are not currently within a regional water supply jurisdictional area, is expected
to increase by 89.7 mgd in 2020, or 19.5 percent growth in water demand above the current use.


- LPI


--













TOTAL PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY WATER USE THROUGH 2020 IN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
------------ ----------------1g------------ ----------------200U----------- -----
PUBLIC AGRI- INDUS- RECREA- PUBLIC RURAL AGRI- INDUS; MINING RECREA- TOTA1
COUNTY SUPPLY RURAL CULTURE TRIAL MINING TION TOTAL SUPPLY CULTURE TRIAL TION
CHR ITTE----" ---- T "---7= -. "23-4. --- .--7-. W.- ". .TW "l' ----"Z r' .---2 .7-. W -"-.7 --W.2Z
ITRUS 7.7 6.8 2.6 0.8 6.3 3.7 26.9 11.4 4.6 3.0 0.0 4.5 44 27.9
SOTO 0.7 2.4 113.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 118.0 0.9 2.5 121.7 0.0 1.9 0.7 127.7
o 0.7 2.0 66.4 1.0 0.0 0.3 70.4 0.7 2.3 69.4 7.2 5.2 0.3 85.1
NANO 15.7 1.8 3.4 8.6 0.9 3.8 40.2 17.0 2.4 3.4 0.1 10.1 4.6 37.6
DS 5.9 3.5 67.7 0.3 0.9 2.4 80.7 7.0 3.6 73.2 0.7 0.2 2.8 87.5
SBOROUGH 111.9 15.7 86.9 28.6 6.8 12A 264.0 125.6 10.9 94.7 27.1 2,3 13.8 273.7
0.0 0.2 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
0.5 1.6 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 13.1 0.4 1.8 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 16.6
TEE 31.4 0.6 96.7 1.4 0.1 3.1 f. 133.1 34.2 0.6 98.7 2.8 0.6 3.5 140.4
N 2.4 4.3 6.3 1.5 0.0 0.7 15.2 3.9 3.5 6.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 14.5
ASCO 20.7 14.5 26.1 13.4 10.6 4.8 93.1- 29,1 12.2 36.0 3.9 3t.6 5.4 118.2
ELLAS 108.1 3.0 1.2 0.1 0.4 9.4 122.2 113.7 0.6 1.1 0.1 0.3 9.9 125.7
K 52.6 12.7 129.7 43.3 60.8 10.: 309.9 54.7 9.4 144.2 48.4 43.4 11.8 311.9
TA 26.4 8.8 31.8 0.1 4.0 8.3 79.4 34.7 7.7 37.6 0.2 1.6 9.3 91.1
MT1.1 3.1 16.2 0.1 30.8 0.7 52.0 1.4 4.2 16.9 0.6 27.1 0.7 50.9
-----------------L,---- 11i -- 1------- !1 -221 -----Z. --5-0 *-- ------,29 ------. --- ---
OTALS 398.3 83.7 684.8 97.3 139.4 64.0 148.4 451.8 68.4 747.8 91.2 134.4 72.4 1566.0
--2010 2020
PUBLIC AGRI- INDUS- RECREA- PUBLIC AGRI- INDUS. RECREA-
OUNTY SUPPLY RURAL CULTURE TRIAL MINING TION TOTAL SUPPLY RURAL CULTURE TRIAL MINING TION TOTAL

US 12.4 5.5 3.1 0.0 8.3 5.5 34.0 144 7.2 3.4 0.0 8.7 6.8 40.3
T1.1 2.9 135.3 20.0 1:9 0.8 12.0 1.2 3.2 146.1 28.6 1.9 0.9 181.9
0.6 2.5 70.9 7.8 2.9 0.3 05.0 0.6 2.0 7.2 9.4 2.9 0.3 94.0
00 18.8 3.5 3.1 0.1 7.5 6:2 39.2 23.3 4.5 3.4 2 7.8 7.7 48.9
S 6.9 4.6 79.1 1.1 0.2 3.3 95.2 7.6 5.8 67.5 1.1 0.2 3.8 106.0
ROUGH 134.3 9.0 95.1 21.1 2.3 15.6 277.4 150.' 8.4 97.8 19.9 2.3 17.4 296.4
0.0 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0:0 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.5
0.4 2.1 14.5 0.0 0.4 0.3 17.7 0.4 2.4 14.6 0.0 0.4 0.3 18.1
ATEE 39.5 0.6 91.7 2.8 0.6 4.1 139.3 45.5 0.6 94.2 2.8 0.6 4.7 148.4
MA N 6.4 2.2 6.3 0.1 5;3 0.9 21.2 9.1 1.2 6.4 0.1 3 1.1 23.2
ASCO 36.8 11.6 39.9 3.7 14.4 6.5 112.09 45.3 10.8 44.7 3.3 14.0 7.5 125.6
ELLAS 115.2 2.4 0.8 0.1 0.3 10.7 i29. 121.1 5.0 0.7 0.1 0.3 11t5 138.7
55.5 9.2 165.0 60.9 39.9 13.5 344.0 63.1 9.6 165.7 57.2 39.9 15.2 350.7
TA 42.0 4.8 42.8 0.5 1.6 10.8 102.8 50.2 3.1 48.1 1.0 1.6 12.3 114.3
M R 1.6 5.3 18.2 1.0 25.7 0.6 -. 52.6 1.9 7.1 19.3 0.3 23.1 1.0 52.7
~~~~~~~~~~~ *-- -- - ------ ------- ----- --- -
OTALS 491.8 70.0 799.2 119.2 116.9 84.7 1681.8 560.3 75.1 847.3 126.1 115.0 909 1820.7


Table 7-1. Total Projected Average Daily Water Use Through 2020 in the Southwest Florida Water Management District.


4a


- _~ ~_;_.~_.-.- ~----I










8
'1













il
I.'







i



o


TOTAL


D INDUSTRY


2000

1800
1600

1400

1200
1000
800

600
400
200

0


2000 2010


= PUBLIC & RURAL A[ AGRICULTURE


W MINING RECREATION


1994


------------------------------------- ---------

------------------ ------------------ ------------------

--- ------------ -- ------------ -----------
----- -------------------- ------------

-------------~- ----- -- ----------
--I I IC I I--l----r-I- I i I Iii II i i I I
li I I I il i Y I mmom I Ii i ii oIIiie I


- - i I- -" ---


2020


I I n 11 111 I I I II


I _.' ~P3sn~BB~[e~iF~B~S~i~ ',11, .. ..:... '


E


--------

----------------


---------------


-- ---







Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 2020


LITERATURE CITED

Boyle Engineering, Corp., 1990. Water Supply Master Plan, prepared for Peace River/Manasota
Regional Water Supply Authority, July 1990.

Bureau of Economics and Business Research, Projections of Florida population by county, 1993-
2020, Volume 27, Number 2, Bulletin No. 108, February, 1994.

Coastal Engineering Associates, Inc, 1996. Master Plan for Water Supply, prepared for
Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority, January 1996.

Envisors Inc., 1994. Polk County Conceptual Water Reuse Study, May 1994.

Florida Agricultural Statistics, 1992a. Citrus Summary, Florida Ctops and Livestock Reporting
Service, Orlando Florida.

Florida Agricultural Statistics, 1992b. Vegetable Summary, Florida Crops and Livestock Reporting
Service, Orlando Florida.

GOLFWEEK, 1991,1992,1993 and 1994. Original Florida Golf Guide, produced by GOLFWEEK
in cooperation with the Florida State Golf Association, Orlando Florida.

Hazen and Sawyer, 1994. Economic Impact Statement, prepared for Southwest Florida Water
Management District, November 1994.

Law Environmental, Inc., 1994. Water Resource Development Plan, prepared for West Coast
Regional Water Supply Authority, July 8, 1994.

Long, H. W., Ome, D. P., 1990. Regional Study of Land Use Planning and Reclamation, prepared
for-Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, August 1990.

Pitts, DJ., Smajstrla, A.G., 1989. Irrigation Systems for Crop Production in Florida: Description
and Cost, Florida Cooperative Extension Service Circular 784, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville Florida, May, 1989.

Rogers, J. S., Harrison, D. S., 1979. Irrigation Requirements for Agronomic Crops in Florida,
WRC-5, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Water Resources Council,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1990-Draft. Northern Tampa Bay Water Use
Caution Area Management Plan, May 21, 1990.

Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1992. Water Supply Needs and Sources: 1990-2020,
Draft-January 31, 1992.





Water Use Demand Estimates and Projections 1996 2020


Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1996. 1994 Estimated Water Use In the Southwest
Florida Water Management District, January 1996.

Taylor, G.T., Reynolds, J.E.,Bedigian, KJ., 1990. Agricultural Land Use Projections For The
Southwest Florida Water Management District, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University ofFlorida, Gainesville, Florida.

Taylor, G.T., Linn, S.R., 1994. Agricultural Land Use Projections For The Southwest Florida Water
Management District, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.

Taylor, G.T., Reynolds, J.E., 1990. Agricultural Land Use Projections For The Southwest Florida
Water Management District, A Methodological Overview, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

































81




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