Title: Memo: Water Fee Legislation with Attachment
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002376/00001
 Material Information
Title: Memo: Water Fee Legislation with Attachment
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Memo: Water Fee Legislation, June 10, 1991 To: Florida Land Council From: Churck Littlejohn
General Note: Box 10, Folder 17 ( SF Water User Fees - 1987 and 1991 ), Item 3
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002376
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
1, t ;1 4 Jt 1 -




Florida Land Council
310 WEST COLLEGE AVENUE
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
(904) 222-7535

Tom L. Rankin
Chairman
MilesColler TO: Florida Land Council
Vice Chairman

Rcard Gr...s pROM: Chuck Littlejohn
Charles B. Littleiohn
Scuti veSUBJECT: Water Fee Legislation

DATE: June 10, 1991


Mercer and I meet with the USGS to discuss water use fees.
While there, we obtained the attached summary of what other
states are doing with regard to water fees. This
information was put together by USGS staff at the request of
the Governor's Office.

Also attached is a "concept paper" prepared by a Florida
engineering firm which is interesting and which illustrates
that a lot of people are thinking about this. Note that a
75% "recharge credit" is proposed by agricultural water use.

CBL/11


Attachment




. [ 1i L I


TO: Wayne B. Solley, Chief, BWUI, Reston, VA (WBSOLLEY)
CC: Richard L. Marella, Geographer, Tallahassee, FL (RMARELLA)
From: Robert R. Pierce, Hydrologist, Doraville, GA (RRPIERCE)
Date: Friday, March 15, 1991 10:41:40
Subject: INFO REQUEST -- FL GOV. OFFICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VERNE,
Vis-a-vis the request from the Governor's Office in Florida;

I have called Rick Smith (904) 488-5551, the Aide from FL Gov. Office
and relayed to him the information that follows. Rick wanted-
additional information on KANSAS and TEXAS. He was impressed we
could get this much info in such a short time.

-Bob

*********Western Region*********

AZ-- According to ADWR the current
tax rate within Arizona's 4 Ground Water Active Management areas is
$2.00 per ac-ft for ground water pumped from non-exempt wells (wells
pumping less than 35 g.p.m. or well used to irrigate less than
2 acres). The tax is applied to all water pumped (municipal,
industrial and irrigation use). Withdrawals from wells located
within the 4 AMAs accounts for roughly 75 percent of the water
pumped in Arizona. Water pumped outside the AMAs is not being taxed
at this time.
Next year there will be an additional tax of $2.12 per ac-ft
collected (for the period Mar 31, 1991 to Mar 31, 1992) for warer
pumped from non-exempt wells under the new "Draino Law" for water
quality assurance. Irrigation pumpage is exempt from this increase.

CA--There is no State tax, but three counties, Orange, Santa
Clara, and Riverside, impose withdrawal taxes. I don't have
the specifics, but could follow up with each country (Templin
is on leave).

ID-- No tax that Molly is aware of. She will check further.
according to Hal Anderson, Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho
has no water tax of any sort. However, certain irrigation districts
may assess a small fee for maintenance of canal, administrative
expenses, ets. This is also tru true for the Idaho Water Bank,
whereby participants of this association may be assessed fees for
similar reasons as above.

No idea of what these fees are, how they are assessed, or when.

But, no Groundwater withdrawal taxes exist here. I guess if you
have been permitted to drill a well, and you use the water, there's not
any taxes assessed upon you.

NV-- There is a fee assessment for designated basins. It varies
from one basin to another and it is set by the State Engineer's
Office. For example, in the Warm Springs area near Reno the tax
is 43 cents per acre/foot and in the Las Vegas area it is $67
per 1000 cubic feet (Jim is check this again, sounds high)

Update from NV: the pumping tax near Las Vegas is
$67 per year per cfs of the water right. Flat rate,
and the State Engineer checks it to make sure the
user is using what he has a right to use because if


_I











he isn't he may lose it. Real smart demand management
in time of drought. John

UT-- No tax in Utah that George Pyper is aware of.

OR and WA--no tax that Tyson is aware of.
*****CENTRAL REGION*******

CO -- Colorado does have a statute allowing a tax on ground-water users; it is
Colorado Revised Statute 37-90 132. To summarize: Ground-water management
districts can be formed where needed, especially where ground-water mining is
occurring. These Districts have the power to enact a tax on large-capacity
wells amounting to $0.15/acre ft on the annual appropriated amount for each
well. This money goes to help support the District activities. For further
information you can contact Brce DeBrine of the State Engineer's Office at
(303) 866-3581.


KS KEN WATTS SAIDS THAT USER!
MANAGEMENT BY THE MANAGEMENT D]
TRUE FOR THE REST OF KANSAS AL.
LIVESTOCK, ETC. HOPE THIS HE]
US A CALL.

In response to your question fi
Kansas is a qualified yes. The
groundwater management, is par
use, from both surface and groin
gal. is assessed on all public
State couldn't get away with cl
amounts of water they pump so
fertilizer and pesticides. In
groundwater management district
tax on their members. GMD #2
and quantity of water used.


I IN SOUTHWESTERN KANSAS ARE TAXED FOR WATER
STRICTS. HE INDICATED THAT THIS IS LIKELY
!0. TAX RATE IS BASED ON ACREAGE, HEAD OF
,PS. IF WE CAN BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE, GIVE

*om the congressperson, the answer for
State Water Plan, which includes
:ially funded by fees placed on water
nd sources. A fee of $.03 per 1000
suppliers and industrial users. The
iarging irrigators for the massive
insteadd they are charged a fee on
addition, at least one of the five
:s in Kansas raises revenues through a
assesses fees on both amount of land


TX -- Texas might have a withdrawal tax. Will follow up
******NORTHEASTERN REGION*******

Delaware River Basin -- the Co mission has a SW user fee to repay Federal
projects. IT IS NOT A TAX only on facilities built later than 1961
when the Commission came into being. Non-consuptive use $0.60 per million
gallons, consumptive uses $60.00 per million gallons.

Wisconsin -- has a user fee for wells that pump more than 70 gpm.
The same fee also applies to SW withdrawals by industries. The fee
runs from $25/yr for small irrigators with wells >70gpm to $500/yr
for a hydroelectric plant.

*****SOUTHEASTERN*******
MS -- permitted wells in MS have around $10 per well for wells
greater than 6" wells every 10 years costs $10
no user fees or taxes

TN -- no user fees

GA -- no user fees


LA -- will call back










DRAFT
73757


STATEWIDE WATER USER FEE

Discussion Outline


I. Purpose

A. Contribute to environmental infrastructure needs (S3.5 billion).
B. Provide economic incentives for water reuse and conservation.

II. Background

A. In 1980, we withdrew 7,309 million gallons of fresh water per day.
B. Approximately equal amounts came from surface and ground waters.
C. Uses were as follows:

USE SOURCE


Surface


Irrigation
Thermoelectric
Public Supply
Industrial
Rural


41.0%
25.5%
18.6%
10.7%
4.2%
10.OT


2,997 mgd
1,859 mgd
1,361 mgd
781 mgd
310 m9d
7,309 mgd


47.5%
96.5%
13.0%
17.7%
6.5%


Ground

52.5%
3.5%
87.0%
82.3%
93.5%


D. Withdrawals are permitted through water management districts
(greater than 4 inch wells).

III. Concept

A. Collect a statewide user fee based on actual water withdrawals.
B. Water management districts collect funds on behalf of state.
C. Payments based on "Consumptive Use Permits" unless user provides
suitable metering, the payments based on metered withdrawals.
0. Fees based on fresh water withdrawals only, not saltwater.
E. Alternative approaches to user fee structure:

1. Uniform user fee charge of $0.10 per 1,000 gallons


- Irrigation
- Thermoelectric
- Public Supply
- Industrial
- Rural


$109,390,000/yr.
$ 67,853,500/yr.
$ 49,676,500/yr.
$ 28,506,500/yr.
(Not significant)
$266,780,000/yr.


($2.72/Ac.-in.)

($0.70/Mo. at 7,000 gal.)


....~ --~~~~I----- '~ "


.li I I ~ '[ I ] li t 1 IL "l I, 1 .1 11 Ai 11


~i~. _11..,1~__1-~




I ll..[ i 1 1l,, l Ill il 'i l J W 4


2. User fees based on 50.25/1,000 gallons for groundwater plus
$0.10/1,000 gallons for surface water--give agriculture a 75%
"Recharge Credit"

Irrigation S 48,883,880/yr. (Sl.22/Ac.-in.)
Thermoelectric S 71,415,809/yr.
Public Supply $114,500,000/yr. ($1.61/Mo. at 7,000 gal.)
Industrial $ 63,697,774/yr.
Rural (Not significant)
$298,497,000/yr.

3. Other potential enhancements:

All users--additional "credit" up to 10% of their user fee
for implementing water conservation measures.
Public Supply--full user fee credit for quanity of
wastewater disposed of by direct reuse (i.e., withdrawal
avoided).
Agriculture--not charged user fee for use of reclaimed
water; in addition, take "credit" from other user fees in
amount equal to user fee which would have been charged for
reclaimed water actually used.

IV. Orange County, CA and Southern California Metropolitan Water District

A. Basin groundwater has been depleted.
B. Legislation states: "...further excessive pumping without
replenishment is certain to destroy the usefulness of those
basins."
C. Accordingly water is brought fromother basins to "replenish"
basin.
D. A "Replenishment Assessment" is collected of $23 and $32 per acre
foot of groundwater pumped out for irrigation and other uses
respectively.
E. This is roughly equivalent to $0.07 and $0.10 per 1,000 gallons
for irrigation and other uses respectively.
F. Groundwater is generally not now available to most users at all!
G. Most users must purchase import water from water districts.
H. Imported water rates are shown on attached table.
I. Municipal monthly rates to homeowners average over 20% more than
in Florida.
J. Cost of water to agriculture many times higher than in Florida
(see table).











'/




11 ; ilil I i ; .[1 1.11 1 I ,11 4 I L 1i 'Ill


Ii, m A I ilserv.m3 '
1ob .. 1,3mm MCI v4si $.


Il-fill/ sofI~1~ prfltrr l


IIIIII4 1inI
wImmmim to a04 .. .. *. *..~ .*



114110
-fit A I.', I t,. I


11411163-12 1% 11.61 4141 1 mmml a
.tolm. i Q.4"s IN$ 14.25 aiim2,5

6 '1.'44 m % m 1 Iwo !22 5 .41.4111 4,) I, 24 ,
As I4m if I I. %am 4WD 2Z1
A"4a214.ll2113/(, sets 14i 1.1 I.3 ON.7O 32.75
'-Ima 1 i 2 1 u. 446 fl9.4 4" s 2m 1 ots 14 411 m
445a.- .16 INS 6 1.. : I IN. 4K. 16 fal
Is m, I 1 :6 ow l of. $"I It.m @"

66.4143 N I", !x l :cS ?4.I
l .1 417 2.1.m2 mc 2.1 4, .211 mAR).m IX.4

2.) ONO 19A)-I* 1.(1 )XI o~w







57 IN) 3 Ate 21.010 Mix
~I~1:cs (q4/7I 3.34 33m 3.00;1 49.414 261.434 29.4m)3 4M.434) MIX4 V2.4
R7 3 -I, 2 6 1 /3 0 1 7 4 ( 1 4 4 3 21 5 4 3I 26. 1 m 4 6 .3j u 1 5 32 4 3 ( m. 1 4 2 3 5 0 1 7 .4 1 11)
71131174. 9I43 -* m4.4mm 37c4m 4.44 63.mm4 32.34 3~4XI 56.4. 25.43 33.34

Primc, (lot -mme prrbinm t .2leZurr 4a~rling. imn A~m4iit' Wrr* 5.14 $1. ,g~ im, Cmmrqt.dg.4m price.% lose (Ul*dwagh1 R...r "'mer and~m. mutfing~II .iimstosl. I9












"I C. C. Cf'4,4

TABLE 35 (Continued)
HISTORY OF WATER RATES

Per Acre-Foot
Trzorcd U'ntrortc Rplnihmn
Period ADtricuhurst Replcnir'Imment nomcamc %griculsurmn

I 41.101r.4- 6130r.5 63t.t(Ml $56AX) ~ l~tw
(r!I1431175 (013(11-6
Canooraol 67.0. 00 00 44.04 58411141 :11.00 32.00
Slate 7.00 44.00 52.00 &q1.0 CH 5.041 .2.00
07/143/76. 61m4s1
m.1A3 5.43 42.03 49.4m) 642.11 1.13AN y6.00
mace 144348 .41114343 is.433 (
C~c~or~k, ~.(1 ie~c, 62Ao jww 4 2.00w

It. IN 1 %.txl .4 IW.CM1
03714111/734.31 z 11-14 9S.434 61.1110 (944 444 4.33444
4)Ii4319. 61(340,). I4(w) 664110 74.4141 4.434 4 SAKI S4 .t
0-10117o. 6lm Ica 14AX3 73.43I) _8.4314 9.4m I 5.AC4 S3.4343
07143211 4 30/Na 134 S 76.41111 $%.CUD 04.4343 12.)43 64..

NO4NITERCUPTIBflEL lNTt83UPTII)LE E54WI31C.fNCV RE.CLAIStMEf

1ttmosocacd Treated Untreacrd Treated Uctrcacted Treatcd
0416mC'fi4C. Rcplenishntene. I)oanicselc. 1rlrmisrin"6flwt.
amd 34csem'uie AlteCkmltur43 and kcacmvtoir tusticmmi 0),,m1c'dic
41714111141. (.313439600 I I64 2 .434 5 4,l.(43) S 1416 I3 343.4343 532*4Isi6
441 1m43it..42314 444.343 2.3 -3443143 a214 4141 4433 m2't3 4343 144
41I42I4. m/t149.4 4341 3 3 !X .(11I 53 Q4) 03 M-4
19-.4141 ZZ.) owl .t fol 19%.1111h- (.!3 4 $
61 3411.4 29 111 22 ) 434 1 w 34 6i wo ')I.N)4 4.2 cm 14

061V.V161 rite, fill %$Joe ;1.1.21 R~~t, iver wage %o084.Its
34,. rate "mw.I r emic r ,4 r ef.V4.1 1441 V 2 191143
kvclagovsi~I J(CFd role or- lil-l (I) C Ioed)
T~

.bi




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