i' y 0 Ga
os/.ls820 ~O:4 As V413 514 1 00.-D.AR n' B L ___",__,2/OO4
( Roy, 0. Hainell Jr.
1375 74th Avenue N.E.
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
Ju 39, 1994
Cwl A. Bl ack, airan
Soutcwat R a ddW Wi- m Ma Distric
okruvile, FL 34609
Dear Charlie: '
I need to bringto your a tadion my boncem of our actions at thelast i.edinregalm in
Boead Orders 94-12 and 94-13. .I could not phage the direction became of y impossibl
position of absftinig from both noting motlns and voting.
1. Board Order 94-13. This order was never discussed, but yet it was a bad a der.
Simply stated,-ha Conme Odesa welifeld pangit has expird and it has boep inhbo for some
dne for review. There was o reason to have a separate oder, beuse this wew&ld, like very
other welMlid that is inhouse for peit renewal, could be adoqualy hadleA *am toh sWuea
of the issntce of a new permit with aHl the conditioe aendai t to i In fact a nw pe.rit
wold uadoubedly be tougher on the City of St Peersburgm an the oder. Furtherml e we
sngedm out e OCy of St Petr bur in the order, but did not sigle out anyon lswith a
wellfleld. You cannotsay it was because there was am i impact it Cosm Odessa, beae we
know Cross Bar has moe impact I view Board Order 94-13 as a mistake de in the rush of
our "eaergency hearing process" in February, ad we have never ectified that mistake.
2. Board Order 94-12. Whenever anything is rbaed to DOA, the time involved
through a lot of technical discovry nd evidendery hearings coo be a y or mom Then it
com back tousto ise to he fal rd andthen it goes 6rappea Dudg all,of this time (2
yeaws r n--re) we are stayed from enforcement of te dirdr. The disagreemnt between the
West Coast group and us was overwnc material issue. There was no reasoO why we could aot
have plit the order into two. f, lt having one order cover al issues except aygin tarian (and
provided other parties agreed to the order, with no findings of fact), and c having the
other order with findings of fact covering only the augmetation. What this would have done
procedurally was given the other sde thirty more days in which to respond either inagreement
or by petition. I know that would have been our second thirty day wtarnson, but it always
-.. v, -6 -~ w 3 :'--i 5T AYNARD HaRRELL Ioo3/o4\
Charges A. Black, Chairman
Southwest Florida Water
woth it if the downside is two plus years. There was no way they could commit at the bearing.
All we had to do was to fashion it properly so that they could then properly respond. If in fact
they were in agreement to everything else, there would have been no logical reason for them to
have not agreed to the first order.
3. Augmentation. Somewhere along the line we have changed. HiStorically, everyone
said ugmentation was ineffective, with the stated reason being that we ae using ground water
to pump into the lakes, which then seeps back through the leaky" confining layer and again
drains the lake, but in the process we loose 4Q to evaporaio Why aigmeutatian now?
Simple again!! Because we pushed for visible and immediate action and staff reacted just lilt
4. Fairness. What I heard at the hearing was a new era in evidentiay hearings. Forget
whether the catch phrase was "primary" or otherwise, we put the burden on West Coast to prove
it was not the cause, and we insisted that re es of the perpPtage of responsibity, there was
the possibility tar they would have to augm as fr which th*pmpage was. no that great
a cause. I have been on the Board too long. For yea r r tbe primary caus for lowered
lake levels was the drought and therefore we went gangbsters in coonservatioprograms to
reduce usage. Recently we have heard chat the real vilajs is ppmpage, and then we got Board
Orders 94-12 and 94-13 In response. ia mbe last bcrinwe hear again that drougt is really the
primary culpriL The question is who is on first ba. Fairness, I ust, that this is a public
problem, and if we deci at t is waoth of our s, then SWFWMD should lead the
augentation effort. Then, just like or jurisprdence ditaes, if we cap prove that tWest
Coast group are wholly or partially responsible for the loweed lake levels or dried up wetlands,
then lt us ta them with t.percentage for which they are culpable. I have ove concerns how
thi fairness zssue will be treated by the courts.
S^ Pernits. O-ur s a power on.uiing wIper use is fte ability to isa recall or
otherwise dify consumptive use permits. On this issue, I feel totally different than under No.
4. Once we complete the safe yieldnalysis or the Nqi Tampj Bay area, it il- reflect that
only X gallons of *er can safely be drawn fro wtelb To the exten t ha the we field
exceeds X life is island our 4dueare pckleaar. we the pumpage to be educedto
X. Yes, we migit do it o a p pd ofi to ree avee impacts on health and safety
of 2 1Millia peop but itsiaat er sstiX. E isis a 6gcal process. This is the
process we llo'dio ~ wed SWUCA. w d to deviaes fro that proce in
issuing o2 d Orders regarding the lr amrpa Bay Ar even befr we ot .the es* of
6. Wbhe do we ofr rem a tis ao simpe l is Ip DOAJX. twill bediffcult
now to get the partii1o c promise, except globally on all issues. At a future Board meeting,
~~"' """"" ^" `'~
i. .. I ---^-- iJJ .' ^----
06/16t94 09:47 813 894 1023 BAYNARD HARRELL__ 11004/004
Ca.in A. Bla Chairman
Southwest Florida Water
I wold like a discussion on how we (i) first ive at a long rang plan for the Northern Tampa
Bay area cooperatively between West Coast and us, in ding elements oomained in 94-12,
onservation measmues, new water sources and inverted rales, (U) second, the manner in which
we will comprehensively and globally look at all of the wellfield puenits in the central system,
and (Hii) thid, settle out these orders so that the material portions of them can become effective.
I have said enough. I look forward to a discussion of this at a future Board meeting.
Very truly ,
Roy 0.Haroel Jr.
cc Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director
Sally Thompson Secretary
Joe L Davis, Jr., Treasurer
Ramon F. Campo
James L Cpt
Rebecca M. Eger
Mary J. Figg
John T. Hamner
Curtis L Iaw
James B. Martin Om CwWAou