Title: Letter Re: Draft Consolidated Public Water Supply System Permit, Dated Dec 24, 1997
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003937/00001
 Material Information
Title: Letter Re: Draft Consolidated Public Water Supply System Permit, Dated Dec 24, 1997
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Letter Re: Draft Consolidated Public Water Supply System Permit, Dated Dec 24, 1997
General Note: Box 16, Folder 3 ( Letters, Drafts, Permits - 1995 -1998 ), Item 2
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003937
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











VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL


December 24, 1997


The Authoriin after


Jake Varn, Esquire
Steel, Hector & Davis
215 South Monroe, Suite 601
Tallahassee, FL 32301

Re: Draft Consolidated Public Water Supply System Permit


Board of
Directors
Ed Turanchik
David J. Fischer
SSteven M. Seibert
R. Michael Salmon
Ed Collins
Frank Parker

General
Manager
Jerry L. Maxwell

General
Counsel


Dear Jake:


I am providing the following initial comments to the draft permit which was forwarded to
me and Member Government counsel by Ed Helvenston on December 19, 1997. We have
been requested to provide you with comments in preparation for our January 7 meeting.
Additional comments may be provided to you by Authority staff by January 2; however, I
wanted to provide you with my preliminary comments as soon as possible for your
consideration:

1. Introduction, Page 2 Why is it necessary to list the 12 individual wellfields and
specify an annual average and peak monthly quantity for each facility when this is a
consolidated permit? If the 12 wellfields are being treated as a "system" shouldn't
the consolidated permit simply specify a system-wide annual average and peak
monthly quantity?


DonaldD. Conn 2. Section 5A, Page 4 This section references a Table 2 which is not provided, but
which I assume will be the same as the individual wellfield listing for annual average
i and peak monthly quantities. Thus, I make the same comment regarding this section
as I made in #1, above.


2535 Landmark Drive 3.
Suite 211
Clearwater, FL 33761
Phone 813-796-2355
Fax 813-855-7479


Section 5B, Page 4 There is no time limit specified for the District to act on
requested changes to individual withdrawal point limitations. Under emergency
conditions, or if there is a maintenance or repair problem with a particular wellfield or
transmission main, a timely response by the District will be essential and should be
specified.


4. Section 6, Page 4 This section should track exactly the terms of the Partnership Plan
Agreement so that there is no confusion or misunderstanding that could arise if there
was an inconsistency between the Partnership Plan Agreement and this section of the


Steel ec











Jake Varn, Esquire
December 24, 1997
Page 2
CpPST R61


consolidated permit. In order to avoid this potential for confusion, an alternative
s would be to simply incorporate by reference the Partnership Plan Agreement in this
The Authority in Water section of the permit and attach it as an exhibit to the permit.

5. Section 8B, Page 5 Why should reductions of groundwater withdrawals be
considered prior to other mitigation options, if those other mitigation options would
be more effective in avoiding or minimizing impacts to surface waters and wetlands?

6. Section 8F, Page 6 The first sentence is very open-ended and appears to give the
District complete discretion to change mitigation aspects of the EMP, without the
permitted's approval. Is this the intent?

7. Section 8G, Page 6 This should be a major point for discussion. At the very least, a
base line needs to be established so that the permitted can determine the extent to
which it may be called upon by the District to take mitigative action for conditions
which the District believes result from past ground or surface water withdrawals.

8. Section 9A(1)c, Page 7 Exhibit C is not provided so it cannot be determined if
additional monitoring sites will be required, their location, and the cost to implement.

9. Section 9A(2), Page 7 The first two sentences appear to be inconsistent in that the
first sentence specifies that adverse impacts shall be determined by application of the
EMP, and the second sentence indicates that criteria in Chapter 40D-8 shall be used
to determine adverse impacts. Does this mean that upon the effective date of Chapter
40D-8, the EMP will no longer be used to determine adverse impacts?

10. Section 9A(3), Page 7 This is another provision where the District seems to have
unlimited discretion to revise the EMP, without the approval of the permitted.

11. Section 11B, Page 11 Table 3 is not provided and therefore, we cannot determine
how many and at what locations, rain gauges shall be required.

12. Section 11C(1), Page 11 Table 4 is not provided and we cannot determine how
many sites, frequencies and parameters will be required for water quality sampling.

13. Section 11D, Page 12 Table 5A is not provided and therefore, we cannot determine
the number and location of staff gauges and piezometers which will have to be
maintained by the permitted.


T:\GENCONCL\SIMON\CORR\VARN-LTR.doc












Jake Varn, Esquire
December 24, 1997
Page 3



S 14. Section 11E, Page 12 Table 6 is not provided and therefore, we cannot determine
'Si, the number or location of Floridan aquifer monitoring stations that will be required.
The Authority intater
hTiint 15. Section 12, Page 13 Table 7 is not provided and therefore, we cannot determine the
number of regulatory wells that will be established for the Central System.

16. Section 19, Page 24 This should be a major point of discussion. What is the
District's intention and goal by including this provision in the consolidated permit?
At the least, a base line should be established.

Due to the short time available to review and provide comments on this draft consolidated
permit prior to our next Partnership Plan meeting, these comments should not be taken as
the position of the Authority's Board of Directors on any of these matters. These
comments are provided to you strictly on a staff basis to assist you in your preparation for
the next Partnership Plan meeting.

I look forward to our meetings during the first week of the New Year.

Sincerely,



Donald D. Conn
General Counsel

DDC:krs

cc: David Forziano, Esquire
Ed de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Michael S. Davis, Esquire
Kim Streeter, Esquire
Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire
Kathy Fry, Esquire
Gerald Seeber, City Manager
Edward B. Helvenston, General Counsel
Jerry L. Maxwell, General Manager


T:\GENCONCL\SIMON\CORR\VARN-LTR.doc




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