Title: An Alternative Approach to Water Resource Recovery and Minimum Flow and Level Implementation in the Northern Tampa Bay Area
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003944/00001
 Material Information
Title: An Alternative Approach to Water Resource Recovery and Minimum Flow and Level Implementation in the Northern Tampa Bay Area
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - An Alternative Approach to Water Resource Recovery and Minimum Flow and Level Implementation in the Northern Tampa Bay Area
General Note: Box 16, Folder 3 ( Letters, Drafts, Permits - 1995 -1998 ), Item 9
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003944
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




AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO December 17, 1997
WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY AND
MINIMUM FLOW AND LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION
IN THE NORTHERN TAMPA BAY AREA

November 22, 1997
The attached is offered as alternative approach to achieve water resource recovery in the Northern Tampa Bay
area. It is an alternative which addresses the identified "four certainties": 1) financing, 2) permitting, 3)
reduction linked to supply and 4) litigation. It is a possible alternative to the current approach contained in the
"Partnership Plan" of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The advantages of this alternative are:

1. It creates a clean, single purpose recovery strategy separate from, but related to the WCRWSA master water
supply plan. In this approach the District develops the process for recovery quantities to offset reductions
resulting from the establishment of minimum flows and levels. This allows the Authority and its members to
concentrate on future supply needs. The combination of these efforts meet the coordination required by section
373.1963, Florida Statutes.

2. In comparison to the existing plan in which the District is pledging future fund to projects of the Authority,
this alternative establishes financing certainty for recovery as the District is responsible for the development
and construction (construction in the sense of bringing on and not physical construction) of recovery projects.
The funding of the operation and maintenance of the recovery facilities would be the responsibility of the
Authority and its members.

3. Reduction certainty is achieved since well field reduction is linked directly to the construction, operation and
maintenance of the recovery facilities. As recovery facilities are brought online (in the sense they are paid for
by the District) by the District, existing facilities withdrawals would be reduced on a one-to-one basis. This also
provides the Authority and its members with the existing facilities, operating at reduced levels, the ability to offer
significant emergency, drought, and environmental rotational capacity and the 20% peak factor.

4. Pursuant to section 373.0421, Florida Statutes, the District is responsible for funding the developigment and
referred to payment and funding quantities of recovery supplies, therefore, the District not the Authority and its
members, is responsiblefor would obtaining the permits or approvals for the recovery facilities. The District
would not be the pi emitting entLity, it vuuld iave tLu ubain the peimits f1um the FDEP and uther appiupliate
agencies. Therefore, permitting certainty is achieved with this alternative.

5. The legal issue of minimum flows and levels becomes a non-issue since any reduction would not be
implemented without the offset quantities online and available at agreed cost of the Authority and its members.
Also, as recovery continues, the MFLs will be evaluated to determine if adjustments should be made based on
actual recovery versus present modeling and conjecture.

6. The primary issue for resolution between the District, the Authority and its members is cost of the water.
This issue will be negotiated and resolved prior to the development of each recovery facility. Additional funds
for development, or construction, and operation and maintenance could be sought from other sources. The
Authority master water supply plan can be returned to its original 20-year schedule for new sources since
recovery will be developed by the District.

This alternative puts all available District resources to work to resolve the recovery issue. It essentially puts the
District in the primary position of responsibility for the implementation of minimum flows and levels including the
recovery strategy. For this reason, recovery should be realized more quickly. It also allows the Authority and its
members to disengage from the recovery issue and concentrate on new supplies for future needs and the
Governance Reorganizational Plan. This would assure that the current Northern Tampa Bay problems would
not recur in the future.
R. F. Campo










December 3, 1997


TO: Governing Board t l
FROM: E. D. Vergara) m
Executive Dire .c-

Re: Attached rosal from Mr. Campo

Chairman Harrell has requested staff to analyze Mr. Campo's proposal submitted during the Board's
discussion of the Partnership Plan at its meeting on September 23, 1997. The following represents
our preliminary assessment of the proposal.

Mr. Campo's proposal included 8 points numbered 2 through 9. Each Point is followed by our
comments. A copy of Mr. Campo's proposal is attached in full as provided at the meeting along with
additional explanatory comments provided to staff on December 2, 1997. Our comments do not
include an assessment of the additional comments.

(2) SWFWMD should direct its fiscal resources toward the amount oj makeup of new
water in an alternative method for the amounts mandated to be decreased by
permit conditions or 40D-8 or 40D-80 or DRRS or Partnership.

Comment
The statement suggests the District will pay for replacement, from alternative sources, of all water
lost resulting from implementation of the MFL statutory mandate.

This would cause a major policy shift that would transfer the burden of meeting a statutory mandate
from the rate-paying consumers causing the impacts to ad valorem tax payers.

There is no Florida statute we're aware of that requires or suggests a regulatory agency is to pay
for the cost of the impacts of the regulations it is required by law to effect. Some might attempt to
attribute such a concept, however incorrectly, to the following:

Chapter 373.0831(1)(a) which states:

"...the proper role of the water management districts is primarily planning
and water resources development, but this does not preclude them from
providing assistance with water supply development."

Chapter 373.0421(2) which states the department or governing board:

"...shall expeditiously implement a recovery or prevention strategy, which
includes the development of additional water supplies and other actions,
consistent with the authority granted by this chapter, to:
(a) Achieve recovery to the established minimum flow or level as
soon as practicable; or
(b) .... The recovery or prevention strategy shall include phasing or
a timetable which will allow for the provision of sufficient water
supplies for all existing and projected reasonable-beneficial uses,


971213-2.CAM
December 3, 1997










Governing Board
December 3. 1997

including development of additional water supplies and
implementation of conservation and other efficiency measures
concurrent with to the extent practical, and to offset, reductions in
permitted withdrawals, consistent with the provisions of this chapter."

There is no mandate that ad valorem tax payers are to assume the cost of preventing a utility,
publicly-owned or otherwise, from causing hydrologic and environmental impacts. Florida prevents
unacceptable adverse impacts to the environment by empowering agencies to adopt rules that
would prevent damage in the interest of the general public. It is the responsibility of those who
would benefit from any activity to incur the cost of causing or avoiding an associated adverse
impact. There is no given right for anyone who causes an adverse impact, to be relieved of the
associated responsibility by transferring the cost to ad valorem tax payers.

To initiate such a policy would have enormous implications in terms of precedent and cost for not
only this District but for the other four water management districts who would be compelled to follow.
Regulation would not be affordable in the State of Florida. If regulation is considered necessary in
Florida, then this policy should be avoided.

(3) Inasmuch as the Partnership Plan has many controversial and political
ramifications plus possible permitting obstacles, plus no cut-back permanent
provision without desalination or the Curren Plant.
(4) The only apparent tangible project with less impact appears to be 2 each
desalination units of 25 mgd each in a 50 mgd complex.

Comment
The apparent point of these two combined statements is that two (presumably) seawater
desalination plants would:
1. have less difficulty being implemented than the other potential water supply alternatives
mentioned in the Partnership Plan in terms of permitting, politics, and public controversy;
and,
2. provide a greater degree of certainty that there would definitely be cut backs where needed.

At this time, facts are not available to either refute or substantiate these assertions. However, the
Governing Board has stated clearly that there will be no funding assistance without commensurate
cutbacks from the impacted wellfields. Any version of the Partnership Plan, therefore, will reflect
such a requirement unless the Board approves otherwise.

It is not clear why two 25 mgd plants would be proposed as opposed to some other phased
configuration.

(5) The capital cost of desalination has been estimated at 40 percent for design and
construction, and 60 percent is estimated operating and sinking fund allocation
cost.
(6) SWFWMD should allocate its funds as per Paragraph (2) andfund the first phase
25 mgd desalination unit capital cost.


971213-2.CAM
December 3. 1997


I










Governing Board
December 3, 1997

Comment
The proposal is for the District to fund 100% of the capital cost of the desalination facility.

Preliminary estimates of the cost of a 35-50 mgd plant connected to the regional system have
ranged between $180 million and $200 million. Assuming the cost of a 25 mgd plant would be in
the vicinity of $150 million, and assuming the need for new water is approximately 50 mgd (85 mgd
less about 35 for growth), the total cost to District ad valorem tax payers could be $300 million.
These estimates are very provisional and will be changing to reflect what we learn from the present
desalination RFP process being concluded as this is being written.

If the provisional numbers are even close, total costs would be far above the $183 million the
District, without raising the current millage rate, has offered through the Partnership Plan. These
funds would assist the Authority in adding 85 mgd of new water from multiple sources that its own
Water Supply Master Plan indicates is needed to meet demand and provide a rotational reserve
capacity to resolve environmental concerns. To raise $300 million would require a substantial
increase in ad valorem taxes and would result in adding less new water. Again, these estimates
are very provisional and will be changing to reflect what we learn from the present desalination RFP
process being concluded as this is being written.

The Authority identified the needed 85 mgd independent of the District's MFL initiative. Without
District assistance, the Authority has preliminarily indicated it is proceeding in this direction subject
to agreement on how it can revise its internal governance to allow it to happen. As suggested
earlier, the District's offer of assistance is consistent with legislative direction for the District

"...to jointly develop with the [Authority] alternative sources of potable water and
transmission pipeline to interconnect regionally significant water supply sources and
facilities of the authority in amounts sufficient to meet the needs of all member
governments for a period of at least 20 years and for natural systems."

(Chapter 373.1963(1)(f)
(Emphasis added.)

Importantly, the statute does not compel the ad valorem taxpayers of the District to assume
responsibility for the full cost of such facilities.

(7) When unit is online, WCRWSA or others will purchase desalination water from
operators or operate the facility and decrease well field quantities by the 25 mgd.
Monitor the results for a 12-month or 18-month period.

Comment
The apparent intent here is to provide for the member governments or the Authority to be able to
purchase water from the facility, after being built by the District. By the words used, it would allow
the members to buy water from the District which, in turn implies the District might be operating the
plant. This would require a water purchase agreement between the District, the Authority and/or
its members.


971213-2.CAM
December 3. 1997










Governing Board
December 3. 1997

How the member governments could purchase water independent of the Authority would be
problematic.

It would probably not prevent the facility from being tumed over to any of the member governments
or the Authority for operation but that would need to be addressed.

The statement is not clear who would own and operate the plant but the direct supply of water to
a member would not appear to be consistent with the District's position in support of Governance
in that it could result in lessening the centralization of control over the operation and cost of
production of the wellfields. Centralization was envisioned to be in the interest of environmental
protection and in making most efficient use of the region's water resources. It would also set a
major precedent if the District were to become directly involved in water supply production.

The idea that 25 mgd may be enough of a cutback for the well fields to recover is not consistent with
the District's present understanding of the amount that will likely be needed to protect and restore
the natural systems presently impacted.

(8) If the results are meeting the permit requirements of40D-8 with DRRS, the second
unit may be deferred. If the results indicated the needs for additional cut-back to
meet permit or 40D-8 with DRRS requirements, the second unit of 25 mgd will be
constructed.

Comment
This statement presupposes there will be agreement that a second facility will automatically agreed
to and there will be no legal challenges if the desired reduction in adverse impacts are not met after
a period of data collection. This may or may not be a reasonable supposition.

(9) WCRWSA or others may implement any portion of the permittable WCRWSA plan
(Partnership) iffeasible and political and at its own expense for future growth.
SWFWMD could assist.

Comment
This statement suggests that in addition to the Authority, any member government could construct
one or more of the projects listed in the Authority's Water Supply Master Plan upon being permitted.

It also suggests the District could assist any member government individually or collectively to meet
their respective projected growth demands.

This would not be consistent with the District's support of Govemance in that it could result in further
development of supplies by individual governments in an uncoordinated and independent manner
within the region. While this may be consistent with understandable interests by local governments
toward maintaining water supply autonomy, it does not recognize that the sources of supply for
most of the Authority's member governments do not originate from within their own political
boundaries. To the extent more water is needed for the Tampa Bay Region to meet growth related
projections, to prevent unacceptable adverse impacts to natural systems and restore that which has
already occurred, regional coordination will only increase in importance. Governance remains the


971213-2 CAM
December 3. 1997


I










Governing Board
December 3, 1997

only apparent means to meaningfully effectuate the regional coordination needed.


Final Comment
Having made the above observations, it is not inconceivable that all the parties could still find a way
to agree that all or part of the answer to the Northern Tampa Bay water supply problems might rest
with construction of a 25 mgd to 50 mgd desalination facility. If so, there will still be many questions
that would need to be resolved among the parties that would have to include but not be limited to:
Who would construct the facility?
Who would commit to buying the water?
How quickly would the impacts currently occurring be addressed?
How would the facility be financed?
To what extent would the District participate?
To what extent would other sources be more feasible?
To what extent would permitting any facility be problematic?
How long would the additional water meet growth and environmental needs?
How could the member governments meet the requirements of the District if Governance
does not occur? With or without funding assistance?
What is the most cost effective, efficient, and environmentally sensitive means of providing
water to meet the needs of the region?

In other words, implementation of any solution will require the cooperation and agreement of all the
parties on issues similar to if not the same as the above, and any agreement thereon is by definition
a partnership agreement.

The above comments are offered with the understanding that the proposal was offered as a
conceptual alternative approach.



EDV


971213-2 CAM
December 3, 1997







- 11/14/97 14:43 e904 754 6874 SWFWMD EXEC ....-. J VARN 8002













(2) SWTWMD should direct its fiscal resources toward the amount of makeup of new water
in an alternative method for the amounts mandated to be decreased by permit conditions
or 40D-8 or 40D-80 or DRRS or Partnership.
(3) Inasmuch as the Partnership Plan has many controversial and political ramifications plus
possible permitting obstacles, plus no cut-back permanent provision without desalination
or the Curren Plant.
(4) The only apparent tangible project with less impact appears to be 2 each desalination units
of 25 mgd each in a 50 mgd complex.
(5) The capital cost of desalination has been estimated at 40 percent for design and
construction, and 60 percent is estimated operating and sinking fund allocation cost.
(6) SWFvMD should allocate its funds as per Paragraph (2) and fund the first phase 25 mgd
desalination unit capital cost.
(7) When unit is online, WCRWSA or others will purchase desalination water from operators
or operate the facility and decrease well field quantities by the 25 mgd Monitor the
results for a 12-month or 18-month period.

(8) If the results are meeting the permit requirements of 40D-8 with DRRS, the second unit
may be deferred. If the results indicated the needs for additional cut-back to meet permit
or 40D-8 with DRRS requirements, the second unit of 25 mgd will be constructed.

(9) WCRWSA or others mn.ay implement any portion of the permitable WCRWSA plan
(Partnership) if feasible and political and at its own expense for future growth.
SWTWWMD could assist


DRRS is the District Recovery S:rategy of the regional water supply plan 373.0361, F S.

Is^>4 >' Il ^ 7 f- &r ?/ cc


__







VIA FACSIMILE


December 5, 1997


Ae A




The A&tmitier


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

General
Manager
Jerry L. Maxwell

General
Counsel
Donald D. Conn


2535 Landmark Drive
Suite 211
Cearwater FL 33761
Phone 813-796-2355
Fax 313-855-7479


William Johnson
Director of Public Works
City of St. Petersburg
P.O. Box 2842
St. Petersburg, FL 33731

RE: Shared Ray Campo Partnership Proposal

Dear Bill:


I have only had an opportunity for cursory review of the Campo Partnership Proposal
alternative you shared with me, but I would like to ask a couple of questions for clarification:

1. Does the District cut the existing face value of the permits and then develop recovery
quantities after permit reduction, or are the recovery quantities equal to the permit
reductions from existing face value to minimum flow and level reductions?

2. How will projects for the development recovery quantities be selected? Won't this
become a critical issue in the establishment of cost and rates for the Member
Governments? Will selection of high O&M alternatives have dramatic impacts on the
rate analysis that has been performed by KPMG?

3. Would you be willing to own and operate a water production and/or treatment facility
designed by someone else? Wouldn't acceptance of the ownership and operation
responsibility without the ability to direct the design engineer be a real problem in
maintaining O&M costs?

4. Wouldn't this proposal for the Water Management District to build replacement or
recovery quantities from MFL reductions lengthen the time frame for bringing new
sources on line since the Water Management District is only willing to commit capital
costs on an annual appropriation basis? Will the Water Management District bond the
capital costs and hold a public referendum in order to pledge ad valorem revenues?

It is an important, and equitable concept to have the Water Management District assume the
responsibility for the capital costs of developing recovery quantities to offset reductions
resulting from the establishment of MFLs. I am simply raising a couple of questions which
came to mind as I reviewed the material you shared. Thanks for continuing to be an open,
sharing, solution oriented contributor in the water arena.


Jerry L. Maxwell
General Manager


JLM:md
T:\GENMANGR\LAXWEL L\GENERAL\Johnson.doc




P.02


DEC-15-1997 15:37 FROM


STEELI Steel Hecto- & Davis LLP
215 South Monroe, Suite 601

H ECTO R Tallahassee. Florida 32301-1804
904.222.2300

EDAV I S 904.222.8410 Fax

Jacob D. Varn
MEMORANDUM



TO: Ray Campo

FROM: Jake Varnm

DATE: December 15, 1997

RE: AN ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY


In. our telephone conversation on Thursday, December 10, 1997, you asked
me to prepare a brief memorandum outlining my understanding of your concerns
and your alternative. It is my understanding that you agree with and support the
position that SWFWMD's current proposed Partnership Agreement is based on
WCRWSA's approval of a new Governance Agreement. Without a new
Governance Agreement by WCRWSA there will be no Partnership Agreement.
While you hope that the Governance Agreement and Partnership Agreement are
approved, you are concerned that the parties will not be able to reach agreement.
If there is no agreement, there is no alternative.

If the proposed Governance Agreement and proposed Partnership
Agreement are not approved in January, you want the District to assume the
responsibility for seeing that new water sources are developed as soon as possible.
In assuming this responsibility, the District will not necessarily be the one who
constructs or operates these new facilities. The District will do whatever it deems
necessary to ensure that these new facilities are constructed and placed in
operation as quickly as possible. The most practical way to reduce the current
levels of pumping is to bring on new water and the District would ensure that new
water is made available.



Miami West Palm Beach Key West Caracas
305.577.7000 551.550.7200 305.292.7272 532.951.4105
305.577.7001 Fax 561.655.1509 Fax 305.692.7271 Fax 532.951.4106 Fax




P.03


DEC-15-1997 15:37 FROM


Memo to Ray Campo
December 15, 1997
Page Two

Under your proposal the District will assume some responsibility
(financially) for constructing these facilities. This should not be construed to
mean that the District will assume 100% of the construction cases. Unlike the
current proposal where some of the new water will go to support new growth, all
of this water will be devoted to reducing current pumpage.

The foregoing described proposal is different than what was proposed at the
December 9, 1997 meeting. At that time you proposed that the District fund 100%
of all water needed to reduce current pumpage. Also, you wanted your alternative
incorporated in the current Partnership Agreement.

So as to not create any further obstacles to the proposed Governance
Agreement and proposed Partnership Agreement, you want the Board to agree to
consider the foregoing proposal in the event the proposed agreements are not
approved.


JDV/dww








TAL/23220-1


STEEl. HECTOR & DAVIS u..P




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