March 29, 1998
TO: Board of Directors
West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
FROM: Donald D. Conn, General Counsel
T SUBJECT: EPC Interlocal Agreement
Sc y Following distribution of Draft #3 to counsel for EPC and Member Governments on March 25th, written
The Authiiaiater comments were received on March 26th from counsel for EPC and Pinellas County, and a conference call
was held late on Friday afternoon, March 27th, to discuss those comments. Based upon review and
consideration of those comments, I recommend that the Board approve Draft #3, with the following
1) Change terminology used for EPC in the preamble and the signature page to read
"Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County".
2) Conform reference to NPDES permits in Section 2(1) to the language to be used in
the Authority's Interlocal Agreement for NPDES permits
3) Correct reference in Section 7 to the "Authority's Interlocal Agreement" instead of
4) Eliminate "Venue" provision from Section 13.
I further recommend that the Board provide direction on the following substantive issues:
1) Should all Member Governments sign the EPC Interlocal Agreement?
2) Should EPC be required to pay costs, pursuant to the public records law, for copies of
the Authority's applications and supporting documentation for consumptive use permits, related
environmental resource permits, and NPDES permits, as well as for all permit applications
pending before the appropriate regulatory agencies on the effective date of this Interlocal
3) Should the Severability Clause (Section 11) be modified to provide that if any part of
the EPC Interlocal Agreement is ruled invalid or unenforceable "such holding shall not invalidate
or render unenforceable any other provision hereof to the extent that the remaining provisions can
reasonably be applied in a manner consistent with the intent of the parties hereto"?
Finally, I recommend that the Board specifically reject the following revisions to Draft #3 proposed by
counsel for Pinellas, and agreed to by counsel for St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Pasco:
1) Pinellas Comment 4 Would limit EPC's right to arbitrate to those instances when
Hillsborough declines to arbitrate; if Hillsborough initiates arbitration, EPC could not.
2) Pinellas Comment 5 Would limit EPC's right to enforce environmental permits to
those instance when Hillsborough declines to initiate enforcement; if Hillsborough initiates
enforcement, EPC could not.
3) Pinellas Comment 7 Would insert a new provision which requires EPC to
acknowledge that SWFWMD and FDEP have exclusive jurisdiction over the consumptive use of
water and transportation of water.