Title: Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004109/00001
 Material Information
Title: Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit (JDV Box 54)
General Note: Box 17, Folder 3 ( WaterTransbasin Transfers - 1970s ), Item 10
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004109
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
















16J-2.11 Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit.

(1) The intended consumptive use:
(a) Must be a reasonable, beneficial use.
(b) Must be consistent with the public interest.
(c) Will not interfere with any legal use of water
existing at the time of the application.
(2) Issuance of a permit will be denied if the withdrawal
of water:
(a) Will cause the rate of flow of a stream or other
watercourse to be lowered below the minimum
rate of flow established by the Board.
(b) Will cause the level of the potentiometric sur-
face to be lowered below the regulatory level
established by the Board.
(c) Will cause the level of the surface of water to
be lowered below the minimum level established
by the Board.
(d) Will significantly induce salt water encroach-
ment.
(e) Will cause the water table to be lowered so that
the lake stages or vegetation will be adversely
and significantly affected on lands other than
those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled
by the applicant.
(3) Issuance of a permit will be denied if the amount of
water consumptively used will exceed the water crop
of lands owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by
the applicant. (Except where determined otherwise,
the water crop [precipitation less evapotranspiration]
throughout the District will be assumed to be three
hundred sixty-five thousand (365,000) gallons per
year per acre.)
(4) The withdrawal of water:
(a) From a stream or other watercourse must not
reduce the rate of flow by more than five per-
cent (5%) at the time and point of withdrawal.
(b) Must not cause the level of the potentiometric
surface under lands not owned, leased or
otherwise controlled by the applicant to be low-
ered more than five (5) feet.
(c) Must not cause the level of the water table under
lands not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled
by the applicant to be lowered more than three
(3) feet.
(d) Must not cause the level of the surface of water
in any lake or other impoundment to be lowered
more than one (1) foot unless the lake or im-
poundment is wholly owned, leased, or other-
wise controlled by the applicant.
(e) Must not cause the potentiometric surface to be
lowered below sea level.
(5) The Board for good cause shown may grant exceptions
to the provisions of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) above
when after consideration of all data presented, includ-
ing economic information, it finds that it is consistent
with the public interest.












16J-2.11 CONDITIONS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT
(Ground Water W. L. Guyton)


16J-2. 11(1)(c): Will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at
the time of the application.

Response: The proposed withdrawal will cause a drawdown of the poten-
tiometric surface in and around the area of the proposed mine, and will
therefore cause pumping levels in nearby Floridan wells to be lowered.
The extent of this well interference is discussed in the response to
16J-2. 11(4)(b).

16J-2. 11(2)(b): Will cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be
lowered below the regulatory level established by the Board.

Definition of regulatory level (16J-0.15(5)(a): Such regulatory level
shall be determined by taking the minimum levels of the water table
plus three (3) feet, or such other adjustment as deemed appropriate
by the Board, and subtracting the head difference required to pass the
water crop from the water table to the confined aquifer. Such head dif-
ference is the water crop divided by the leakance coefficient of the con-
fining bed. The water crop, in the absence of data to the contrary, is
0. 0229568 gallons per day per square foot.

Response: No regulatory level has been established by the Board in the
area of the proposed mine site, and because of the relatively low leak-
ance estimated for the area, it appears unlikely that regulatory levels
will provide a practical method for control of ground-water withdrawals.
For example, using a leakance coefficient of 10-4 gpd/ft3, the head differ-
ence required to pass the water crop (1, 000 gpd/acre) is calculated to be
roughly 230 feet. The average water-table elevation in the mine site area
is on the order of 120 feet above mean sea level. A resulting regulatory
level would be 110 feet below sea level.

16J-2. 11(2)(c): Will cause the level of the surface of water to be lowered
below the minimum level established by the Board.

Response: There are no open bodies of water within the area of the pro-
posed mine site, and no minimum levels have been established by the
Board. However, on the basis of the estimated low leakance in the area,
pumping from the deep ground-water zones is not expected to produce
noticeable effects upon water-related surface features, such as lakes and
streams.












16J-2. 11(2)(d): Will significantly induce salt water encroachment.

Response: The hydraulic testing of the deep mineralized zones (Hydrau-
lics, pp.26-35, and Geophysics, pp.30, 31), combined with the presence
of low porosity evaporite deposits which have been shown to exist to great
depth (Geophysics, pp. 21-24), indicates that the mineralized waters are
tightly confined within a layered system of impermeable rocks below the
circulation that takes place in the fresh-water zone of the Avon Park for-
mation, and no noticeable vertical intrusion of mineralized waters is ex-
pected due to mine pumping.

Although upcoming, which is often associated with vertical intru-
sion, is not expected, a lowering of the head in the fresh zones relative
to that in the tightly confined mineralized zones can be expected to cause
some flow in the upward direction. Based on the finite element layered
model simulation (Hydraulics, p. 71), an estimate of the overall move-
ment of mineralized water due to the mine is expected to be less than
10-4 times the amount of water pumped.

As water-level measurements indicate (Hydraulics, pp. 63-65), a
relatively substantial head difference already exists between the fresh and
mineralized zones in northeast Manatee County. This head difference,
which is thought to have been created during the past 20 years or so of in-
creasing agricultural usage of ground water, has not produced noticeable
effects upon the quality of water pumped, which reinforces the conclusions
that only relatively small amounts of mineralized water can be drawn
from beneath the fresh-water system.

Whether or not lateral encroachment at the Manatee County coast
will ever take place to any large extent will depend upon both the size and
location of ground-water withdrawals within the county. At the present
time in Manatee County, the generalized hydraulic gradient at the coast is
toward the Gulf throughout the year. The potentiometric surface map of
May 1976, for example, which pictures conditions at a time during the
year when water levels have reached the lowest point, indicates that the
flow at the coast is toward the Gulf even though substantial inland areas
of the county were at or below sea level at that point in time. During the
fall and winter months, after the rise in water levels takes place at the
end of the irrigation cycle and with the coming of the summer rains, the
net water movement throughout the county is essentially seaward.

So long as the hydraulic gradient at the fresh-water/salt-water
interface, averaged over time, is directed toward the coast, there will












be a net flow of fresh water toward the Gulf and no general or extensive
encroachment would be expected.

The proposed Swift mine site is located approximately 30 miles
inland from the Manatee County coast. Based on the concept of recharge
through leakage from the surface, a withdrawal located one mile from the
coast would contribute approximately 40 or 50 times the inducement to en-
croachment as would a similar withdrawal 30 miles from the coast.

Under these conditions the proposed Swift withdrawal would not
be expected to "significantly induce salt-water encroachment".

16J-2. 11(2)(e): Will cause the water table to be lowered so that the
lake stages or vegetation will be adversely and significantly affected on
lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the
applicant.

Response: Studies of the relationship between a lowering of the poten-
tiometric surface caused by pumping and a subsequent lowering of the
water table in the areas of Pasco and Hillsborough Counties generally
indicate that the leakage induced by the created head difference must
exceed the available recharge (in this case assumed to be the water
crop) before the water table is noticeably affected. As was indicated
in the discussion of regulatory levels, a head difference on the order of
200 feet would be necessary to reach this condition in northeast Manatee
County, and the resulting level of the potentiometric surface would be
roughly 100 feet below sea level. The present year-round average dif-
ference between the water table and the potentiometric surface is on the
order of 100 feet. The Swift withdrawal is expected to create drawdowns
on the order of 6 to 10 feet at the boundaries of its property. The Swift
withdrawal from the deep ground-water zones is not expected to produce
noticeable effects upon water-related surface features, such as lakes,
streams, and vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed mine since such
effects would be essentially controlled by changes in the water table.

16J-2. l1(4)(b): Must not cause the level of the potentiometric surface
under lands not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant
to be lowered more than five (5) feet.

Response: To project effects on the potentiometric surface, a finite
difference computer model based on aquifer properties determined from
field tests has been used to compute drawdowns associated with the pro-
jected withdrawal needs of the mine. Although this model does not












simulate the anisotropic character of the aquifer in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed well field, it does include a higher transmis-
sivity within a distance of approximately one mile from the well field
than in outlying areas, based on results of the long-term pumping test
conducted at the mine site. The leakance used for these calculations
was 10-4 gpd/ft3.

The cone of depression shown on the figure represents the effect
of a 9, 000-gpm withdrawal offset by 2, 100-gpm recharge, during the
first two years of mine operation. After the first two years of operation,
an additional approximately 2, 000 gpm is expected to have been devel-
oped from surface supplies to further offset pumping from the Floridan
aquifer, and the reduced cone of depression is shown on the second
figure.

Drawdown at the boundary of an area equivalent in size to the
Swift property, but which has the shape of a constant drawdown contour
of the depression caused in the potentiometric surface, would be expected
to be about four and one-half (4-1/2) feet at the end of the first two years,
and about three (3) feet after the surface supplies and recharge wells have
been put into operation.

16J-2.11(4)(c): Must not cause the level of the water table under lands
not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be lowered
more than three (3) feet.

Response: The proposed withdrawal is not expected to produce a meas-
urable lowering of the water table on the Swift property, or on lands that
are not controlled by Swift.

16J-2.11(4)(d): Must not cause the level of the surface of water in any
lake or other impoundment to be lowered more than one (1) foot unless
the lake or impoundment is wholly owned, leased, or otherwise controlled
by the applicant.

Response: The proposed withdrawal is not expected to produce a meas-
urable lowering of any surface body of water on the Swift property or on
lands not controlled by Swift.

16J-2.11(4)(e): Must not cause the potentiometric surface to be lowered
below sea level.

Response: The maximum drawdowns within the proposed well field, with
recharge, are expected to be approximately 9 to 12 feet. The lowest












measured level of the potentiometric surface in the vicinity of the pro-
posed mine was approximately seven feet above mean sea level in May
1975. In May 1976, the low water level was approximately 12 feet above
mean sea level. Under similar conditions, the pumping levels at interior
wells in the well field would be expected to be close to or slightly below
sea level for several weeks during late spring each year. During the fall
and winter months, pumping levels would be expected to be roughly 30
feet above mean sea level.












EXCEPTIONS


Paragraph 16J-2. 11(4)(b) Must not cause the level of the po-
tentiometric surface under lands not owned, leased, or other-
wise controlled by the applicant to be lowered more than five (5)
feet.

Because of the relatively low leakance in the area of the proposed
mine site, it is expected that substantially greater drawdowns than five
feet could be tolerated without noticeable effect on the water table, lakes,
streams, or surface vegetation.

During the first two years of mine operation, a drawdown of about
eight (8) feet is expected at the property boundary just north of the well
field, and a drawdown of about six (6) feet is expected at the boundary to
the east of the well field. As other sources of water are developed to off-
set the withdrawals, however, the drawdowns at these boundaries are ex-
pected to be reduced to about five (5) to six (6) feet and four (4) to five (5)
feet respectively. At that time, the drawdown at the boundary of an equi-
valent area of the mine is expected to be about three (3) feet.

The mechanics of flow within an aquifer are such that no withdraw-
al can be made without causing drawdown. Because of this, every user
can expect to both have an effect upon, and be affected by, his neighbor's
use of the ground-water supply. Therefore, unless a ground-water user
is withdrawing substantially more than his fair share, or unless he is
causing damage to the natural resource, the drawdowns created by pump-
ing ground water should be considered the price that everyone must pay
for the use of ground water.

Paragraph 16J-2. 11(4)(e) Must not cause the potentiometric
surface to be lowered below sea level.

Where inland areas such as northeast Manatee County are con-
cerned, this provision primarily guards against the possibility of vertical
intrusion of highly mineralized water from deep zones. Test results indi-
cate that the mineralized water at depth below the mine site is tightly con-
fined within a layered system of impermeable rocks, below the circulation
that takes place in the fresh-water zone of the Avon Park formation, and
no noticeable vertical intrusion of mineralized water is expected due to
mine pumping.




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