Title: Appendices: Newspaper Articles Relating to Water Contamination, Letters, Members of the Task Force on Water Issues, Speaker H. Lee Moffitt's Charge, Summary of Meetings, Responses to Questions
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004127/00001
 Material Information
Title: Appendices: Newspaper Articles Relating to Water Contamination, Letters, Members of the Task Force on Water Issues, Speaker H. Lee Moffitt's Charge, Summary of Meetings, Responses to Questions
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Appendices: Newspaper Articles Relating to Water Contamination, Letters, Members of the Task Force on Water Issues, Speaker H. Lee Moffitt's Charge, Summary of Meetings, Responses to Questions (JDV Box 43)
General Note: Box 18, Folder 1 ( Water Task Force - 1983 ), Item 3
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004127
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


Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F


Newspaper Articles Relating
to Water Contamination-------- 140

Letters from Task Force Members 146

Members of the Task Force on
Water Issues------------------ 149

Speaker H. Lee Moffitt's
Charge------------------------ 152

Summary of Meetings------------ 156
a. Agendas------------------ 158

Water Management Districts
Responses to Questions-------- 167




Temik A group of Florida fern growers has
asked the state Department of Environmental
Regulation to run tests to determine if the
industry's widespread and long-term use of
the pesticide is contaminating the shallow
Florida aquifer. Orlando Sentinel 2-19-82

Jacksonville is one of the most likely
places in the country to contract lung
cancer, and one researcher now says that
may be connected with pollution problem
there. Jacksonville Journal 8-4-82

Temik used on 420,000 acres in Florida may
not contaminate orange juice or pollute
water but independent tests need to be made.
Today 8-6-82

Acid Six barrels of acid dumped near the
Hillsborough River which threatened to con-
taminate the city of Tampa's water supply.
Drums were of unknown origin. Tampa Tribune 8-6-82

Testing program for Temik set up by Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Orlando Sentinel 8-7-82

Water not tested for pesticides. Florida
does not attempt to regulate the seepage
of pesticides into groundwater. Orlando Sentinel 8-8-82

DER proposes groundwater protection rules.
Of the 92 percent of Florida residents whose
drinking water comes from the ground, 1/5
consume water without treating it first,
according to DER. Tampa Times 8-11-82

Federal Pesticide Action Attempts to put
health and safety data about federally
registered pesticides under the cloak of
chemical company "trade secrets" failed
Wednesday as the U.S. House voted over-
whelmingly in favor of the public's right
to know. Orlando Sentinel 8-12-82


Industrial firms are seeking to modify
proposed state regulations designed to keep
harmful chemicals, basically heavy metals,
out of groundwater supplies. Tampa Tribune 8-20-82

Groundwater Protection Rule Two local
metal processing firms, both cited in 1981
by the county for groundwater pollution,
are among numerous Florida industries
trying to modify proposed state rules that
could keep harmful chemicals out of groundwaer
supplies. Tampa Tribune 8-23-82

Tests show twelve wells not usable. Out of
twenty-six samples, twelve were determined
to be contaminated in northwest Hillsborough
County. Tampa Tribune 8-28-82

Temik State scientists have few answers
about how long poison stays in environment.
Tampa Tribune 8-29-82

Groundwater pollution laws Depending on
your point of view, Florida's new ground-
water pollution laws are too expensive and
anti-business or they are meaningless and
do nothing to protect water from industrial
and agricultural waste. Orlando Sentinel 8-31-82

Florida packed juices to be tested for Temik.
Tampa Tribune 8-82

Gasoline State officials here (Belleview)
told 3,000 residents to quit drinking the
city's water late Thursday because it is
contaminated with gasoline. Orlando Sentinel 9-11-82

New state rule fails to protect groundwater.
St. Petersburg Times 9-11-82

Rule Change An official in Washington has
quietly instituted regulatory changes on
wetlands that environmentalists fear could
have potentially devastating effects. Changes


in Clean-Water Acts, Section 404, that will
remove federal protection from many critical
freshwater wetlands. Atlanta Journal 9-12-82

Paraquat Authorities are putting little
stock in taped threats to poison Florida
water supplies unless state officials quit
spraying marijuana fields with the herbicide
paraquat. Orlando Sentinel 9-18-82

Industrial Pollutants Florida must deal
with problems. Ft. Myers News-Press 12-2-82

Toxic Waste Threat Companies compete for
cleanup cash. Orlando Sentinel 12-28-82
Lindane, Toxaphene and Chlordane due to
sugarcane growth in farmlands to north
causing pesticide contamination in Loxa-
hatchee Refuge. Florida Sportsman 1-83

Temik Tests of groundwater in a Lake Wales
citrus grove, state officials found levels
of Temik ranging from three to nearly ten
times the amount considered safe for human
consumption. St. Petersburg Times 1-12-83

Algae growths and putrid air The state is
seeking a federal grant for extensive survey
of Hillsborough Bay along Bayshore Boulevard
to pin down the cause of massive algae
growths and the putrid air associated with
them. Tampa Tribune 1-14-83

Rezoning angers water district officials with
Hillsborough County Commission for rezoning
property to allow an apartment complex to be
built on land that had been designated for
flood control. Tampa Tribune 1-14-83

Temik The coalition against the misuse
of pesticides in Florida petitioned Commis-
sioner Conner last month for a hearing on
the proposed ban. Times Union 1-14-83

Temik State Task Force rejects tight
restrictions on Temik pesticide.
Gainesville Sun 1-15-83


Temik Agriculture Commissioner, Doyle Conner,
slapped a statewide ban Thursday on sales
and application of the pesticide Temik after
traces were found in a drinking water well
in Orange County. Orlando Sentinel 1-28-83

Citrus group backs Temik ban.
Today 1-29-83

Temik Farmers, workers, environmental
groups attacked ban on Temik, should be
permanent and all inclusive. Miami Herald 1-29-83

Temik Ban Lower crop yields predicted
in coming years as Commissioner Doyle Conner
filed an emergency rule Friday to ban Temik
throughout the state. Tampa Tribune 1-29-83

PCB's have been found in soil near the
Miami Canal and Gainesville. St. Petersburg Times 1-29-83

Florida Power and Light could be forced
to share the estimated 2 million cost of
cleaning up a highly toxic chemical dump
at a Medley salvage yard, an attorney with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said
Friday. The utility company sold electrical
transformers loaded with cancer-causing
polychlorinated biphenyls. Miami Herald 1-29-83

Temik Traces found in shallow drinking
well in Orange County. Tampa Tribune 2-9-83

Temik Traces found in second Orange County
well. Orlando Sentinel 2-9-83

Temik A second contaminated drinking water
well was found in Orange County last week,
after the first discovery led to a statewide
ban on Temik imposed January 27, 1983. In
three other counties, groundwater not used
for drinking has yielded residues of the
pesticide. Miami Herald 2-12-83

Tampa Bay New state tests have confirmed
rains wash harmful acids and very high
levels of toxic fluoride into Tampa Bay
from an oozing upper slope of Gardinier,
Inc's. gypsum stack. (Fertilizer waste heap)
Tamoa Tribune 2-13-83


Radioactive water has been dumped into
Alafia River for more than thirty years.
Tampa Tribune 2-15-83

Temik Found in 65 foot drinking water well
in northwest Orange County, but none in six
other wells tested. Orlando Sentinel 2-17-83

Gas Station Storage Tanks State officials
believe the older of Florida's 40,000 steel
gas station storage tanks are leaking
gasoline into the groundwater. Tampa Tribune 2-18-83

Hazardous Waste Can the dangers be controlled?
Safely disposing of hazardous waste poses
ethical as well as technical questions.
Orlando Sentinel 2-29-83

Dade County's Medley Well Field is an
"undesirable source" of water that should
be avoided even if it means restricting
water use, Metro-Dade environmental chief,
Tony Clemente said Monday. Tests showed
that raw water at the well contained "a
large number of synthetic organic chemicals".
-iami Herald

Toxic Waste New chemicals that threaten
human health have been created causing a whole
host of by-products. (Tschinkel) Orlando Sentinel

People in Hamilton and Madison County were
drinking bottled water after environmental
inspectors sounded the alarm that excessive
bacteral growth posed a potential problem.
Times Union

Most dangerous waste sites listed by EPA -
25 in Florida (Four states too Florida on
worst list) St.Petersburg Times & Miami Herald


Florida extends ban on Temik to years end. Florida
Agriculture Commissioner Doyle Conner moved Friday
to extend the ban on the pesticide Temik to the
end of this year. The action came about six weeks
before an emergency ban was scheduled to expire.
Tampa Tribune 3-5-83

Year's Temik ban on way in Florida. A custom
pesticide applicator in Fort Pierce, has petitioned
for an administrative hearing on the Temik ban.
Orlando Sentinel 3-5-83



Florida House of Representatives

Irlo (Bud) Bronson, Jr. Ccnn..m
RepretCentave. 77th Dusact
Represe v. 7 Duc March 3, 1983 Nwmm RaCUo
Reply to: AgncuJpI
130: Nmort Ceaal Aveae Rgulaory Reform
Post Office Dnwr 2469
Kjssimmne. Fkond 32741
(305) 933-2307
X2 305 House Office Buildiag
Talahasee. Fland 32301
(901> i 8<992

The Honorable William E. Sadowski
Chairman, Task Force on Water
40 House Office Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Dear Chairman Sadowski:

In reviewing the draft of the final report I find two
issues with which I cannot agree. I respectfully request
that appropriate action be taken as indicated below:

In part I, on page 67, under section a(l) of
Recommendations: delete the words "including
agricultural chemicals". These words should
be deleted from part I, page 127, section 1
under Item 1, entitled Hazardous Waste Clean-
up. This provision places an unfair financial
burden on the farmer who will ultimately pay
the tax and won't be able to pass it on.

In part I, on page 88, under section b. of
Recommendations: rather than assign to the
DER the sole authority to impose limitations
or prohibitions on use of pesticides, assign
this authority as the joint responsibility of

I will appreciate consideration and adoption of these

Sincerely yours,

Irlo "Bud" Bronson, Jr.
Representative, 77th District




808 GRA4AA


TO: Honorable William E. Sadowski
Chairman, Water Task .rce

FROM: Victoria J. Tschinkel,'Secretary

SUBJECT: Water Task Force Report

DATE: March 7, 1983

In reviewing the latest Water Task Force Report, I noted two
areas on which the Department of Environmental Regulation would
specifically like to comment.

The first area has to do with the requirement to include fil-
tration of the effluent from sewage treatment plants. The report
suggests that all sewage treatment plants in the state should be
required to have filtration before discharge to either surface
waters or groundwaters. The task force, however, specifically voted
on this issue and filtration was only to be applied to the effluent
that was to be applied to spray irrigation operations. I believe
this needs to be corrected. I believe that this requirement needs
to be reviewed again in light of the technical need and the costs
associated with it.

The second area is the requirement in the latest draft that
surface waters also be analyzed for pesticides. The first draft
contained only the requirement that groundwaters be monitored and
analyzed. Our funding calculations were based on the assumption
that only groundwaters would be included. When surface waters are
added to the recommendations, our predicted cost of analyzing
surface waters increases our net budget request significantly.
There is a much stronger likelihood that some pesticides will
migrate to surface waters than that they will go to the ground-
waters because of the rapid action of rainwater and surface runoff.

Depending on the degree of coverage of the state's surface
waters for our analysis, it is anticipated that a significant sum
would be required to do any comprehensive program. Perhaps a
minimum "bare bones" program would be roughly $5 million and a more
exotic program would cost in the range of $12-S15 million. These
figures have to be understood, however, as very rough estimates
since any type of determination on monitoring surface waters is
extremely site specific and what is adequate in one area may not
be adequate at all in another situation.

I hope you will consider this in your final report.

V J T : p kA rEQ : OPCIR _1 TV AFNIR '-;.IVE AC7 C)% LO'FR



CAROLYN M. FIELDS (813) 229-2775
LARRY CRAMOVOT March 14, 1983

Mr. William E. Sadowski
Water Task Force
1400 S.E. Bank Building
Miami, FL 33131

Dear Bill:

I would appreciate if the records of the Task Force
would reflect that I do not endorse the proposed tax of the
petroleum industry and chemical companies as set out in the Task
Force recommendations.

Regrettably, I was unable to attend the last meeting
and was not able to voice my position on this matter. I do,
however, want to make clear that my position is based solely on
the fact that I do not know enough about the merits of such a
proposal to make an intelligent assessment. It is my under-
standing further that the industry was not aware that the Task
Force was considering this proposal and was not heard from by the
committee or its staff.

I do not personally have objection to a tax which is
placed upon the users of substances that have potential for
pollution. If upon appropriate hearings and determinations of
facts, this tax is found appropriate and fair, and the receipts
of same will be properly and effectively utilized, I would
support same.

Sincerely yours,

Louis de la Parte, Jr.




The Members of the Task Force include:

1. Franklin Adams President, Jerry's Carpet and
Upholstery, Inc.; former president, Environmental
Confederation of Southwest Florida; former
president, Florida division, Izaak Walton League of
America; conservation member, Big Cypress Swamp Oil
Advisory Committee; board member, Florida
Conservation Foundation; board member, Big Cypress
Nature Center and; president, Cypress Chapter, Izaak
Walton League.

2. Joe Allen Investment businessman; State
Representative; played a major role in the
development of the water pipeline from Florida City
to Key West.

3. Jim Apthorp Vice-President for Corporate Affairs,
Deltona Corporation; Director of Trustees of
Internal Improvement Trust Fund; former Deputy
Secretary of State; former Chief of Staff for
Governor Reuben Askew.

4. Martha Barnett, Esquire Attorney in firm of
Holland and Knight, specializing in administrative
and government law, with a specialty in
environmental issues.

5. Irlo "Bud" Bronson, Jr. State Representative,
President of the Water User's Association of

6. John DeGrove, Ph.D. Director of the Joint Center
for Environmental and Urban Problems and professor
of Political Science at Florida Atlantic University;
former vice-chair of the South Florida Water
Management District.

7. Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Attorney in firm
of de la Parte and Gilbert, P.A. specializing in the
area of administrative and environmental law; former
Senate President; former state representative.

8. Alan G. Greer, Esquire Attorney specializing in
environmental issues in the firm of Floyd, Pearson,
Stewart, Greer and Weil.

9. Maggie Hurchalla County Commissioner, Martin
County; served on Martin County Water Board.


10. Tom Kelly, Ph.D. Manager for Volusia County since

11. Philip D. Lewis Real estateinvestment businessman;
former President of the Senate and chair of the
Senate Natural Resources Committee; founding
president of the Northern Palm Beach County Water
Control District.

12. Walter S. "Buddy" McLin, Esquire Attorney
specializing in administrative and government law in
the firm of McLin, Burnsed and Marable; former
chairman of the Board of Business Regulation.

13. Jon Moyle, Esquire Attorney in the firm of Moyle,
Jones and Flanigan, specializing in the area of
administrative and governmental law; served on the
Constitutional Revision Commission.

14. Carl D. Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. Director of Chemical
Epidemiology and Chief of Chemical Carcinogenesis
for the Comprehensive Cancer Center for the State of
Florida; Professor of Toxicology and Environmental
Health at the University of Miami School of

15. Richard Pettigrew, Esquire Attorney specializing
in administrative law in the firm of Morgan, Lewis
and Bockius; former state senator and Speaker of the
House of Representatives; former assistant to
President Carter on the reorganization of natural
resources management.

16. Nathaniel Reed Executive Vice-President of Hobe
Sound, specializing in real estate and finance;
former Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Fish,
Wildlife and Parks; serves on the Board of the South
Florida Water Management District.

17. William E. Sadowski, Esquire Chairman of the Water
Task Force; attorney specializing in litigation in
the firm of Steele, Hector and Davis; former state
representative; former Chairman of the House
Committees on Insurance and Regulatory Reform.

18. Charles R. (Chuck) Smith State Representative;
former chair of House Select Committee on Water
Management; presently serving as a member of the
House Committee's on Agriculture, Community Affairs,
Natural Resources, Retirement and Personnel and
Collective Bargaining, and as a member of the Select
Committee on Growth Management.

19. William Tatum Executive Director of the Southwest
Florida Water Management District.

20. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary of Department of
Environmental Regulation.



TASK FORCE ON WATER ISSUES Organizational Meeting 9/09/82
Morris Hall
9:30am 4:30pm


The reason that you are here, I guess, started a long

time ago at least in my mind. Before last session, I had the

Democratic members of the Florida House of Representatives

in a retreat in the Withlacoochee State Forest. Chuck Smith,

who is on this Committee, was the host of that retreat and

helped us put it together.

The purpose of the retreat was to brainstorm with all

the members of the House to determine what they felt were the

most important immediate and long-term issues that needed to

be addressed by the Legislature and to prioritize and rank

those issues. After three days of retreat and a whole bunch

of discussion, the single most important long-term issue that

the House determined must be met was that of Water. It was

the single most important issue that they felt we had to do

something about in the near future.

As a result of their concerns, and knowing that we had

the benefit of a long interim before next session (although

the time does kind of keep slipping by quickly), I have

established this Task Force. I have asked Bill Sadowski to

chair it and have charged it with examining the state's

approach to water quality as well as the overall management


6' q

and preservation of our water resources.

There is no doubt that water is the one factor that is

absolutely essential for the existence of life as we know it.

This most essential resource, unfortunately, is so common and

so familiar that we treat it with neglect, if not contempt.

Today's concerns over water have evolved from the broad

environmental issues of the 60s and the 70s. Back then, water

quality was of prime importance, and it still is.

We have made progress in cleaning up our rivers and lakes;

yet, as we have advanced on the quality front, new concerns

have emerged: ground water contamination, increased competition

for water and its usage, decreasing supply, and even how.much

further we need to go to restore and preserve the quality of

our surface waters. For society as a whole, water is at the.

core of our existence, and crucial decisions acbut its use and

protection must be made now. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, we

cannot afford to think of water only when the well runs dry.

It is one substance that we absolutely cannot do without.

Water is so crucial to Florida because Florida is one of

the few states in the country that rely almost completely on

ground water to meet our water needs. This fact, plus the

projection that our current population will double by the year

2000 makes it essential that we examine whether we have in

place the mechanisms to insure that we are adequately managing

our water resources and that we are maintaining and protecting

the quality of our water.


In addition to these major concerns, we must address

certain specific problems. One of them is the question of

ground water contamination and whether or not we need to

develop a ground water protection strategy. Other problems

include determining the effect of acid rain on our water,

further protecting our rivers and wetlands, improving the

coordination of state and local agencies charged with managing

water, and as our population continues to grow, determining

how water resources are going to be allocated from one area

to the other. We are fortunate in Florida to have an abundance

of this natural resource. We are also fortunate to have pretty

good laws which will help us protect it. Now is the time to

use what we have learned. We must examine the overall approach

we are taking to determine whether the current set of laws

and regulations are adequate and whether they will allow us

to support the future growth that we know will occur in this


Because Florida relies so much on ground water, I request

that you consider the development of a ground water protection

strategy, together with whatever recommendations you may give

to us as to how we might preserve and provide water to meet

our future needs.

I want to thank each of you. I know how busy you are.

I know how difficult it is going to be to devote the time

necessary to tackle this issue. Thank you in advance for your

service on this Committee. I don't want to dictate to you


what your task should be other than to give you broad parameters.

It is my hope to listen to your work product, to listen to your

recommendations, and then to go forth this coming session of

the Legislature or the following session to do whatever I can

within my power to implement your recommendations. I pledge

to provide whatever resources that you feel you will need to

do the job. If it is legislative staff, I will provide it.

If it is technical assistance that you need, I will do my best

to look over the state and find the technical assistance you

need to do your job. The issue is of critical importance.

Thank you very much f6r devoting your time to assisting

the Florida Legislature on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I *


Summary of Meetings

1. The first meeting was held in Tallahassee and
was an organizational session for the Task Force members.
The Speaker provided members with the charge. Presentations
were made on the unique geologic and hydrologic characters
of the state, Florida's Water law and a history of Florida's
water management activities. In addition, short
presentations were made on the role of the Army Corps of
Engineers, as well as the water concerns of Florida's
agricultural community, developers, utilities, industrial
users and environmentalists.

2. The second meeting was held in Tampa and in
addition to hearing from the Southwest Florida Water
Management District and the West Coast Regional Water Supply
Authority, presentations were made on Florida's existing
water management framework, groundwater contamination,
especially viral contamination, and the mechanisms which
exist to monitor water quality.

3. For the third meeting, held in Tallahassee, a
presentation was made by the Northwest Florida Water
Management District. In addition, members heard
presentations on hazardous waste management, and the
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' role in
maintaining water quality through the monitoring for
bacterial contaminants. Using the battery plant
contamination of the Apalachicola and Chipola Rivers, a
discussion was held on the role of state and local
governments in insuring water quality.

4. The fourth meeting was held in West Palm Beach.
The South Florida Water Management District made a
presentation and members also heard from the Dade County
Environmental Resource Management Office about waste
disposal practices. Presentations were also made by the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services on the
monitoring activities they perform to detect the presence of
pesticides in crops. The Department of Environmental
Regulation spoke on the presence of pesticides and heavy
metals in water; individuals responsible for large farming
concerns discussed the importance of the availability of
water during the growing season. Presentations were also
made by Florida Power and Light, General Development
Corporation and the Florida Wildlife Federation on the needs
for water by utilities, developers and wildlife.

5. In the fifth meeting, held for two days in
Jacksonville, the Suwannee River and the St. Johns River
Water Management Districts made presentations. Members also


heard from a County Commissioner from Polk County, and the
Director of Research for Volusia County on the relationship
of water and growth at the local level. Recent research on
acid rain was discussed. Presentations were made on
groundwater protection strategies and environmentalists'
concerns over the proposed current groundwater rule.
Members spent the second day discussing the report and
recommending issues which should be further developed for
inclusion in this report.

6. The sixth meeting was held in Tallahassee and,
although short presentations were made on the pollution
residues in humans, municipal water conservation and
hazardous waste disposal problems, the majority of the time
was spent reviewing the draft report.

7. At the seventh meeting, held in Tallahassee on
January 26, 1983, the draft report was further reviewed by
members. Staff were given additional directions on issues
which were to be explored.

8. At the final meeting, held in Tallahassee on
February 9, 1983, the report was finalized.





10:00 am

10:45 am

(TAB 1)

(TAB 2)

Representative H. Lee Moffitt
Speaker Designate
Representative William E. Sadowski

C. B. Sherwood
United States Geological Survey

Richard Hamann, Esquire
Center for Governmental
University of Florida



(TAB 3)

(TAB 4)

(TAB 5)

Joseoh W. (Jay) Landers, Jr., Esa.
Ausley Law Firm

Col. Alfred Devereaux,
Army Corps of Engineers

Tommy Lawrence,
Lawrence Forms


11:30 am

12:00 pm


(TAB 8)



tode Hooping, Esa.
Hopping, Boyd, Green and

hn H. Hankinson, Eso.
Florida Defenders of the

p, William E. Sadowski,
Chai rman


October 4, 1982

Duvall Room
Host International Hotel
Tampa Airport

Introductory Remarks

Florida's Water Management

Southwest Florida Water
Management District

William E. Sadowski, Chairman

Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary,
Department of Environmental

Gary Kuhl, Assistant Executive
Director, Southwest Florida
Water Management District

Bill Hennessey, Tampa District
Manager for the Department of
Environmental Regulation








West Coast Regional Water
Supply Authority

Groundwater contamination and
the mechanisms which exist to
monitor water quality: the
presence of Temik in the

Industrial requirements and
their effect on the quantity
and quality of water: Phosphate
Mining in Manatee County.

Closing Remarks

Gene Heath, General Manager

Terry Cole, Assistant Secretary,
Department of Environmental

Rodney DeHan, Ph.D., Environmental
Administrator, Bureau of
Special Projects, DER

Greg Parker, Chief, Bureau of
Special Projects, DER

William E. Sadowski, Chairnan




October 27, 1982

Morris Hall
Lover Level
House Office Building

Northwest Florida Water
Management District

Hazardous Waste Management

Water Quality: HRS' Role
in Monitoring Viruses
and Other Contaminants
in the Water

Bill McCartney, Executive Director
Northwest Florida Water
Management District

Greg Parker
Department of Environmental

James Howell, M.D.
Deputy Secretary, Department of
Health & Rehabilitative Services




Suwannee River Water
Management District

The Role of State and
Local Governments in
Insuring Water Quality:
Battery Plant Contamina-
tion of the Chipola
and Apalachicola Rivers

Don Morgan, Executive Director
Suwannee River Water
Management District

Colonel E.L. Elofson

Department of Environmental

Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services

Robert Livingston, Ph.D.




NOVEMBER 11, 1982


South Florida Water Management

Dade County Waste Disposal

1. Deep Well Injection
2. Use of Ocean outfall for
waste disposal
3. 58th and Interama Landfills

12:30 PM-1:00 PM

1:00 PM-2:30 PM

Jack Malloy
Executive Director

Tony Clemente
Dade County Environ-
mental Resources

Issues Related to Water Users:

1. Agriculture

a. Agricultural concerns
regarding water regula-
tion, the perception of
the role of state agencies
in regulating water, agri-
cultural use of water

b. Role of the Department of
Agriculture & Consumer

c. Pesticides and heavy
metals in water

2. Utilities

3. Developers

Water Management and its'
effect on wildlife

The Everglades


Mr. Richard Alger
Mr. George Wedgeworth

Dr. C. H. Van Middelem
Vince Siglic

Department cf

Sam Tucker
Florida Power and

G. P. Mozian
General Development
Johnny Jones
Florida Wildlife

Marjorie Stzneman

Task Force Members


9:00 AM

11:30 AM

2:30 PM

3:00 PM

3:30 PM-4:00 PM

4:00 PM-4:45 PM

4:45 PM-5:30 PM


9:00 A.M.

11:00 A.M.

12:30 P.M.

1:30 P.M.

2:00 P.M.

4:00 P.M.

4:15 P.M.

4:45 P.M.

December 2, 1982

Suwannee River Water Manage-
ment District

Growth issues. The role of
local government; compre-
hensive plans; coordinating
water management and land
use planning.


Effect of Acid Rains on
Florida Lakes.

St. Johns' Water Manage-
ment District

Relationship with St. Johns

Groundwater protection
strategies: existing and
proposed programs; funding;

John Q. Floridian's concerns
with the groundwater rule

Kirk Webster
Assistant to
Executive Director

Jack Simmers
Polk County Administrator

Bruce Briggs
Director of Research
Volusia County

Dr. Thomas Crisman
Department of
Environmental Engineerinc
University of Florida

Sonny Vergara
Executive Director

Doug Bournique
Executive Director
Indian River Citrus League

Rodney Dehan
Environmental Administra-
tor, Department of
Environmental Regulations

John Hankinson
Executive Director
Environmental Service

December 3, 1982

9:00 A.M. 5:00 P.M. Discussion of issues by Task Force Members


January 10, 1983
=rris Hall

9:00 A.M.

9:30 A.M.

10:30 A.M.

11:00 A.M.

12:00 Noon

1:00 P.M.

Hazardous Waste in Florida

Pesticide Registration and
the nvironental Protection
Agency's Groundater Policy

Pollutant Residues in Humans

Municipal Water Conservation

Rby Herndon, Ph.D.
Director of Bazardous Waste
Management Program and
Director of Research, Institute
of Science and Public Affairs
Florida State diversity

Dave Savera
Frank Sanders
Representatives of the
Envirraental Protection Agency

Carl Pfaffenberger, Ph.D.
Director of Clemical Eidemioo1-y
thiversity of Mimi

The Honorable Bill Frederick
Mayor, City of Orlando

Working Lunch

Discussion of Draft Report

Task Force Miemers




January 26, 1983
9:00a.m. 5:00p.m.
Morris Hall

Discussion of Draft Report,
Summary of Findings and



Mosquito Control Activities

John Mulrennan, PhD,
Office of Epidemiology,
Department of HRS

Discussion of Draft Report,
Summary of Findings and



1:00 -

1:30 -


February 9, 1983

Discussion of Water Task Force Draft Report



Question 1: What steps have been taken to identify the current
surface and groundwater resources in this District
and to project how the supply will meet the demand
up to the year 2020?


We have developed a data collection program which is
conducted cooperatively with the U.S.G.S. A summary of the
cooperative program is attached. In addition, our staff collects
water levels from approximately 40 wells in southern Okaloosa,
Santa Rosa and Walton counties and 12 wells in Gulf County six
times each year. We also conduct many discharge and water level
measurements as a part of our special hydrologic investigations.
This data collection effort is providing the basis for our water
resources investigations. The program needs to be expanded as
funds become available.

We have conducted detailed investigations in the coastal
areas from Panama City to Pensacola. This is our major problem
area. Through studies conducted in this area, we have developed
an understanding of the aquifer system. We are presently engaged
in a study of the groundwater resources of southern Walton County
which will answer some of the questions which remained following
the previous studies. We are also engaged in a three-year water
resources investigation of Leon, Wakulla and Jefferson counties
which will be completed in 1983.

We have developed a systematic plan for conducting detailed
investigations of each major river basin of northwest Florida. A
pilot study was completed this year and we expect to begin our
first major basin study in 1983. The final product of these
studies will be a detailed basin water budget for each basin
along with projected needs. Lack of funds and higher priority
work have caused this work to be delayed in the past. However,
every study we perform will become a part of one of the basin

Surface water resources have not been studied to the same
degree as the groundwater since we have had few pressing
problems. Data collection is being accomplished for the surface
streams, but we cannot afford the data collection network that
will allow us to use observed data for evaluating most streams.
Similarly, additional rainfall stations (weather) are required
for hydrologic studies. This is to say that we must use computer
modeling techniques to generate data for most of the hydrologic
studies of our streams.

An outline of the various projects and investigations which
have been completed by the District will be handed our at the
Task Force meeting on October 27, 1982.




A. A District-wide study was recently completed in cooperation
with the Army Corps of Engineers. This study outlined 17
potential water supply sources for the SWFWMD and included
population studies as well as economic considerations.

B. In the southern portion of the District, our staff has
assisted local governments in developing water supply plans
and encouraged the recent formation of the Peach
River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority (Manatee,
Sarasota, Charlotte, Hardee and DeSoto Counties). Some of
the District's other projects in the area include:

1. Manatee County

(a) Northern Manasota Hydrologic Investigation.

(b) Feasibility of Augmenting Lake Manatee Reservoir
from the Little Manatee.

(c) Lake Manatee Yield Analysis.

(d) Recharge/Recovery at Lake Manatee.

2. Sarasota County

(a) Preliminary Wellfield Site Analysis in Northern
Sarasota County.

(b) Cow Pen Slough Hydrologic Study.

(c) MacArthur Tract Hydrologic Investigation.

3. Lower Peace River Area

(a) Preliminary Lower Peace Regional System Analysis.

(b) Shell Creek Yield Analysis.

(c) Peace River Yield Analysis.

C. The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority has developed
long-range water supply plans for Hillsborough, Pinellas and
Pasco Counties. The Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply
Authority in the northern portion of the SWFWMD has also
initiated water supply planning activities. The District
continues to require long-range water supply planning through
the consumptive use permitting system.


Future Needs:

A. Further development of Basin inventories and water balance

B. Establish minimum flows and aquifer levels;

C. Continue to establish a readily available hydrologic "data



SRWMD has maintained an extensive hydrologic monitoring
program covering rainfall, lake levels, river stage and flow,
surfacewater quality, regional groundwater quality, groundwater
potentiometric levels, and water use since 1975. Prior to that,
very little except river flows and groundwater levels was
measured on a meaningful frequency. The data collected from the
monitoring program allows interpretation of the reaction of the
hydrologic system to natural climatological events or man-induced

The District is completing a series of systematic hydrologic
and hydrogeologic investigations in various surfacewater basins
aimed at determining the overall hydrology in SRWMD. By the end
of the current fiscal year all but the Aucilla River Basin in
Madison County and the Withlacoochee Basin in Madison and western
Hamilton counties will have been studied and reports prepared
summarizing the hydrology, background groundwater and
surfacewater chemistry, river flows, and aquifer level
fluctuations. The remaining areas are slated for study in FY 83-
84. These basin studies and monitoring programs have enabled
SRWMD to obtain a basic understanding of the workings of the
hydrogeologic system.

In 1977 SRWMD began an assessment of the estuary of the
Suwannee River specifically designed to determine the effect of
potential reductions in river flows on the ecology of the
estuary. Data collection on that project ended in September
1982, and the FY 82-83 work effort on the project has been
dedicated to extensive computer modeling and data interpretation
with a final report--first draft--anticipated by October 1983.
Coincident with the end of data collection in the estuary of the
Suwannee River, SRWMD (in cooperation with DER) began data
collection and model development of the entire Suwannee River
from the estuary to the Okefenokee Swamp. The District goal in
this effort is to extend interpretation of the effects of reduced
flows from the estuary to the entire river and therby establish
realistic minimum flows and levels throughout the basin.

The investigation studies and monitoring programs completed
to date, coupled with limited historical data, give SRWMD basic
tools needed to (1) prioritize future work efforts, (2) implement
water use and water shortage rules, (3) develop first cut minimum
flows and levels based on historical fluctuation, and (4)
concentrate monitor efforts on the parts of the hydrologic system
most likely to experience significant adverse impacts.

In addition to the various research efforts, SRWMD:


-Adopted districtwide water use regulations for
implementation on October 1, 1982 (Ch. 40B-2, FAC)

- Has regulated well construction of all wells since 1976
(Ch. 40B-3, FAC)

- Has regulated all underground injection and artificial
recharge projects since 1976 (Ch. 40B-5, FAC)

-Will implement a water shortage rule based on minimum
surfacewater flows and levels and/or groundwater
potentiometric levels not later than October 31, 1983
(first draft due February 1983).

Future research efforts have been prioritized to:

- Further refine understanding of the effects of reduced
flows and levels on estuary, lake, and wetland ecology

- Quantify the rates of recharge (i.e., inches per year) of
effective recharge occurring in SRWMD

- Determine the base of potable water in the Floridan and
quantify regional groundwater flow hydraulics

- Develop a hybrid surfacewater-groundwater interactive flow
model for predictive analysis of pumping stress on the
hydrologic system

- Monitor water withdrawal and the reaction of the
hydrologic system to withdrawal.



Data collection, research and technical support programs
designed to identify available water resources receive more than
a third of the District's total operating budget. District staff
performs 90% of these programs with some USGS and other agency
assistance for the remainder. St. Johns River Water Management
District has conducted an extensive data collection program since
District formation in 1974, monitoring numerous stream flows and
aquifer levels. Current monitoring includes data required as a
condition of consumptive use and surface water permitting in
those areas of the District transferred from South Florida and
Southwest Florida Water Management Districts. Basin management
plans are being developed from these efforts so that local area
management of the resource can result. For example, the
District's Saltwater Intrusion Studies (SWIS I and II) have
concentrated on the high-growth coastal areas where water quality
problems due to intensive withdrawals are occurring (see map,
Attachment I). Identification of resource characteristics by
local basins will enable management and permitting of water with
better local knowledge of limits and potential problems that
result from water use. Future data collection will be improved

use of a computer system to store and display data,

a water shortage plan for drought condition water use,

a new District-wide consumptive use rule, and

a new, District-wide management and storage of surface
water rule (MSSW).

The District has published an Annual Water Use Survey since
1978 (attachment 2). This collection of use information in terms
of location and type of use provides a reliable and consistent
data base for projections of future water use (see sample,
Attachment 3). The implementation of a District-wide consumptive
use permitting program on January 1, 1983, will also provide more
accurate water use information.

A "Benchmark Farms" agricultural water use sampling program
will be initiated during this fiscal year to monitor permitted
irrigation use of water. Selected farms will be reporting very
accurate water use data to enable analysis of seasonal water use
by a statistically significant sample for various crops,
irrigation systems and weather patterns. The District's data
collection programs are annually assessed and upgraded in order
to provide a continuing understanding of the status of the
resource, however, it should be recognized that data must be
collected over a period of years before its reliability and


usefulness can be established and the District is by such
standards a relatively new organization.



The District has, and is continuing to sponsor, extensive
hydrologic modeling programs, to define surface water supply
capabilities, and aquifer reconnaissance programs, to determine
the groundwater resources. Periodically, the results of these
studies are compared with demands, and supply alternatives are
analyzed and presented in Water Use Planning Documents. To date,
documents have been completed for the Lower East Coast, Lake
Okeechobee, Lower West Coast and Upper East Coast planning areas.

In addition, we are participating with the U.S. Corps of
Engineers in its 1984 South Florida Water Supply Study, which is
a comprehensive reevaluation of the adequacy of the Central and
Southern Florida Flood Control Project from a water supply
standpoint. We are strongly committed to continued efforts in
this area and, through it, hope to continually improve on the
quality and usefulness of our answers.


f ,

Question 2: Do the water resources available in this District
have the capacity to support projected growth to
the year 2020 without significantly harming the
District's ecology or water resources?


Preliminary review of the findings of our water resources
investigations indicates that local water resource availability
in the immediate coastal area from Panama City Beach to Gulf
Breeze is inadequate to support the projected needs to the year
2020. We are investigating the feasible alternatives for
importing water into these areas from surface water sources or
well fields located inland from the coast. This report will be
published in the next few weeks.

The City of Gulf Breeze is already receiving water piped
from Midway, a distance of about 14 miles. We recently completed
a study of the sand-and-gravel aquifer around Gulf Breeze and
found that additional water supplies may be developed from that

Adequate water supplies appear to be available in the other
areas of the District to meet the needs up to the year 2020,
provided that proper management techniques are employed.


A. Water is available to support projected growth over the next
25 years with the following considerations:

1. Cost of water will certainly increase since coastal
population growth will require transportation of water
from distant sources and use of energy intensive sources
such as desalination.

2. Potential impacts can be minimized through the following
permitting efforts:

a. requiring water reuse where feasible;

b. requiring water conservation measures;

c. requiring use of the lowest quality of water
available and acceptable for a given end use;

d. improving groundwater recharge through runoff
detention programs such as stormwater runoff
permitting and flood detention systems;


e. minimum stream flows and aquifer levels will have to
be established as."Base Points" for acceptable
impacts to the resource.

SRWMD growth projections have to date been confined to
population projections--urban and rural--through the year 2000.
The last update of these projections was made in October 1981,
based on 1980 census data, and is available as SRWMD Staff Report
No. 82-1. The report anticipates a 40% increase in population
through 2000 from a 1980 base population of 193,000. Other areas
of anticipated growth relative to water use projections are (a)
an anticipated steady growth in irrigated acreage and (b) an
unquantifiable growth in industrial/commercial use. Growth in
these areas is not accurately predictable.

The growth of agriculture irrigation has been steady at
roughly 15-20% per year since 1975--based on well permitting
records. It should be noted that agricultural growth causes a
demand for water which is dependent on climatological conditions
from season to season. In other words, 10,000 acres of irrigated
corn represents a demand on the hydrologic system which may not
be totally consumed, depending on seasonal conditions. From a
management perspective, however, the demand allocated to that use
must be considered committeee" and consumed.

In SRWMD industrial and commercial uses--including
thermoelectric power generation--have typically been self-
supplied and not part of water utility distribution systems.
Anticipated new uses include a possible 30-40 million gallon per
day demand if phosphate mining and processing plants are
developed in the Osceola National Forest and a potential 20
million gallons per day demand for thermoelectric power
generation in Taylor County.

If the historical distribution of population between urban
and rural settings continues, or if the distribution becomes
skewed towards rural development, there is little question that
water demands for the projected year 2000 population can be met
without significant adverse ecologic impacts. The same favorable
generalization for irrigation and/or industrial growth cannot be
made. In large part the reaction of the District hydrologic and
ecologic systems to the high volume point stress created by
industrial or irrigation withdrawals is very much dependent on
the specific location and density of such water users. In SRWMD,
coastal areas and river corridors will be the most sensitive to
resource development. For example, the density of high volume
irritation systems in southern Suwannee County may be beginning
to adversely affect the flow and stage of the Suwannee River
during drought cycles.


Currently, water resources appear adequate with proper
management to sustain projected growth within the District,
recognizing that production costs will increase and that existing
legal and political conflicts will need to be resolved

The estimated population of the SJRWMD will be 3,805,000
persons in the year 2010. This represents a 67% increase between
1980 and 2010. This increase of 1,527,000 people will occur
primarily in 5 counties: Orange (228,000), Volusia (210,000),
Seminole (207,000), Marion (160,000) and Brevard (150,000).
These counties account for over 62% of the increase. Other
counties that will increase substantially are Indian River (104%)
and Alachua (73%). (Attachment 4.)

Relating these population increases to future water demands
for public and domestic supply shows a minimum increase of 183.26
million gallons per day (MGD). This increase assumes that each
additional person uses 120 gallons a day. If the 1980 gallons
per capital per day (GPCD) figure of 175 GPCD is used, total water
demand will increase 267.26 MGD. The 175 GPCD figure accounts
for industrial and commercial users. This would increase total
public and domestic water supply demands from 382.27 MGD in 1980
to a high of 649.53 MGD in 2010.

The industrial, institutional and thermo-electric increases
expected in the next 30 years is accounted for in the public
supply calculations above.

There is no indication that agriculture over the next 30
years will show any major increases in the total acreages being
irrigated. Although certain crop acreages will increase (Ferns,
Sod and Turf Grass) while others decrease (Pasture, Citrus); the
quantity of irrigation water needed will always depend on two
factors, rainfall and type of irrigation and any increases in
agricultural acreage will probably be offset by improved
irrigation efficiencies from low volume systems.

It can generally be anticipated that coastal areas where
quality deterioration due to saltwater intrusion is mot likely to
occur will experience the relatively significant increases in
population and water demand. (The potential for water quality
degradation in the coastal areas is addressed under question #3.)


Yes, our analyses indicate that projected urban demands can
be met by relying primarily on less expensive, conventional
methods of water supply. In addition, agricultural demands can


be met at costs which will not place south Florida agri-business
at a competitive disadvantage.

Furthermore, our studies show that drastic harm to the
District's ecology and water resources are not necessary to
support the development projected over the next several decades.
This does not mean that no impacts on the ecology or the water
resources are to be expected, but that the changes from what we
presently have should not be significant. The better we do our
job of pointing out water conservation and wastewater reuse,
promoting regional planning of wellfields, and finding
environmentally sound regional supply system modifications, the
better the chances our water supply goals can be met without a
major tradeoff with our environmental goals.

In concert with these efforts, there is a move to modify
some of the District's physical works to correct recognized
errors, i.e. Kissimmee River and Everglades National Park water


Question: 3. What concerns do you have regarding the quality of
water which is currently available in this District
and the projected quality of water which is
expected to be available as the District grows
through the year 2010?


Part I Understanding the Problem

The year 2010 must be considered in the same context today
as today (1982) was in 1954. As esoteric as this sounds, we
presently are experiencing technological advances barely imagined
25 years ago. To say with confidence what the expected quality
of water 25 years from now will be is very difficult.

One of the causes of this difficulty is our technical
advancement -- we now are able to routinely analyze for elements
and compounds which we never realized were present in our water.
Additionally, many of the compounds once thought innocuous are
being suspected as being toxic. Solvents such as chloroform,
carbon tetrachloride and benezene, once easily found in many
households, are now severely restricted in their use, yet still
are found in our water. Insecticides such as DDT, which saved
untold numbers of lives from typhus during World War II and in
the malaria-ridden tropics, is now banned, but its residues are
still found years afterward. Also complicating and adding to the
difficulty is our growing ability to analyze in parts per billion
and parts per trillion concentrations (one part per trillion is
approximately one teaspoonful in 1,321 million gallons). Surface
waters and underground aquifers once believed "safe and clean"
are routinely being discovered to contain many compounds we never
dreamed of. Additionally, we are discovering that many compounds
apparently have very long residence times in our waters and that
many "approved" industrial and land use practices have in fact
degraded the quality of our water. Even now, time-honored
disinfection practice of utilizing chlorine is suspected to form
carcinogenic compounds.

What can be done? Since the quality and quantity aspects
of water are so intimately related, efforts to strengthen the
basic understanding of each is a high priority item. Florida,
with its great dependence on water must not remain dependent upon
federal "trickle-down" and "carrot" money in the management of
its water quality and quantity problems. Florida must be a
leader in understanding its water problems. Leadership requires
knowledge, knowledge requires study, and studies require funding.
Traditionally, the output or product of government is often
rules. Many rules are prohibitive in nature much of the future
effort should be directed at understanding how Florida can most
prudently use its water resources, how to improve the quality of


water of its groundwater (most effort in the past has been
directed at surface water), and how to rejuvenate degraded
aquifers not by just concentrating on which actions should be
prohibited, but by actual efforts at renovation.

Part II Outlook for the Future
The time from now until 2010 will be critical in the
future of northwest Florida's growth projections point to a
population of 1.1 million by the year 2000 (in 1980, the
population was estimated at 0.83 million, therefore the year 2000
estimate represents an approximate 25% increase). In order to
meet the increasing demand for water, we must be able to draw
upon an accurate data base concerning the quantity and quality of
both surface and groundwater. Activities by private industry,
agriculture, public entities such as city, county, state and
federal agencies can have a tremendous effect on the region's
water resources. A good regional understanding of these effects
by the Water Management District, in cooperation with other
appropriate entities, will help assure adequate water quality.
The District needs to be increasingly involved in traditionally
"pollution" oriented efforts by other state and local agencies --
if not the actual "hands on" aspects, at least in a technical
review or advisory role. If any quality/quantity predictions are
to remain viable, comprehensive technical information and
qualified technicians must both be in place in order that prudent
management of the resource can be achieved; this is true not only
in the case of catastrophic pollution of an aquifer as happened
recently in Livingston, LA, but also in the "routine" fluctuation
and stresses to the ground and surface water resources, such as
by saltwater intrusion caused by overpumping of coastal aquifers,
aquifer drawdowns during droughts, and the proper siting and
construction of supply wells.


A. Most water quality issues are currently department
responsibilities. SWFWMD's concerns center around:


A. Continued pumping stress in coastal areas may result in
saltwater intrusion problems. Water supply planning at this
time is seeking to move away from coastal areas for major
groundwater pumping facilities. Monitoring of the saltwater-
freshwater interface will continue to be a management tool
for recognizing potential problem areas.

B. Underground injection programs are currently permitted by the
Department and the District. Department delegation of
additional responsibility in the area of drainage wells is
expected in 1983.



C. Enforcement of well construction standards will continue to
be a major water quality protection program.

Surface Water:

A. Stormwater runoff permitting is a planned delegation item for
1983. This program should help to minimize surface water
quality problems associated with stormwater runoff.

Water quality is expected to become a limiting factor in
water supply in five geographical areas. The first three areas
can be considered a natural occurrence problem, the last two are
pollution problems.

Area 1 Coastal

Although not a current problem, coastal regions in SRWMD
are very prone to salinity intrusion as or if water use
increases. The aquifer is unconfined along the coast in
SRWMD and is considered a discharge area. The low
potentiometric levels--natural--in an unconfined coastal
area have created a circumstance which cannot tolerate
substantial stress. It should be noted that currently
stress is minimal.

Area 2 Suwannee River Valley

High Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), sulfate-rich ground
water is known to occur along the Suwannee River
corridor as far upstream as Branford or Mayo at depths
as shallow as 40 feet--well depths. Branford, for
example, is currently incurring significant treatment
expense in order to use water with 1000 ppm TDS, 500 ppm
sulfates, and total hardness over 600 ppm. Although the
specific reason for the occurrence of this poor quality
water is unknown at this time, it is thought to be the
combined effects of an unconfined aquifer, low
potentiometric levels--less than 10 feet above sea
level--and the presence of gypsum/anthydrites in the
geologic formations at a shallow depth.

Area 3 Northern Highlands in Madison, Hamilton, and
Columbia Counties

Similar to the Suwannee River corridor problem, poor
quality water resulting from gypsum/anhydrites in the
geologic formations at depth is known to exist in
Madison, Hamilton, and northern Columbia counties. In
these areas, gypsum/anhydrite has been found at depths
as shallow as 500 feet--well depth--and typically at 800


to 1000 feet. The associated high TDS water--2000-3000
ppm TDS--cannot be economically used for potable supply.
It should be noted that the occurrence of
gypsum/anhydrites is very common in the deeper aquifers
in Florida. In SRWMD the occurrence of these deposits
and the associated poor quality water is usually greater
than 1200-1500 feet below land surface.

Area 4 Cody Escarpment

The toe or downslope side of the Cody Escarpment
represents a transitional boundary where the Floridan
Aquifer changes from confined to unconfined. The Cody
Escarpment is an erosional feature that roughly
parallels Interstate 75 north to Lake City and then
Interstate 10 west to Tallahassee. It can easily be
recognized by a series of hills and elevation/slope
changes in the area. North and east of the scarp, the
Florida Aqufier is overlain by thick clays and is
therefore confined. To the south and west of the scarp
the clays have been removed by erosion and the aquifer
is unconfined. The area along the scarp is a region of
very active sinkhole development and an area where
virtually every stream--except the Suwannee River--
disappears into sinkholes. There are literally dozens
of streams and two rivers--the Alapaha and Santa Fe--
which disappear into sinkholes. This water represents
direct, unfiltered recharge; and any degradation of the
surfacewater quality in the streams will result in
degradation of water quality in the aquifer system.

Area 5 City of Live Oak

At present 56 drainage wells operate with no control in
Live Oak as the nucleus of the city's stormwater
drainage system. Although drainage wells are common in
Florida--Orlando has several hundred--Live Oak is unique
in that the wells drain urban runoff into the same
aquifer used for public supply and regional domestic
supply. The water quality of the runoff being directly
injected into the Floridan Aquifer in the vicinity of
Live Oak represents significant degradation of
groundwaters and the potential for contamination of
public and private supply wells.


Water quality concerns differ within the several areas of
the district:

I. Groundwater quality:


* Area 1 In Duval and the industrial area of Nassau
Counties, the primary concern is increased water use by
urban and industrial sectors which has caused saline
intrusion from deeper zones in the Floridan. In order to
better understand this, the District is drilling deep test
wells to monitor the freshwater/saline water (FW/SW)
interface. A comprehensive water inventory of Jacksonville
and surrounding area, development of a regional ground
water flow model, and preliminary steps being taken (FY 82-
83) for Basin Management Planning also improve our
knowledge of and help resolve any related problems.

* Area 2 During the fall and winter growing seasons of the
agricultural areas of Putnam, Flagler, and St. Johns
Counties large quantities of ground water is withdrawn for
irrigation resulting in declines in the potentiometric
surface of the Floridan Aquifer and increases in chloride
content of the water. The District has completed a report
and is working toward establishing a cooperative program
with the Soil and Conservation Service to plug high
chloride wells. Ground water analytical models are also
being developed at the University of Florida that will help
the District further develop its understanding of regional
ground water dynamics. The District is also cooperating
with the University of Florida's Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) on an experimental program to
improve irrigation efficiencies in this area.

* Area 3 The Floridan Aquifer in the coastal areas of
southern St. Johns and Flagler Counties is non-potable and
only limited shallow supplies exist. Even though the area
is rapidly developing, alternative supplies will need to be
found before complete buildout (244,000 residents) is
reached by ITT Rayioners' Palm Coast development. The
District recently published Saltwater Instrusion Study I
(SWIS I), and is cooperating with the USGS in the Flagler
County Water Resource Investigation in an effort to begin
addressing the obvious shortfall expected soon after the
turn of the century.

* Area 4 Modern lateral saltwater intrusion in coastal
areas of Volusia County is threatening the Daytona well
field. Other cities such as Holly Hill, Ormond Beach, and
Ponce Inlet also have this problem and are investigating
alternative supplies. The District is attempting to
address these problems by a detailed hydrogiological study
included in the SWIS II report and is actively developing a
3-dimensional ground water flow and quality model for
Volusia County during FY 81-82 and FY 82-83.


* Area 5 The Volusia County, Osteen Agricultural Area is
similar to Area 2 in that large quantities of ground water
are being withdrawn for irrigation annually inducing upward
movement of salty water into upper fresh zones of the
Floridan Aquifer. The District is investigating the
productivity of the secondary artesian aquifer in that area
for future irrigation purposes and will have a completed
report in FY 82-83.

* Area 6 Metropolitan Orlando and Orange County comprise
the second largest metropolitan area within the District
and is urbanizing at a rate much faster than the number one
area, Jacksonville. A majority of the public supply wells
withdraw water from the lower producing zone of the
Floridan Aquifer while many drainage wells are allowed to
directly recharge the upper zones. Also, current plans by
Orlando are considering injection of Advanced Wastewater
Treated water into the upper zone of the Floridan. Because
there is not a clear understanding of the hydrological
relationship between the two zones both in quantity and
quality, the District is cooperating with USGS in a review
and update of the status of Orange County water resources.
A report should be available late in FY 82-83. The
District is also developing a deep observation well network
to better monitor the lower zone. These deep wells will be
important in determining the interrelationship between the
two zones and will provide a monitor network that will
allow assessment of the impact of the large number of users
withdrawing water from the lower zone.

* Area 7 Many problems exist in Brevard and Indian River
Counties where most of the water available from the
Floridan Aquifer is non-potable. Continued urban growth
will require potential shallow aquifer supplies to be well
defined and protected. Heat-pump wells and poorly
constructed short cased wells for example have been
identified as primary causes of contamination of area
aquifer systems. The important shallow aquifer systems are
being recharged by rainfall on inland relict dune-like
features known as ridges such as Atlantic Coastal Ridge
which is one of the more prominent ridges. However, high
chloride irrigation water originating from Floridan wells
and being discharged into major drainage canals that
traverse these ridges are posing a threat to shallow
aquifer supplies. This fiscal year the District is
undertaking a project to better define the physical and
chemical characteristics of surficial aquifer systems; has
been in the process of developing a regional ground water
flow model for this area during FY 81-82 and extending
through FY 82-83; and is cooperating with USGS in an
investigation generally concerning the water resources of


Indian River County which is focusing on identifying the
freshwater-saltwater interface in the County's eastern
shallow water aquifer systems.

Area 8 Uncontrolled flowing artesian wells exist
throughout the District with the greatest number in Brevard
County. The District has inventoried the majority of these
wells and has begun a cooperative project with Brevard
County to plug those wells with the greatest impact on the
resource (Attachment 5). A similar cooperative project
with Indian River County is under discussion.

II. Surface Water Quality

1. Lower St. Johns River (Oklawaha River northward)

Water quality in this basin is good in the southern
reaches, but deteriorates in Duval County due to
extensive influence from urbanization and industrial
discharges. Nutrient and bacteria levels are high in
the Jacksonville area. Growth projected for Flagler,
Clay and St. Johns Counties may have deleterious
effects on portions of the river currently exhibiting
good water quality if point and nonpoint source loads
are not limited. Water quality improvement in Duval
County will continue to be dependent upon limiting
existing point sources and urban runoff.

2. Nassau and St. Marys Rivers

Available data on surface water quality in this basin
is meager, but no existing problems are indicated.
Development pressure due to the expanding Duval County
urbanized area can result in increased nonpoint source
pollutant loads in a presently unspoiled area. Water
quality degradation will occur if the Stormwater
Management, Chapter 17-25 (DER) and proposed
Maintenance and Storage of Surface Water Rule (MSSW),
Chapter 40C-4 of the District are not effectively

3. Coastal Rivers

Extensive urbanization has already occurred in coastal
basins such as the Halifax, Amelia, and Indian Rivers,
resulting in poor water quality. Nutrient and bacteria
levels are high and dissolved oxygen levels are low.
Areas of modest development such as the Matanzas or
Banana River basins exhibit good water quality. Future
development will contribute additional nonpoint source
pollutant loads, while failure to implement 201 plans


will postpone addressing point source problems. Areas
most susceptible to degradation of water quality are
lagoons with limited flushing and Class II waters
significantly influenced by runoff. Enforcement of
Chapter 17-25, Stormwater Management by DER will
mitigate future nonpoint source pollutant loads, but
will not address existing problems.

4. Oklawaha River

Water quality is variable in this basin ranging from
very good in the Palatlakaha and lower Oklawaha Rivers
to very poor in Lake Apopka and its chain of lakes.
Past point source discharges and numerous muck farms
have resulted in hypereutrophic conditions in Lake
Apopka, which are transferred downstream. Inputs from
Silver Springs dilute this high pollutant load, and
water quality in the Oklawaha River before it reaches
the St. Johns is generally good. Intensification of
agricultural and mining in the Palatlakaha river
watershed will degrade water quality. Development
which will affect the quantity and quality of discharge
from Silver Springs will reduce its positive influence
on the Oklawaha River.

5. Upper St. Johns River (from Lake Harney southward)

The area has experienced problems with mineralization,
.sedimentation, aquatic weeds, and low dissolved oxygen
with resultant fish kills. Unregulated intensification
of agricultural land use will exacerbate existing
problems. Continued mineralization and loss of water
storage will jeopardize the potable water supply for
the Melbourne area. Water quality problems, which are
directly related to quantity management should be
mitigated by the marsh land purchase program and Upper
St. Johns Surface Water Management Plan of the
District. Regulatory programs by DER (Chapter 17-25)
and the District (Rule 40C-4) will reduce future
nonpoint source pollutant loads and floodplain
encroachment, but will not directly address existing

6. Middle St. Johns River (Lake Harney to Oklawaha River)

Discharge of urban runoff and sewage effluent from the
Orlando area through the Econlockhatchee River has
resulted in degraded water quality in this basin. High
nutrient levels have led to algal blooms and low
dissolved oxygen levels. Except for the Lakes Monroe
and Jessup area, water quality has not been

186 -

significantly impacted due to the modest amount of
development that has occurred. Water quality
degradation due to future growth may be mitigated by
reduction of point source loads and application of best
management practices to nonpoint source contributors.

In summary, the District's general surface water quality
concerns are:

1. Rate of new and expanded sewage effluent

2. Rate of intensified land uses which produce compound
non-point pollution discharges.

3. Loss of surface flows and therefore loss of
volumetric dilution due to increased withdrawals
for consumptive use, increased evapotranspiration
losses and increased diversions to tidewater and
increased retention on site.

4. Increased use of complex organic chemicals
(herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, nemacides and
industrial chemicals) which are expressed in
surface runoff.

5. Rate of topographic changes due to land development
which change slopes, soil horizons and vegetative
cover resulting in accelerated runoff rates.

6. Increased withdrawals of surface water for cooling,
irrigation, water supply and power generation and
resultant loss of dilution.

Although all of South Florida is prone to degradation
because of its high water table, new institutional mechanisms in
place should protect water quality from significant deterioration
caused by growth. The real problems eminate from the
difficulties various agencies experience in correcting the
quality problems of the past, not in preventing new pollution
from occurring.

However, there is great concern for problems resulting from
human error, including: toxic waste disposal, pesticide misuse,
solid waste "dumps", nonsewered industrial areas in Broward and
Dade counties, petroleum pipeline breaks, etc.

187 '

Question 4: Have seasonal minimum flows and water levels, below
which further withdrawals would significantly harm
the area's ecology or water resources, been
established for all surface and groundwaters in the
District? Can a maximum growth level based on
available water resources in this area be predicted
which preserves these minimum flows and water


We have an ongoing program with the U.S.G.S. to perform low
flow analysis of water courses in the District. In addition,
work has been done toward establishing potentiometric levels in
the coastal area which will avoid the lateral movement of
saltwater into the freshwater aquifers. Pumping rates are
established in several areas to avoid upcoming of poor quality of
water. All of these activities are related to minimum levels and
flows; however, establishing minimum levels and flows as defined
in the law is very difficult. The primary problem is reaching
any agreement as to what is "significantly harmful to the water
resources or ecology of the area". As a part of our consumptive
use regulations, we have developed a management level concept.
The management level is defined as "that potentiometric level or
surface water level below which further declines could cause
water quality degradation or could interfere with other legal
uses of water in the area according to the best hydrologic
information available to the Board". It is our considered
opinion that the description of minimum levels and flows as
contained in Section 373.043 could be amended to better describe
these levels.

We do not believe that minimum water levels is a viable
method of establishing maximum growth levels. The economics of
supplying the water of the required quality and the degradation
of water quality due to excessive growth may very well limit
growth. However, it is very doubtful that any definitive
population level could be established based upon minimum flows


A. In reference to the first portion of the question, the
following programs are underway at this time:

1. A lake level program has established benchmarks for over
160 lakes in the SWFWMD to provide development and
floodwarning guidelines for local use. Some 400 other
lakes within SWFWMD have been identified for study in the
lake level program.


2. For major consumptive use permits, groundwater
"Regulatory Levels" have been established as conditions
of the permit. "Minimum Flow" criteria have been
established on major surface water consumptive use
permits as a means of limiting withdrawals during low
flow periods. The U.S. Geological Survey is currently
conducting a four-year study to define minimum flows for
some major rivers in the SWFWMD.

3. Determining District-wide minimum stream flows and
aquifer levels will be a major program in terms of
complexity and expense.

B. In reference to the second question, local governments
perhaps can set "growth levels" in considering all local
needs and services. The limiting factor regarding water
availability is cost. Desalination programs, while
expensive, could provide almost unlimited water supplies.
Increasing reuse and water conservation programs could
"stretch out" our water supply potential. It is unlikely
that population growth can be controlled by water supply


Seasonal minimum flows and levels have not been established
for any groundwater or surfacewater body in the District to date.
SRWMD is conducting extensive research specifically charged with
defining the effect of flows and levels on area ecology or water
resources. In the interim, SRWMD will adopt a water shortage
rule which will use various historical low flows and low aquifer
levels to trigger various phases of water shortage restrictions.
The concept hinges on detailed monitoring data and on
understanding the hydrologic system that allows SRWMD to safely
assume that, at times when record lows are about to occur or are
occurring, maximum stress is being applied to surfacewater
ecosystems and maximum potential for groundwater degradation
exists. SRWMD feels that until such time as "significant harm"
or "significant detrimental effect" can be quantified, the
application of historical minimum flows and levels is a
responsible approach to water shortage management. Predicting
maximum growth levels based on those historical minimum flows and
levels is not appropriate at this time because the basic research
to define "significant" is not yet complete. Once the level of
acceptable "significant" harm or detrimental effect is
established, then maximum available water resources for use could
be determined.

Using historical minimum flows and levels for triggering
its various phases, SRWMD will adopt a Water Shortage Rule by
October 1983.



Seasonal minimum flows and levels have not been formally
adopted for any ground water or surface water body within the
District. By virtue of the permitting program however,
regulatory-based minimum levels associated with specific
consumptive use permits do exist and others will be forthcoming.
Since 90% of the water used within the District is ground water,
techniques and methodologies for measuring available water are
currently being evaluated. This includes establishing ground
water indices throughout the District based on historical water
level data and regional flow system analysis.

Historical water levels and stream flows have been analyzed
to determine the frequencies of extreme low level or low flow
events. This information, when related to the environmental
effects will enable the District to eventually establish valid
minimum levels and flows as necessary to protect the water

This information will be an intregal part of the District's
water shortage plan. In essence, this will be the mechanism by
which water shortage conditions will be alerted, implemented and
withdrawn. This type of approach is dependent on a sophisticated
ground water monitoring network through the District.


a. Most of the SFWMD system is not a natural one. Levels have
been established for the District's canals, lakes and storage
areas, but those levels are based on flood control criteria
determined during the District's creation (1940's). More
recently, water supply and environmental concerns have led the
District to set new regulation schedules in some areas and to
evaluate the need to set new schedules in other areas. For
example, there is ongoing re-examination of the levels of the
Kissimmee lakes, Lake Okeechobee, Water Conservation Areas, etc.

b. No. Water is not a limiting growth factor in South Florida.
There is water supply available for more people than anyone would
want to support in South Florida. The continually improving
technologies of desalination and reverse osmosis only add to that
potential supply.

This does not mean, however, that the cost of providing
water, as well as supplying other essential services to
accommodate growth, should not be considered in local
governments' planning.


Do local comprehensive plans in this District

adequately reflect the protection of primary
recharge areas and the availability of water
resources in the District?

What means are employed to coordinate land use and
water resource planning with local governments and
regional planning councils in the District?


Most of the local government comprehensive plans are
directed more toward the provision of adequate services (potable
water, sewage treatment, solid waste, drainage) than toward
protection of the resource. However, it would be extremely
difficult to distinguish specific "primary" recharge areas in the
District, because of the magnitude of the areas involved. The
sand-and-gravel aquifer is recharged locally over a three-county
area and the Floridan aquifer is recharged throughout a wide area
that covers a large portion of the northern part of the District
as well as areas in Alabama and Georgia.

Some of the plans in the western portion of the District
recognize the potential for local contamination of the sand-and-
gravel aquifer and the potential for salt water intrusion
resulting from over-pumpage (the Escambia County plan, for
example). The potential for local contamination is also
addressed in some of the plans in sections dealing with solid
waste disposal.

Other than considerations related to contamination and salt
water intrusion, the "availability" of water resources is
addressed, per se, in a minimal fashion -- largely because water
availability, historically, has not been a problem in many areas.
The problems have been related to adequate hardware to withdraw

Some coastal areas have recognized the potential for water
availability problems, but possible remedies were not generally
considered. Okaloosa County, for example, opted to delay
recommendations on the issue until completion of an on-going
study of local ground-water conditions by the District.

By and large, the major consideration of water resources
has been provided through the mechanism of District review and
comment on the draft plans (discussed below).

Coordination of land use and water resource planning with
local governments and regional planning councils is effected
through various means, the most significant of which are
described below.

Question 5:

Review of Comprehensive Plans

The District reviews all such plans in draft form after
submission to DVCA. All water-related issues are addressed in
the comments submitted to DVCA. However, the District is not
routinely furnished copies of the final plan document and, as
such, we are often unaware of the extent to which the comments
are considered.

Memoranda of Agreement with Regional Planning Councils

The District has entered into memoranda of agreement with
the Apalachee Regional Planning Council and the West Florida
Regional Planning Council. The memoranda are directed toward
coordination of planning and other efforts, program review and
review of developments. Also through this vehicle, the District
provides review of DRI's and participates in the A-95 review
process. The District has a representative at all regular
meetings of both planning councils as well as the Apalachicola
River Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee (as a
member) of the ARPC. The memoranda of agreement are attached.

Basin Advisory Committees

The District has five Basin Advisory Committees that
include representatives of all county governments and major
municipalities. The committees meet with the Governing Board
member appointed from the specific basin and the District's
Executive Director and Division Directors twice yearly to
coordinate water management needs and programs.

Policy Advisory Committee

In developing its Water Resource Management Plan, the
District incorporated the advice of a thirty-member Policy
Advisory Committee, composed of representatives of local, county
and state government, the Florida Legislature, chambers of
commerce, major industries in northwest Florida, regional
planning councils, and many local, special interest groups. It
was felt that this provided an approach to District water
resource policy planning that was well coordinated with the needs
and interests of the various agencies, interest groups and
governmental entities of northwest Florida.

Technical Assistance

At the request of any governmental entity in northwest
Florida, the District provides technical water resource planning
assistance. Although occasionally limited by obligations to
other on-going programs and responsibilities, the District makes
every effort to provide the needed planning support and, hence,


coordination between water resource management and other

Regional Water Supply Development Plan

As part of the activities needed to develop a water supply
plan for coastal areas of the five western counties in northwest
Florida, the District established two advisory committees to help
coordinate plan development with other interests. The Program
Advisory Committee is composed of representatives of state and
federal agencies with related operational responsibilities in the
area, the West Florida Regional Planning Council, and a
representative of the Florida Legislature. The Technical
Advisory Committee is composed of representatives of the public
water supply systems throughout the area.


A. In reference to the first question:

1. Most plans contain adequate policy statements.

2. Stated policies are consistent with District goals.

3. Problems encountered include:

a) conformance of action with Local Government
Comprehensive Plans (LGCP) through codes and

1. Lack technical aspects

2. Variances

aa) Politics

bb) Economics

3. LGCP's are amended to match ordinances and codes
as growth conditions change

b) County VS Municipal LGCP

1. Changes to land use affecting protection of one
or the other's water supplies.

2. No consistency between LGCP's relative to RWSA's
and protection of associated lands and potential


c) Lack of data: Local governments do not have data to
support policy statements in LGCP, i.e., protection
of recharge areas, etc. Who is responsible? Burden
of proof on developer?

4. Concensus: LGCP's are a good tool but insufficient time
has passed for analysis of effectiveness. Current trends
noted above in Item 3 tend to indicate that, long range,
plans will become ineffective with such frequent

B. In reference to the second question, the SWFWMD provides the
following to local governments and regional planning

a. floodplain mapping and analysis information;

2. model floodplain management ordinance;

3. review of development related project plans;

4. review of mine reclamation plan;

5. financial and manpower assistance on "joint"
local/District water management projects;

6. review of local ordinances, comprehensive plans and codes
on request;

7. hydrologic data as requested.


All local governments have adopted comprehensive plans.
The plans contain the usual battery of policy statements and maps
that at least address environmental concerns (including water)
and outline a general pattern for future development. However,
with some notable exceptions, land use planning is practiced at a
rudimentary level in the counties and municipalities of the
District. The outlook for plan implementation is not

Most local governments lack a professional planning staff
to assist in plan implementation. It is probably not unfair to
say that a lack of expertise, a lack of public understanding and
support for a planning process, local politics, and economic
pressures will severely limit the use of comprehensive plans as
an effective tool to either direct local growth patterns or
protect water resources.


Local governments do need to address the protection of
recharge areas more specifically in their plans. It is the
responsibility of the SRWMD to assist them in defining primary
recharge areas and to recommend the steps needed toprotect them.
The District has an ongoing program for this purpose.

Except for the highly successful Floodplain Management
Program, the SRWMD has had relatively little planning contacts
with local governments. Most of the contacts have been in
response to some specific request for hydrologic data, the review
of the water needs for development projects, the spraying of
aquatic weeds, and the investigation of local flooding problems.

The District is beginning to develop a closer working
relationship with local governments through the Floodplain
Management Program. Because of this, the District may become
more involved in local planning programs in an advisory role
related to water resources.

The boundaries of the District are almost with those of the
North-Central Florida Regional Planning Council (RPC). The
District participates in DRI reviews performed by the RPC and
responds to specific requests for information. In the past,
there has not been any formal liaison process for coordinating
the planning programs of the District and the RPC. Again,
through the Floodplain Management Program, permanent liaison is
being established withthe Suwannee River Committee of the RPC.
This hopefully will lead to broader planning contact.

The fact that the District is stressing a non-structural
approach to water management will require a very direct interest
and involvement in local and regional land use planning.
Understandably, when this interest becomes apparent, other
government units become concerned and defensive. The process of
becoming involved in local planning will require patience and
gaining the confidence of local government in the District's
water management program.


Local comprehensive plans vary widely in degree of
protection provided the water resource. In many plans only a
brief reference is made to the Floridan Aquifer as the source and
to the need for protection of general recharge areas without any
specific details. At the opposite extreme are the Daytona Beach
and Volusia County plans and those of other coastal cities which
carefully discuss water availability and specific recharge area
protection. Generally if a local government has had historical
problems with water availability or recognized the existence and
importance of a specific recharge area the topic is fairly
adequately discussed in the plan.


A primary problem with local comprehensive plans is that
the local governments apparently seldom consider them in the
decision making process. Because of the lack of professional
staff to support basic hydrologic concepts many approved
developments have impacts on both ground and surface water
systems. Evidence of this can be seen in developments affecting
the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and other minor ridge areas which
provide direct recharge to shallow aquifer systems and where the
Floridan Aquifer is nonpotable. Coordination of available water
resources with development approvals does not generally result
from consideration of comprehensive local plans.

Probably the most effective means of coordinating land use
with water resources has been through the regulatory process.
Additionally, the District has cooperated with East Central
Regional Planning Council in the Upper Palatlakaha Comprehensive
Study and North East Florida Regional Planning Council concerning
development in Duval County.

For coordination of land use and water resource planning,
the District provides several important services for local
governments. By its review of Local Comprehensive Plans, limited
wellfield investigations, and assessment of environmental impacts
caused by developments in sensitive areas, the District makes
known its policies and resource concerns and suggests methods, if
appropriate, to make the local plans compatible with state water
resource policies. Additionally, through cooperative programs
such as the Regional Water Resources Assistance Program (RWRAP)
(Atch 6) in which the District funds or performs local water
related projects that often compliment local land use planning,
that planning can be reconciled with regional water resource

Coordination with regional land use planning agencies,
notably the Regional Planning Councils (RPC's), is predominantly
done through the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process.
In this process the District serves as a consultant to the RPC
providing reviews of the water-related sections. The reviews and
comments can directly affect the other portions of the review
including the land use planning aspects. This differs from the
interaction with local government in that with the RPC the
District can react directly to a specific project proposal that
represents a specific land use change, as opposed to the review
of general land use changes that may occur in the future. While
coordination is generally good and productive, it can be improved
in terms of local government-District interaction.


a. No, because emphasis has been placed on completing the plans
with agency input after-the-fact. In the future, the quality


of the plans will be emphasized and agency input used to
formulate the plans from the outset.

b. The following represents the District's land and water use
coordination efforts:

A-95 projects, rezonings, and local government codes and
ordinances review (ongoing for 6 counties)

-Development of regional impacts review (ongoing with 5
regional planning councils)

Area of Crit-ical State Concern committee participation
(for 3 areas)

-Southwest Broward water resources study (1982)

West Palm Beach pilot program to provide water resources
input prior to the city's updating its comprehensive plan


What difficulties or benefits are encountered in

this District in managing the water resource as a
result of the separation of the quantity and
quality aspects of the resource between the
Department and the District?


Water quantity issues cannot be fully divested from water
quality issues. A number of difficulties do arise as a result of
the separation of water quality and quantity responsibilities
between DER and the Water Management Districts. While the issues
associated with the separation of these responsibilities are less
complex and controversial in northwest Florida, an area with an
overall abundant supply of quality water and which has relatively
few water supply and demand problems, the potential for expanding
management concerns does exist. However, these potential
problems can be easily surmounted through the continuation of the
spirit of communication, coordination and cooperation existing
between the Northwest Florida Water Management District and the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

Recently, the Northwest Florida Water Management District
adopted a set of rules, Chapter 40A-2, F.A.C., to implement a
consumptive water use permit program designed to address
expanding localized water supply and management issues. Inherent
in the issues that the District is trying to address with its
consumptive use program are water quality related concerns for
which the District is limited as to how to confront.
Philosophically, it is the District's contention that any
deleterious quality impact on its water resources is tantamount
to a nonreasonable and nonbeneficial utilization/usage of water.
Since the District is implementing a consumptive use permit
program designed to permit water usage by industrial,
agricultural and other uses, the question should be raised as to
whether or not a water management district should be involved in
the issuance of all permits by DER that could have an impact on
the District's water resources. It is our opinion that an
enhanced coordination role with the DER on matters dealing with
the water quality issue, at a bare minimum, is necessary. A
review and comment process on matters dealing with water quality
issues should prove a minimum, but necessary, level of awareness
of activities impacting the quality of the water resources of the


A. Benefits

1. Perhaps some "balance" is achieved by separate
consideration of quantity/quality issues.


Question 6:

2. Coordination between SWFWMD and the Department has
improved considerably in the last two years.

B. Difficulties

1. Insuring that there is consistency between DER permits
and SWFWMD permits.

2. "Drawing lines" between areas of responsibility (i.e.,
river classifications, landfill activities, water
withdrawal impacts)

3. In assessing potential pollution problems, one must look
at both quality and quantity parameters to understand the
"whole picture".


The District has probably benefitted from a secondary water
quality role. There has been considerable district involvement
in water quality issues, but always in terms commenting on the
issues and making constructive recommendations. The
institutional development of the District has been much less
traumatic than it would have been if responsibility for water
quality had been thrust upon it. Valuable staff experience and
an extensive water resource data base has been developed because
of the ability to specialize in water quantity.

The District does maintain a water quality laboratory
primarily for the purpose of determining natural water quality
characteristics. The laboratory is not equipped to perform
analyses for a wide range of pollutants.

In a real world management situation, it is often the case
that water quality and water quantity problems cannot be
separated. The District must work closely with DER to resolve
these problems. Examples include the review of solid waste
disposal sites and the question of whether salt water or fresh
water should be used for electric power plant colling.

There are suggestions that the SRWMD become more involved
in water quality management by accepting delegations such as the
stormwater rule from DER. As long as a reasonable level of
communication and cooperation can be maintained between DER and
the District, it is not seen to be of any particular advantage to
the District, in terms of the effective management of water
quantity, to encourage delegation of water quality regulatory



Evaluation of water quantity and water quality effects are
essentially inseparable, especially along the coastal zone
because of the sensitive nature of the water resource and the
concentrated demand upon it. The result is not separate
evaluation of quality and quantity but rather a tendency toward
redundant evaluation. In general, the redundancy is minimized
through close cooperation between this District and DER. But the
problem can be made even less difficult by the program to
delegate greater water quality responsibility to the District
which is presently working toward incorporation of the Chapter
17-25 stormwater rule. As a regional agency, the District has
the opportunity to develop specific basin criteria in its
regulatory program. Experience has demonstrated that in many
instances water quality degradation within a basin is directly
related to water quantity. As an agency responsible for
protecting the water resources under Chapter 373, F.S., the
District should not authorize, by permit, unlawful degradation of
water quality. However, the District has been restricted in
addressing water quality due to a perception of duplication with
the Department of Environmental Regulation. Frequently, the
degradation of water being a function of water quantity does not
fall within the criteria established in DER's Chapter 17-3
F.A.C., Water Quality Standards.

The separation of quality and quantity is also troublesome
to regulated interests. In the process of developing a new
management and storage of surface water rule (MSSW), much concern
has been expressed over the requirements of having to comply with
two sets of design criteria. As presently proposed, the
District's criteria is more stringent than DER's, in terms of the
size of detention or retention area required. A concern not yet
resolved is; Does the design criteria required by the District
meet or exceed the objectives of Chapter 17-25 F.A.C.? The
Governing Board directed the staff to begin coordinating with DER
on delegation of Chapter 17-25. It is anticipated that this
delegation will be beneficial to both the regulated interest and
the resource.


Yes, the major difficulties and problems experienced by
this District with other agencies responsible for water
management coordination, and duplication, of water center around
quality efforts.


Governmental Level Agency Example

Federal EPA Declaration of Biscayne as a Sole
Source Aquifer duplicated efforts
by creating an unnecessary
additional layer of governmental

State DER Permitting of existing C&SF
project is a fiscally wasteful
practice from the standpoint of
both agencies.

DER Wastewater reuse criteria and
implementation steps need to be
addressed by state.

DER Solid waste facilities site
selection review needs to be
addressed by state.

201 .

Question 7: What problems have been experienced in the
coordination required between various local,
regional, state and federal entities responsible
for some aspect of water management in this


Water resources and water management are universal
considerations in almost all levels and aspects of government in
Florida. As such, the Northwest Florida Water Management
District has attempted to enhance its coordination with other
levels of government by:

1) Establishing local Government Basin Advisory Committees
for each of the five major river basins in northwest
Florida. On these committees, which meet twice a year,
are representatives of each county commission and each
city government with a population greater than the
least populated county. The District's Governing Board
member, which is appointed from each basin, also sits
on the committee.

The committees provide a direct line of communication
between the city and county governments and the
District to discuss the District's programs and
projects, the technical or program assistance needs of
the local areas, or to discuss state or federal
programs which affect both the local government and the
District. The committees also provide a forum for the
various local governments to communicate with each other
regarding water management issues of mutual concern.

2) Developing and implementing agreements with both of the
Regional Planning Councils in northwest Florida. These
agreements identify areas of mutual concern and provide
for input, review, and coordination with each others

3) Consumating an agreement with the Department of
Environmental Regulation to eliminate duplicative
regulatory permitting and spelling out the nature and
extent of each organization's involvement with the
other's regulatory program. For example, the
Department issues permits on behalf of the District for
dam construction and artificial recharge while the
District conducts the site inspection for public supply
wells for the Department.

4) The District publishes an Annual Report, an Annual Work
Program, a Quarterly Newsletter, and weekly news clips


all water resources related articles in district
newspapers, to enhance communications with those on the
District's mailing lists. For example, all northwest
Florida legislators, state agency heads and key staff
members, and other individuals who have requested,
received weekly news clips from all District newspapers
and various other papers with articles related to water
management or issues in northwest Florida.

5) In addition to those above, the District:

a) is under contract to the Department of Natural
Resources for aquatic plant control,

b) is discussing land management assistance with the
Game Commission for properties purchased under
"Save our Rivers",

c) serves on the technical review of the Apalachicola
Regional Planning Council,

d) has established program and technical advisory
committees for regional water supply planning in
the coastal areas,

e) provides systematic review and comment for other
agencies as shown on the attached quarterly report
on review and comment,

f) reviews and evaluates rules of other agencies,
D.R.I.s, local government comprehensive plans, and

g) initiated and maintained the annual meeting of the
District which has now grown into Florida's Annual
Conference on Water Management with all districts

In answer to question #7 it can be said there is no problem
in the coordination with other agencies in northwest Florida.
There is, however, a problem with the depth and extent of
coordination which can be accomplished by the District's limited


A. Floodplain management coordination problems

1. Local Government does not, in general, seek to control
development in floodplain areas


2. Federal insurance program provides inaccurate floodplain
maps and to some degree encourages floodplain
developments through insurance program

B. Water Supply Planning

1. Poor growth management in some areas; some local
governments fail to correlate future water supply needs
with development activities.

2. The DRI process could perhaps use "more teeth".

C. Agency Boundaries

1. Many problems could be minimized by establishing "common"
boundaries for water management districts, DER sub-
districts and, where possible, regional water supply

2. Need continued improvement in coordination between water
management districts on "boundary" problems such as flood
control, water shortage and permitting activities (this
effort has improved in the last two years).

D. All agencies could improve communications through periodic
meetings, exchange of organizational changes, and improved
definition of responsibility.


The level of coordination between local government and the
regional planning council has been addressed in Question Number

The District must closely cooperate with DER. Generally
speaking, once contact is established, cooperation in solving
problems is good. The District has, however, experienced some
difficulty in establishing firm lines of communication with the
DER district offices in relation to the Tallahassee headquarters.
There is some confusion as to whether Tallahassee DER or the
district DER office is the lead contact unit on various problems.
Some clarification from DER on the supervisory and clearinghouse
role of Tallahassee headquarters, vis-a-vis the DER district
offices, would be helpful.

The District shares a common border with the state of
Georgia. What Georgia does or doesn't do in managing water
quantity and water quality will have a direct impact on the
District. In essence, the SRWMD is downgradient of groundwater
and surfacewater movement from Georgia. There exists some


contact with Georgia officials, but more frequent contact would
be beneficial.


In general, coordination between various levels of
government is adequate. However, due to increasing demands on
the resource, closer and more frequent consultation and planning
will be mandatory in the immediate future.

There is frequently little coordination during the planning
phase of local projects between the local government and the
District. Some assistance is generally requested when specific
water resource problems are known but as a general rule the
District is not routinely involved in local projects during the
planning and implementation phases unless the project trips the
District's own rule thresholds.

In more cases coordination that occurs has been excellent
and of benefit to all agencies involved. Adequate communications
are provided for the DRI process, co-sponsorship of federally-
funded projects, co-permitting with DER, and delegation of
permitting authority to local governments.


This was addressed in Question 6.


Question 8: What means are employed to monitor the withdrawal
of major water users in this District and to ensure
that holders of consumptive use permits are
complying with their allocated withdrawals? How
extensive are efforts in this District to monitor
ground-water quality in terms of frequency,
locations, types of contaminants tested, and the
development of an adequate data base?


a. The Northwest Florida Water Management District has a
number of mechanisms available to monitor compliance
with permitted water withdrawals. A number of
conditions are stipulated in each permit issued for the
purpose of monitoring and enhancing compliance with
authorized permit withdrawals and other permit

Each permit issued by the District stipulates a set of
standard conditions designed to provide specific
monitoring information to facilitate the work of the
District's enforcement personnel. These conditions
allow the District's enforcement personnel, at all
reasonable times and upon proper identification, to
enter, observe and inspect all permit facilities to
determine compliance with all permit conditions and
specifications. To facilitate the District's
enforcement efforts, a permitted may also be required
to install totalizing flow meters at identified
withdrawal points, the reporting of withdrawal amounts
in an established frequency and format, the
construction of monitoring wells, etc.

While the District has the authority and has developed
the capabilities to monitor and enforce authorized
water withdrawals and other permit conditions, the
District is seriously handicapped by its financial
resources. Presently, the District has a staff of four
inspectors whose main responsibility, until the
adoption of the District's consumptive permit
authorities, has been to enforce the requirements of
Chapter 40A-3, F.A.C., Regulation of Wells.

The same personnel are now also required to enforce the
District's consumptive use program in an area
encompassing 16 counties and over 11,034 square miles.

b. The Northwest Florida Water Management District has
played a limited role in the monitoring of ground-water
quality. The District does not have laboratory


capabilities. The only continuous and systematic water
quality monitoring undertaken by the District consists
of a bimonthly chloride sampling program from twenty
wells throughout the District's coastal area; this
program is a joint venture with the U.S.G.S.

As part of the District's research, over one hundred
wells have been tested for a number of water quality
parameters such as Fl, Cl, S04, S102, N02, OPO4-P, NH3,
Ca, Mg, Fe, Ph, etc. These studies have been conducted
randomly and for the purpose of expanding the
District's data base and for background data on water
quality information.

While the District's financial resources limit its
capability to conduct an extensive and systematic water
quality monitoring effort with additional funding or
under contract, the District could be in an ideal
position to undertake an areawide systematic water
quality program. Additionally, as a result of its
consumptive use permit responsibilities, the District
would be in a position to collect water quality data on
a systematic and areawide basis.

Funding the Northwest Florida Water Management District
to develop a systematic and adequate water quality data
base would be complementary to the other
responsibilities of the District. It also would
enhance the efficiency of the District's and the DER's
efforts by reducing any duplicative capabilities in
personnel and facilities.

Presently, whenever the District identifies water
quality issues or whenever a local government expresses
water quality concerns, these issues and concerns are
referred to the DER by the District; an example of this
arrangement was the "Sapp Battery" water pollution case
in Jackson County. The Sapp Battery case was initially
found by the District and referred to the DER for
action. The coordination efforts undertaken by the
District on water quality related issues-have proven
successful in the past.


A. Major industrial and municipal water users are required by
permit to install totalizing flow meter which are subject to
inspection. Reporting frequency for major wellfields is
daily by telephone with monitoring summary reports also
required. Field inspections are normally conducted upon
application for renewal of permits or as a follow-up to


unusual pumpage response or complaints. Many major
wellfields have each individual well metered with total
wellfield outflow also metered.

B. In this area, chloride levels are the major water quality
information collected by the water management district. The
frequency varies according to the potential for saltwater
intrusion at a given location. Much of the data is collected
and analyzed in cooperation with the U.S.G.S. The frequency
of data collection varies from weekly to monthly with a few
remote stations being sampled only semi-annually.

C. While the "data base" continues to increase, analytical
processing has been minimal in past due to computer
limitations. Recently our Governing Board has approved
purchase of updated computer equipment which should greatly
improve this processing.

D. The Governing Board and requesting agencies are provided with
a monthly hydrologic conditions report reviewing rainfall
activity, aquifer levels and surface water flows and levels.


In 1977-78 SRWMD pioneered development of an agricultural
water use inventory program which has been adopted on a
nationwide scale by the USGS. Since that time SRWMD has expanded
its water use inventory efforts to include all types of water
uses--industrial, commercial, public supply, rural domestic, and
power generation.

From the very beginning SRWMD approached the problem of
quantifying water use as a research and monitoring program, not a
regulatory enforcement program. SRWMD--at its expense with
voluntary cooperation of water users--has performed an annual
water use inventory since 1977. SRWMD has just implemented Ch.
40B-2, "Permitting of Water Use" on October 1, 1982, and has
considered switching our existing water use inventory into a
regulatory enforcement program. After due consideration, a
decision was made to maintain the water use inventory as a
District financed research and monitoring program. The
discussion was based in large part because of the quality of the
SRWMD water use data which is directly attributable to excellent
voluntary cooperation of water users. Also of primary concern
was the cost of a regulatory enforcement program compared with
the total water use inventory program cost of approximately
$39,700 per year. The current SRWMD inventory monitors the
actual withdrawals of approximately 30% of all users accounting
for 90% of total districtwide water use. Monitoring equipment is
generally district owned, serviced, and operated with the
exception of municipal and industrial users who prefer their own


hardware for more specific monitoring. In short SRWMD feels
confident that it has the highest quality water use data
available in Florida at the lowest cost.

SRWMD has maintained a water chemistry laboratory since
1975 which has been primarily dedicated to quantifying the native
or background water quality of area ground waters. SRWMD has not
developed the capability to monitor or analyze for contaminants
or pollutants as this type of data falls outside the area of
water management district responsibility and within the purview
of Department of Environmental Regulation. In its effort to
quantify background groundwater chemistry, SRWMD has collected
and analyzed over 2000 water quality samples from the Floridan
Aquifer at an approximate grid spacing of one sample per 8-10
square miles. In addition to that regional effort, SRWMD has
maintained a monitor network of 40-50 wells which were monitored
quarterly through 1981 and annually beginning in 1982. In 1982
SRWMD initiated a second monitoring network of approximately 30
wells on the coast and along the Suwannee River corridor which
will be monitored 4 to 6 times per year. This last effort is
being made in an attempt to detect any possible salinity
intrusion or high sulfate upcoming during drought periods.


The District will implement a new District-wide consumptive
use permitting rule, Chapter 40C-2, F.A.C. on January 1, 1983.
This will require major water users to periodically report
withdrawals to the District. Because of the large number of
small, dispersed agricultural withdrawals the District will use a
sampling technique, Benchmark Farms, to measure agricultural
water use.

The Benchmark Farms program will be established with the
cooperation of IFAS, county extension agents, and farmers
organizations.Water use at selected farms will be measured and a
statistical analysis made to estimate total agricultural use. In
sensitive areas, the District may require withdrawal reporting by
any permitted agricultural users.

Relative to monitoring, the District cooperates with USGS
to monitor District-wide 20. surface water bodies for quality, 38
lake gaging stations, 60 wells for continuous to bi-monthly
measurements, and 190 surface water course gaging stations.
Approximately 100 wells are monitored monthly for water levels,
100 wells for bi-monthly quality samples, and approximately 600
wells District-wide for potentiometric surface measurements in
conjunction with the USGS monitoring effort. The District also
monitors 130 wells semi-annually for water quality and water
levels, 25 lake stations, 20 rainfall stations, 15 surface water
gaging stations, 60 surface water quality stations and has its


own reasonably equipped laboratory facility to analyze certain
water quality parameters.


a. As part of our water use permitting program, a special
condition is usually added to the permit requiring that the
permitted monitor and report the withdrawals to the district.
In addition the districts field representatives are available
to make on-site inspections should a particular situation
warrant that type of action.

During times of declared water shortages, we enact a much
stricter reporting system to assure that the resource is not
being adversely affected.

b. Our water quality monitoring program can be divided into the
following two areas:

Heavy metals and nutrients are routinely monitored by the
district and analyzed in its water chemistry laboratory
facility. Pesticides and herbicides are monitored as
needed, and are sent for analysis to outside

2. Groundwater basic program

The groundwater monitoring program accounts for some 99%
of all constituents most frequently found in groundwater.
Pesticides and heavy metals, however, are not part of the
program. Unfortunately, funding for DER has been
inadequate for it to effectively take charge of
monitoring elements not tested by us. Specifically,
point-source pollution impacts on groundwater should be a
major priority for the state.

A major groundwater contaminant in South Florida is salt
water. Consequently, we administer several programs to
improve fresh water resources. These include well
abandonment programs and salt water intrusion monitoring
(SWIM) programs, conducted by water use permittees whose
wells are threatened by salt water intrusion.


Question 9: Is the present method of funding the Department and
districts through a combination of Federal grants,
State Revenues, and ad valorem taxes a satisfactory
way to finance water management activities in this
District? Are the current levels of such funding
roughly adequate for the Department and districts
to meet their responsibilities?

In terms of funding the Northwest Florida Water Management
District, the concept of federal grants, state revenues, and ad
valorem taxes is a satisfactory way to finance the District's
activities; however, the level of those revenues is
unsatisfactory. Moreover, the degree of this unsatisfaction is
increasing as more and more responsibilities and duties are
assigned to the Water Management District without a corresponding
increase in funds. At some point in the near future, both the
Northwest and Suwannee Districts are going to need a substantial
increase in State General Revenue Funds or an alternative source
of funding.

The funding problems of the Northwest Florida District and
also Suwannee can more easily be seen from an analysis of the
funding history in each of the above identified categories.

Federal Grants

In the relatively brief history of the Northwest Florida
Water Management District, the District has received some 2.7
million dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Economic Development Administration, the U.S. Water Resources
Council, the Army Corp of Engineers, etc., for various programs
and projects such as: the Lake Jackson Project, Industrial Water
Availability, Water Availability in Southern Okaloosa and Walton
Counties, Regional Water Supply Development Plan, the Northwest
Florida Urban Study, and even a construction grant for the
District's headquarters facility in Gadsden County, (see attached
list of Federally funded programs).

Owing to the change in philosophy by the current
administration in Washington, all grant programs under which this
District has received funds have been eliminated. Additionally,
to the District's knowledge, there are no existing federal
programs which could provide revenues for water management
programs to the District.

State Revenues

In fiscal year 1974-75, the Northwest Florida Water
Management District was appropriated $500,000 for operations by
the Florida Legislature. All subsequent appropriations, either


increases or decreases, have been based on a percentage of the
previous year's appropriation and never on need.

In the supporting documentation which is attached to this
response to the Task Force's question, it is interesting to note

1) the level of State General Revenues to all five water
management districts has decreased from $7,163,400 in
FY 1976 to $1,942,937 in FY 1981;

2) funding of State General Revenues to the Districts for
operations was higher in FY 1975 than it was in FY

3) only 21 percent of the Northwest District's budget in
FY 1982 came from General Revenues; and

4) if the Northwest District would receive no increases in
its General Revenue appropriations in the upcoming
session of the legislature, one-third of the District
staff would have to be laid off.

To maintain its current programs and to accommodate recent
Legislative mandates, the Northwest Florida District will need a
substantial increase in its General Revenue appropriation in the
next session of Legislature. To achieve this end, the District
has requested and the Department of Environmental Regulation has
recommended an increase in General Revenues to approximately
$1,737,000.00 for the next fiscal year. This, however, does not
include any of the special projects the District would like to
undertake and are attached in the supporting documentation.

Ad Valorem Taxes

Based on the experiences of the South and Southwest Florida
Water Management Districts and the need to provide necessary
revenues to the three newly created water management districts,
the voters of the State of Florida in March of 1976 ratified a
constitutional amendment to enable all five of Florida's water
management districts to assess ad valorem taxes. The wording of
the amendment, however, provided one mill taxing capability for
four of the Districts, but limited the Northwest District to one-
twentieth of one mill (.05 mill), or some five percent of the
taxing capability given the other districts.

With the advent of the Constitutional Revision Commission
in 1978, the Northwest Florida Water Management District
Governing Board passed a resolution requesting the Commission to
propose the removal of the District's millage cap to the voters
of the state. Not only did the millage cap removal fail on an 18


to 17 vote in the Commission, but all of the proposed
constitutional amendments met defeat by the voters of the state.
Consequently the Northwest Florida Water Management District is
still capped in the State Constitution and in Chapter 373,
Florida Statutes, at one-twentieth of one mill. This millage has
been levied in full each year by the Northwest Florida Water
Management District and provides about $520,000 annually.

It may be of interest to the Task Force that for an
entirely different reason the ad valorem tax revenues are also a
problem for the Suwannee River District. Suwannee's problem is
that they are limited by a low overall property assessment. The
overall assessment in the Suwannee District is approximately two
billion dollars. When comparing this to the Northwest District
which is approximately 10 billion, Suwannee has to assess five
times the millage to generate the same revenues as Northwest does
with .05 mill. This situation becomes an even greater disparity
when comparing the potential revenues of each of the water
management districts.


Ad Valorem Capabilities of

Florida's Water Management Districts

Approximate Millage Cap Maximum Annual

District Assessment Constitution Chapter 373 Revenues

Suwannee 2 billion 1 mill .75 mill $ 1.5 million

Northwest 10 billion .05 mill .05 mill $ .5 million

St. Johns 40 billion 1 mill .375 mill $15.0 million

Southwest 50 billion 1 mill 1 mill $50.0 million

South Fl. 100 billion 1 mill .8 mill $80.0 million

In summary, the present sources of revenue, under their
existing conditions, are not adequate to provide funds for the
optimum operating capabilities of the Northwest Florida Water
Management District. If both the Northwest and the Suwannee
Districts are going to accomplish the requirements of the Water
Resources Act of 1972, and assuming no changes in the federal
financial situation or a change to the Florida Constitution, both
are going to have to have a substantial increase in State General
Revenues or an alternative source of funding.


A. SWFWMD's current Board policy is to maximize the use of
authorized ad valorem taxing and minimize other state
revenues for the operating budget. Programs such as "Save
Our Rivers" and Cooperative Programs with the Army Corps of
Engineers, IFAS and local governments are certainly desirable
in accomplishing specific water management goals and


The levying of ad valorem taxes is often seen as the major
funding mechanism that will allow the wmd's to fully implement
the provisions of Chapter 373 and to accept other
responsibilities that may not have been originally considered to
be within the role of water management districts. This notion
appears to hold up rather well if there is a large tax base on
which to levy. This is not the case in the SRWMD.

The SRWMD has a tax base of approximately two billion
dollars. The tax bases of the other wmd's range from 11 billion
to 118 billion dollars.


Excluding funds for land acquisition and non-discretionary
grants and miscellaneous income, the District receives 53% of its
budget from the General Revenue Fund. If funding from general
revenue diminished or ceased--a real possibility--the District
would have to depend on its own resources for revenue and the
reality of a low tax base could create financial difficulties.

The full constitutionally authorized levy of one mill would
raise approximately two million dollars on the FY 1982-83 tax
base. Over the past three years the tax base has climbed from
$2,114,000,000 to $2,260,000,000--an increase of only 6%.

The District ad valorem tax base is not expected to rise
dramatically in the foreseeable future. Yet, the District will
need to move to fully implement Chapter 373. In addition, there
will be pressure to accept future delegations of regulatory
authority. In short, the future scenario could be one of static
or decreasing funding and increasing responsibility.

Because of recognized regional differences in geography,
water resources, and socio-economic characteristics, there are
five water management districts in Florida. It seems appropriate
that a funding system or formula be devised that recognizes the
different financial situations of the districts.


The present financing of District activities through ad
valorem taxes and Save Our Rivers funding for land acquisition
will be adequate if two events occur:

1. the federal government through the Corps of Engineers
gets involved in the land acquisition needed for the
USJRB Project in the near future; and

2. the State's originally-projected level of funding under
Save Our Rivers is met on schedule through the
documentary stamp tax, WRDA funds, or other methods.

The current economic downturn has slowed Save Our Rivers
funding sothat land acquisition for the District's USJRB Project
is being unacceptably delayed, resulting in possible major
increases in total acquisition costs and irreversible damage to
the river system. For these reasons the District has requested
by resolution (see Attachment 7) that the Legislature increase
the level of funding derived from Save Our Rivers.

Probably the greatest single problem is increased
delegation of responsibilities by the Legislature without a
correspondingly increased funding ability. Senate Bill 647 of
the last session, enacted as Chapter 82-101, Laws of Florida, is


a good example of this. Although numerous additional
responsibilities were placed on WMD (generally at the request of
one or more districts) the financial impact can probably be
absorbed in present millage limits by most of the districts. But
undoubtedly in the future this will become an increasing problem.

In our Oklawaha River Basin the Legislature has directed
this District to take over the operation and maintenance of
existing water control structures owned by a local water
authority. These structures will probably require repairs,
modifications, and perfection of the necessary rights of ingress
and egress; this requirement is in a basin in which the proposed
budget is already near the existing statutory millage limit.

With decreased federal funding of state environmental
programs such as waste treatment and water quality management the
WMD can probably expect to have more of these regulatory programs
delegated to them, to be primarily funded by ad valorem sources.
This funding capability undoubtedly will be the primary
limitation on the delegation of additional responsibilities that
any WMD can eventually assume.

Placing greater responsibilities upon the WMDs that could
arguably be called state responsibilities could place the ad
valorem taxing authority of the Districts in jeopardy. The
single largest obstruction to resolving this delimma is the
inadequate and disparate taxing limit placed upon the NWFWMD. It
is a WMD which must have state funding to carry out its statutory
duties due to a constitutional tax cap of 0.05 mill, while other
WMDs which have up to 1.0 mill are expected to function with less
and less state funding. With a constitutional prohibition
against the use of ad valorem taxes to support state programs, it
is becoming increasingly difficult to rationalize supporting WMD
responsibilities, which are defined by statute, with ad valorem
taxes for four WMDs, while another District must depend upon
state funding to support the same program. Clearly, as long as
the NWFWMD continues to be constitutionally limited to 0.5 mill,
the Legislature will not be able to provide unequivocal
resolution to the problem and the entire concept of water
management, which is important to the State's economic future, is
being dangerously threatened.


a. Yes, in theory. However, this District has never received
federal grants and hasn't received state revenues since 1979.

b. No. The DER does not receive enough revenue from federal
grants or the state to carry out the mammoth water quality
needs of the state. In addition, the South Florida District,
after initiating a surface water management program in 1974,


has taken on the delegation for stormwater and will soon be
delegated groundwater quality to be incorporated into the
stormwater program. These additional responsibilities have
been accomplished solely with ad valorem taxes, with no
fiscal help from the state.

Likewise, several projects to provide water and/or other
state-wide benefits for millions of Florida residents are
being funded locally.

An even greater concern is that several restoration projects
are being considered with no funding mechanism determined.
For example, on the horizon are such programs as: The'
Kissimmee River restoration, Loxahatchee River, Golden Gates
(and other old land sales operations), Shark River Slough,
East Everglades, Kissimmee Lakes, etc.


Question 10. What administrative or legislative actions are
needed to address water management issues in this


When addressing this question, both the author and reader
should keep in mind that the State of Florida probably has the
best water management laws and programs in the nation. It is the
feeling of the Northwest Florida Water Management District that
any changes to existing laws and/or programs should be considered
as "fine-tuning" and that wholesale changes or reorganizations
would be counterproductive to the increasing needs of this state
for water management.

Given the above, there are a few administrative or
legislative actions which could enhance the programs of the
Northwest Florida Water Management District.

These are:

1) Remove the matching requirement for funds under the
"Save Our Rivers" program by the water management

2) Enable the water management districts to become
regional water supply authorities upon determination
of the Governing Board to do so.

3) Investigate alternative sources of funding for the
Northwest and Suwannee Districts.

4) Fine-tune and slightly reorganize Part III of Chapter
373, Florida Statutes, which deals with the regulation
of wells.

5) Allow the water management districts to issue a
general permit by rule for consumptive uses of water
in their respective districts which do not meet the
thresholds for water use that the Governing Board
feels are necessary to require a standard permit.

6) Permit processing fees are currently prohibited under
Part I of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. As such,
artificial recharge permit applicants cannot be
charged a processing fee.

7) Allow the water management districts or local
governments, with which the districts might want to
contract, the capability to charge a management fee


to the public to utilize lands purchased under "Save
our Rivers".

8) Consider appropriate amendments which would allow the
Governing Boards to directly fine parties for
violation of the terms and conditions of their various

9) Eliminate the costs of advertising in the Florida
Administrative Weekly for those advertisements
required by law.

10) Establish a Florida Natural Resources Education
Program (including water management) in the curriculum
of Florida's public schools.


A. Encourage floodplain zoning.

B. Encourage municipal water rate structures that encourage
water conservation.

C. Review of "term" bill to minimize unnecessary "red tape".

D. Establish central data management system for state activities
involving water and land management.

E. Include water conservation education in the public school

F. Encourage research into and potential use of "grey" water and
treated wastewater in agricultural and industrial processes.

G. Improve definition of local government's responsibility in
managing growth and protecting water storage areas and


A major effort needs to be made to inform citizens that
water management is critical to Florida. The public needs to
understand how water quality problems, increasing water use,
drought, and flooding will impact the state and individual

Recommendation: The Legislature should require that a
water resources unit be taught in public



Changes in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, by the 1982
legislature took care of many of the concerns St. Johns had as
well as provided additional clarification of our role in
management of water resources.


Legislative action could benefit the SFWMD in the following

In order to make the best use of Save Our Rivers money,
emninent domain authority is needed by this district.

To assure a comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring
program is effected, this district supports DER in its budget

A comprehensive solid waste treatment and disposal
legislative package is needed to provide for appropriate
planning of facilities.

S Some degree of enforcement authority during a water shortage
declaration would be useful.

Revision to the Administrative Procedures Act to allow the
real intent of the act to be accomplished, with semantics or
unnecessary red tape should be addressed by the legislature.

220 .

Question 11: What are your most serious concerns regarding water
management in this District?


In general terms and with no respect to priority, the
following are some of the present concerns of the Northwest
Florida Water Management District.

1) Rapid and unpresented urban growth in the coastal
areas of Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, and
Bay counties, and its resulting demand on the local
water resources and the local utility infrastructure.

2) Additional revenues are necessary to at least
maintain, if not accelerate, the District's programs.
With the increasing national demand, it is becoming
harder to employ and even harder to keep good
hydrologists, hydrogeologists, engineers, and
environmental scientists. Adequate revenues are
essential to maintain scientifically competent staffs
and their needed equipment in the water management

3) It has been said that southern Florida is northwestern
Florida's "crystal ball". If this statement holds any
validity, then it is only a matter of time before the
growth pressures presently exhibited in the southern
portion of our state are imposed on northwest Florida.
The Northwest Florida District does have one advantage
not afforded to the southern Florida water managers in
the early years -- it has time to plan. To this end,
the Northwest Florida District has initiated a program
to conduct individual hydrological assessments and to
develop individual management strategies for each of
the District's five major basins. This so-called
Basin Planning program is designed to evaluate the
basins hydrologic setting and then to address the
area's management needs through: regulations, land
acquisition, works of the District, technical
assistance, model local government ordinances,
additional data collection and monitoring, or in-depth
local areal investigations. The program, started by
the District in 1977, has only seen the completion of
one small sub-basin. If this planning is to be
completed in time to have a positive influence of
water resource developments and the programs by the
District, it will have to be accelerated greatly
beyond its present level. To do this will require
additional revenues for staff, the U.S. Geological
Survey, computer time, and field and lab equipment.


11 1

4) In northwest Florida approximately 80 percent of the
water flows into the state from Alabama and Georgia.
Although a few meetings have been held between the
three states, there is no formal mechanism to discuss
water management issues of mutual concern.

5) Drainage wells located throughout northwest Florida
pose a potentially serious problem to the water
resources of the District. Considerably more time and
effort needs to be expanded by this District and the
Department of Environmental Regulation to locate,
evaluate, and control drainage wells.

6) The application of pesticides, herbicides, and
fertilizers through irrigation systems pose a
considerable hazard to the District's groundwaters if
the irrigation equipment were to fail and was not
designed to prevent back flows.

7) In northwest Florida, as in other areas of our state,
the proliferation of groundwater heat pumps could
result in damage to the groundwater resources. The
utilization of potable waters for heating and cooling
and, in some cases, the reintroduction of waters back
into the aquifers could result in locally serious

8) The entire area of Escambia County, and especially
southern Escambia County, has a geology and
groundwater situation different from the rest of the
District. In Escambia County the Floridan aquifer is
salty and all potable waters are taken from the sand-
and-gravel aquifer which is recharged by local
rainfall. Given this situation, local reductions in
recharge areas and the greater possibility of
groundwater pollution from surface activities makes
Escambia County, which holds one-third of the
District's population, a prime candidate for future
groundwater quantity and quality problems.

9) Another concern in this District, although not as
evident now as in prior years, is the sorting out of
water management responsibilities between local,
regional, state, and federal governments. The
question of which is county responsibility and what is
District responsibility is not always crystal clear.

10) Lastly, the programs of the Northwest Florida District
have been as influenced by the availability of funds
than by the actual water resource management needs in
the District. The District is completing a management


plan for Choctawhatchee Bay and constructing the Lake
Jackson Project because funds were available, but is
not making much headway on the establishment of
minimum flows and levels and completing our basin
plans because of a lack of the financial resources
needed to accomplish those tasks.


A. Need for improvement in the areas of local government
planning for future growth.

B. Defining "acceptable" impacts resulting from water

C. Defining minimum aquifer levels and stream flows.

D. Deterioration of water quality.

E. Resolving conflicts between the different water users
(agriculture/municipal/industrial and interior vs. coastal).


SRWMD has not encountered any particular difficulty with
hazardous waste disposal sites. SRWMD does not anticipate any
particular difficulties in the future because of the current
level of regulation of such sites and SRWMD-DER cooperative site
review procedures currently in place.


Primary concerns of the District are:

1. USJRB Project implementation and related land acquisition

2. Adoption of effective rules, especially MSSW, to meet
Chapter 373 responsibilities.

3. Saltwater intrusion

4. Depletion of ground water storage

5. Large concentrations of water-to-air heat pumps in Brevard

6. Long range basin management planning

7. Wetlands preservation recharge, water quality, etc.



8. Development and maintenance of an adequate data base
reference system that allows timely coverage and
understanding of the water resource.

9. Intergovernmental relations and coordination, especially
with local governments.

10. Interdistrict and intercounty transport issues.


Yes; there is the potential for hazardous waste problems
from existing disposal sites in all highly urbanized areas of
south Florida because of its high water table.



Question 12: What are your most serious concerns regarding water
management in this district?


No response.


No response.


1. The implementation of an effective non-structural
management program that will prevent flood damages and will
provide sufficient water for future demands.

2. The need to develop minimum flows and levels for
surfacewaters and groundwaters in the District which can be used
in water use permitting and water shortage programs.

3. The need to closely coordinate land and water use

4. The potential attempts to transfer water from the

5. The prevention of water quality degradation.


No response.


Water quality: there is no overall entity administering
water quality at the regional level. This includes the upfront
planning and feasibility needed to determine all aspects of water
quality monitoring, sewage treatment and disposal, public water
supply, and solid waste.

Environment: the increasing pressures to manage various
portions of the water management system (Lake Okeechobee, Water
Conservation Areas, Kissimmee Lakes, etc.) for a specific goal,
species or climatic event cause this District some concern. The
multi-purpose responsibilities inherent in the Project are not
apparent to all public interests, yet they must be weighed by the
Board in its short and long-range decision making.

Land acquisition: although the Save Our Rivers program
provides monies for acquiring water management lands, the need to


purchase lands expeditiously is greater than the state's ability
to provide funds. This District is in the process of trying to
validate $25 million in bond anticipation notes. The circuit
court decision has yet to be rendered. If it is found that the
District does not have the legal authority to issue bonds, then a
remedy through the legislature will undoubtedly be pursued.

Funding: this District's tax base is adequate for the
majority of the responsibilities we are called upon to implement.
However, as mentioned in question 9b., several environmental
restoration programs are pending which will need to be funded
through some mechanism other than ad valorem taxes.


Question 13: What approach is your district taking to the
management of flooding problems?

No response.

No response.

The Suwannee River Water Management District has adopted a
policy of non-structural floodplain management. This policy
reflects both the relatively pristine, undeveloped nature of the
District and a fiscally conservative governing board. Non-
structural does not mean passive; research, public education, and
local regulation are actively pursued as a means to protect water
resources and lives in floodprone areas.

Major areas of focus and concern are the floodplain of the
Suwannee River and its tributaries. These areas have come under
increasing development pressure, threatening the greatest natural
asset in the District. Governor Graham recognized the importance
of the Suwannee when he established the Suwannee River Resource
Management and Planning Committee (SRRPMC) in 1980. The
Committee was empowered to develop a management plan for the

It was noted immediately that uncontrolled development in
the floodplain was the greatest threat to the Suwannee. After
one and one-half years of study, an ordinance was developed by
committee staff to limit the adverse impact of development on the
river system. The model ordinance is unique in that it is a
local ordinance adopted by 11 separate county governments all
looking to the District for the necessary technical expertise to
implement the ordinance. Technical assistance ranges from giving
out flood elevation data, reviewing permits, and subdivision
plats to accompanying building officials for onsite inspections.
The District's technical assistance program insures a uniformly
implemented ordinance that does not require the individual
counties to hire highly trained experts to implement the

Non-structural management depends on the best possible data
in order to regulate and educate to avoid future problems. The
District has embarked on an ambitious program to map and model
the Suwannee and its major tributaries.

Products include 1:400 scale orthophotography with two-foot
elevation contours, planimetric data, river channel cross
sections, and benchmark elevation monuments. The planimetric and
elevation data has been converted to digital data and can be


A -*

accessed by staff for mapping and modeling purposes on in-house
computer facilities. The data provide important information to
consumers contemplating land purchases in the floodplain and aid
in the implementation activities of state and local agencies.

The Suwannee mapping and modeling project and the
floodplain ordinances adopted by the 11 counties are the corner
stone of the District floodplain management program. Experience
gained in implementation of the ordinances will be a valuable
guide in our efforts to manage flooding in other areas. As
funding permits, the District intends to extend its mapping
project to other rivers and developing floodprone areas.

The model ordinances do an excellent job of protecting the
floodway of the rivers, but problems still exist with the
question of sanitary waste disposal in the floodplain. Existing
HRS rules regulating septic tank installation do not specially
address riverline flooding. It is felt that, with increasing
densities, septic tank pollution could become a major water
quality problem in floodprone areas. The issue of septic tanks
was a major concern of the Governor's Committee and one that will
need to be monitored closely.

Wetland protection should be enhanced through the
District's flood management program. DER has authority to
protect the wetlands but, due to manpower limitations, cannot
always adequately monitor them. Since the passage of the
ordinance, the counties, Department of Community Affairs (DCA),
SRWMD, and other agencies are better informed about activities in
the wetlands. With better information at their disposal and
heightened cooperation between agencies, DER should be able to
enhance its monitoring and enforcement activities.

The future success of non-structural control of flooding
depends on continued funding of mapping and modeling efforts, and
an increasing emphasis on the education of local policy makers
and the general public.


No response.


No response.


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