Title: Outline-Basis of Review for Public Water Systems Water Use Applications - Draft
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004231/00001
 Material Information
Title: Outline-Basis of Review for Public Water Systems Water Use Applications - Draft
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Dept. of Environmental Regulation
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Outline-Basis of Review for Public Water Systems Water Use Applications - Draft (JDV Box 43)
General Note: Box 18, Folder 5 ( Pamphlets, Books, Articles, etc - 1960s & 1970s ), Item 15
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004231
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




OUTLINE

BASIS OF REVIEW FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
Dept. Of Envir' nmr ntal fR,,cl'tion
WATER USE APPLICATIONS R C "
S. E Page No
1.0 General AUG 17 1979 1
1.1 Introduction to Basis of Review 1
1.2 Chronology of Events in the Permitting Process OFFICE OF SECRETARY .1
1.3 Authority 1
1.4 Scope of Jurisdiction i 2
.1.5 Definitions ,- .. 2
2.0 Criteria Used in the Evaluation of a Water Use Application for Publ'ic
Water System 5
3.0 Evaluation of the Annual Allocation 6
3.1 The Application 6
3.2 Reasonable Need for the Requested Allocation 7
3.2.1 Service Territory or Area 8
3.2.1.1 Public Service Commission 8
3.2.1.2 Dade County 8
3.2.1.3 Local Government Franchise 8
3.2.1.4 Unregulated Service Territory 9
3.2.1.5 Conflicting Service Territories 9
3.2.2 Projected Population 9
3.2.3 Historical Average Per Capita Daily Water Use 10
3.3 Allocable Water 10
3.4 Evaluation of Governmental Agencies Responsible for Public Health 12
3.5 Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Area 12
3.6 Saline Water Intrusion 13
3.7 Adverse Impact on Presently Existing Legal Uses 15
3.8 Adverse Impact on Presently Existing Off-Site Land Use or Impact
otherwise detrimental to the public interest 17
4.0 Synopsis of Conditions for Determination of an Annual Allocation 18
4.1 The Application Satisfies the Requirements of All Criteria 18
4.2 The Application Does not Satisfy the Requirements of All Criteria 18
4.2.1 Largest Allocation Which Will Satisfy All Criteria 18
4.2.2 Allocation Equal to 120 Percent of Current Pumpage 18
4.2.3 Allocation Equal to or Less Than Current Pumpage 19
4.2.4 Allocation Equal to or Less Than 100,000 GPD (36.5 MGY) 19
I5.0 Synopsis of Conditions for Recommendation of Denial of a Water
Use Application 20
6.0 Evaluation of Maximum Daily Withdrawal 21
6.1 Calculations 21
6.2 Maximum Day to Average Day Ratio 21
7.0 Duration of the Permit 22
7.1 Standard Duration 22
7.2 Duration Based on Ability to Meet Demand 22
7.3 Bonding 22
8.0 Special Conditions 23
8.1 On All Permits 23
8.2 Data Collection 25
8.3 Wellfields Subject to Saline Water Intrusion 27








Page No
8.4 Service Area Discrepancy 28
8.5 Applicant Responsible for Both Drainage (Surface Water
Management) and Water Use 28
8.6 Artesian Floridan Wells 28
9.0 The Staff Report 29
10.0 Hydrogeologic Data Collection and EvaluatiQns 3Q
11.0 Methods Used for Projecting Impacts Associated With Proposed Withdrawals 31
12.0 Water Shortage Planning and Water Conservation 32
13.0 Selected Bibliography 35
13.1 General Hydrogeologic References 35
13.2 Aquifer Testing 36
13.3 Hydrogeologic Modeling 36
13.4 Saltwater Intrusion 38
13.5 Hydrologic Data 39


I










Appendix


Flow
Flow
Flow
Flow

Flow
Flow
Flow
Flow


Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart

Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart


li. Permitting


- "The Application:
- "Reasonable need for the requested allocation?"
- "Allocable Water?"
- Application Evaluated by Governmental Agencies Responsible
for Public Health"
- "Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Areas?"
- "Saline Water Intrusion?"
- "Adverse Impact on Existing Legal Use?"
- "Adverse Impact on Existing Offsite Land Use?"
of Uses of Water








1.0 GENERAL

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO BASIS OF REVIEW

Applications for public water supply use are reviewed and evaluated by the
technical staff of the South Florida Water Management District. The intention
of this document is to describe in detail the legal and technical requirements
for obtaining a Water Use Permit or a modification to an existing permit, and
the manner in which the District staff determines its recommendation for a water
use allocation. Exceptions to the procedures set forth herein may be considered,
where such exceptions are within the law and clearly in the interest of the
general public. This document is not intended to portray an inflexible attitude,
but to clearly identify the basis upon which staff recommendations
to the Governing Board will be made, so an applicant may plan accordingly. The
applicant should set up a meeting with staff prior to submitting an application,
in order for staff to review with the applicant the permitting process and
discuss any problem areas.

After receiving the application, both the conclusions and recommendations of staff
will be presented and explained in a "Staff Report," which will be sent to the
applicant. The staff report and its recommendations
will then be considered by the Governing Board at its monthly meeting. If the
recommendations are found to be acceptable to the Board, a permit is issued.

The District does not issue permits for well construction. This function is
performed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). However, the
District's concurrence must be given on any new application for well construc-
tion and, therefore, new well construction should be preceded either by obtaining
or applying for a water use permit. The District also inspects public water
system well construction for the DER. Notification postcards are sent with
the DER permit and notification to inspect is a condition of the DER well
construction permit.

1.2 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS

The sequence of events associated with an application for water use and
subsequent processing is explained in "Permitting Information Manual,
Volume I, General and Procedural Information (December 1977).' A copy of
Volume I may be obtained from the Resource Control Department of the
District.

1.3 AUTHORITY

Part II of the Water Resources Act of 1972 authorizes Water Management
Districts to implement a permitting program for the use of water. The
South Florida Water Management District implemented such a program in
March of 1974 for the majority of the District for uses in excess of
100,000 gallons per day (gpd). The program was implemented in the remainder
of the District on January 1, 1977. For uses less than or equal to 100,000
gpd, Part II of the Water Resources Act was implemented on November 16, 1978.

Permits are classified according to the source of water, method of with-
drawal and type of use and are generally issued for a period of no more
than 10 years.


I







The District has the authority to develop and implement water shortage
plans and orders during periods of water deficiency. A water shortage
may be declared when the District determines that insufficient water is
available to meet demands, or conditions are
such as to require temporary reductions in water use to protect the
water resources of an area. When a water shortage is declared the water
management district may impose restrictions on water use. The restrictions
may differ depending upon the classification of the permit. Unpermitted
water use may also be subjected to a water shortage restriction.

Permits are subject to revocation, suspension or modification in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 16K-2 F.A.C., Part II of Chapter 373 Florida
Statutes and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

1.4 SCOPE OF JURISDICTION

Section 373.023 Florida Statutes provides that all waters in the State
are subject to regulation of the provisions of this Act unless specifi-
cally exempted by general or special law. Water or waters in the state
is defined in Section 373.019(9) to be any and all water on or beneath
the surface of the ground or in the atmosphere including natural or
artificial courses, lakes ponds or diffused surface water and water
percolating, standing or flowing beneath the surface of the ground as
well as all coastal waters within the jurisdiction of the state.

The South Florida Water Management District requires a water use permit,
unless exempted by-law or-rule, for any use, diversion or withdrawal of
waters in the District. Section 373.019(1) exempts from the District's permit-
ting requirements domestic use of water by individual users, Domestic use is
defined in Section 373.019(7) to be any use of water for individual personal
needs or for household purposes such as drinking, bathing, eating, cooking, or
sanitation. Further, Rule 16K-2.025 incorporates the domestic use exemption
and adds exemptions for water which is used strictly for fire fighting
purposes or individual house uses. Non-exempt uses must either obtain an
individual permit or qualify for a general permit. Appendix li shows in
graphic form the organization of the permit process for water use.

A complete set of,Chapter 373, F.S. and District Rules can be found in Volume
II of the Permitting Information Manual.

1.5 DEFINITIONS

1.5.1 Annual Allocation: The permitted quantity of water approved by the
Governing Board of the District for use on a yearly basis.
The annual allocation is a yearly allotment of water and is equal
to the product of projected average day withdrawals multiplied by
-365 days/year.
1.5.2 Area of Influence: The area of land surrounding a wellfield which
may be impacted by the wellfield or, as a consequence of regional
groundwater gradients, a land area which may impact the wellfield,
because groundwater flow under the land area is towards the wellfield,
The area of influence of a wellfield may be determined on a case by
case basis by defining either the drawdown,or gradient of the draw-
down induced by proposed withdrawals at the boundaries of the area
of influence.









1.5.3 Cone of Depression: The conical shape taken by the piezometric
surface in the area of influence of a well (or wellfield) being
stressed by pumping.

1.5.4 Conservation: The act of reducing water usage
through voluntary
or mandatory altering of water use practices and/or installation
of low water use fixtures and devices.

1.5.5 Current pumpage: The quantity of water an applicant has pumped
during the most recent 12 month period preceding the date of
application.

1.5.6 Fresh water: For the purposes of this document, an aqueous solu-
tion with a chloride concentration equal to or less than 250 mg/l.

1.5.7 Historical maximum day withdrawal: The maximum quantity of water
that was pumped on any one day during the current pumpage period.

1.5.8 Leakance: The quantity of water that flows across a unit area of
the boundary between the main aquifer and its confining bed per
unit of head difference between the top and bottom of the confining
bed.

1.5.9 Permitted maximum day withdrawal: The maximum quantity of water
which can be withdrawn on a daily basis as approved by the Governing
Board.

1.5.10 Presently existing legal use: A use which at the time of filing of
an application being reviewed pursuant to Section 373.223, F.S. is:

(1) under District permit or,

(2) in existence (for uses which are exempt from permit requirements).

1.5.11 Reasonable-Beneficial Use: A use of water which is 1) economic and
efficient, 2) for a reasonable purpose, 3) for a purpose consistent
with the public interest, 4) in a reasonable manner, 5) in a manner
consistent with the public interest.

1.5.12 Annual Safe Sustained Yield: The amount of water that can be safely
withdrawn from a wellfield on an annual basis without causing the
water quality to deteriorate (as a consequence of saline water intrusion
or impact of pollution sources) to the point where the water is no
longer usable as a source of drinking water by feasible
treatment methods.

1.5.13 Saline Water: For purposes of this document, an aqueous solution with
a chloride concentration greater than 250 mg/l.

1.5.14 Service Territory or Service Area: The geographical region in which
a water supplier has the ability and legal right to distribute water
for use.

1.5.15 Specific Capacity: The rate of discharge of water from the well divided
by the drawdown of water level within the well. In reporting the results







of a specific capacity test, the pumping rate, drawdown, and period
of time the well was pumped should be reported.

1.5.16 Storage Coefficient: The volume of water that an aquifer releases
or receives per unit surface area of aquifer per unit change in the
component of head normal to that surface.

1.5.17 Transmissivity: The rate of horizontal water flow under a unit
hydraulic gradient through a one foot wide vertical section of
aquifer with a height equal to the aquifer's fully saturated
thickness.







2.0 Criteria Used in the Evaluation of a Water Use Application for a Public
Water System

Section 373.223 of the Florida Statutes indicates that in order for an
applicant to obtain a permit the applicant must establish that the proposed
use of water is:

Reasonable-beneficial; will not interfere with any presently
existing legal use of water; and is consistent with the public
interest.

2.1 In order to implement the above legislative requirements the District has
established the following set of criteria for evaluation of requested alloca-
tions for public water systems. These same criteria are used in the evalua-
tion of both applications for a permit and modifications to an existing
permit. The criteria are as follows:

2.1.1 The application is properly completed, all information requested
on the appropriate checklist is attached and hydrogeologic data
evaluations have been supplied to the staff. In the case of an
application for a modification to an existing permit, the data
required by virtue of special conditions to the existing permit
must also have been submitted to the satisfaction of District.
This criterion is discussed in further detail under Section 3.1.

2.1.2 The need for the requested allocation is reasonable, Reasonableness
is defined and discussed under Section 3.2.

2.1.3 Water is available in the quantities desired for use. The manner in
which staff decides where water is available is described under
Section 3.3.

2.1.4 Governmental agencies responsible for public health evaluate the
application. Section 3.4 describes the recommendations staff may
make in view of input from other agencies.

2.1.5 Impact on environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) is evaluated. Section
3.5 explains the manner in which staff evaluates environmental impact.

2.1.6 The use of water will not cause significant inland movement of the
saline water interface, or otherwise reduce the amount of potable
water available as a direct result of inland movement of the saline
water interface. A detailed discussion of saline water intrusion is
given under Section 3.6.

2.1.7 The use of water will not adversely impact presently existing legal
uses. Section 3.7 describes the manner in which staff evaluates
impact on other uses of water.

2.1.8 The use of water will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing
at the time of application, or be otherwise detrimental to the public
interest. The manner in which staff reviews impact on offsite land
use is presented in Section 3.8.







3.0 Evaluation of the Annual Allocation


The method used by staff in the determination of an annual allocation is
described in the detailed discussion of each criteria presented below
(Sections 3.1 through 3.8).

If the applicant does not agree with the allocation recommended by staff,
the burden is on the applicant to prove that the applicant's proposed
allocation complies with the criteria setforth herein, or is exempt
therefrom.

3.1 The Application

An applicant applies for a Water Use Permit by: a) setting up a pre-
application meeting with staff in order to discuss the permitting process
and any problems associated with the application, b) filling out Application
Form RC-1, c) supplying all of the information requested on the appropriate
checklist, and d) supplying hydrogeologic evaluations of problems associated
with the proposed withdrawals.

There are two checklists, the first of which treats utilities whose
application involves a maximum day withdrawal less than or equal to
720,000 gallons per day, and the second checklist treats utilities whose
application involves a maximum day withdrawal greater than 720,000 gallons
per day.

Appendix la displays a schematic diagram which graphically illustrates the
review process for the application. Once the application is received it
is checked for completeness. If the application is complete then review
S of the application will proceed and final action on the application must
be taken within 90 days from date of receipt of the completed application
unless a hearing is required.

After determination that the application is complete the staff reviewer
will initiate a field inspection and correspondence with appropriate
governmental agencies including but not limited to the following:

Agencies responsible for public health

Department of Environmental Regulation
County Health Departments for Dade, Broward, Palm Beach,
Polk and Lee Counties
Dade County Department of Environmental Resources
Management (DERM)
Lee County Environmental Protection Services

Agencies responsible for regulation of service areas

Public Service Commission
Metropolitan Dade County Water and Sewer Board

Agency responsible for water resource management projects

SBig Cypress Basin of the South Florida Water Management
District
SMiami Dade Water and Sewer Authority








If the application is incomplete, a letter requesting additional information
is sent to the applicant during the first 30 days following receipt of the
application. In the case of an application for a modification to an existing
permit, data requested under the existing permit but not submitted will be
requested at this time. Since Special Conditions requiring data submission
are included to establish the availability of water in the permitted's area,
these data are needed in order to evaluate a request for an increase in
allocation.

When the additional information requested is received, the application will
be considered complete as of the date of receipt of the additional information.
Review will then proceed and Board action on the application will be taken
within 90 days, unless a hearing is required.

If no response is received within 60 calendar days from the date of letter
request and if all water use is proposed, then staff may recommend the
application for denial, although a period of time greater than 60 days may
be acceptable if the applicant has communicated with staff concerning additional
data collection.

If the additional information is not received within the 60 day period and
the application is for an allocation either equivalent to current pumpage
or current pumpage plus proposed water use, the recommended allocation may
not exceed current pumpage.

3.2 Reasonable need for the requested allocation.

A reasonable need for the requested allocation is defined as a need that is
based on reasonable population growth within an authorized service area and
at a reasonable per capital use of water. Population growth is projected for
a ten year period, although, it may be projected for a shorter period of time.

Population projections are limited to ten years because of the inaccuracy of-
longer term growth projections, because of the undesirability of allocating
extremely large amounts of water in view of our present limited understanding
of the groundwater system in the District and, because of our lack of know-
ledge of how demands on the system will develop.

The applicant should confirm the number of years for which the population
projection will be made with staff prior to submitting the application.

Water use projections are calbulated by multiplying the ten year population
projection for the service area by the historical average per capital daily
consumption of water.

For example, if a population of 10,000 people was projected within a service
area ten years into the future from the date of application, and the applicant
indicated a historic record of an average per capital daily consumption of 150
gallons of water, staff will recommend an allocation equivalent to: 10,000
people x 150 gallons per person-day x 365 days per year = 548 million gallons
per year (MGY) assuming all other criteria are met. The decision schematic
for determining a reasonable need for an allocation is shown in Appendix lb.
If the applicant's proposed need for an allocation is unreasonably high, then
staff will recommend a projected need based on its analysis of population
projections for the service area and historical or design per capital use of
water.







If the applicant is unable to present a reasonable need for an allocation
staff may recommend denial of an application.

3.2.1 Service Territory or Area

3.2.1.1 Public Service Commission Service Territory

If the applicant is regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC), the
service area should be that area for which the utility has obtained a
certificate from the PSC. If the projected future service area is larger
than the area certificated at the time of application, staff will solicit
the opinion of the PSC as to the ability of the applicant to serve the area.
If the PSC determines that the applicant is capable of serving the area and
there are no known objections to the service area expansion, staff may
recommend an allocation for the projected service area. If this is done a
special condition will be attached requiring that the applicant receive a
certificate from the PSC for the expansion within two years (Section 8.4).

If a permitted will not serve a new demand located within either the
existing or proposed service area, the permitted allocation may be subject
to modification.

If the PSC indicates that the applicant may not be capable of serving the
expanded area or if there are objections to the expanded service area,
staff may recommend an allocation based on projected water use within the
existing certificated service territory until objections or other difficulties
are resolved; after objections and other difficulties are resolved, staff
may then recommend an allocation for the proposed area.

3.2.1.2 Dade County Service Area

If the applicant is located in Dade County, the service area must be that
area franchised by the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Board.

3.2.1.3 Local Government Franchise

If the applicant is regulated by local government, the service territory
should be that area for which the applicant has obtained a franchise.

If the projected future service area is larger than the area franchised
at the time of application, staff will solicit the opinion of local govern-
ment as to the ability of the applicant to serve the area.

If local government determines that the applicant is capable of serving the
area and there are no known objections to the service territory expansion,
staff may recommend an allocation for the projected service territory with
a special condition that the applicant receive a franchise from local
government for expansion within two years (Section 8.4). If local government
indicates that the utility may not be capable of serving the expanded area
or if there are objections to the expanded service territory, staff may
recommend an allocation based on projected water use within the existing
service territory; after objections and other difficulties are resolved,
staff may then recommend an allocation for the proposed area.








3.2.1.4 Unregulated Service Territory


If the applicant is not regulated by either local government or the PSC,
the projected service area must conform to the area that the utility can
reasonably serve within a ten year projected time frame. If the applicant
is a municipality, service areas outside of municipal boundaries must be
explained by attachment of agreements or contracts to the application. Staff
will solicit the assistance of the PSC in determining whether the PSC has
certificated the area outside of municipal boundaries to any other utility.

3.2.1.5 Conflicting Service Territories

If conflicting service area claims arise between applicants or between an
applicant and another water supplier whose service areas are not regulated,
the users must resolve the dispute between themselves or staff may recommend
an allocation based on the non-disputed portions of the projected service
areas.

If service claims arise between users whose service areas are regulated
by local government, local government must resolve the service area
dispute; otherwise, staff may recommend an allocation based on the non-
disputed portions of the projected service area.

3.2.2 Projected Population

A ten year population growth should be projected by using the local compre-
hensive land use plan and its amendments for the area. In the absence of
a comprehensive plan one of the following sources of growth projections
should be used:

Detailed DER Population Studies
201/208 Planning Studies
University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business
Research Population Data
Regional Planning Council
Special population studies (special population studies should
only be used if the sources listed above are unavailable)

If the applicant feels that the population projected by any of the above
sources appears unreasonable for the proposed service area the applicant
may submit written concurrence by a local government planning agency verify-
ing the unreasonableness of the projected population for the service area.
Developer agreements alone will not be considered as acceptable projections
for population growth.

Staff will also consider evidence submitted in,the application which indicate
appropriate adjustments to the population base due to such factors as changes
in the percent of residents in the service area actually served by the
utility. Evidence on the location of large unique users not related to
population such as golf courses, and industrial plants will also be considered.

-







3.2.3 Per Capita Daily Water Use


Historical average per capital daily water use will generally be acceptable
as an appropriate projected per capital daily water use. Historical average
per capital daily water use is calculated either by dividing average day water
withdrawals for the current pumpage period by the population for the same
period of time or by determining the per capital daily water use for the five
most recent years. The highest or most appropriate per capital use derived
from either of the two methods may then be used in projecting future water
use.

In some cases the historical demand patterns will not be appropriate for
projection purposes. This may occur, for instance, when there are current
large users whose growth is not related to population or when future develop-
ment may take on characteristics very different than present development.
In such cases alternative per capital estimates may be appropriate and should
be used accompanied by appropriate documentation.

In the event that the historical usage is greater than 200 GPCD staff may
request specific information from the applicant which will explain the high
per capital use.

200 GPCD was chosen as a threshold for this request because it is a relatively
higher per capital use which exceeds the District average of approximately 170
I GPCD. The District considers that a number higher than the District average
should be chosen in order to allow for some uncertainty in the per capital
use determination associated with use of potable water by industry and
commercial enterprises and also uncertainty in the calculation of per
capital use due to the inaccuracies of population determination.

If no historical use of water exists, a design per capital use acceptable to
i the District staff may be used. For any proposed development the design per
capital use must be explained.

3.3 Allocable Water

Allocable water is water available for use and is equal to the difference
between the amount of usable water in an aquifer or basin minus the amount
of water previously allocated. Usable water is that quantity of water
defined by the District as both treatable using a particular method of
treatment and constituting an annual safe sustained yield from the aquifer.

A site-specific determination of allocable water will involve evaluation
of the following:

a. Water shortages in the applicant's area. If a water shortage has
historically occurred in the applicant's area, staff will evaluate
the reasonableness of a further allocation of water on a case by
case basis.

b. Insufficiency of allocable water. An insufficiency of allocable
water exists when the amount of usable water is less than the amount
of water which is both proposed and presently allocated for use.
Basin yield will be used in consideration of allocable water for an
island or peninsular location.







c. Proximity of saline water interface and potential for movement
of the saline water interface (Section 3.6).

d. Proximity of pollution sources and potential for movement of
pollution sources (Section 3.4).

Staff may recommend denial of an application for any of the following three
reasons: first, the occurrence of water resource shortages in the appli-
cant's area does not permit the allocation of water beyond existing alloca-
tions; second, no allocable water is available on a site-specific basis;
or third, the Governing Board has indicated that no allocable water is
presently available on a regional basis for allocation within the aquifer
or basin.

The decision schematic in Appendix Ic indicates the process staff uses in
evaluating whether water is allocable.

3.3.1 An Insufficiency of Allocable Water

If a single new use applies for an allocation in an area where there is
not enough water to satisfy both allocated and proposed demands, staff
will calculate an allocation which when added to existing allocations
will not exceed the amount of usable water.

If a single new use applies for an allocation in an area where there is
only enough allocable water to satisfy allocated demands, staff will
recommend denial of the requested allocation.

3.3.2 Competing Applications in an Area of Limited Allocable Water

An area of limited allocable water is an area in which the projected ten
year demand is less than the allocable water for the area.

In the case of more than one applicant in an area of limited allocable
water the total amount of water both recommended for allocation and permitted
would be equal to or less than the amount of usable water.

In the case of such competing applications staff will recommend that the
Board approve or modify the application which best serves the public interest.
In the event that both applications equally serve the public interest, staff
will recommend that the Board give preference to a renewal application over
an initial application.

In the case of proposed uses, if competing applications are all renewals or
all initial applications and all applications equally serve the public interest,
staff will calculate an equitable allocation for all applicants in the follow-
ing manner:

1) Per capital consumption will be set equal to the smallest value of
either of the following: a) the District-wide average, b) the
least value of all applicants in competition.

2) Projected water use based on population growth for all applicants
will be reduced on a percentage basis until the sum total of all
withdrawals is equal to the sum total of allocable water.







As a matter of operating procedure, the District will notify all permittees
in an area of limited allocable water when an application is received for
increased withdrawals from that area.

3.4 Evaluation of Governmental Agencies Responsible for Public Health

The District will request evaluation of the application from other
governmental agencies responsible for public health. In order to
assist the responsible agency in its evaluation the District will, in
the case of an unconfined aquifer perform hydrologic evaluations of: a)
the possibility of adjacent pollution sources occurring within the cone
of depression at the proposed withdrawal rates, and b) the velocity
of movement and time of travel of water emanating from pollution sources
towards the wellfield. The governmental agencies will then be asked
to determine whether the available water will be acceptable as a
source of drinking water under the proposed treatment scheme. They
may request evaluation of pollution sources other than those indicated
in the application by the District.

As graphically displayed by the decision schematic in Appendix Id, the
governmental agencies may recommend: a) that the application be approved,
b) that the application be denied, c) that the application be held in
abeyance until certain health aspects of the utility are improved (staff
will concur if the applicant requests a waiver of the 90 day review
period; otherwise the application may be recommended for denial), d)
that additional data be collected and that special conditions be added
to the permit, or e) that a particular allocation be granted.

3.5 Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Staff will evaluate the hydrologic and associated environmental impacts
on environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) associated with the wellfield
withdrawals. Environmentally sensitive areas include but are not
limited to lakes, ponds, streams, creeks, wetlands, recreation areas,
parks, wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, conservation areas, and the
habitat of endangered species.

I Floridan aquifer withdrawals will be exempt from most evaTuationof
environmental impact.

In its evaluation staff will evaluate the public interest of a public
water supply against the public interest of an environmentally sensitive
area. Staff will estimate the hydrologic impacts associated with the
requested withdrawal provided site specific or regional data is available
by determining the drawdown in an aquifer due to pumpage.

Each evaluation of environmental impact will be performed on a case by
case basis and may include, but is not necessarily limited to, consideration
of the following factors:

a) impact on endangered and other species known to inhabit the area,
including species which are not economically important,

b) impact on fish and wildlife habitat,










c) impact on vegetational composition,
d) depletion of recreational value,
e) tendency towards replacement of native vegetation by exotics,
f) reduction in natural and scenic beauty.

Staff will calculate a withdrawal with a level of impact acceptable to staff
if the proposed withdrawal appears unacceptable and data is available.

The decision schematic for impact on ESA's is shown in Appendix le. This
diagram shows that a water use application may be recommended for denial
under three conditions: first, an adverse impact on an endangered species
is presently occurring in an ESA due to present pumping and an applicant is
proposing to withdraw water from, or adjacent to, the ESA in a way which will
further aggravate the impact; second, an adverse impact on an endangered
species is not presently occurring, an applicant is proposing to withdraw
or increase withdrawals of water from or adjacent to the ESA, and hydrologic
data is not available for site specific evaluation of the impact; third, an
applicent proposes to withdraw or increase withdrawals from,or adjacent to,
an ESA, no data is available for evaluation of impacts on the ESA and an
unacceptable level of impact in the evaluation of staff may be imminent if
additional water is allocated.

If data is not available for evaluation of impacts on the ESA and if an
unacceptable level of impact may not be imminent if additional water is
allocated, and the applicant is not currently pumping water, staff may
recommend an allocation equal to or less than 100,000 gpd (36.5 MGY).

If an adverse impact on an endangered species is presently occurring in
the ESA due to present pumping and the applicant is currently pumping
water from or adjacent to the ESA, staff will recommend an allocation equal
to, or less than, current pumpage.

If data is not available for evaluation of impacts on the ESA, and if
an unacceptable level of impact may not be imminent if additional water is
allocated, and the applicant is currently pumping water, staff may recommend
an allocation of 120 percent of current pumpage.

If data is available for evaluation of impacts on the ESA, staff will
calculate an acceptable level of withdrawal. If an adverse impact on an
endangered species is not presently occurring but withdrawals from or
adjacent to the ESA could potentially be a problem in the future, and
hydrologic data is available for site specific evaluation, staff will
determine an acceptable level of withdrawal.
3.6 Saline Water Intrusion

3.6.1 Use of Fresh Water

If the applicant uses fresh water as a source of public supply, then
the use of water must not cause significant inland movement of saline
surface water or groundwater, cause significant inland movement of the
saline water interface within an aquifer system, or otherwise reduce
the amount of potable water as a direct result of inland movement of


-13-







the saline water interface. Significant movement is defined as saline
water encroachment which affects the applicant, other legal uses exist-
ing at the time of application or is otherwise detrimental to the public
interest. It is further defined as movement of the saline water interface
to a greater distance than has historically been achieved as a consequence
of seasonal fluctuations or droughts. The evaluation of proposed with-
drawals which would result in movement of the saline water interface
inland to a greater distance than has occurred under natural conditions
will be accomplished on a case by case basis by the District. The
reduction of storage capability of the aquifer will also be evaluated
on a case by case basis by the District. In the case of connate saline
water, use of water adjacent to or above connate saline water must not
cause significant movement of the saline water or reduce the amount of
potable water as a direct result of movement of the saline water.

Significant
movement is also construed as movement of the connate saline water
away from its historical location. The evaluation of proposed with-
drawals which would result in movement of connate saline water will
be performed on a case by case basis. The decision schematic for
saline water intrusion for uses of fresh water is shown in Appendix
If. Staff may recommend denial of a requested allocation under two
conditions: first, when significant saline water intrusion is presently
occurring in the applicant's area and the applicant is proposing addi-
tional use of water which would further aggravate the situation; and
second, when the allocation of water would cause significant saline
water intrusion.

If significant saline water intrusion is presently occurring in the
applicant's area the allocation recommended by staff will be equal to
or less than current pumpage. Significant saline water intrusion in
the applicant's area is further defined by the following circumstances:

1. One or more of the applicant's wells is pumping saline water

2. The hydraulic gradient between the wellfield and saline water is
such that a hydraulic head (mound of water) of at least 1 foot
MSL does not exist between the wellfield and saline water during
the year

3. Chloride concentrations in monitoring wells within 800 feet of
any well in a wellfield have historically shown increases with
time indicating long-term advancement of the saline front towards
the wellfield.

If significant saline water intrusion is possible in the future but is
not occurring at present, and if data is available for detailed site-
specific evaluation, staff will calculate and recommend a maximum with-
drawal rate which will not cause significant saline water intrusion.






If the proposed use of water is a new use and insufficient site-specific
data is available to properly evaluate saline intrusion, but the location
of the applicant's wellfield and regional hydrologic information suggest
that some withdrawal may be made without causing saline water intrusion,
staff may recommend an allocation equal to or less than 100,000 GPD
(36.5 MGY).

If an application is received for an increase in allocation for an existing
permitted currently pumping water and no saline intrusion is presently
occurring, and no site-specific data is available for detailed evaluation
of saline intrusion, but regional hydrogeologic information suggests that
some withdrawal may be made without causing saline intrusion, staff will
recommend an allocation equal to or less than 120% of current pumpage.

The staff may recommend implementation of a "Saline Intrusion Monitoring
and Management (SWIMM) Program" as a special condition to permits issued
to applicants which are located near saline water. The criteria which
are used to determine if a SWIMM Program will be recommended are listed
under Section 8.3.0. The special condition is addressed under Section
8.3.1.

3.6.2 Uses of Saline Water

This category includes the use of saline water as a source of potable
supply through the use of desalinization treatment (electrodialysis,
reverse osmosis, etc.). The use of saline water in this circumstance
may cause saline water intrusion, however, not to the extent that other
users of water or the applicant may be adversely affected or to the
extent that the use of water is not in the public interest. The
evaluation of proposed withdrawals which would result in an adverse
impact on uses other than public water supply uses will be accomplished
on a case by case basis.

Staff may recommend denial of a requested allocation under two conditions:
first, the use of saline water creates an adverse impact on the applicant
such that the applicant is unable to provide potable water as defined by
DER. Second, the proposed use of water will have an adverse impact on
another public water supply use. A SWIMM Program may be required for an
applicant applying for proposed use of saline water (see Section 8.3).

3.7 Adverse Impact on Presently Existing Legal Uses

The use of water must not cause an adverse impact on a legal use of
water existing at the time of permit application. An adverse impact is
defined as a decrease of 10 percent or more in the withdrawal capability
of any individual withdrawal facility of a presently existing legal use.
The percentage reduction in withdrawal capability is calculated in the
following way:
% withdrawal capability withdrawal capability 100
prior to impact after impact x

withdrawal capability
prior to impact







For example: A public water supply, which is located next to a golf
course uses several 100 GPM wells. As a consequence of increases in
pumpage by the golf course due to an expansion, one of the 100 GPM
wells of the public water supply will only pump 80 GPM even though it
originally pumped 100 GPM without any problem. The golf course, there-
fore, is having an adverse impact on the use of water for the public
water supply because pumpage by the golf course has reduced the with-
drawal capability of one of the public supply wells by 20%. The
fact that no impact has occurred on other wells is not a material
consideration to the evaluation of adverse impact. The determination
of an adverse impact is applicable only to existing legal uses whose
wells are properly constructed and whose pumps and other fixtures are
in good operating condition.

The golf course can mitigate the impact on the public water supply by
reducing withdrawals for irrigation, drilling the public supply a new
well or paying the public supply for damage and loss of service experienced.


If presently existing legal uses rely on wells fitted with centrifugal
pumps then the evaluation of adverse impact will be made assuming that
the length of casing is equal to or greater than the lift capability
of the centrifugal pump affixed to the well.

If presently existing legal uses rely on wells fitted with non-centrifugal
pumps, or on centrifugal pumps other than described in the aforementioned
cases staff will evaluate adverse impact on a case by case basis.

In all cases, it is the permitted's responsibility to mitigate adverse ..
impacts on legal uses which existed at the time of permit application
(Section 8.1.7). Mitigation may include pumpage reduction, replacement
of the impacted individual's equipment to enable greater water withdrawals,
payment of cash for damages, drilling a new well farther away from the
damaging well, etc.

The decision schematic for adverse impact on presently existing legal uses
is shown in Appendix 1g. Staff may recommend denial of a water use appli-
cation under two conditions: first, when an adverse impact is presently
occurring in the applicant's area and the applicant is proposing a new
use of water; second, when the allocation of water would cause an adverse
impact on an existing legal use.

If an adverse impact on a presently existing legal use is presently
occurring as a consequence of current pumpage by the applicant, the
allocation will be equal to or less than current pumpage.

If an adverse impact is possible in the future as a consequence of
wellfield location, but no adverse impact is presently occurring, and
data is available for detailed site-specific evaluation, staff will
calculate a maximum withdrawal rate which will not cause an adverse impact.

If the proposed use of water is a new use, and insufficient site-specific
data is available to evaluate the potential for adverse impact, and the
location of the applicant's wellfield and regional hydrologic information






suggest that some withdrawal may be made without causing an adverse impact,
staff may recommend an allocation equal to or less than 100,000 GPD
(36.5 MGY).

If the proposed use of water is for an increase in withdrawals from an
existing utility currently pumping water, no adverse impact is presently
occurring, no site-specific data is available for detailed evaluation of
the problem, but regional hydrogeologic information suggests that some
additional withdrawal may be made without causing an adverse impact, staff
will recommend an allocation equal to 120% of current pumpage.

3.8 Adverse Impact on Existing Off-site Land Use or Otherwise Detrimental
to the Public Interest

The use of water must not adversely impact off-site land use existing
at the time of permit application. The landowner of a wellfield may
accept adverse impact on his own land use as long as the public interest
is not detrimentally affected. Adverse impact includes, but is not
limited to: land subsidence and collapse as a consequence of water table
or potentiometric head drawdown, lowering of water levels or drainage
of ponds or other water bodies, appreciable damage or destruction of
crops, appreciable damage or destruction of landscape or other vegetation.

In all cases, it is the permitted's responsibility to mitigate adverse
impacts on off-site land use which existed at the time of submission of
the water use application.

The decision schematic for adverse impact on presently existing off-site
land use is presented in Appendix lh. Staff may recommend denial of a
water use application under two conditions: first, when an adverse
impact is presently occurring in the applicant's area and the applicant
is proposing a new use of water; second, when the allocation of additional
water would cause an adverse impact.

If an adverse impact is presently occurring as a consequence of current
pumpage by the applicant, the allocation will be equal to or less than
current pumpage.

If an adverse impact is possible in the future, but no adverse impact is
presently occurring, and if data is available for detailed site-specific
evaluation, staff will calculate a maximum withdrawal rate which will
not cause an adverse impact.

If the proposed use of water is a new use and insufficient site-specific
data is available to properly evaluate the potential for adverse impact,
but the location of the applicant's wellfield and regional hydrologic
information suggest that some withdrawal may be made without causing an
adverse impact, staff may recommend an allocation equal to or less than
100,000 GPD (36.5 MGY).

If an application is received for an increase in allocation for an
existing utility currently pumping water, no adverse impact is
presently occurring, and no site-specific data is available for
detailed evaluation of the problem, but regional hydrologic information
suggests that some withdrawal may be made without causing an adverse
impact, staff will recommend an allocation equal to 120% of current
pumpage.







Synopsis of Conditions for the Determination of the Annual Allocation


4.1 The application satisfies the requirements of all criteria. If the
application satisfies the requirements of all criteria, the annual allo-
cation shall be equal to the water use projected for a ten-year period
(lesser period in special areas designated by the District).

4.2 The application does not satisfy the requirements of all criteria. The
specific manner in which staff will evaluate an application which does
not satisfy all criteria is treated under 3.1 through 3.8 for each of the
eight criteria. In general, staff will proceed towards one of the four
different allocations which are discussed below.

4.2.1 Largest Allocation Which Will Satisfy All Criteria

If an adverse impact is possible in the future as a consequence of both
wellfield location and analysis of regional data, but no adverse impact
is presently occurring, and data is available for a detailed site
specific evaluation, staff will calculate a maximum withdrawal rate
which will not cause an adverse impact.

If the applicant does not present a reasonable need for an allocation,
staff will calculate a reasonable need in order to satisfy this criterion.

4.2.2 Allocation Equal to 120 Percent of Current Pumpage

Staff will recommend an allocation equal to 120 percent of current pumpage
under the conditions defined in Section 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.5 unless in
the appropriate case, a hydrogeologic evaluation is submitted indicating
that a larger allocation will satisfy all criteria. An applicant may
reapply for additional allocation at any time.

If an allocation for 120 percent of current pumpage is permitted by the
Board and, if after an increase of 115 percent no adverse impacts have
been generated, the applicant may reapply for an additional increase of
20 percent. In this manner the permitted may increase his allocation
based on "positive experience" even though inadequate data exists upon
which to base predictive calculations.

4.2.2.1 An application is received for an increase in withdrawals, no adverse
impacts are presently occurring, no site specific data is available,
but regional hydrogeologic information suggests that some additional
withdrawal may be made without causing an adverse impact.

4.2.2.2 The amount of allocable water is equal to 120% of current pumpage.

4.2.2,3 Staff evaluation indicates problems of such a severity that an allocation
of only 120% of existing withdrawals will satisfy all criteria.

4.2.2.4 An application is received for an increase in withdrawal adjacent to an
ESA, no data is available for evaluation of impacts on the ESA, and an
unacceptable level of impact may not be imminent if additional water
is allocated, and the applicant is currently pumping water. This case
does not apply to evaluations involving impact on endangered species.


4.0








Allocation Equal to or Less Than Current Pumpage


Staff will recommend an allocation equal to or less than current pumpage
unless, in the appropriate case, a hydrogeologic evaluation is submitted
indicating that a larger allocation will satisfy all criteria under the
following conditions:

4.2.3.1 An adverse impact on either an endangered species, existing legal use, or
existing off-site land use is presently occurring, wholly or, in part, as
a consequence of current pumpage.

4.2.3.2 All information requested as part of the application has not been provided,
and the applicant is currently using water, or, the applicant is request-
ing a modification of an existing permit, but has not adhered to the
special conditions of the existing permit.

4.2.3.3 One or more of the applicant's wells is pumping saline water (Applicants
utilizing demineralization are an exception).

4.2.3.4 The hydraulic gradient between the wellfield and saline water is such that
a hydraulic head (mound of water) of at least 1 foot MSL does not exist
between the wellfield and saline water during the year.

4.2.3.5 Chloride concentrations in monitoring wells within 800 feet of any well
in a wellfield have historically shown increases with time indicating
long-term advancement of the saline front towards the wellfield.

4.2.3.6 Staff evaluation indicates problems of such a severity that an allocation
equal to or less than current pumpage is warranted.

4.2.4 Allocation equal to or less than 100,000 GPD (36.5 MGY). Staff may recom-
mend an allocation equal to or less than 100,000 GPD (36.5 MGY) unless,
in the appropriate case, a hydrogeologic evaluation is submitted indicating
that a larger allocation will satisfy all criteria, under the following
conditions:

4.2.4.1 The proposed use of water is a new use, and insufficient site-specific
data is available to evaluate the potential for adverse impacts, but
both the location of the applicant's wellfield and regional hydrologic
information suggest that a withdrawal may be made without causing an
adverse impact,

4.2.4.2 The applicant is located in an area requiring an individual permit for
withdrawals less than or equal to 100,000 GPD as described under Rule
16K-2.03.2.

4.2.4.3 The applicant has applied for a permit to withdraw water adjacent to an
ESA, no data is available for evaluation of impacts, an unacceptable
level of impact may not be imminent if additional water is allocated,
and the applicant is not currently pumping water. This case does not
apply to evaluations involving impact on endangered species.

4.2.4.4 Staff evaluation indicates problems of such a severity that an allocation
equal to or less than 100,000 GPD (36.5 MGY) is warranted.


4.2.3







5.0 Denial of a Water Use Application

j The District may recommend denial of a water use application unless, in
the appropriate case additional data or a hydrogeologic evaluation is
submitted indicating that an allocation will satisfy all criteria, under
one or more of the following conditions:

5.1 All information requested as part of the application has not been provided
by the applicant, and all water use is proposed with none existing at the
time of application.

5.2 All allocable water has been permitted.

5.3 The application is in an area which has suffered water shortages of such
a frequency that no additional water use should be permitted.

5.4 The applicant cannot justify a reasonable need for an allocation.

5.5 A governmental agency responsible for public health requests that the
application be held in abeyance and the applicant refuses to waive the
90-day review period.

5.6 The application is for an allocation which would cause an adverse impact
or would intensify an already existing adverse impact on an existing
legal use, or existing off-site land use.

5.7 The allocation of water would result in an adverse impact on an endangered
species or an expected impact on an ESA of such severity that denial is
warranted.

5.8 Saline water intrusion is presently occurring in the applicant's area
and the applicant is proposing a new use of water.

5.9 The allocation of water would cause significant saline water intrusion.

5.10 The applicant is applying for a modification to an existing permit but
the special conditions on the existing permit have not been kept to the
satisfaction of the District.

S5.11 An adverse impact on an endangered species is presently occurring in an
ESA and an applicant is proposing to withdraw water from or adjacent to
the ESA.

5.12 An adverse impact on an endangered species is not presently occurring and
an applicant is proposing to withdraw or increase withdrawals of water from
or adjacent to the ESA, and hydrologic data is not available for site-
specific evaluation of the impact.

5.13 An applicant proposes to withdraw or increase withdrawals from or adjacent
to an ESA, no data is available for evaluation of impacts on the ESA, and
an unacceptable level of impact in the evaluation of staff may be imminent
if additional water is allocated.








Evaluation of Maximum Daily Withdrawal


6.1 Calculations

The maximum daily withdrawal, as recommended by District staff, is
determined by multiplying the average day allocation by an acceptable
maximum day to average day withdrawal ratio.

6.2 Maximum Day to Average Day Withdrawal Ratio

The methodology used in determining the maximum day to average day ratio
will vary somewhat depending upon the available data. In general, the
maximum day to average day withdrawal ratio, used in determining projected
maximum daily withdrawals, is calculated by dividing historical maximum
day withdrawal by the average day withdrawal for a given period of record,
usually the most recent year.

Listed below are methodologies used to calculate the maximum day to average
day ratio depending on the available data.

In cases where several years of pumpage records are available, a maximum
day to average day withdrawal ratio is calculated for each year. The
ratio used in determining the projected maximum day withdrawal is either
the maximum day to average day withdrawal for the most recent year or
the average of the yearly ratios calculated from up to five years of record,
whichever is the greatest.

In the case of a new development when either no records are available or
there are less than one year's records, a ratio of between 1.5 and 2.0
will be used depending on the developer design requirements and accepta-
bility of existing records.

When a utility operates more than one treatment plant and the plants
operate independently (no interconnections), a maximum daily withdrawal
is determined for each treatment plant and its associated wellfield(s).


6.0








7.0 Duration of Permit


7.1 Standard Duration

A permit will be issued for a ten year period (starting from the date of
issuance) if the water use projection for a ten year period satisfies all
criteria upon which an allocation is based.

7.2 Duration Based on Ability to Meet Demand

If the allocation is less than the amount of water required to meet the
projected 10 year demand, the permit duration will be equal to the number
of years that the recommended allocation will be able to satisfy projected
demands on the system. Thus, the permit duration will be less than ten
years.

An exception to this rule is the case of a utility which does not intend
to expand and intends to satisfy additional demands through interconnections
with other utilities. For those applicants a ten year permit will be
recommended.

7.3 Bonding

Section 373.236 provides that the District may authorize permits of a
duration of up to 50 years in cases of a municipality or other govern-
mental body or of a public works or public service corporation for such
a period as is required to provide for the retirement of bonds for the
construction of water works and waste disposal facilities. It should be
recognized that the "protections of existing use" provisions of Chapter
373 usually offer all the necessary protections necessary to insure
satisfactions of bonding requirements. Bonding requirements shall not
be the basis of increasing proposed allocations since adequate and proper
planning of financing requirements in light of the District permit should
mitigate any difficulties caused by an allocation of water less than the
total capacity of the water supply system. Likewise proper planning of
fiscal commitments in relation to water use permitting requirements should
mitigate against the difficulties encountered with long-term financing.

Before a municipality or other governmental body or a public works or
public service corporation proceeds to the point of committing itself
to the generation of certain revenue to pay off their bonded indebtedness,
they should obtain an allocation from the District for the utility. The
District will work with the utility's bond counsel in order to resolve
any problems that may arise. The District staff will not recommend an
extension of the standard permit duration for new allocation to allow
for bond retirement unless the utility has consulted with the District
prior to committing itself to a bonding scheme.









22


5,








8.0 Limiting Conditions


Items listed below are typical limiting conditions that may be added to
a permit. Case by case evaluation of applications may require project-
specific conditions.

8.1 Limiting Conditions on all Permits

8.1.1 Application for an additional allocation or modification may be made at
any time.

8.1.2 This permit shall expire years from the date of issuance.

8.1.3 Maximum day withdrawals shall satisfy both of the following conditions:

a. Maximum day withdrawal shall not exceed MGD.

b. Maximum day withdrawals shall not exceed the ability of the
rated capacity of the treatment plant to treat raw water as
approved by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER).

8.1.4 Permittee shall submit to the District copies of the monthly D.E.R. Water
Treatment Plant Reports

The reports shall be submitted on a monthly basis following the month of
record. Permittee shall begin submitting reports in the month following
the month of permit issuance. Reports shall be legible, and the Water
Use Permit number shall be attached to all reports.

8.1.5 In the event of a declared water shortage, water withdrawal reductions
shall be made as specified by the District.

8.1.6 Permittee shall submit a proposal for a report entitled "Water Shortage
Conservation Program" to the District within 18 months of permit issuance.
This program shall describe the manner in which the permitted will effect
cutbacks in water use during water shortage conditions. A final report
which meets the approval of District staff shall be submitted within 24
months of permit issuance. Permittee should contact the Director of the
District's Water Resource Center, P.O. Box V, W. Palm Beach, Fla. 33402
(Telephone No. 1-800-432-2045) for assistance in complying with this
provision. (An outline for the Program is detailed under Section 12.0).

8.1.7 Permittee shall mitigate any adverse impact caused by withdrawals on legal
uses which existed at the time of permit application. District reserves
the right to curtail future pumpage rates if pumpage causes an adverse
impact on legal uses of water which existed at the time of application.
Adverse impacts are exemplified by but not limited to the following: 1)
reduction in well water levels resulting in a reduction of 10% in the
ability of an adjacent well to produce water (an adjacent well may be a
domestic well, lawn irrigation well, public water supply well, etc.), 2)
significant reduction in water levels in an adjacent water body such as
a lake, pond, or a canal system, resulting in a significant impairment
of the use of water in that water body, 3) saline water intrusion or
induction of pollutants into the water supply of an adjacent water use
resulting in a significant reduction in water quality.


~LX








8.1.8 Permittee shall mitigate any adverse impact on off-site land use which
existed at the time of application, as a consequence of withdrawals
permitted herein to the satisfaction of the District. The District
reserves the right to curtail future pumpage rates if increased with-
drawals cause an adverse impact on land use which existed at the time
of application. Adverse impacts are exemplified by but not limited
to the following: 1) significant reduction in water levels in an
adjacent water body such as a lake, pond, or canal system which is
not being used as a source of water; 2) land collapse or subsidence
caused by reduction in water levels; 3) damage to crops and other
types of vegetation, the elimination of which would cause financial
harm to the landowner.

8.1.9 The annual allocation specified herein is not a guarantee either that
the water is available or that the annual allocation will not produce
an adverse impact, but represents the best evaluation by the District
staff of available data. The allocation may be subject to change if
the results of monitoring activities specified herein demonstrate an
adverse impact or significant advance of the saline water interface.

8.1.10 If the permitted will not serve a new demand located within the service
area for which the annual allocation was calculated, the annual alloca-
tion may be subject to modification.

8.1.11 One month prior to new well construction, permitted shall submit to the
District for approval all of the following items for each proposed well:
proposed depth of well, proposed depth of casing, location of other
wells within 300' of proposed site, map of proposed site, installed
capacity, evaluation of impact of withdrawals from the site on existing
uses and location of all sources of pollution within 500' (excluding
septic tanks for single family dwellings).

8.1.12 Permittee shall perform specific capacity tests on all new wells
within one month of construction. These data shall be submitted to
the District within one month. Permittee shall submit the pumping
rate, duration of the test and the drawdown at the end of the test.

8.1.13 New well construction or modification of existing wells shall be per-
formed per FAC 17-21 and 17-22. New well or modifications of existing
wells shall be under the direction and under the supervision of a water
well contractor licensed by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. Permittee shall obtain a DER well construction permit
prior to constructing a well.

8.1.14 The District and the Department of Environmental Regulation shall be
notified at least 5 days prior to the construction of proposed wells.

8.1.15 Permittee shall supply the Florida Bureau of Geology and the South
Florida Water Management District with drill cuttings from any new
wells. The cuttings shall be collected every five feet or every
formation change, whichever comes first. Sample bags shall be provi-
ded by the permitted. One well shall be resistivity and gamma-ray
logged if the well is constructed using mud-rotary technique and only
gamma-ray logged if the well is constructed by any other method. Logs
and location maps of the well shall be sent to both the District and






the Bureau of Geology within one month of the date of construction.
Cuttings sent to the District should be sent to: Water Use Division,
Resource Control Dept., SFWMD, P.O. Box "V", W. Palm Beach, Florida
33402. The address of the Florida Bureau of Geology is as follows:
Florida Bureau of Geology, 903 W. Tennessee, Tallahassee, Florida
32304.

8.1.16 A driller's well completion report for new or modified wells shall be
provided to the District within one month of date of well construction
or modification.

8.1.17 Permittee shall develop and implement a "Wellfield Operating Program
(WOP)" within six months of date of permit issuance. This program shall
detail which wells are primary, standby (reserve), well rotation schedule,
the order of preference in turning-on wells, and any other aspects of
wellfield management. The WOP may be submitted as a letter report.

8.1.18 Source classification is (surface water ) (groundwater) from
(aquifer) (name of surface water body).
8.1.19 Use classification is public supply.

8.1.20 The Director of the Resource Control Department or his authorized
representatives shall be permitted to enter, inspect and observe the
public water system upon District staff identification in order to
determine compliance with special conditions.

8.1.21 Permittee shall send the District a description of new rate structures
as they are established. Permittee shall send the District a copy of
the utility's Annual Report each and every year subsequent to permit
issuance if such a report is produced annually and released to the
public as a matter of routine operating procedure for the utility.

8.1.22 Permittee shall notify the District of any change in service territory
or area within 30 days of the change in boundary.

8.1.23 Permittee shall determine "unaccounted for" distribution system losses if
the permitted distributes water within one mile of surface saline water.
Losses shall be determined for the entire distribution system on a monthly
basis. Permittee shall define the manner in which "unaccounted for" losses
are calculated. Data collection shall begin within six months of permit
issuance. Losses shall be submitted to the District on a yearly basis
from the date of permit issuance with no data submitted more than one
month after expiration of the one year period.

8.1.24 If any conditions of this permit are violated, the permit shall be subject
to review and possible revocation and modification, or enforcement action.

8.2 Data Collection

The District will require that all permittees whose allocations include
proposed water use construct and maintain a monitoring well with a continuous
recorder which records daily water levels at the level of the pumped zone,
and maintain monitoring wells which will delineate the area extent of the
area of influence of the wellfield and other aspects of the wellfield's
hydrology. Weekly water level measurements may be substituted for an automatic
recording device. The size of the monitoring effort should be commensurate
with the size of the withdrawals. Construction of the network may be phased
to the level of withdrawals so that all wells are not constructed at once. In
the case of an application located in or


I








adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) where staff's evaluation
is that withdrawals would affect water levels in the ESA, staff will recom-
mend: 1) a shallow monitoring well with data collection by means of either
continuous recording device or weekly water level measurements, and/or, 2)
weekly water level measurements from a staff gage in a surface water body.
Special conditions may be added as follows:

8.2.1 Permittee shall construct and maintain a potentiometric head monitoring well
with a continuous recording device which is set to the depth of the pumped
zone. The well and recorder shall be constructed at a location acceptable
to both permitted and District staff within six months of permit issuance.
Weekly potentiometric head measurements may be recorded by an employee of
the permitted in place of a continuous recording device. Potentiometric
head records shall be submitted to the District as frequently as charts
are changed for recording devices and on a monthly basis for manual data
collection. Charts from recording devices shall be submitted by December
31 of each year. Data collection shall begin in the month following the
month of well construction.

8.2.2 Permittee shall develop and implement a "Multi-Depth Potentiometric Head
Monitoring Program (MUD-POHMP)" within two years of date of permit issuance.
The program shall involve the construction of a multi-depth monitoring well
network which will indicate: a) if the permitted's wellfield is located in
a groundwater recharge or discharge area, b) if the geologic sediments in
the permitted's area respond as a single or multi-layer aquifer unit, and
c) the areal extent of the permitted's cone of depression. The network
shall consist of multi-level monitoring wells constructed such that deep
and shallow potentiometric head data can be collected. The scope of the
monitoring effort should be commensurate with the size of the projected
withdrawals so that all wells need not be constructed at the same time.

The permitted shall consider well localities, depths, method of construction,
types of screen, well design, methods of potentiometric head measurement and
frequency of both collection and submission of data in developing the program.
A preliminary proposal shall be submitted to District staff for approval
within six months of permit issuance.

8.2.3 Permittee shall construct and maintain a shallow monitoring well with data
collection by means of either a continuous recording device or weekly water
level measurements. The well shall be constructed at a location acceptable
to both permitted and District staff within six months of permit issuance.
Water level records shall be submitted to the District as frequently as
charts are changed for recording devices and on a monthly basis for manual
data collection. Charts from recording devices shall be submitted by
December 31 of each year. Data collection shall begin in the month
following the month of well installation.

8.2.4 Permittee shall construct and maintain a staff gage in the (water
body) within six months of permit issuance. Water level data shall be collected
on a weekly basis. The staff gage shall be constructed in the aforementioned
water body at a location acceptable to both permitted and District staff.
Water level records shall be submitted to the District on a monthly basis
after construction of the gage.






Wellfield Subject to Saline Water Intrusion


The District may require development and implementation of a "Saline
Intrusion Monitoring and Management (SWIMM) Program" in areas where
saline water is near the wellfield, or movement of saline water towards
the wellfield or up into the wellfield is possible as a consequence of
future withdrawals. A SWIMM program may also be necessary for an appli-
cant using saline water.

8.3.0 Criteria

A SWIMM Program may be required if any one of the following conditions is
met:

8.3.0.1 The wellfield is within one mile of a brackish or saltwater body of water
including canals and tidal creeks.

8.3.0.2 The wellfield is located seaward of the 250 mg/l chloride line mapped at
the base of the aquifer; the wellfield is located seaward of a line connect-
ing two adjacent salinity control structures.

8.3.0.3 The land on which the wellfield is located is between the Intracoastal
Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean. The land on which the wellfield is located
is between a tidal creek and the Intracoastal Waterway; between a tidal creek
and the Gulf of Mexico; or between the Intracoastal and the Gulf of Mexico.

8.3.0.4 Non-potable saline water is located either above or below the producing zone
and is not separated from the producing zone by a distinct and definable
confining layer.

8.3.0.5 A history of saltwater intrusion or increasing chlorides concentrations
exists for either groundwater or surface water in the vicinity of the
wellfield.

8.3.0.6 Staff evaluation indicates that at projected withdrawal rates saline water
intrusion may occur to the extent that the existing treatment process will
no longer be capable of producing potable water.

8.3.1 If an application qualifies for a SWIMM Program, the following special
condition will be recommended unless expressly exempted by the District.
Permittee shall develop and implement a "Saltwater Intrusion Monitoring
and Management (SWIMM) Program" within two years of date of permit issuance.
A preliminary proposal shall be submitted to staff for approval within six
months of permit issuance. The purpose of the program shall be to: a)
locate the saline water interface, b) construct a monitoring well network
which will monitor the movement and velocity of the saline water interface,
and c) describe the steps the permitted will take to retard the advance of
the front as it approaches the applicant's wellfield.

In developing the program, the permitted shall consider well localities,
depths, method of well construction, types of screen, method of chloride
analysis, frequency of data collection, and a management scheme for
operating the supply wells at particular chloride levels in monitoring
wells.


~








8.4 Service Area Discrepancy


If the service territory or area of an applicant as proposed in an applica-
tion differs from the existing service area and if the applicant is regulated
by a governmental entity which exercises authority over service areas, either
of the following special conditions may apply:

8.4.1 Permittee shall obtain a certificate for the proposed service territory from
the Public Service Commission (PSC) within two years from the date of issuance
of this permit.

8.4.2 Permittee shall obtain a franchise for the proposed service territory from
the appropriate local government agency within two years from date of permit
issuance.

8.5 Applicant Responsible for Both Drainage (Surface Water Management) and
Water Use.

If an applicant is responsible for both water use and drainage of a
project or development, the following special condition will apply.

8.5.1 Permittee shall apply for a Surface Water Management Permit from the District,
prior to constructions or operations of any surface water management facilities.

8.6 Artesian Floridan Wells.

8.6.1 If a utility derives its water supply from artesian Floridan wells, the
following special condition will be recommended.

A one-quarter inch brass 900 valve shall be installed on the casing side of
the well valve-head of Well No. The brass valve shall be threaded
into the casing and shall exhibit a female threaded end on the discharge
side. The valve shall be kept in working order. The purpose of this
valve shall be for periodic checks on the potentiometric head of the
Floridan aquifer.






9.0 The Staff Report


The staff report evaluating the proposed allocation will normally include
the following sections. Additional sections may be added for purposes of
clarity or to present technical discussions of the application. Upon
request staff will send a sample staff report to an applicant.

Outline of the Staff Report

Abstract

The Application

Purpose
Existing Facilities
Proposed Facilities
Justification for New Wellfield
Additional Descriptive Information
Background Information Other Permits

Evaluation

Current Pumpage
Requested Allocation
Installed Capacity
Field Inspection
Projected Population and Proposed Use
Staff Evaluation of Projected Population and Proposed Use
Water Availability
Water Table Controls
Sources of Pollution
Impact on Legally Existing Uses
Impact on Off-site Land Use
Saline Water Intrusion
Environmental Impact
DER Health Department Evaluation
Allocation Recommended by Staff
Maximum Day Withdrawal Recommended by Staff
Duration of Permit
Water Shortage
Drainage

Conclusions

Recommendations

Special Conditions








Hydrogeologic Data Collection and Evaluations


Hydrogeologic data collection and evaluations are not a requirement for
a water use permit except in instances where staff recommends a denial
based in part on the lack of sufficient site specific hydrologic data.

It is in the best interest of the applicant to perform a hydrogeologic
effort if the applicant desires an allocation greater than that which
the staff can recommend. A need for hydrogeologic data collection and
evaluations should be discussed during the pre-application meeting. If
it is unclear at that time as to whether an effort should be performed,
the applicant should wait until after the Governing Board has considered
the staff report before embarking on data collecting.

Data collection must be performed when the amount of data is inadequate
for staff to evaluate impacts associated with proposed withdrawals and
if a larger allocation is desired. Data collection may involve the
compilation of existing data and/or the collection of new data. The
following are the types of data that may be collected: rainfall, historical
pumpage records; specific capacity data on individual wells, transmissivity,
storage coefficient, leakance of the aquifer; water level elevations and
records for wells or other water bodies; dispersion and sorption coeffi-
cients; and the location of the saline water interface. A proposal for
data collection should have staff approval prior to expenditure of funds.

Staff can re-evaluate an application upon receipt of additional data, It
should be emphasized that additional data collection will result in a
higher allocation only if all criteria are satisfied by an allocation
calculated from additional data.

If the applicant disagrees with the allocation recommended by staff
because of the interpretation and evaluation of the data (assuming the
quantity and quality of data are adequate), it will be in the best interests
of the applicant to conduct a hydrogeologic evaluation if a larger allocation
is desired. An evaluation may involve the interpretation of field data,
analysis of impacts, movement of the saline front, migration of pollution
plumes and computer modeling of the groundwater system. Proposals for
evaluations should have staff concurrence prior to initiation of the
work effort. Hydrogeologic evaluations should only be performed by a
groundwater expert.

The Selected Bibliography (Section 13) represents those texts and
methodologies considered most useful by Staff in data collection and
hydrogeologic evaluations.


10.0








11.0 Methods Used for Projecting Impacts Associated With Proposed Withdrawals

Section 10, Selected Bibliography, contains a listing of numerous texts
and articles concerning hydrology, aquifer testing, hydrogeological
modeling and saline water intrusion. This reference material generally
reflects the range of literature that staff may consult in order to
obtain a solution to a problem.

Staff utilizes the following general methods, usually in combination with
one another, for projecting impacts associated with proposed withdrawals:

a) Extrapolation of historical data to a future point in time.
Extrapolations may involve correlation of wellfield pumpage with
water level and chloride concentrations in monitoring wells.

b) Delineation of the area of influence of the wellfield by both
application of appropriate analytic and numerical models.

c) Delineation of the movement of the saline water interface by use
of appropriate analytic and numerical models.

d) Determination of pollutant movement by application of appropriate
analytic and numerical models.








Water Shortage Planning and Water Conservation


The District Board may declare a water shortage when such situation exists
or is foreseen. Administration of such an action will be through a water
shortage plan, which may be adopted on an emergency basis or through an
advance plan which proceeds through a complex process of study, meetings
and public hearings. Subjects relevant to such actions include:
voluntary and mandatory curtailment of use; local and District enforcement
action; local ordinances, codes and laws; prioritization of use, and
detailed knowledge of consumption within system service areas. Applicants
as well as permittees should be aware of the fact that the whole water use
permit process is directed toward the avoidance of water short situations
and the handling of them when and where unavoidable. The technical
community is well aware that it is not feasible to develop systems to meet
any and all events, no matter how conservatively the system is designed.

Since the District is charged with dealing with such situations, and
since it must then use whatever tools and information available, it
behooves applicants and permittees to develop the best procedures,
information bases, etc. to reflect their own situation, so any water
shortage action can be responsive to their own situations. Those who
do the best job of planning will be in the best position to cope with
water shortages if and when they occur.

Implementation of a Water Shortage Program will not result in an unfair
restriction of those permittees who already have voluntarily reduced
their consumption of water. Reductions in water use during a declared
shortage will be gauged so that cutbacks by water users already conserving
water will be less than they would have been had the utility not been
voluntarily restricting water use.

The concept of user efficiency is encouraged by the South Florida Water
Management District. This includes supporting water conservation
practices by suppliers, managers, the District and all water users.

Through water conservation, it is possible to extend the useful life of
existing water supply and wastewater treatment facilities, postpone the
need of new facility construction and, therefore capital expenditures,
and minimize operation and maintenance costs.

Water conservation may be initiated on a voluntary or mandatory basis by
local governments, promoted and practiced by water suppliers, and implemen-
ted by residential, commercial, industrial and governmental users. The
District's Water Resource Center was established to work with all the
above entities in establishing conservation programs and practices adaptable
to various users' needs.

I If an applicant is conducting an ongoing perennial water conservation
program and can show that it has had an appreciable effect on reducing his
total and/or per capital water requirements then this will be considered
as a positive factor by the District staff and Governing Board in their
subsequent recommendations and decisions regarding the evaluation of an
annual allocation. In order to avoid penalizing an applicant for conserving
water, staff will recommend an allocation based on the pre-conservation
program per capital use of water (assuming other criteria are met).


12.0







Providing that the permitted continues to conserve water, the recommended
allocation may be sufficient for meeting demands for more than a ten year
projected period.

The District requires all public water supply permittees to develop a Water
Shortage Conservation Program which can be implemented to reduce require-
ments on the supplier (Section 8.1.6).

The Water Shortage Conservation Program consists of a series of actions
which will be implemented when a water shortage emergency is declared by
the District. Since a water shortage may go through a series of increasingly
severe cutbacks, the program describes the manner in which the permitted shall
reduce withdrawals on an increasingly severe scale. A water shortage area
may be declared for an entire hydrologic basin or an individual municipality
or utility. The permitted should explain the steps which would be taken to
reduce withdrawals by 10%, 25% and 50%. The Program includes a minimum of
the following elements:

A. Preliminary Organization

1. Establishment of a Water Emergency Task (WET) Group to direct
and implement the program. The WET Group would establish
goals and handle other administrative functions. The make-up
of this group is described in detail.

2. Appointment of a Water Resource Center (WRC) Coordinator to
communicate directly with the District's Water Resource Center
during the shortage.

B. Water Management Decisions

1. Voluntary and/or mandatory reductions in water use.

2. Prioritization of uses within the distribution system.

C. Methods of Implementing Water Reductions

1. Pressure reductions in the system

2. Public information/education programs explaining shortages
and methods to conserve water.

3. Distribution and installation of water saving devices.

4. Interlocal agreement or private contracts to purchase water
from other suppliers.

5. Ordinances restricting nonessential water use.

6. Rate structure changes; price incentives and penalties.

7. Moratorium on new connections.

D. Enforcement of mandatory water use restrictions

E. Monitoring and Evaluation of WET Program in order to determine
if water use is being reduced.







F. Reporting of pumpage and other data to the District on a
daily basis.

The permitted should elaborate upon the appropriate elements above and
indicate how they would be applied to his particular utility. The Water
Shortage Conservation Program should then be submitted to the District in
report form for approval.

For coastal users of water the Water Shortage Conservation Program may be
activated by the SWIMM Program (Section 8.3) if saline water intrusion
directly affects a permitted's wellfield.

Water conservation should also be practiced by the supplier by maintain-
ing an efficient treatment and delivery system. The District shall require
the permitted to determine "unaccounted for" distribution system losses if
the permittee serves water to any area within 1 mile of surface saline
water. The permitted shall define the manner in which his "unaccounted for"
losses are calculated.







13.0 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

13,1 GENERAL HYDROGEOLOGIC REFERENCES



Anonymous, 1975. Groundwater and Wells. Johnson Division, VOP, Inc.,
Saint Paul, Minn.

Bear, J., 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Am. Elsevier Publ. Co.,
New York, N.Y.

Bennett, G.D., 1976. Introduction to Groundwater Hydraulics. Techniques of
Water Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Chap. 32, Book 3.

Campbell, D.M., Lehr, J.H., 1972. Water Well Technology. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York, N.Y.

Chow, V.T., (ed.), 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Inc., New York, N.Y.

Davis, S.M., DeWiest, R.J.M., 1970. Hydrogeology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York.

Gray, D.M., 1973. Handbook on the Principles of Hydrology. Water Information
Center, Port Washington, N.Y.

Hem, J.D., 1970. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Charactoristics of
Natural Water. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1473.

Huisman, L., 1972. Groundwater Recovery. Winchester Press, New York, N.Y.

Lohman, S.W., et. al., 1972b. Definitions of Selected Ground-Water Terms --
Revisions and Refinements. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1988.

Parker, G.G., Ferguson, 3.E., Love, S.K., 1955. Water Resources of Southeastern
Florida. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1255.

Todd, D.K., 1959. Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.

Van der Leeden, F., 1971. Ground Water -- A Selected Bibliography. Water Information
Center, Port Washington, N.Y.

Walton, W.C., 1970. Groundwater Resource Evaluation. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, N.Y.






AQUIFER TESTING


Ferris, J.G., et. al. 1962. Theory of Aquifer Tests. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 1536-E.

Kritz,G.J., 1967. Determination of Unconfined Aquifer Characteristics. J.
Irrig. and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, June
IR2, no. 5269, pp. 37-47.

Kruseman, G.P., De Ridder, N.A., 1970. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test
Data. Internat. Inst. for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Bull. 11,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.


Lohman, S.W., 1972.
Paper 708.


Ground-Water Hydraulics. U.S. Geological Survey Professional


Neuman, S.P., 1972. Theory of Flow in Unconfined Aquifers Considering Delayed
Response of the Water Table. Water Resources Res., V.8, no. 4, pp. 1031-1045.

Neuman, S.P., Witherspoon, P.A., 1969. Transient Flow of Ground Water to Wells in
Multiple-Aquifer Systems. Department of Civil Engineering, Publ. No. 69-1,
Univ. of California, Berkley.


Neuman, S.P., Witherspoon, P.A., 1972.
of Leaky Multiple Aquifer Systems.
1284-1298.


Field Determination of the Hydraulic
Water Resources Res., V.8, no. 5.,


Properties
pp.


Stallman, R.W., 1971. Aquifer Test Design, Observatiorn and Data Analysis.
Geological Survey Tech. of Water Resource Inv., V.3, b.l,pp. 1-26.


U.S.


Walton, W.C., 1962. Selected Analytical Methods for Well and Aquifer Evaluation.
Department of Registration and Education, Bulletin 49, Urbana, Illinois.


.13.3


HYDROGEOLOGICAL MODELING


Appel, C.A., Bredegoeft,
Geological Survey.


J.D., 1976. Status of Groundwater Modelling
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 737.


in the U.S.


Bear, J., Dagan, G., 1964. Moving Interface in Coastal Aouifers.
the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
HY 4, 193-216.


J. of
Civil Engineers,


Bredehoeft, J.D., Pinder, G.F., 1972. The Application of Transport Equations to
Groundwater Systems. in Cook, T.D., (ed.), Underground Waste Management
and Environmental Implications, Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists Memoir 18, pp.
199-201.

Dominico, A.P., 1972. Concepts and Models in Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York, N.Y.

Freeze, R.A., 1971/. Three-Dimensional, Transient, Saturated Unsaturated Flow
in a Ground Water Basin. Water Resources Res., V.7, no. 2, pp. 347-366.


13.2








Newman, S.P., Witherspoon, P.A., 1971. Analysis of Nonsteady Flow with a Free:
Surface Using the Finite Element Method. Water Resources Res., V.7, no. 3,
pp. 611-623.

Pickens, J.F., Lennox, W.C., 1976. Numerical Simulation of Waste Movement in
Steady Groundwater Flow Systems. Water Resources Res., V.12, no. 2, pp.
171-180.

Pickens, J.F., Merritt, W.F., Cherry, J.A., 1976. Field Determination of the
Physical Containment Transport Parameters in a Sandy Aquifer. in proceedings
IAEA, Advisory Group Meeting or "The Use of Nuclear Techniques in Water
Pollution Studies", Cracow, Polland, Dec. 6-9, In Press.

Pinder, G.F., 1970. A Digital Model for Aquifer Evaluation. Techniques of Water-
Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Chap. C1, Book 7.

Pinder, G.F., Frind, E.O., 1972. Application of Galerkin's Procedure to Aquifer
Analysis. Water Resources Res., V.8, no. 1, pp. 108-120.

Pinder, G.F., Gray,W., 1977. Finite Element Simulation in Surface and Subsurface
Hydrology. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.

Pinder, G.F., Page, R.H., 1976. Finite Element Simulation of Saltwater Intrusion
on the South Fork of Long Island. International Conference on Finitp
Elements in Water Resources, Part II, Water Resource Program, Dept. of
Civil Engineering Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.

Pinder, G.F., Segol, G., et. al., 1975. Numerical Simulation of Saltwater Intrusion
in Coastal Aquifers, Parts I and II. Rept. WRP-75-2, Princeton University
Water Resources Program, Princeton, New Jersey, NTIS PB-250127.

Prickett, T.A., 1965. Type curve Solution to aquifer tests under water table
conditions. Ground Water, V.3, no. 3, pp. 5-12.

Prickett, T.A., Longuist, G.G.,1975 Aquifer Simulation for Use on Disk Supported
Small Computer Systems. Illinois State Water Survey Circular 144.

Segol, G., Pinder, G.F., Gray, W.G., 1975. A Galerkin Finite Element Technique for
Calculating the Transient Position of the Saltwater Front. Water Resources
Research 11 (2), 313-347.

Trescott, P.C., Pinder, G.F., Larson, S.P., 1976. Finite-difference Model for Aquifer
Simulation in Two Dimensions with Results of Numerical Experiments. Techniques
of Water Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Chap. C1, book 7.

Vandenberg, A., 1975. Program Front, Two-Dimensional Simulation of a Moving Intrusion
Front in a Thin Horizontal Confined Aquifer. Inland Waters Directorate, Water
Resources Branch, Ottawa, Canada.

Zienkiewiez, O.C., 1971. The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.


I








SALINE WATER INTRUSION


Bear, J., Dagan, G., 1964. Moving Interface in a Coastal Aquifer. J. of the
Hydraulics Division, Proc., ASCE.

Bear, J., Dagan, G., 1964. Some Exact Solutions of Interface Problems by Means
of the Hodograph Method. J. Geophys. Res., V.69, pp. 1563-1572.

Boggess, Durward H., 1968. A Test of Flushing Procedures to Control Saltwater
Intrusion at the W.P. Franklin Dam, Near Fort Myers, Florida. U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report.

Boggess, Durward H., 1968. The Magnitude and Extent of Saltwater Contamination .n
the Caloosahatchee River Basin. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report.

Childs, E.C., 1950. The Equilibrim of Rain-Fed Groundwater Resting on Deeper
Saline Water The Ghyben Herzberg Lens. J. Soil Sciences, V.1, no. 2,
pp. 173-181.

Cooper, H.H., Jr., 1959. A Hypothesis Concerning the Dynamic Balance of Fresh Water
and Salt Water in a Coastal Aquifer. J. Geophys. Res., V.64, pp. 461-467.

Glover, R.E., 1959. The Pattern of Fresh-Water Flow in a Coastal Aquifer. J.
Geophys. Res. V.64, pp. 457-459.

Kohout, F.A., 1960. The Flow of Fresh Water and Saltwater in the Biscayne Aquifer of
the Miami Area, Florida. Pub. No. 52, IASH, Commission of Subterrean Waters
pp. 440-448.

Kohout, F.A., 1960. Cyclic Flow of Saltwater in the Biscayne Aquifer of Southeastern
Florida. J. of Geophysical Research, V.65 no. 7.

Kohout, F.A., 1965. A Hypothesis Concerning Cyclic Flow of Saltwater Related to
Geothermal Heating in the Floridan Aquifer. Trans. New York Acadermy of Sciences,
Ser. II, V.28, no. 2, pp. 249-271.

Parker, Gerald G., 1945. Saltwater Encroachment in Southern Florida. J. of
the American Water Works Association V.37, no. 6.

Schmorak, S., Mercado, A., 1969. Upconing of Fresh Water Sea Water Interface Below
Pumping Wells. Water Resources Res., V.5, no. 6, p. 1290.

Strack, O.D.L., 1976. A Single-Potential Solution for Regional Interface Problems in
Coastal Aquifers. Water Resource Research, V.12, no. 6, pp. 1165-1174.

Van der Kamp, G., 1972. Tidal Fluctuations in a Confined Aquifer Extending Under
the Sea. Internat. Geol. Congress, 24th Session, Section II Hydrogeology,
Montreal, pp. 101-106.


13.4










13.5 HYDROLOGIC DATA


Hydrologic data for the SFWMD can be found in Reports of Investigation of the
Florida Bureau of Geology, 903 W. Tennessee, Tallahassee, Florida 32304.

Data is also available in U.S. Geological Survey Open File Reports which are
available from the U.S. Geological Survey, WRD., 326 John Knox Road, Suite
F-240, Tallahassee, Florida 32303.

Data for certain areas in the District may be obtained by contacting local offices
of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Data on water table elevations within canals, lakes, or reservoirs constituting
District work can be obtained from the SFWMD and also "USGS Water Resources Data
for Florida".











Appendices


The appendices which follow exemplify the decision making process.
However, in all cases the Text shall govern the course which the
District shall take in the evaluation of criteria.







Appendix la


The Application


Application Complete?

I I


Yes No


Field Inspection,
correspondence
with other
governmental
agencies

- NJ


All water u
is proposed


1I


--- Letter Reauesting
Additional Information


Applicant

Additional Information
Received?

I I


se Water use Water use
is existing is existing use
and proposed only
\ /


Staff recommends denial



I1I
Request withdrawal
of application
Allocation is current
pumpage only

1I
Allocation subject to
the evaluation of
other criteria

Allocation recommended
by Staff is the largest
allocation which will
satisfy all criteria.


--







Appendix lb


Reasonable need for


Staff



Reasonable ten
year or less
projected population?



No



Staff determination
of population projection


Yes



concurrence of
projected service
area by other
governmental
agencies |


the requested allocation?

evaluatio



Authorized or Historical per
reasonable service capital water
area? use?


I
Service area is
regulated by
governmental
agencies?


No
/ l


Service area
can reasonably
be served by the
within ten years


?s No



special condition
requiring concurrence
4,


I
No


Staff determina-
tion of per
capital water use


applicant
or less






No


staff evaluation
of service area


Calculation of Reasonable Need?
No Yes
No Yes


Denial
Request withdrawal
of application


Allocation subject to
the evaluation of
other criteria


Allocation recommended by
Staff is the largest allocation
which will satisfy all criteria.


Yes





Appendix 1c


Allocable Water?


Allocable water on a
regional basis
II


Staff recommends denial No


Additional water should
not be allocated because
of existing or recurring Us
water shortages exc


Y
Yee
Yes No


Staff recommends denial

II
request withdrawal
of application


I


Yes


able water
needs permitted uses?


I


s N
Staff


Staff will
calculate an
allocation which
will not exceed
water available


recommends denial

1
Request withdrawal
of application


Application
serve public


Staff Calci
an equitable
allocation
Section 3.3






Allocation subject to
evaluation of other
criteria


Request withdrawal
of application

I


Board approves or
modifies the
application which
best serves the
public interest

Allocation recommended by
Staff is the largest allocation which
will satisfy all criteria.


Allocable water on a
site specific basis






Competing
Applications?

I \
Yes No


II
Applications are
all renewals or all
initial applications?


Yes
/J
ns equally No
ic interest


s

No


plates
le
(see
3.2)


Board gives
preference to
renewal over
initial applica-
tion
I


-- I


I











Appendix Id


Application Evaluated by Governmental

Agencies responsible for

public health?


Staff evaluation of hydrologic aspects
of pollution sent to governmental agencies:
aquifer is unconfined


Evaluation of application by governmental agencies


Governmental agency Requests:


Attachment of special
conditions



Yes No
I I




i/
Allocation subject
evaluation of other
criteria





Allocation recommend
by staff is the lar
allocation which wi
satisfy all criteria


Reduction
allocat


to


ided
rgest
11
a


Denial \
iin Application be
ion held in abeyance

Applicant agrees to
Staff may recommend waive 90-day review
denial period


Yes No
Staff requests
withdrawal of
application


Application
held in
abeyance


Abeyance
lifted


Staff
recommends
denial








Appendix le


Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Areas


Staff Evaluation
I I L


V V
Data available for Adverse impact on Adver
evaluation of impacts endangered species on en
on other than endangered presently occurring speci
species? prese
Applicant is currently
i pumping water
No I No__
Yes Ye



Allocation is
Staff calculates equal to or less
Unacceptable level of impact of requested than current
impact may be imminent withdrawals pumpage
if additional water
allocated due to pre-existing Staff calculates
conditions acceptable level
of withdrawal


Yes No


Staff recommends Applicant is currently
denial pumping water.


Yes No


Request withdrawal
of application


tS
den

Request wil
of applical


I\
Allocation is equal
to 120% of current Allocation is
pumpage equal to or less
than 100,000 gpd
(36.5 MGY)


Allocation subject to
evaluation of other
criteria
Allocation recommended by
staff is largest allocation
which will satisfy all
criteria.


sse impact
dangered
es not
ntly occurring

Potential
problem in the

futurYes

~No Yes


U-]


aTT recommends
nial

thdrawal
tion
Hydrologic data
available for
site specific
evaluation

Yes No





Staff calculates
non adverse
withdrawal rate
Staff
recommends
denial

I
request
withdrawal
of application


II


j














Staff Evaluation


Not presently occurring


Potent
the fu


Staff No
recommends /
Yes No -. Denial --..request
withdrawal
of application

Allocation is equal
to or less than
current pumpage



Yes



staff calculates
non adverse
withdrawal rate



Allocation subject Allocation recommended by
to evaluation of >Staff is the largest allocation
other criteria which will satisfy all criteria


Staff
recommends
Denial < Yes


Request withdrawal
of application


ial problem in
ture?

Yes


Hydrologic data
available for site
specific evaluation?


1
No



\I


Adv
may
if
all

/


erse impact
be imminent
additional water
ocated?






No


Applicant is
currently pumping
water

< Allocation is equal Yes No
to 120% of current
pumpage
Allocation is equal
to or less than
100,000 gpd
(36.5 MGY)
NOTE: This flow chart exemplifies the decision making process for uses
of fresh water. For uses of saline water, refer to Section 3.6.2.


Appendix If


Saline Water Intrusion?

I


Presently occurring


Applicant is currently
pumping water?








Appendix lg


Adverse Impact on Existing Legal Use?

I


Staff Evaluation
-N


Presently Occurring



Applicant is currently
pumping water?


I Staff
S recommends
Yes No--~ Denial -- Request
withdrawal of
application


Not Presently Occurrino



Potential problem in
the future?

YNos
Yes


Allocation is equal
to or less than
current pumpage


Yesk

staff calculates
non adverse
withdrawal rate


V Ae Allocation recommended by
Allocation subject Staff is the largest
to evaluation of allocation which will
other criteria satisfy all criteria


Staff recommends Denial -- Yes


Request withdrawal
of application




Yes
Allnraftinn ic anna -n-l -


Hydrologic data
available for site
specific evaluation?






No



Adverse impact
may be imminent
if additional water
allocated?



/ 1
No



Applicant is
currently
pumping water

'I


to 120 % of current
pumpage

Allocation is equal
< to or less than
100,000 qpd
NOTE: Flow chart assumes that adverse impact as a consequence of ,
increased withdrawals is presented. If an adverse impact occurs as (36.5 MGY)
a consequence of increased withdrawals then the permitted must mitigate adverse
impacts as described in Section 3.7.










Appendix Ih


Adverse Impact on Existing Offsite Land Use?

1


Staff Evaluation


Presently Occurring


Applicant is currently
pumping water?

Staff
recommends
Yes No --)Denial ----Request
withdrawal
of application


Not Presently
Occurring


Potential problem
in the future?


No Yes


Allocation is equal to
or less than current
pumpage



Allocation subject Staff calculates
to evaluation of (< non adverse <- Yes <----Hydrologic data
other criteria withdrawal rate available for
site specific
evaluation?

Allocation recommended by 1
staff is the largest No
allocation which will
satisfy all criteria
Staff
recommends Denial --- Yes < Adverse impact may be
imminent if additional
water allocated?


Request withdrawal
of application


- Allocation is < Yes < Applicant is currently
equal to 120% pumping water
of current pumpage I


No


Allocation is equal to or
Less than 100,000 qpd
(36.5 MGY)







PERMITTING OF USES OF WATER


fiLL USES Of WlfIffR
i


I


GENERAL


Stuart
Sanibel-Capti
I
Use less Than Or E
10,000 Gpd Averal
20,000 Gpd M


va


INDIVIDUAL


Remainder Of District
I


Use Less Than Or Equal
qual To To 100,000 Gpd.
te day,
ax.


Existing Use



No Notice Necessary
I
Use is Permitted As Of Date
Of Rule Implementation


I
Proposed Use
I
Notice Required

Permit Effective On Date
Of Notice Receipt


Sti
Sanibel-

Use More Th
Averai
20,000


Existi

Application



Permit


I
uart, Remainder Of District
Captiva

an 10,000 Gpd Use More Than 100,000 Gpd.
ge Day,
Gpd Max.

ng Use e
Proposed Use Existing Use
n Required

Application Required Application Required


EXEMPT USES
I
Domestic Uses
Fire Fighting
Lawn and Ornamental
Plant irrigation,
Car Washing,Etc.,
Around The Home


Issued


Use Application Evaluated


Permit Issued


,




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