Title: Section 3 - Planning & Utility System Analysis
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004350/00001
 Material Information
Title: Section 3 - Planning & Utility System Analysis
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Section 3 - Planning & Utility System Analysis (JDV Box 95)
General Note: Box 20, Folder 3 ( Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority - 1996 Master Plan for Water Supply - 1996 ), Item 5
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004350
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






Section 3 PLANNING & UTILITY SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Citrus County
G general Issues ...................................... 3-1
Water Supply and Resource Protection in
County Plans and Ordinances ......................... 3-2
Comprehensive Plan Policies ..................... 3-2
Studies and Technical Support .................... 3-3
Implementing Ordinances ....................... 3-4
Conclusion ................................... 3-5
Utility Systems ..................................... 3-5
Citrus County Utilities Division .................. 3-7
Local Communities ............................ 3-8
Population Growth Patterns ........................... 3-15
Projections of Potable Water Demand ................... 3-18
-Future Service Areas, Wellfields and Facility Plans ........ 3-18
Hernando County
General Issues ..................................... 3-21
Water Supply and Resource Protection in
County Plans and Ordinances .................... .... 3-22
Comprehensive Plan Policies .................... 3-22
Studies & Technical Support ........ ........... 3-23
Implementing Ordinances ...................... 3-24
Conclusion .................................. 3-24
Utility Systems .................................... 3-25
Hernando County Water & Sewer District ......... 3-25
The West Hernando Water Supply System ......... 3-25
The East Hernando Water System ................ 3-29
Other County Systems ......................... 3-30
Local Communities ........................... 3-32
The City of Brooksville ........................ 3-33
Southern States Utilities Spring Hill ............. 3-33
Population Projections and Growth Patterns .............. 3-35
Projections of Potable Water Demand .................. 3-38
Future Service Areas, Wellfields and Facility Plans ........ 3-38
Sumter County
General Issues ..................................... 3-41
Water Supply and Resource Protection in County Plans and
Ordinances ...................................... 3-41
Comprehensive Plan Policies .................... 3-42
Studies & Technical Support .................... 3-42
Implementing Ordinances ...................... 3-43


3-i









Conclusion .................................. 3-43
Utility Systems .................................. 3-43
The City ofBushnell .......................... 3-45
Lake Panasoffkee ............................. 3-45
The City of Wildwood ......................... 3-45
The City of Center Hill ........................ 3-45
The City of W ebster ........................... 3-46
The Village Center Community Development District 3-47
Population Growth and Growth Patterns ................. 3-47
Projections of Potable Water Demand ................... 3-51
Future Service Area, Wellfields and Facility Plans ......... 3-51

The City of Ocala
General Issues ..................................... 3-53
Water Supply and Resource Protection in City Plans
and Ordinances ................................... 3-54
Comprehensive Plan Policies .................... 3-54
Studies and Technical Reports ................... 3-55
Implementing Ordinances ...................... 3-55
Conclusion ................................. 3-56
Utility System ..................................... 3-56
Population Projections ............................... 3-57
Projections of Potable Water Demand ................... 3-59
Future Service Areas, Wellfields and Facility Plans ........ 3-59

General Design Criteria for Well Field Construction,
Major Distribution and Storage
Well Field Construction Criteria ....................... 3-61
Finished W ater Storage .............................. 3-62
General .................................. 3-62
Plant Storage ................................ 3-68
Hydropneumatic Tanks .................. ..... 3-69
Distribution Storage ........................... 3-70
Distribution Systems .......................... 3-71
Materials ........................... ........ 3-71
W ater M ain Design ........................... 3-72
V alves ..................................... 3-73
H ydrants .................................... 3-73
Air Relief Valves; Valve, Meter & Blow-off Chambers 3-74
Installation of M ains .......................... 3-75
Separation of Water Mains,
Sanitary Sewers & Storm Sewers ............... 3-75
Surface Water Crossings .......... .......... 3-77
Cross-Connections and Interconnections ........... 3-78

3- ii










Reuse and Conservation
SWFWMD Program ................................ 3-79
Florida Department of Environmental Protection .......... 3-80
Gulf Coast Soil and Water Conservation District
(United States Department of Agriculture) ............. 3-81
Florida Cooperative Extension Service .................. 3-81
Conclusion ........................................ 3-81


3 iii








LIST OF FIGURES


Citrus County Existing Water Supply Facilities ........
Citrus County Growth Projections ................
Citrus County Proposed Water Supply Facilities .......
Hernando County Existing Water Supply Features ......
Hernando County Growth Projections ..............
Hernando County Proposed Future Water Supply Facilities
Sumter County Existing Water Supply Facilities .......
Sumter County Growth Projections ................
Sumter County Proposed Future Water Supply Facilities .
City of Ocala Existing Water Supply Facilities ........
City of Ocala Proposed Future Water Supply Facilities .


.......... 3-6
.......... 3-16
.......... 3-20
.......... 3-26
.......... 3-36
.......... 3-39
.......... 3-44
.......... 3-49
.......... 3-52
.......... 3-58
.......... 3-60


LIST OF TABLES
Table
No.


Citrus County
Citrus County Utilities Water Supply Systems ................... 3-8
Community Water Systems ............................... 3-10
Southern States Utilities Water Systems ....................... 3-14
Citrus County Population Estimates ......................... 3-17
Existing and Projected Water Demand ................... ... 3-18

Hernando County
West Hernando Water Supply Systems -. ...................... 3-29
Hernando County Water & Sewer District Supply Systems .......... 3-32
Local Communities Water Supply Systems ..................... 3-33
Southern States Utilities Water Systems ....................... 3-34
Hernando County Population Estimates ....................... 3-37
Existing and Projected Demand for Major Potable Water Supply Systems 3-38

Sumter County -
Local Community Water Systems ........................... 3-46


The Villages W ater System ..............................
Sumter County Population Estimates ........................
Existing and Projected Demand for Major Potable Water Supply Systems

City of Ocala
City of Ocala Water Supply System ........................
City of Ocala Population Estimates .........................
Existing and Projected Demand of Major Potable Water Supply Systems
The City of Ocala ...............................


S3-47
. 3-50
. 3-51


. 3-57
S3-57

S3-59


3 iv


Figure
No.


Title


3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11


Page
No.


3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5


3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11


3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15


3-16
3-17
3-18


-









PLANNING & UTILITY SYSTEM ANALYSIS



This section presents a summary of the engineering and planning data and analysis compiled as part
of this Master Plan. The planning and utility district information is organized by jurisdiction,
namely, Citrus County, Hemando County, Sumter County and the City of Ocala. The following
items are addressed:


* General issues related to water supply
* A review of how water supply and resource protection is addressed in the comprehensive
plan, technical support studies and implementing ordinances
* A description of the major water supply systems (public and private utilities)
* A summary of the permitted capacity, average use and connections in each system
* Population projections by planning district
* Projections of potable water demand by utility district
* Future service areas, wellfields and facility plans

Following the analysis by jurisdiction, a set of general design criteria are presented for wellfield
construction, major distribution and storage. The final pages of this section are addressed to reuse
and conservation efforts in the region.


Citrus County


General Issues
Citrus County has the most diversity in utility districts within the region, consisting of county,
municipal and private systems. Until recently, development in Citrus County has been served by
utilities operated by the local communities (Crystal River, Inverness, Floral City, Ozello,
Homosassa), private utility companies or homeowners associations established to serve residential
developments. In 1984, the County adopted an ordinance which requires new potable water systems
to be dedicated to the County. Through the purchase of several smaller utilities and the operation
a new wellfield developed with the WRWSA, Citrus County has become a more important player
in the provision of potable water. Unlike Sumter County, groundwater withdrawal for mining,
industry and agricultural use is not as significant a factor.









Groundwater sources have been more than adequate, with water quality only being a problem in
coastal areas (saltwater intrusion) and close to the Withlacoochee River (dissolved solids, sulfate).
Development is continuing at a strong pace along the Brooksville Ridge, which runs N-S through
the center of the county. Wellhead protection is difficult, due to the number of public wells
surrounded by development and the lack of a geologic confining layer. The three groups of major
springs along the coast (Crystal River, Homosassa and Chassahowitzka) provide an additional
reason to ensure protection of the aquifer.


Water Supply and Resource Protection in County Plans and Ordinances


The following citations indicate the portions of the Citrus County comprehensive plan and
implementing ordinances that address issues related to water supply and resource protection.


Comprehensive Plan Policies


Conservation element
- Proposed developments are to be evaluated for adverse impacts on aquifer recharge and
vulnerability to contamination.
S An interim wellhead protection ordinance shall to be adopted around all wells/wellfields
which have a permitted withdrawal capacity of 100,000 GPD. The protection area covers
a five-year time of travel zone of contribution.
A high recharge and future well/wellfield location plan is to be developed.


Potable Water element
SA regional wellfield is to be established with the WRWSA
New potable water facilities are to be dedicated to Citrus County


Future Land Use element
"* Includes a constraint index table and map to guide future development in the county. Five
of the ten constraints are factors that help protect the water table (Potentiometric Surface,
Depth to Water Table, Surficial Aquifer, Confining Beds and Leakance).









* Establishes "suburban service areas" around municipalities for the purpose of providing
municipal utility services to development.


Intergovernmental Coordination element
* Recommends that baseline studies on the saltwater/freshwater interface and the water
budget required for the maintenance of wetlands, surface water bodies, and existing wells
be developed in conjunction with other governmental agencies.


Studies &Technical Support
The technical support document referred to five studies from which it based many of its
recommendations.
* Coastal Water Resources Project (1980) A WRPC report from 1980 projected that water
demand for the coastal area would have to be drawn from the interior of the county.
* WRPC/ACOE Water Supply Study (1982) Phase I of this study provided an analysis of
water resources, growth trends and water demand projections to the year 2030. Phase II
analyzed the characteristics of the Floridan aquifer and the effects of drawdowns.-Smaller
separate wellfields were recommended.
S WRWSA/Citrus County Regional Water Supply No. 1 Feasibility Study (1983) This study
of water supply systems in the central coastal area concluded that quality problems were
going to increase and that a regional water supply system in the area was preferable to the
proliferation and growth of smaller systems.
* Water Master Plan (Glace & Radcliffe, 1986) Conceptual designs and cost estimates were
prepared for potable water facilities required to meet the 20 year needs of county
residents.
* Groundwater Resource Availability Inventory, (SWFWMD, 1987) This report indicated
that the DRASTIC indices for groundwater pollution potential were high throughout the
county. Parameters for the DRASTIC model are Depth to water, net Recharge, Aquifer
media, Soil media, Topography, Impact of the vadose zone and hydraulic Conductivity.
There was no evidence of actual groundwater pollution.









The Comprehensive Plan technical support elements also refer to several generalized
hydrogeologic reports that describe the nature of the underlying limestone aquifer and its lack of
a confining layer. The potential for contamination in this high recharge area is of concern because
it is the location of many wells and it also feeds the major coastal springs.


The technical support document discussed designating future wellfield areas as areas of "Critical
Environmental Concern", however, the Plan limited itself to a more simplified wellhead
protection approach that requires less technical backup.


Implementing Ordinances
* Wellfield District. Ordinance 88-A37 This is an amended section of the zoning ordinance
that establishes a "wellhead" district (WF) with a list of permitted uses, accessory uses
and structures.


Citrus County Land Development Code. Section 4130-4134 Wellfield development and
protection is addressed in this section of the Citrus County Code. The Code establishes
the following:


Wellfields are allowed in all zoning districts. Required steps include:
Conditional Use Approval, Level II
A Major Wellhead Permit
Inventories of all existing wells in proposed "time of travel" zone
Inventory of all wetlands and surface water bodies within five miles
Hydrologic analysis on impacts on the aquifer (s), wetlands and other wells
Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) are established around major potable water
wellheads with WUPs allowing withdrawal of greater than 100,000 GPD.
Protection within the WHPA is addressed by:
The establishment of two protection zones: a 200 foot radius Zone of Exclusion
and a five-year travel zone with a radius determined by the FDEP Volumetric
Flow Equation.
The prohibition of the discharge of contaminants within the Zone of Exclusion








Responsibility for analysis, delineation of WHPAs and control of the Zone of
Exclusion being the responsibility of the applicant.
No development order will be approved for development located, wholly or in
part, within a WHPA, unless approved by the Department of Development
Services.
A five year grace period was given to existing discharges within a WHPA.


Conclusion
Very little in the way of data and analysis was available at the time of the preparation of the
comprehensive plan, particularly in the areas of aquifer characteristics and modeling. The
comprehensive plan provides the framework to enact a wellhead protection ordinance, which was
duly enacted. The protection area was based upon a generalized FDEP model. Land use approval
(conditional use) was required for the development of a well, with some hydrological analysis and
environmental inventory required. The County became more active in the provision of potable
water by including a major wellfield and requiring private developers to dedicate new potable water
facilities to the County Utilities Division. Areas receiving little, if any, treatment included
intergovernmental coordination, conservation, the issue of water transfer and the identification and
protection of areas of the county where future wellfields might be located.


Utility Systems
The major providers of potable water include the Citrus County Utilities Division, Rolling Oaks
Utilities (Beverly Hills), the City of Crystal River, Floral City, the Homosassa Special Water
District, the City of Inverness, the Ozello Water Association and a collection of ten utilities owned
by Southern States Utilities. The system boundaries and major transmission lines are shown in
Figure 3-1





r!


==I
qc


i


L
C


C,


SL LE V Y ,wVE





CITRUS SPRINGS
441


88--
,CRYSTAL PINE RIDGE



6) I I 124 C



8 -18" 1P8A

lmuDn19
SR. WELS 24o'


491
S CRST CITRUS COUNTY/
\RIVER WELL FIELD
o I HIGHLANDS
9o 0O9 NORIN WELL LECANTO
490 8 10" WELL
,o 8o
a ~o ORCHARD WELL IFERRNNEC
o4

L HOMOSSASSA
SUGARMILL WOO








HERNANDO
4Y~Ji~ o~~ n c~n ~ I~Y4000~';40E830


H NAN









MARION


LEGEND
I CITRUS COUNTY UTILITIES
II FLORAL CITY WATER ASSOCIATION
0 CITY OF INVERNESS
M CITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER
E ROLLING OAKS UTILITIES
El SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES
0 OZELLO WATER ASSOCIATION
0 HOMOSASSA SPECIAL WATER DISTRICT
I**** EXISTING MAJOR COUNTY WATER LINES
*ERII EXISTING MAJOR MUNICIPAL WATER UNES
Imomm EXISTING MAJOR PRIVATE WATER UNES
0 EXISTING WELL SITE
# UNE SIZES VARY


SUMMER


POINT '0 WOODS


SOURCE
COASTAL ENGINEERING ASSOC., INC.
BASED UPON INFORMATION
SECURED FROM CITRUS COUNTY
UTIUTIES DEPARTMENT AND OTHER
INDIVIDUAL UTILITY PROVIDERS


OCT. 1995








Citrus County Utilities Division (see Table 3-1)
The Citrus County Utilities Division (CCUD) supplies water to a small, but growing portion of the
county residents. CCUD has two major water treatment plants. The Hampton Hills Plant, which
was constructed under an agreement with the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority,
is located just south of County Road 486, approximately two miles east of County Road 491.
This facility is Citrus County's primary withdrawal point with an average pumpage of 1,759, 214
GPD. The Meadow Crest Plant lies off S.R. 44 west of County Road 491. This facility's
primary purpose is to provide a backup to the Hampton Hills Plant. It has an average daily
withdrawal of 105,321 GPD.


CCUD plans to add segments of twelve and eighteen-inch water mains to service new areas of the
county. System loops have helped to improve the water pressure and flow of the interior lines.
CCUD has already extended a main artery to coastal regions to provide potable water to areas
having difficulty maintaining adequate supply due to salt water intrusion. For example, the
Ozello Water Association has found it more beneficial to purchase water from Citrus County than
to operate their own system. This connection is made with a master meter located at U.S. 19 and
West Seven Rivers Drive. CCUD serves approximately 2,393 residential users and 266
commercial users for an average usage of 1,864,535 GPD. Their plans are to continuously
develop and expand the system as the population growth in the county provides a means of
funding. CCUD and the WRWSA entered a joint agreement to help fund the expansion of the
county's water supply pumping facilities. County ordinances also help expand the CCUD
distribution system by requiring new developments to dedicate their utilities to the County Utilities
Division. Citrus County's current water use permit is issued jointly with the WRWSA and
allows an average daily capacity of 4,300,000 GPD.










Table 3-1

CITRUS COUNTY UTILITIES WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

System General Permitted Average Residential Commercial Status
Location Capacity Usage Connections Connections
(GPD) (GPD)
Hampton Hills Central 4,300,000 1,759,214 Active
Citrus County
2,393 266
Meadow Crest West Central N/A 105,321 Standby
Citrus County

Citrus County
Water System Combined 4,300,000 1,864,535 2,393 266 Active

Notes: Does not include water sold to Ozello (see local communities table 3-4)
Data for Average Usage collected from the individual facilities Monthly Operating Reports (January December 1994). All
other data compiled from Southwest Florida Water Management District data files for average daily groundwater withdrawal
rates (January 1995).
Data collected for residential and commercial connections provided by corresponding utilities.


Local Communities (see Table 3-2)

Several local communities in Citrus County have developed water supply districts. The most

significant of these are the cities of Crystal River and Inverness, and the communities of Beverly
Hills, Homosassa, Floral City and Ozello. These entities have-constructed their own water

supply infrastructures including major water treatment plants or are supplying their distribution
networks with water purchased from another utility company. Together, the permitted average

daily water use of these systems is 7,892,200 GPD and their average usage is approximately

5,398,685 GPD.


Beverly Hills is located adjacent to County Road 491 in the heart of Citrus County. The Beverly

Hills water supply infrastructure is operated by Rolling Oaks Utilities and serves 5,265 residential

connections and 203 commercial connections, totaling an average daily usage of 2,288,000 GPD.

The Beverly Hills system is composed of nine active wells with a series of eight-inch and ten-inch

water mains looped into a water supply network. A blanket average daily water use of 4,300,000

GPD is the total permitted capacity for the Beverly Hills system.







The City of Crystal River is located adjacent to U.S. 19 in the northwest section of Citrus
County. The Crystal River water system is maintained and operated by Professional Service
Group (PSG). PSG currently operates three ten-inch wells interconnected to a distribution
network servicing 1,722 residential connections and 396 commercial connections. Due to damage
caused by the "No Name Storm" of 1993, the system operates exclusively off one well, with the
second under repair and a third under permanent standby. The average usage of the system is
currently at 720,000 GPD. The City of Crystal River holds a average daily water use permit at
781,000 GPD.


Floral City is located on U.S. 41 in the southeast section of Citrus County. The Floral City
Water Association maintains and operates two water treatment plants and an interconnected water
network surrounding the plants. The average system usage from the two plants combined has
been recorded at 340,000 GPD. The system serves-approximately 1,402 residential connections
and 75 commercial connections. The Floral City Water Association holds a current average daily
water use permit of 303,000 GPD.


Homosassa is located adjacent to U.S. 19 south of Crystal River in the southwestern coastal
region of Citrus County. The Homosassa Special Water District maintains and operates a system
serving approximately 1,609 residential connections and 201 commercial connections. With their
wellfield located approximately three miles east of U.S. 19, Homosassa has good water quality,
without saltwater contamination. Their water treatment facility located south of Grover
Cleveland Boulevard provides for an average system usage of 631,685 GPD. The Homosassa
Special Water District currently holds an average daily water use permit of 980,000 GPD.


The City of Inverness is located at the intersection of U.S. 41 and State Road 44 in the eastern
section of Citrus County. The City of Inverness Utilities Department maintains and operates their
water supply system for approximately 2,924 residential connections and 1,236 commercial
connections. The system consists of eight-inch and twelve-inch water mains looped and
interconnected with smaller tributary lines which form a distribution network. The system
- operates from two major water plants, the Citrus Water Plant and the 581 Water Plant. The
system's average daily usage is approximately 1,119,000 GPD. The City of Inverness holds a
current average daily water use permit of 1,528,200 GPD.








Ozello is located at the end of County Road 494 in the very western region of Citrus County. The

Ozello Water Association operates the Ozello Water District, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico

to U.S. 19. It is comprised of approximately 1,520 residential connections and 66 commercial

connections. The Ozello Water Association also serves development along County Road 44 to

Fort Island Park just south of Crystal River. The system pressure is strengthened by a loop

connection made between County Road 494 and County Road 44 across Winterset Avenue. The

Ozello Water Association did operate its own water treatment plant, however, due to saltwater

intrusion, they were forced to seek a more viable means of water supply. A bulk water agreement

made with Citrus County now allows the Ozello Water Association to serve the system without

their own wellfield. The Ozello distribution system currently withdrawals approximately 300,000

GPD of water from the Citrus County supply system. The Ozello Water Association does not

hold a water use permit.


Table 3-2

COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS (CITRUS COUNTY)

System General Permitted Average Residential Commercial
Location Capacity Usage Connections- Connections
(GPD) (GPD)
Beverly Hills North Central 4,300,000 2,288,000 5,265 203
Citrus County

City of Crystal Northwest 781,000 720,000 1,722 396
River Citrus County

Floral City Southeast 303,000 340,000 1,402 75
Citrus County

Homossasa Southwest 980,000 631,685 1,609 201
Citrus County

City of East 1,528,200 1,119,000 2,924 1,236
Inverness Citrus County

Ozello') West N/A 300,000 1,520 66
Citrus County

Local
Communities Combined 7,892,200 5,398,685 14,442 2,177


Notes: *


Includes mobile home park and multi-family units
(1) Water supplied by Citrus County Utilities
N/A Not Available
Data collected for average usage from the individual facilities Monthly Operating Reports
(January December 1994). All other data compiled from Southwest Florida Water Management District
data file for average daily groundwater withdrawal rates (January 1995)


3-10








Southern States Utilities (see Table 3-3)
Southern States Utilities (SSU) is a private utility company that operates out of a main office in
Apopka, Florida and several satellite offices located near their various water and wastewater
districts. SSU maintains and operates ten water supply systems in Citrus County: Apache Shores,
Citrus Springs, Crystal River Highlands, Golden Terrace, Gospel Island, Oak Forest, Pine Ridge,
Points O' Woods, Rosemont, and Sugarmill Woods. The systems are isolated from each other
with their own water treatment facilities and supply networks. With their ten systems combined,
SSU is the largest potable water provider in Citrus County, with an approximate total of 5,732
residential and commercial connections. Their overall water system accounts for average daily
water usage of approximately 2,218,123 GPD. SSU currently holds a total of 3,490,900 GPD
in water use permits for their combined water systems. A short description of each system
follows.


Apache Shores is located in the northeast section of Citrus County, just east of State Road 200
and approximately two miles north of U.S. 41. SSU maintains and operates the Apache Shores
water system with two water treatment plants, interconnected with a network of small tributary
waterlines. The average daily system usage supplied from the combined water treatment plants
is 15,000 GPD. The Apache Shores system serves approximately 152 connections, with an
estimated 99% of those being residential. SSU currently holds a water use permit of 25,000 GPD
for the Apache Shores system.


Citrus Springs is a large planned development on U.S. 41 in the northernmost section of Citrus
County. The Citrus Springs water system is maintained and operated by SSU and serves
approximately 1,812 connections. Due to the size of the development at buildout, many
residential connections are anticipated in the future. The existing water supply sources are
interconnected to a network consisting primarily of six-inch and eight-inch water mains. The
average daily system usage supplied from the water treatment plants is 557,000 GPD. SSU holds
a current water use permit of 1,078,000 GPD for the Citrus Springs and Pine Ridge water systems
combined.


3-11








Crystal River Highlands is located in the west central section of Citrus County, just north of
-- Homosassa Springs and adjacent to U.S. 19. The Crystal River Highlands system is maintained
and operated by SSU and serves approximately 70 residential connections and 1 commercial
connection. The water system is supplied from one water treatment plant that currently provides
for an average daily system usage of 22,000 GPD. At the time of this report, SSU was
processing a new water use permit for the Crystal River Highlands system.


Golden Terrace is located west of U.S. 41 on County Road 44 just west of the City of Inverness
water district. SSU operates and maintains the Golden Terrace water network consisting of
mostly two-inch water mains looped and tied together by a primary six-inch water main. Their
water treatment plant has been abandoned and the distribution currently is fed from water
purchased from the City of Inverness. The system supplies water to approximately 99 connections
and 6 commercial connections resulting in an average daily usage of 15,123 GPD. SSU holds no
water permits for the Golden Terrace water system.


Gospel Island is located two miles east of U.S. 41 on County Road 470 surrounded by the City
of Inverness water district. SSU maintains and operates the Gospel Island water system,
consisting of one water treatment plant and network of two-inch water lines. This system is
extremely small with only 8 residential connections and an average daily usage of 2,000 GPD.
There is no water use permit for the Gospel Island system due to withdrawal rates that are below
the permit threshold.


Oak Forest is located on U.S. 41 within the boundaries of the Floral City Water Association.
Southern States Utilities (SSU) maintains and operates the Oak Forest Water System that consists
of one water treatment plant and a single linear run of six-inch water line with a two-inch tributary
water line. The water system serves approximately 143 connections with an estimated 99% of
these being residential. The average daily usage from the water treatment system is 46,000 GPD.
SSU currently holds a 100,000 GPD water use permit for the Oak Forest Water System.


Pine Ridge, the second largest development served by SSU, is located approximately two miles
northwest of the intersection of County Roads 491 and 486 in the north central region of Citrus
County. SSU maintains and operates the Pine Ridge water system, consisting of two water


3-12








treatment plants interconnected with eight-inch, ten-inch, and twelve-inch water mains.
S Significant growth in the water system is expected. The current average daily usage of the
approximate 691 connections from the system is 340,000 GPD. SSU currently holds a 1,078,000
GPD water use permit for the Pine Ridge and Citrus Springs water systems combined.


Point O' Woods is located approximately four miles east of U.S. 41 on County Road 470
surrounded by the City of Inverness water district. Southern States Utilities (SSU) maintains and
operates the Point O' Woods water system that consists of one water treatment plant and a
network of six-inch water mains. The water system serves approximately 340 residential
connections and 4 commercial connections for an average daily usage of 66,000 GPD. SSU
currently holds an 80,000 GPD water user permit for the Point O' Woods system.


Rosemont/Rolling Green is located southeast of the City of Inverness water district,
approximately two miles east of US 41. The Rosemont and Rolling Green water systems are
interconnected. SSU supplies these systems from one water treatment plant centrally located with
six and eight-inch interconnecting water mains. Smaller tributary lines are used to tie together
the approximately 123 connections, which account for the average daily pumping of 55,000 GPD.
SSU currently holds a water use permit for 87,900 GPD for the combined Rosemont/Rolling
Green system.


Sugarmill Woods is located east of US 19 in the southwest section of the county. The
subdivision is the largest water system maintained and operated by SSU in Citrus County.
Although it is an established community, Sugarmill Woods has a significant amount of growth
potential, therefore the demand on the water system should increase steadily in upcoming years.
At present, the three water treatment plants-account for a combined average daily usage of
1,100,000 GPD. The primary distribution lines consist of six, eight, ten, and twelve-inch water
mains. Smaller tributary lines are used to interconnect the approximate 2,283 connections to the
Sugarmill W6ods Water System. SSU currently holds a water use permit of 2,120,000 GPD for
the system.


3-13











Table 3-3


SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES WATER SYSTEMS (CITRUS COUNTY)

System General Permined Average Residential Commercial
Location Capacity Usage Connections Connections
(GPD) (GPD)

Apache Shores Northeast Citrus 25,000 15,000 152 *
County

Citrus Springs' North Citrus 1,078,000 557,000 1,812 *
County

Crystal River Highlands Western Citrus N/A 22,000 70 1
County

Golden Terrace2 East Central N/A 15,123 99 6
Citrus County

Gospel Island East Citrus County N/A 2,000 8 0

Oak Forest Southeast 100,000 46,000 143 *
Citrus County

Pine Ridge' North Central see Citrus 340,000 691 *
Citrus County Springs

Point O'Woods East Citrus County 80,000 66,000 340 4

Rosemont/Rolling Green East Central 87,900 55,000 123 *
Citrus County

Sugarmill Woods South Citrus 2,120,000 1,100,000 2283 *
County

Southern States Utilities Combined 3,490,900 2,218,123 5,721 # 11


* included m resiaentlal connections
* # Most commercial connections are included in residential connections.
* 1 Blanket permit for Citrus Springs and Pine Ridge
* 2 Served by the City of Inverness
* N/A Not Available because information was not part of SWFWMD data fro withdrawals greater than 10,000 GPD.
* Data for average usage collected from the individual facilities monthly operating reports (Jan.-Dec.1995). All other data
compiled from the Southwest Florida Water Management District data file for average daily groundwater withdrawal rates (Jan.
1995)


3-14


Notes:










Population Projections and Growth Patterns


The population growth rate in Citrus County during the 1970s and 1980s was amongst the highest
in the nation. While the recent recession has slowed growth somewhat, a number of factors lean
toward the resumption of rapid growth. These factors include:
SThe existence of several major residential developments that have an enormous number of
available lots with infrastructure in place;
S The relatively low cost for single family housing;
The attractiveness of the area to the ever-increasing "retiree" element in our society;
The rolling hills and natural beauty of the area; and,
The Suncoast Parkway, which will provide an expressway connection directly to the Tampa
Bay area.


The Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), located at the University of Florida has
been assigned the responsibility of preparing population estimates for the local governments within
Florida. They establish low, medium and high estimates. For Citrus County the difference
between the medium and high estimates for the year 2020 is significant (63%), with the high
estimate probably reflecting the return to a fast growth pattern.


At the WRWSA's request, the Citrus County Planning Department prepared population estimates
for 10 "planning areas" using BEBR medium and high projections. The planning areas are shown
in Figure 3-2 and the projections in Table 3-4. As the estimates indicate, population may triple
by the year 2020, under the high estimates, with most of that growth taking place in the center
of the county. Building data is maintained for each planning area, so these projections can be
evaluated and updated in the future. While the planning areas do not have a counterpart in utility
planning at this time, the County intends to address coordination of those efforts in future
comprehensive planning efforts.


3-15





r -


HERNANDO L L---

S HIGH GROWTH AR
OVER 10,000 INC
IN POPULATION E


S MEDIUM GROWTH
BETWEEN 5,000
INCREASE IN POF
BY 2020

D LOW GROWTH ARE
LESS THAN 5,00C
INCREASE BY 20:















4IARION


SCLE 1 20000
20000


SUMTER


3WTH AREA
,000 INCREASE
LATION BY 2020


GROWTH AREA
5,000 10,000
SIN POPULATION



)WTH AREA
\N 5,000 POPULATION
: BY 2020.


CITRUS COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES
Cumulative Population Estimates Using Average f of CO's Issued Methodology
MEDIUM PROJECTION
PLANNING SECTOR 1995 2000 2010 2020

1 4,911 5,679 7,156 8,632
2- 4,366 5,023 6,284 7,545
3 7,477 7,872 8,631 9,390
4 10,983 13,947 19,640 25,332
5 21,462 24,847 31,349 37,851
6 4,815 5,423 6,590 7,757
7 8,448 9,716 12,151 14,586
8 18,194 21,740 28,549 35,357
9 19,365 21,422 25,372 29,322

10 6,779 7,430 8,679 9.929
TOTAL 106,800 123,100 154,400 185,700
HIGH PROJECTION
PLANNING SECTOR 1995 2000 2010 2020

1 5,194 6,642 10,033 14,142
2 4,608 5,845 8,741 12,250
3 7,623 8,367 10,110 12,222
4 12,074 17,658 30,734 46,574
5 22,708 29.085 44,020 65.112
6 5,039 6.183 8,864 12,111
7 8.915 11,303 16,896 23,671
8 19,499 26,177 41,818 60,765
9 20,122 23,966 33,070 44,062

10 7,019 8,244 11,114 14,591
TOTAL 112,800 143,500 215.400 302,500
*Source Citrus County Planning Department. January 1995 Medium Projection
Based on B.E.B.R. Estimates


(,n
z
0
0
3

I




z
O
0
V,
o/

<3


40000


- 94107-6


F I







Table 3-4

CITRUS COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES

Cumulative Population Estimates Using Average # of CO's Issued Methodology

Planning 1990 POP % OF TOTAL POP EST
District Census GROWTH GROWTH 10/1/94 NOTES

1 4,284 644 4.7% 4,928 The projections are linear
2 3,831 550 4.03% 4,381 reflecting constant growth
3 7,155 331 2.42% 7,486 to 2020. Actual growth
4 8,567 2,483 18.19% 11,050 is anticipated to level off
5 18,702 2,836 20.77% 21,538 and/or decline beyond
6 4,320 509 3.73% 4,829 2010 in districts marked*
7 7,415 1,062 7.78% 8,477
8 15,304 2,970 21.75% 18,274
9 17,688 1,723 12.62% 19,411
10 6,249 545 3.99% 6.794 _
TOTAL 93515 13653 1 ) 00% 107168
MEDIUM PROJECTION

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

1* 4,911 5,679 6,420 7,156 7,896 8,632
2* 4,366 5,023 5,655 6,284 6,916 7,545
3* 7,477 7,872 8,253 8,631 9,012 9,390
4* 10,983 13,947 16,803 19,640 22,495 25,332
5* 21,462 24,847 28,109 31,349 34,610 37,851
6* 4,815 5,423 6,008 6,590 7,175 7,757
7 8,448 9,716 10,937 12,151 13,372 14,586
8 18,194 21,740 25,155 28,549 31,964 35,357
9 19,365 21,422 23,403 25,372 27,353 29,322
6,1 6,779 7,..10 ,0)57 S.679 9 306 9.929
TOTAL 106.800 123,100 138.800 154,400 170,100 185.700


HIGH PROJECTION
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
1* 5,194 6,642 8,255 10,033 12,000 14,142
2* 4,608 5,845 7,222 8,741 10,421 12,250
3* -7,623 8,367 9,196 10,110 11,121 12,222
4* 12,074 17,658 23,877 30,734 38,317 46,574
5* 22,708 29,085 36,189 44,020 52,682 62,112
6* 5,039 6,183 7,459 8,864 10,419 12,111
7* 8,915 11,303 13,963 16,896 20,139 23,671
8* 19,499 26,177 33,617 41,818 50,889 60,765
9* 20,122 23,966 28,312 33,070 38,332 44,062
10* 7.019 8.244 9.609 11.114 12,799 14,591
TOTAL 112.800 143.500 177.700 215.400 257.100 302.500
Source: Citrus County Planning Department, March 1995


3-17








Projections of Potable Water Demand

The "medium" population projections provided above were reviewed and distributed by major
utility service districts in the county. After discussion with SWFWMD, a planning factor of 150
gallons per day (GPD) was chosen to approximate the increase in potable water use resulting
from each additional resident. This factor accounts for the commercial, industrial and
institutional water demand that accompanies an increase in population. The resulting water
demand is depicted for each utility district on Table 3-5. The major increase in demand is
expected to occur in the Citrus County Utility Division.


Table 3-5

Existing and Projected Demand for Major Potable Water Supply Systems Citrus County
Gallons Per Day (GPD)

Utility Systems Existing Water 2010 2020
Demand Water Demand Water Demand


- Citrus County 1,865,000 4,950,000 6,980,000
Inverness 1,119,000 1,735,000 2,145,000
Crystal River 720,000 1,195,000 1,505,000
Homosassa 632,000 820,000 945,000
Ozello/County 300,000 335,000 360,000
Floral City 1,078,000 2,070,000 2,725,000
Sugarmill Woods 1,100,000 2,150,000 2,900,000
Private/Pine Ridge/Citrus Springs 2,288,000 2,436,305 2,535,000
Beverly Hills 340,000 715,100 965,000
Total 9,441,000 16,405,00 21,060,000




Future Service Areas, Wellfields and Facility Plans

The Citrus County Utility Division intends to expand its water supply network as extensively
as opportunity allows. Since a majority of the land in Citrus County lies within smaller utility
-districts (public and private), only a portion of this growth will come through the provision of
new water service to previously unserved areas. The remainder of the expansion will likely


3-18









take place through acquisition of utility systems or through the provision of water to utility
districts which are experiencing water quality or capacity problems. The construction of the
WRWSA/Citrus County wellfield has allowed the County to enter such an agreement with the
Ozello Water Association.


Growth in Citrus County will justify the addition of another major wellfield in the near-term
planning horizon. The proposed wellfield shown in Figure 3-3 was located in the south-central
sector of the county for hydrogeologic, environmental and service reasons. As indicated in Figure
2-53 of the Ground Resource Evaluation section of this report, this sector of Citrus County is
suitable for wellfield development. With few surface water features or wells in the area,
environmental impacts from such a wellfield should be minimal. This area also happens to be
within a corridor of land that is unserved, but likely to undergo development pressures within the
future. Provision of water supply to the Floral City and Inverness utility districts could be
accomplished efficiently through bulk water agreements if the need arises. Water quality issues
may be faced in Floral City as water needs increase.


The location of the wellfield would also allow for an interconnection (looping) of water mains
along major roadway corridors. The wellfield could easily be phased to match the demand for
water. Due to high transmissivity in the aquifer at this location, hydrogeologic modeling indicates
that little drawdown would be expected even at a withdrawal rate of 18 MGD. If the wellfield
could be placed within the boundaries of the Withlacoochee State Forest, land acquisition could
be avoided and wellhead protection ensured.


3-19






LEVY


a -l

c s
Db


TO GOLDEN /
TERRACE
SYSTEM
INTEGRATION

RU


CITRUS CO.
WELL FIELD
\X
XIx


POSSIBLE -
INTERCOUNTY CONNECTION


HERNANDO


0


wU
z


LL
0


LU.
-I
0


^43
cd











MARION


SCALE 1 1500
0 15000
I 1 -


LEGEND
D CITRUS COUNTY UTILITIES
II FLORAL CITY WATER ASSOCIATION
E CITY OF INVERNESS
g CITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER
E ROLLING OAKS UTILITIES
El SOUTHERN STATES UTILITES
E OZELLO WATER ASSOCIATION
30000 0 HOMOSASSA SPECIAL WATER DISTRICT
U EXISTING MAJOR COUNTY WATER UNES
PROPOSED MAJOR CITRUS COUNTY/
W.R.W.SA. WATER UNES
EME M EXISTING MAJOR MUNICIPAL WATER LINES
=m=OM EXISTING MAJOR PRIVATE WATER UNES
SIZE PENDING FUTURE DESIGN


PROPOSED WELLFIELD


0 EXISTING WELL SITE


UNE SIZES VARY


-GOSPEL ISLAND


SUMMER


POINT '0 WOODS


SOURCE
COASTAL ENGINEERING ASSOC., INC.
BASED UPON INFORMATION
SECURED FROM CITRUS COUNTY
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AND OTHER
INDIVIDUAL UTILTY PROVIDERS


OCT. 1995


US









Hernando County


General Issues
In the late 1970s, Hernando County became actively involved in the provision of potable water to
coastal communities whose water supplies were being threatened by saltwater intrusion. In 1980,
Hemando County adopted several ordinances that set forth the policies and procedures for obtaining
water service, establishing impact fees and requiring the dedication of new systems to the County.
During the 1980s, the County acquired numerous private utilities, with the ultimate aim of
eliminating the smaller, problem-prone systems. The County has developed two major wellfields
in its western service area. With the exception of the large Spring Hill and City of Brooksville utility
systems, Hernando County serves virtually all other developments. Further expansion of the service
area of Spring Hill Utilities is unlikely, since they are virtually encircled by the facilities operated
by the Hernando County Utilities Department. The Brooksville service area includes unincorporated
development surrounding the city limits. (approximately 2-5 miles).


Groundwater quality is generally very good in Hernando County. While a significant number of
private wells in the community of Masaryktown are experiencing problems from the pumping at the
Crossbar Wellfield in Pasco County, there are no similar problems around in-county wellfields.
Hemando County has taken a number of actions recently to protect the groundwater resources. A
wellfield protection ordinance was enacted in 1994, based on a 1993 technical report providing
hydrogeologic modeling of groundwater travel times. The Hernando County Board of County
Commissioners has also placed a moratorium on new wellfields until a water resources assessment
project (WRAP) study is completed for Hernando County. In February 1995, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted an official position regarding the use of county water. The resolution
opposed the interbasin transfer of water; emphasized that development should rely on local water
supplies; and that growth should be stopped if the available local water sources cannot support it.


Mining and agriculture are moderately significant (25% and 10%, respectively), but relatively stable
or decreasing factors in the withdrawal of groundwater. Future increases in groundwater withdrawal


3-21









Mining and agriculture are moderately significant (25% and 10%, respectively), but relatively stable
or decreasing factors in the withdrawal of groundwater. Future increases in groundwater withdrawal
are expected to come primarily from the growth in public supply demand.


Water Supply and Resource Protection in County Plans and Ordinances

The following citations indicate the portions of the comprehensive plan and implementing
ordinances that address issues related to water supply and resource protection.


Comprehensive Plan Policies


Future Land Use element.
* Establishes "urban service areas", where concentrations of future development are to be
channeled. These urban service areas are to be coordinated with the long range utility plans
of the Hernando County Utilities Department.
To control the proliferation of wellfields and help ensure protection of the natural resources,
a "public facility" zoning review process is required for any future wellfield.


Potable Water Sub-Element
Requires the adoption-of a groundwater protection ordinance and the necessary technical
analysis to support the restrictions.
Requires that wellfield siting criteria be established and that a wellfield siting plan be
prepared for a 50 year planning horizon.
States that private developers may be required to bear the cost of establishing new wellfields
and/or transmission facilities in planned, but unbuilt, utility service areas.
Requires sewer-water agreements with the Hernando County Utility Department prior to the
initiation of development.


3-22









Studies &Technical Support
The technical support document refers to four studies from which it based most of its
recommendations.


* Preliminary Evaluation of the Water Supply Potential of the Spring River System in the
Weeki Wachee Area and the Lower Withlacoochee River, (USGS, 1978) This evaluation
provided some parameters concerning the possible future withdrawal of potable water supply
from the spring.
* WRPC/ACOE Water Supply Study (1982) Phase I of this study provided an analysis of
water resources, growth trends and water demand projections to the year 2030. Phase II
analyzed the characteristics of the Floridan aquifer and the effects of drawdowns. Smaller
separate wellfields were recommended.
* Water System Master Plan Study for Hernando County (Russell & Axon, Seaburn &
Robertson, 1986). This study evaluated the County-owned water systems and recommended
modifications and improvements necessary to serve residents through the year 2000.
Groundwater Resource Availability Inventory, (SWFWMD, 1987) This report indicated
that the DRASTIC indices for groundwater pollution potential were high throughout the
county.


Additional studies completed since the Comprehensive Plan adoption include:
West Hernando County Existing Potable Water System Analysis (Coastal Engineering, 1989)
A technical evaluation was performed on the County-operated potable water
systems within the West Hernando County Water System. Deficiencies were noted and a
plan for facility improvements was presented.


Development of Wellhead Protection Areas for the Major Public Supply Wells in Hernando
County, Florida, (SWFWMD 1993) This study used a groundwater flow model to delineate
"capture zones" for the major public supply wells. The modeling was used to map
recommended wellhead protection zones.


3-23











Implementing Ordinances
* Groundwater Protection and Siting Ordinance (1994) This ordinance establishes wellhead
protection areas (WHPAs) and special protection areas around the County. The WHPAs
were established in "water capture areas" for public supply wells over 100,000 GPD. To
map the capture areas, Hernando County utilized modeling from the Development of
Wellhead Protection Areas for the Major Public Supply Wells in Hernando County, Florida
study prepared by HydroGeologic, Inc. in 1993. A number of land uses and activities are
prohibited or regulated within the WHPAs. A special protection area (SPA) designation
is placed over the areas in the county which have been mined, but not adequately reclaimed,
or have been identified in mining plans for future excavation. The rationale for the SPA
designation was the "vulnerability" of the aquifer at these locations due to the removal of
the overburden layer. A number of land uses and activities are prohibited or regulated
within the SPAs.


Conclusion
While very little in the way of data and analysis was available at the time of the preparation of the
comprehensive plan, two studies of aquifer characteristics have recently been completed (Wellhead
Protection Study and the Northern Tampa Bay WRAP). The comprehensive plan provided the
framework to enact a wellhead protection ordinance, which was duly enacted. Land use approval
(zoning) was required for the development of a well, however, more detail could be developed
concerning the criteria to be met by the applicant. The County has continued its active posture in
the provision of potable water by the construction of a new wellfield (Southwest). Areas receiving
little, if any, treatment included intergovernmental coordination, conservation, the issue of water
transfer and the identification and protection of areas of the county where future wellfields might be
located. Greater coordination could be made between the land use element and the utility element
of the comprehensive plan.


3-24









Utility Systems
Except for two large community systems, Brooksville and Spring Hill, the Hernando County
Utilities Department is the provider of virtually all the potable water services in Hernando County.
The system boundaries and major transmission lines are shown in Figure 3-4.


Hernando County Water & Sewer District (see Table 3-7)
The Hernando County Utilities Department operates its sewer and water facilities through the
Hernando County Water and Sewer District (HCWSD). Since 1980, the HCWSD has been very
active, becoming the primary provider of new potable water service within the county. HCWSD
now maintains and operates nine water systems, located throughout Hernando County. It has
acquired and/or developed these water systems in order to provide a comprehensive water supply
infrastructure. The system provides potable water for approximately 14,621 residential
connections and 518 commercial connections throughout Hernando County. The Hernando
County water system is divided into separate systems for West Hernando, East Hernando,
Lakeside Acres, Cedar Lane, Dogwood Estates, Hill N' Dale, Braewood, Lindsey Acres, and
Seville. These systems total an average daily usage of 5,025,000 GPD. The combined water use
permit for HCWSD allows an average daily pumpage of 6,503,000 GPD. A short description of
each system follows:


The West Hernando Water Supply System (see Table 3-6) is a conglomerate of interconnected
water systems located in the western half of Hernando County. Initially formed to provide quality
water to coastal areas impacted by saltwater intrusion, this supply network is the largest of the
HCUD water systems, with a total of 12,163 residential connections and 454 commercial
connections. The system's major transmission lines (Figure 3-4) provide service along most of
the western Hernando County's arterial and collector roadways. The system serves most major
subdivisions including, Weeki Wachee, Brookridge, High Point, the Airport Industrial Park,
Springwood, Bayport, Pine Island, Hernando Beach, Aripeka, Lake-in-the-Woods, Pristine Place,
Glenn Raven, Forest Oaks, Berkeley Manor, Timber Pines, Regency Oaks, Plantation Estates and
Royal Highlands. The water system coverage amounts for a total average daily usage of


3-25







CITRUS


SEVILLE
WELLS


R


LL
0


LL


a3


PASCO


LU


r


-- -~---
81






N

LEGEND


lmam PRIVATE WATER LINES
SIma HERNANDO COUNTY WATER LINES
SUNE SIZES VARY
SCALE 1 = 15000 BETWEEN 8" & 20"
0 15000 30000
SHERNANDO COUNTY
I I WATER & SEWER DISTRICTS

SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES

S41"i D ] CITY OF BROOKSVILLE

0 EXISTING WELL SITE



480
)AMAC W LL SUMMER
DOGWOOD


SD T OFCT
KVI I LAKESIDE
KSVILLE TELLS f U

WELL / 1W
CEDAR LANE 75
-r VE.LS
SW E L L1 2 1 7R ID G E M A N O R
.S ELL FIELD


HILL & DALE BRAEWOOD
WELLS VELL 9







-- ;L





SOURCE: COASTAL ENGINEERING ASSOC., INC.
BASED UPON INFORMATION
SECURED FROM HERNANDO COUNTY
UTILITY DEPARTMENT, CITY OF
BROOKSVILLE UTILITY DEPARTMENT,
AND SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES.
OCT. 1995








4,215,000 GPD. The HCWSD currently holds combined water use permits totaling 5,130,000
GPD for this area. A short description of the West Hemando Water Supply system components
follows:


The West Hernando Wellfield is located north of State Road 50 approximately two miles east of
U.S. 19 in Hernando County. This linear wellfield provides service to approximately 5,813
residential connections and 196 commercial connections. The wellfield consists of five active
wells that supply an average daily pumpage of 1,945,000 GPD. The HCWSD currently holds a
water use permit of 2,866,000 GPD for this facility.


The Southwest Wellfield is a linear wellfield running parallel to a major power line easement,
approximately three miles south of State Road 50 and one mile east of Mariner Boulevard. This
wellfield, which was designed as a supplemental water supply to the existing West Hernando
system, plays a crucial role in maintaining required pressures and flow rates throughout the
system. The wellfield consists of three wells that supply an average daily pumpage of 1,426,000
GPD. The HCWSD currently holds a-water usepermit of 924,000 GPD for this facility.


The Weeki Wachee Water System is located in western Hernando County on County Road 550,
approximately two miles west of U.S. 19. This system provides potable water for approximately
912 residential connections and 31 commercial connections. Its average daily pumpage is 199,000
GPD. HCWSD currently holds a water use permit for 150,000 GPD for the Weeki Wachee
Water System.


The Brookridge Water System, located north of State Road 50 in the Brookridge subdivision serves
2,145 residential connections and 55 commercial connections. The Brookridge Water System
pumps from two wells, with an average daily flow of 189,000 GPD to the West Hernando Water
System. HCWSD holds a current water use-permit of 450,000 GPD for the system.


3-27









The High Point Water System, located north of State Road 50 between the West Hernando and
Brookridge wellfields, serves 1,556 residential connections and 57 commercial connections. The
High Point water treatment plant is supplied from a single well located in the subdivision and adds
an average daily flow of 179,000 GPD to the West Hernando Water System. The HCWSD
currently holds a water use permit of 250,000 GPD for this system.


The Royal Highlands Water System is located west of U.S. 19, approximately four miles north
of State Road 50 in the Heather subdivision. This system has one water treatment plant and one
active well, which serve approximately 1,293 residential connections and 53 commercial
connections. The Royal Highlands system contributes an average daily pumpage of 174,000 GPD
to the West Hernando Water System, with the HCWSD currently holding a water use permit for
250,000 GPD.


The Sun Road Water System is located just northwest of the Brookridge subdivision on Sun Road west
of County Road 493. This small water system consists of one well, serving 63 residential
connections. The Sun Road water treatment plant supplies the West Hernando Water System with an
average daily flow of 14,000 GPD, with the HCWSD currently holding a water use permit for 40,000
GPD.


The Airport/Springwood Water System is located on Powell Road approximately three miles west of
U.S. 41 in the area northwest of the Hernando County Airport. The Airport and Springwood wells are
isolated from the West Hernando Water System, however, they are connected to each other, combining
for an average daily flow of 89,000 GPD. The system serves 381 residential connections, the Airport
Industrial Complex and approximately 62 commercial connections. The HCWSD currently holds a
water use permit for 200,000 GPD for the Airport/Springwood Water System.


3-28











Table 3-6

WEST HERNANDO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

System General Permined Average Residential Commercial
Location Capacity Pumpage Connections Connections
(GPD) (GPD)

West Hernando West Central
Wellfield Hernando County 2,866,000 1,945,000 5,813 196
Water Supply

Southwest Hernando Southwest Hernando
Wellfield County 924,000 1,426,000 ** **
Water System

Weeki Wachee West Hernando 150,000 199,000 912 31
Water System County

Brookridge West Central 450,000 189,000 2,145 55
Water System Hernando County

High Point West Central 250,000 179,000 1,556 57
Water System Hernando County

Royal Highlands West Central 250,000 174,000 1,293 53
(Heather) Water Hernando County
System

Sun Road West Central 40,000 14,000 63 0
Water System Hernando County

Airport/Springwood Southwest 200,000 89,000 381 62
Water System Hernando County

West Hernando Combined 5,130,000 4,215,000 12,163 454
County
Waler System
Notes: ** Incorporated as a supplement to the existing West Hernando System.
Data for Average Usage collected from the individual facilities Monthly Operating Reports (January December 1994). All other
data compiled from Southwest Florida Water Management District data files for average daily groundwater withdrawal rates (January
1995).
Data collected for residential and commercial connections provided by corresponding utilities.



The East Hernando Water System is located near State Road 50 in the eastern region of

Hernando County. This water system services approximately 1,463 residential connections and

60 commercial connections, stretching from Interstate 75 to U.S. 301. It operates from the three

water treatment plants, Ridge Manor North, Ridge Manor South and Ridge Manor West. The

three plants combine to form one system, which supplies an average daily flow of 493,000 GPD

of water. The HCWSD currently holds a water use permit of 572,000 GPD for the combined

systems.


3-29









Other County Systems
The Lakeside Acres Water System is located north of State Road 50, approximately four miles east
of Brooksville. This water system serves the 112 residential connections from one well which
pumps an average daily flow of 26,000 GPD. The HCWSD currently holds a 32,000 GPD water
use permit for the system.


The Cedar Lane Water System is located approximately three and one half miles southeast of
Brooksville, serving 124 residential connections. The water treatment plant consists of two wells
that produce a combined average daily flow of 29,000 GPD. The HCWSD currently holds a
50,000 GPD water use permit system.


The Dogwood Estates Water System is located approximately two miles northeast of Brooksville,
serving approximately 220 residential connections and 1 commercial connection. The water
treatment plant consists of two wells that combine for an average daily usage of 101,000 GPD to
a network of six-inch water mains. The HCWSD currently holds a water use permit for 200,000
GPD for the system.


The Hill N' Dale Water System is located on the north side of State Road 50 approximately three-
and-one-half miles west of Interstate 75 in eastern Hernando County. The system serves
approximately 471 residential connections and 4 commercial connections. The water system
consists of two wells that combine for an average daily flow of 146,000 GPD, while the HCWSD
currently holds a water use permit of 250,000 GPD.


The Braewood Water System is located on the south side of State Road 50 approximately one and
one half miles west of Interstate 75 in eastern Hernando County. The water system consists of
one well and serves approximately 51 residential connections and 1 commercial connection, with
an average daily flow of 10,000 GPD. The HCWSD currently holds a water use permit of 25,000
GPD for the system.


3-30









The Lindsey Acres Water System located just east of the Brookridge subdivision, provides water
for a total of 13 residential connections. The water system individually makes a very small impact
in water withdrawal at 4,000 GPD. However, given its proximity to the West Hernando Water
System there is a possibility of its addition to the overall system network. The HCWSD currently
holds a water use permit for 14,000 GPD for the system.


The Seville Water System is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Citrus/Hernando
boundary, east of U.S. 19. While it serves only 4 residential connections at present, Seville is
a major planned development, with several thousand planned dwelling units. The present two-
well system usage is approximately 1,000 GPD, however, the HCWSD currently holds a
combined water use permit of 230,000 GPD for the Seville Water System.


3-31







Table 3-7

HERNANDO COUNTY WATER & SEWER DISTRICT SUPPLY SYSTEMS

System General Permitted Average Residential Commercial
Location Capacity Usage Connections Connections
(GPD) (GPD)

West Herando Southwest 5,130,000 4,215,000 12,163 454
Water System Hernando
County

East Herando East 572,000 493,000 1,463 60
Ridge Manor Hernando
Water System County

Lakeside Acres East Central 32,000 26,000 112 0
Water System Hernando
County

Cedar Lane East Central 50,000 29,000 124 1
Water System Herando
County

Dogwood East Central
Estates Hernando 200,000 101,000 220 1
Water System County

Hill N' Dale East Central 250,000 146,000 471 1
Water System Herando
County

Braewood East 25,000 10,000 51 1
Water System Hernando
County

Lindsey Acres West 14,000 4,000 13 0
Water System Hernando
County

Seville West 230,000 1,000 4 0
Water System Hernando
County

Hernando
County Water Combined 6,503,000 5,025,000 14,621 518
System 0
Notes: Data for Average Usage collected from the individual facilities Monthly Operating Reports (January December 1994). All other
data compiled from Southwest Florida Water Management District data files for average daily groundwater withdrawal rates
(January 1995).


Local Communities

The emergence of new community water supply systems within Hernando County has been

limited due to the widespread coverage of the Hernando County Water and Sewer District


3-32









(HCWSD). Operation, maintenance, and interconnection of HCWSD systems throughout the
county have provided adequate water supply for areas that may have otherwise developed their
own individual water supply systems. The City of Brooksville, however, has historically provided
water service to its residents.


The City of Brooksville is located in the very center of Hernando County at the intersections of
U.S. 41, State Road 50 and U.S. 98. The City of Brooksville's water supply system is operated
and maintained by their own utility department. The city water system is supported by three
water treatment plants, the Lamar, Hillside Court, and Hope Hill facilities. Combined, the
treatment plants provide an average 1,509,000 GPD to an interconnection of major water mains
(10, 12, 14 inch) which distribute water to a network of smaller water lines. The distribution
system provides water to approximately 5,698 residential and 770 commercial connections. The
utility service area does extend beyond the city limits and the City of Brooksville actively pursues
annexation of areas where service is requested. The City currently holds a water use permit of
2,240,000 GPD for their distribution system (See Table 3-8).


Table 3-8

LOCAL COMMUNITIES WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS (Hernando County)
S stem General Permitted Average Residential Commercial
Location Capacity Usage Connections Connections
(GPD) (GPD)
City of Central
Brooksville Hernando 2,240,000 1,509,000 5,698 770
County __
Notes: Data for Average Usage collected from the individual facilities Monthly Operating Reports (January December 1994). All other
data compiled from Southwest Florida Water Management District data files for average daily groundwater withdrawal rates
(January 1995).


Southern States Utilities Spring Hill (See Table 3-9)

As mentioned previously, Southern States Utilities (SSU) is an investor-owned utility company
based in Apopka, Florida with several remote satellite offices. One of those satellite offices is
in Spring Hill, a large residential community consisting of nearly half the residents in Hernando
County. SSU provides water service to an approximate 24,240 combined residential and


3-33









commercial connections, utilizing seven water treatment facilities fed by nineteen different wells

scattered throughout the area. The average daily demand upon this water system is 8,767,000

GPD, which will increase substantially in upcoming years due to the sustained growth rate of the

Spring Hill area. SSU currently holds a water use permit for 10,300,000 GPD for the Spring

Hill Water System.


Table 3-9

SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES WATER SYSTEMS (Hernando County)

System General Permitting Average Residential Commercial
Location Capacity Usage Connections Connections
(GPD) (GPD)
Spring Hill Southwest 10,300,000 8,767,000 24,240 *
Water System Hernando County
Notes: Data for Average Usage collected from the individual facilities Monthly Operating Reports (January December 1994). All other
data compiled from Southwest Florida Water Management District data files for average daily groundwater withdrawal rates
(January 1995).
Included in residential connections.


3-34








Population Projections and Growth Patterns
The population growth rate in Hernando County during the 1970s and 1980s was at times the
highest in the nation. Growth has slowed during the recent recession, but a number of factors
lean toward the resumption of rapid growth. These factors include:
* The North Suncoast Parkway, which will bisect the major growth corridor of Hernando
County and provide a direct expressway connection to the Tampa Bay;
* The reduced trip time factor which will allow Hernando County to serve as a low-cost
bedroom community for workers in the Pinellas/West Hillsborough employment centers;
* The attractiveness of the area to the ever-increasing "retiree" element in our society;
* The rolling hills and natural beauty of the area; and,
* The relatively low cost for single family housing, maintained in part by the number of
inexpensive single family lots available in existing subdivisions.


Hernando-County also uses the "medium" population projections of the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research (BEBR) in their comprehensive planning process. For Hernando County the
difference between the medium and high estimates for the year 2020 is significant (64%), with
the high estimate probably reflecting the return to a fast growth pattern.


At the request of the WRWSA, the Hernando County Planning Department prepared population
estimates for 10 "planning areas" using BEBR medium and high projections. The planning areas
and population projections are shown in Figure 3-5 and Table 3-10. Under the high estimate,
population could more than triple by the year 2020, with most of that growth taking place in the
southwest and south-central sectors of the county. Because of the major state land purchases of
previously vested residential properties, virtually none of the growth will occur west of US 19.
Building data is maintained for each planning area, so these projections can be evaluated and
updated in the future. Hernando County is addressing the coordination of the growth projections
with the capital improvement efforts of the Utilities and Planning Departments.


3-35








CITRUS


PASCO


HERNANDO COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES ,

MEDIUM PROJECTION HIGH PR
PLANNING SECTOR 1995 2000 2010 2020 F
1. NORTHEAST 7.858 9,069 11,463 14,163 1. NORTI
2. THE HAMMOCK 5,087 5,406 6,038 6,751 2. THE t
3. ROYAL HIGHLANDS 12,210 14,620 19.387 24.762 3. ROYAL
4. NW COASTAL 2,843 3,924 6,040 6,069 4. NW C
5. SW COASTAL 6.418 7,996 10,675 10,675 5. SW C
6. SPRING HILL 61,700 75.755 103,550 134,895 6. SPRIN
7. BROOKSVILLE AREA 11,057 11.859 13,447 15,238 7. BROC
8. SOUTH CENTRAL 5,002 6,285 8,705 11,434 8. SOUTi
9. SPRING LAKE 3,331 3,863 4,385 6,099 9. SPRIN
10. RIDGE MANOR 5,035 5,723 6,398 8.614 10. RIDG
TOTAL 120,600 144,500 191,300 238,700 TOTA
prepared by Hernondo County Planning De


0
(9
















SUMMER


SCALE 1 20000
20000


40000


HIGH GROWTH AREA
OVER 10,000 INCREASE
IN POPULATION BY 2020

MEDIUM GROWTH AREA
BETWEEN 5,000-10,000
INCREASE IN POPULATION
BY 2020


D[


HIGH PROJECTION
PLANNING SECTOR 1995 2000 2010 2020
1. NORTHEAST 8,208 10.320 15,879 22.907
2. THE HAMMOCK 5.179 5,736 7,203 9,058
3. ROYAL HIGHLANDS 12,906 17,111 28.177 42,168
4. NW COASTAL 3,155 5,041 6,069 6,609
5. SW COASTAL 6,874 9,628 10,675 10,675
6. SPRING HILL 65,758 90,281 154,812 236,400
7. BROOKSVILLE AREA 11,288 12,689 16,375 21,036
8. SOUTH CENTRAL 5,415 7,550 13,168 20,270
9. SPRING LAKE 3,485 4,412 6,852 9,938

10. RIDGE MANOR 5,234 6,433 11,491 13,578
TOTAL 127.500 169,200 268,800 392,100
y Planning Department


LOW GROWTH AREA
LESS THAN 5,000 POPULATION
INCREASE BY 2020


r


I I I


- L











Table 3-10


HERNANDO COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES

Cumulative Population Estimates Using Average # of CO's Issued Methodology

Planning Census POP GROWTH POP EST
District 4/1/90 GROWTH SHARE 1/1/95

1 Northeast 6,871 754 5.07% 7,625
2. The Hammock 4,826 199 1.34% 5,025
3. Royal Highlands 10,245 1,501 10.08% 11,746
4. NW Coastal 1,962 673 4.52% 2,635
5. SW Coastal 5,131 983 6.60% 6,114
6. Spring Hill 50,241 8,753 58.81% 58,994
7. Brooksville Area 10,402 500 3.36% 10,902
8. South Central 4,064 762 5.12% 4,826
9. Spring Lake 2,898 331 2.22% 3,229
10. Ridge Manor 4,475 428 2.88% __ 4.903
TOTAL 101.115 100.00% I 107168 115,999
MEDIUM PROJECTION

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

1. Northeast 7,858 9,069 10,259 11,463 12,818 14,163
2. The Hammock 5,087 5,406 5,720 6,038 6,396 6,751
3. Royal Highlands 12,210 14,620 16,990 19,387 22,084 24,762
4.NW Coastal 2,843 3,924 4,986 6,040 6,069 6,069
5. SW Coastal 6,418 7,996 9,548 10,675 10,675 10,675
6. Spring Hill 61,700 75,755 89,575 103,550 119,279 134,895
7. -Brooksville Area 11,057 11,859 12,649 13,447 14,346 15,238
8. South Central 5,062 6,285 7,488 8,705 10,074 11,434
9. Spring Lake 3,331 3,863 4,385 4,385 5,509 6,099
10 Ridge Manor 5.035 5.723 6.398 6,398 7.851 8.614
TOTAL 120.600 144,500 168,000 1 191.300 215,100 238,700


HIGH PROJECTION
1995 2000 2005 201)0 2015 202
1. Northeast 8,208 10,320 12,881 15,879 19,231 22,907
2. The Hammock 5,179 5,736 6,412 7,203 8,080 9,058
3. Royal Highlands 12,906 17,111 22,209 28,177 34,849 42,168
4. NW Coastal 3,155 5,041 6,069 6,069 6,069 6,069
5. SW Coastal 6,874 9,628 10,675 10,675 10,675 10,675
6. Spring Hill 65,758 90,281 120,007 154,812 193,721 236,400
7. Brooksville Area 11,288 12,689 14,387 16,375 18,598 21,036
8 South Central 5,415 7,550 10,138 13,168 16,555 20,270
9 Spring Lake 3,485 4,412 5,536 6,852 8,324 9,938
10 Ridge Manor 5,234 6,433 7,886 9,588 11,491 13.578
TOTAL 127.500 169.200 216,200 268.800 327.600 392.100

Source: Hernando County Planning Department, March 1995


3-37










Projections of Potable Water Demand

The "medium" population projections provided above were reviewed and distributed by major utility
service districts in the county. After discussion with SWFWMD, a planning factor of 150 gallons
per day (GPD) was chosen to approximate the increase in potable water use resulting from each
additional resident. This factor accounts for the commercial, industrial and institutional water
demand that accompanies an increase in population. The resulting water demand is depicted for each
utility district on Table 3-11.
Table 3-11

Existing and Projected Demand for Major Potable Water Supply Systems -
Hernando County
Gallons Per Day (GPD)

Utilities System Existing Water 2010 2020
Demand Water Demand Water Demand

Hernando County 5,025,000 10,780,000 15,500,000
City of Brooksville 1,509,000 2,205,000 2,535,000
Spring Hill 8,767,000 12,395,000 13,820,000

Total 15,301,000 25,380,000 31,855,000




Future Service Areas, Wellfields and Facility Plans

As previously indicated, the Hernando County Water and Sewer District has the greatest potential
for expansion. Four discrete areas in Hemando County were indicated as excellent locations on the
wellfield suitability map, Figure 1-4. These locations happened to occur in each corer of the
county (i.e. NW, SW, SE, NE). Figure 3-6 indicates the proposed location of wells in each of those
areas, generally avoiding any significant wetland or surface water features. As indicated in the
Groundwater Resource Evaluation, Section 2, the modeled drawdown from these wells appears to
be quite acceptable. While the transmissivity is not as high as found at the Citrus County site,
properly designed wellfields totalling 10-15 mgd should function well.


3-38










CITRUS


SEVILLE
WELLS


NORTHWEST
WELL FIELI


SYSTEM
INTEGRATION


EXPANDED SOUTHWEST
WELL FIELD


CEDAR
WELLS


PASCO


q)
Q)


0


















SCALE 1 = 15000


*I




x
x
x
x
#mme


LEGEND

HERNANDO COUNTY
WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES
SERVICE AREA
BROOKSVILLE UTILITY
SERVICE AREA
EXISTING MAJOR COUNTY WATER
LINES
PROPOSED MAJOR COUNTY WATER
LINES
EXISTING MAJOR PRIVATE WATER
LINES
EXISTING MAJOR MUNICIPAL WATER
LINES
SIZE PENDING FUTURE DESIGN


PROPOSED WELL SITE

EXISTING WELL SITE


LINE SIZES VARY


SUMMER


SOUTHEAST
WELL FIEL


SOURCE: COASTAL ENGINEERING & ASSOC., INC.
BASED ON THE INFORMATION SECURED
FROM HERNANDO COUNTY UTILITY DEPT.,
CITY OF BROOKSVILLE UTILITY DEPARTMENT,
AND SOUTHERN STATE UTILITIES.


OCT. 1995


i










The wellfields in the northwest and southwest sections of the county fit the population growth
patterns very well. There are major power line corridors in those areas that could be utilized to
locate linear wellfields. In the case of the southwest site, the County's existing Southwest Wellfield
could be expanded, utilizing much of the infrastructure already in place. With impacts from
pumping in northern Pasco County already evident in the Masaryktown area, however, much more
hydrogeologic analysis should be conducted prior to pursuing a wellfield in this area.


The northwest wellfield site would serve the major developments approved in that area (Seville,
World Woods) and allow for interconnection along the major power line. Eventual system
integration with the West Hernando water system would improve water quantity and system
pressure. While growth in the northeast is only moderate, a wellfield located just west of the
Withlacoochee State Forest would be optimal from the viewpoint of wellhead protection. This
wellfield could also be utilized to augment the water supplies of Dogwood Estates and the City of
Brooksville. Even though residential growth may be somewhat light in the vicinity of the southeast
wellfield site, there is significant commercial and industrial activity expected just to the north at the
intersection of SR 50 and 1-75. This area is far enough distant from the remainder of the County's
major wellfields to seriously consider the development of a water supply at this location.


Figure 3-6 indicates the proposed location of the new wellfields and a possible configuration of
subsequent transmission lines. The southeastern area would include a network of links that could
provide service to the existing Ridge Manor, Lakeside, Cedar Lane, Hill & Dale, Braewood and
various other small systems in the area. While interconnection through the south-central portion
of the county is not justified by anticipated growth, it has been proposed to allow for backup water
supply to populated areas. It would also be beneficial in improving the pressure and quantity of
water to interconnected systems.


The Southern States Utility District is not expected to expand outside its current boundaries,
however, bulk water agreements with Hernando County would help to supply water to areas of
additional growth within their district.


3-40










Sumter County


General Issues
Sumter County has an excellent groundwater resource that is relatively free of quality problems
(except for iron), but vulnerable to contamination and pollution. The great majority of the water
withdrawal in Sumter County is from rock mining and agricultural activities (65% and 25%,
respectively). The permitted water withdrawal in Sumter County is over twice that of its more
populated neighbors (Citrus, Hemando) because of those two uses. With the exception of one
large vested DRI development, The Villages, Sumter County has not experienced the major
subdivision development of Citrus and Hernando counties. Without that growth or any significant
water quality problems, Sumter County has not chosen to get involved in the provision of potable
water. Water systems have been set up through a variety of public and private entities, including
four municipally owned systems. Two of its five incorporated communities, Bushnell and
Wildwood, have utility systems that provide service outside their city limits. The Villages, which
accounted for over 50% of the county building permits in 1993 and 1994, operates its own water
supply system. To date, their supply wells have been located in adjacent Lake County
(SJWMD), with two of the wells virtually on the county line. Future wells for the Villages are
expected to be placed in Sumter County.


Water Supply and Resource Protection in County Plans and Ordinances
The following citations indicate the portions of comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances
that address issues related to water supply and resource protection.


3-41










Comprehensive Plan Policies
Conservation element
* Under land use regulations, public supply wells are to be reviewed and approved by the
County. In conjunction with SWFWMD and the WRWSA, the County was to review for
pollution sources and aquifer vulnerability to contamination using the DRASTIC model.
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
* 200 foot and 500 foot wellhead protection zones are established for existing and future
wellfields. (also in Future Land Use and Utility elements)
Intergovernmental Coordination
* Specifically supports the extension of municipal potable water service into the
unincorporated areas.
Establishes the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council as the mediator for conflict
resolution in some municipality conflicts


Studies &Technical Support
The technical support document refers to two studies.


Sumter County Master Plan for Water Supply (WRWSA, Russell & Axon, 1986) This
report provided a description of the water supply systems in the county, including a needs
assessment. It was utilized to estimate potable water demand through the year 2001 and help
establish standards for water supply systems. System deficiencies were noted, primarily in
the control of surrounding land, adequacy of safe storage and provision of auxiliary power.
Groundwater Resource Availability Inventory, (SWFWMD, 1987) While the Floridan
aquifer is a dependable source for large quantities of water in Sumter County, there is a lack
of a clay layer to provide for physical separation between the aquifer and possible sources
of contamination. When SWFWMD applied the DRASTIC model to determine the potential
for groundwater contamination, they found most of the county to be highly susceptible to
contamination.


3-42









Implementing Ordinances
S* Sumter County Zoning Ordinance Wellfields require a special exception under the zoning
ordinance, providing Sumter County with a mechanism to establish some performance and
protection conditions.


Conclusion
Very little in the way of data and analysis was available at the time of the preparation of the
comprehensive plan, particularly in the areas of aquifer characteristics and modeling. The
comprehensive plan provides the framework to enact a wellhead protection ordinance. Land use
approval was required for the development of a well, with some hydrogeologic analysis and
environmental inventory required. Areas receiving little, if any, treatment included
intergovernmental coordination, conservation, the issue of water transfer and the identification and
protection of areas of the county where future wellfields might be located.


Utility Systems
The communities that have the most significant water supply infrastructures are Lake Panasoffkee
and the Cities of Bushnell, Wildwood, Center Hill, and Webster. Based on records from
SWFWMD, these entities make up approximately 90% of the overall public potable water
demand in Sumter County (Table 3-12). The remaining 10% is supplied to a number of very
small private systems. The county's sole major planned development, the Villages is also
becoming a major provider of potable water. Since the water supply wells for the Villages are
located in Lake County, their demand is not reflected in the SWFWMD figures. The various
system boundaries and major transmission lines are shown in Figure 3-7.


3-43






MARION


CITRUS










HERNANDO

















SCALE 1 = 20000
20000


40000


I SUMTER COUNTY/OTHER PUBUC

CITY OF BUSHNELL EXPANDED UTIUTY DISTRICT

CITY OF WILDWOOD EXPANDED UTILITY DISTRICT

CITY OF CENTER HILL

F LAKE PANASOFFKEE WATER ASSOC.

[ CITY OF WEBSTER

mmm m- MAJOR MUNICIPAL WATER LINES

EXISTING WELL SITE


PASCO


LAKE


POLK


SOURCE:
COASTAL ENGINEERING ASSOC., INC.
BASED UPON INFORMATION SECURED
FROM COMES OF WILDWOOD, BUSHNELL,
WEBSTER, AND CENTER HILL
OCT. 1995


OKAHUMPKA
WELL SITE


CITY OF
WILDWOOD
-C.R. 500
WELL FIELD


MATCH LINE


V)





hi






U,
x
J


I



0)


IL -


I r 1


1 IVf V









The City of Bushnell is located approximately two miles east of Interstate 75 at the intersection
of County Road 476 and U.S. 301 in the heart of Sumter County. The City of Bushnell's water
supply system is maintained and operated by their own utility department and supports
approximately 646 residential connections and 200 commercial connections. The system
infrastructure is based upon a primary network of six and eight-inch water mains looped and
interconnected to maintained adequate flow and pressure. Two treatment plants within the city
supply a combined average daily flow of 260,000 GPD. The City of Bushnell currently holds a
water use permit of 362,000 GPD.


Lake Panasoffkee is located in northwestern Sumter County, two miles west of Interstate 75 on
County Road 470. The Lake Panasoffkee Water Association operates and maintains a water
distribution network and treatment facility containing three wells with a combined average daily
system usage of 250,000 GPD. The system serves approximately 1,459 residential connections
and 63 commercial connections. The Lake Panasoffkee Water Association currently holds a water
use permit for 410,000 GPD for their system.


The City of Wildwood is located east of the intersection of State Road 44 and Interstate 75. The
City of Wildwood maintains and operates their own water system for approximately 1,871
residential connections and 225 commercial connections. The water system infrastructure has
spread beyond the city limits, using twelve-inch water mains to capture additional system users.
A connection to a newly constructed federal prison complex is expected to add approximately
650,000 GPD to the present system daily usage of 734,000 GPD. The City of Wildwood holds
a water use permit of 1,390,000 GPD.


The City of Center Hill is located approximately six miles east of Bushnell on County Road 48.
The City maintains and operates their own water supply system for approximately 348 residential
connections and 12 commercial connections. Their water system is supplied from two water
treatment plants and consists of a network of six and eight-inch mains. The average daily usage


3-45










on the water supply system is 88,142 GPD. The City currently holds a water use permit of

120,000 GPD for their system.


The City of Webster is located on State Road 470 approximately five miles southeast of Bushnell.

The City of Webster supplies their own water to approximately 350 residential connections and

50 commercial connections. Their water treatment facilities are currently supplying 366,850 GPD

per day to their users. The City of Webster currently holds a 234,000 GPD water use permit for

their water system.


Table 3-12

LOCAL COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS (Sumter County)

System General Permitted Average Residential Commercial
Location Capacity Usage Connections Connections
(GPD)

City of Bushnell Central
Water System Sumter County 362,000 260,000 646 200

Lake Panasoffkee North Western
Sumter County 410,000 250,000 1,459 63

City of North
Wildwood Water Sumter County 1,390,000 734,000 1,871 225
System

City of Center Hill East Central
Water Supply Sumter County 120,000 88,142 342 12

City of Webster South
Water System Sumter County 234,000 366,850 350 50

Local Communities Combined 2,516,000 1,698,9921 4,668 550

Notes: + Data for Average Usage collected from the individual facilities Monthly Operating Reports (January December 1994). All other
data compiled from Southwest Florida Water Management District data files for average daily groundwater withdrawal rates
(January 1995).


3-46










The Village Center Community Development District (see Table 3-13)

The Villages is a private residential development located in the far northeast corner of Sumter
County. The Village Center Community Development District (VCCDD) has contracted

Operations Management International to maintain and operate their water system for
approximately 5,900 residential connections and 400 commercial connections. Within this service
system however, only 20% of the residential connections are in Sumter County. The rest of the
residential connections and all of the commercial connections are in Lake County, which is also
the location of the VCCDD water supply facilities, consisting of five individual wells with an
average combined usage of 2,800,000 GPD. VCCDD currently holds a water use permit for
4,850,000 for the system.


Table 3-13

The Villages Water System

System General Permitted Average Residential Commercial
Location Capacity Usage Connections Connections
(GPD) (GPD)

The Villages Northeast 4,850,000 2,800,000 (' 5,900(2) 400'3)
Sumter County _
Notes: (1) Sumter County comprises 20% of usage
(2) Sumter County comprises 20% of connections
(3) All connections outside Sumter County.
Data for Average Usage collected from the individual facilities Monthly Operating Reports (January December 1994). All other
data compiled from Southwest Florida Water Management District data files for average daily groundwater withdrawal rates
(January 1995).

Population Projections and Growth Patterns


With the exception of the Villages, major residential growth has not affected Sumter County.
There are several factors which could lead to a much faster growth rate in the near future,

including:

The availability of inexpensive open land with ready access to 1-75 and the Florida
Turnpike;
The attractiveness of the "rural" setting area, particularly to the "retiree" and seasonal
element in our society;


3-47











* The fact that residential growth is "closing in" on Sumter County from several directions
(Marion, Lake and Hernando Counties).
* The ability of one or two major residential developments like The Villages to rapidly
accelerate the growth rate of a smaller population, rural county.


The Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), located at the University of Florida has
been assigned the responsibility of preparing population estimates for the local governments within
Florida. They establish low, medium and high estimates. For Sumter County the difference
between the medium and high estimates for the year 2020 is significant (63 %). Because of the
Villages and other factors that lead the County to anticipate more development pressure, they
usually work with the BEBR high estimate in their planning efforts. For the purpose of this
Master Plan, however, we have utilized BEBR medium projections to maintain uniformity with
other counties and the State.


At the request of the WRWSA, the Sumter County Planning Department prepared population
estimates for nine "planning areas" using BEBR medium and high projections. The planning
areas are shown in Figure 3-8 and the projections in Table 3-14. It should be noted that the
projections for The Villages are being held to a very low level (particularly under BEBR medium)
in order to show a moderate growth projection for the remaining planning districts.


3-48






N MARION


CITRUS
















HERNANDO


HIGH GROWTH AREA
OVER 10,000 INCREASE
IN POPULATION BY 2020


D-


MEDIUM GROWTH AREA
BETWEEN 5,000-10,000
INCREASE IN POPULATION
BY 2020

LOW GROWTH AREA
LESS THAN 5,000 POPULATION
INCREASE BY 2020





















SCALE 1 = 25000
25000


50000


LAKE


SUMTER COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES


PLANNING SECTOR 1995 2000 2010 2020

1. THE VILLAGES 3,049 3,335 3,605 4,234

2. WILDWOOD/COLEMAN 12,487 13,657 15,583 17,336

3. NORTHWEST QUADRANT 1,888 2,064 2,356 2,621

4. LAKE PANASOFFKEE 4,102 4,486 5,119 5,695

5. WITHLACOOCHEE NORTHWEST 1,416- 1,548 1,767 1,966

6. WITHLACOOCHEE WEST 5,155 5,637 6,433 7,151

7. BUSHNELL 1,888 2,064 2,356 2,621

8. EAST CENTRAL 1,664 1,787 2,039 2,268

9. WITHLACOOCHEE EAST 4,646 5,082 5,796 6,451


TOTAL 36,300 39,700 45,300 50,400

SOURCE:
SUMTER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BASED ON B.E.B.R. MEDIUM ESTIMATES.
AUGUST 1995


'I


V ,
I.
<

LJ
wm

F-


I


CO




94107-6



94107-6


I L I I


/- _j-










Planning
Sector


Table 3-14

SUMTER POPULATION ESTIMATES # (Medium)


1995


2000


2005


2010


2015


2020


3-50


Projection % Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection


The Villages 3,049 8.4 3,335 3,578 3,605 4,046 4,234

Wildwood/Coleman 12,487 34.4 13,657 14,654 15,583 16,571 17,336

Bushnell 1,888 5.2 2,064 2,215 2,356 2,505 2,621

Northwest Quadrant 1,888 5.2 2,064 2,215 2,356 2,505 2,621

Lake Panasoffkee 4,102 11.3 4,486 4,814 5,119 5,443 5,695

East Central 1,664 4.5 1,787 1,917 2,039 2,168 2,268

Withlachoochee 1,416 3.9 1,548 1,661 1,767 1,879 1,966
Northwest

Withlacoochee 4,646 12.8 5,082 5,453 5,796 6,166 6,451
East

Withlacoochee 5,155 14.2 5,637 6,049 6,433 6,640 7,151
West

Total 99%

36,300 39,700 42,600 45,300 48,171 50,400

SUMTER POPULATION ESTIMATES # (High)

Planning 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Senior

Projection % Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection


The Villages 3,167 8.4 4,116 4,821 5,577 6,401 7,275

Wildwood/Coleman 12,969 34.4 16,856 19,745 22,842 26,213 29,790

Bushnell 1,960 5.2 2,548 2,985 3,453 3,962 4,503

Northwest 1,960 5.2 2,548 2,985 3,453 3,962 -4,503
Quadrant

Lake Panasoffkee 4,260 11.3 5,537 6,486 7,503 8,611 9,786

East Central 1,697 4.5 2,205 2,583 2,988 3,429 3,897

Withlachoochee 1,508 4 1,960 2,296 2,656 3,048 3,464
Northwest

Withlacoochee 4,826 12.8 6,272 7,347 8,499 9,754 11,085
East

Withlacoochee 5,353 14.2 6,958 8,151 9,429 10,620 12,297
West

Total 100%

37,700 49,000 57,400 66,400 76,200 86,600
Source: Sumter County Planning Department, August, 1995.









Projections of Potable Water Demand

The "medium" population projections provided above were reviewed and distributed by major utility
service districts in the county. After discussion with SWFWMD, a planning factor of 150 gallons
per day (GPD) was chosen to approximate the increase in potable water use resulting from each
additional resident. This factor accounts for the commercial, industrial and institutional water
demand that accompanies an increase in population. The resulting water demand is depicted for each
utility district on Table 3-15.


Table 3-15

Existing and Projected Demand for Major Potable Water Supply Systems- Sumter
County
Gallons Per Day (GPD)

Utilities System Existing Water 2010 2020
Demand Water Demand Water Demand
Sumter County/Other Public N/A 202,000 318,000
City of Wildwood 734,000 1,269,000 1,572,000
City of Webster 338,000 425,000 1,474,000
City of Bushnell 260,000 487,000 615,000
City of Center Hill 88,000 116,000 133,000
The Villages 560,000 644,000 738,000

Total 1,980,000 3,143,000 3,850,000


Future Service Areas, Wellfields and Facility Plans

While growth in Sumter County does not warrant the development of a major wellfield, there is one
location on the wellfield suitability map that is very conducive to the development of a water supply.
In addition to positive hyrogeologic characteristics, this site is also centrally located and easily
accessible to the utility systems of the four municipalities and Lake Panasoffkee. It would be
prudent to consider some protection of the area for future water supplies in the comprehensive
planning process. Figure 3-9 indicates the proposed location of the new wellfield and a possible
configuration of subsequent transmission lines.


3-51





MARION


CITRUS


HERNANDO


MATCH LINE


PASCO
















SCALE 1 20000
20000


40000


3a







x
- .



x


*


LEGEND

SUMTER COUNTY/OTHER PUBUC

CITY OF BUSHNELL EXPANDED UTIUTY DISTRICT

CITY OF WILDWOOD EXPANDED UTILITY DISTRICT

CITY OF CENTER HILL

LAKE PANASOFFKEE WATER ASSOC.

CITY OF WEBSTER

PROPOSED MAJOR WATER LINES
EXISTING MAJOR MUNICIPAL WATER UNES

PROPOSED WELL FIELD

EXISTING WELLS
SIZE PENDING FUTURE DESIGN


MATCH LINE



I I

71 I










S-PO L K


SOURCE:
COASTAL ENGINEERING ASSOC., INC.
BASED UPON THE INFORMATION FROM
THE CITIES OF WILDWOOD, BUSHNELL,
WEBSTER, AND CENTER HILL
OCT. 1995


AKE


I C 1









- The City of Ocala


General Issues
The City of Ocala provides potable water service to its residents from a wellfield (five wells) located in
its northeastern quadrant. This wellfield is considered to have sufficient capacity to serve the residents
until the year 2003 (City of Ocala Water and Wastewater Master Plan of February 1991). Water quality
in the wellfield has generally been good, however, due to the nature of the underlying aquifer, the
"capture area" for the existing wellfield is to the southwest, lying underneath the heart of the city. In the
Ocala area, the upper Floridan aquifer is typically covered with thin surficial sediments and is susceptible
to contamination. Protection of the capture area, while difficult, is of paramount importance to the City.
A recently enacted Wellhead Protection Ordinance establishes several protection zones.


In its comprehensive planning process, the City established nine "activity areas" for which "subarea
plans" were to be developed. The purpose of the subarea plans was to concentrate the limited City
resources in specific areas in a specific time frame. Potable water facilities were to be extended
consistent with the City ofOcala Water and Wastewater Master Plan. An "urban service area", inclusive
of an additional 20 acres outside the City limits, was also adopted as part of the Future Land Use Map.
Due to increased demand for potable water outside the urban service area and the inability of any other
provider to meet that demand, the City is taking steps such as amending its comprehensive plan and
negotiating with Marion County to expand the area to which it may provide water services.


The City anticipates the introduction of several ordinances and a rate structure change to reduce water
consumption. These ordinances will require use of low flow plumbing fixtures in all new construction,
abandoning the future use of master water meters, and require the use of xeriscaping. As part of a St.
Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) consumptive use permit, the City will also
implement and require a water conservation rate structure. The majority of the City lies east of 1-75 and
is, therefore, in the SJRWMD. The area lying west of 1-75 is under the jurisdiction of SWFWMD.


3-53











Water Supply and Resource Protection in City Plans and Ordinances


The following citations indicate the portions of the comprehensive plan and implementing
ordinances that address issues related to water supply and resource protection.



Comprehensive Plan Policies



Future Land Use Element
* Establishes Nine "Activity Centers" for industrial and commercial growth
* Prioritizes potable water resources and improvements to the activity centers.
* Establishes an "Urban Service Area" outside the city limits in which City potable water
service can be extended. A comprehensive plan amendment is required for extension
beyond the urban service area.
New or replacement septic tank systems are not allowed-where sewer service is located
within one-eighth of a mile.
More exacting treatment criteria are established for existing and future stormwater drainage
to sinkholes.


Potable Water Sub-Element
Water conservation policies are to decrease the level of service standard for water
consumption from 176 gpcd (gallons per capital per day) to 165 gpcd by 1997.
A Water and Wastewater System Master Plan for facility evaluation and expansion will be
reviewed and updated every five years.
The landscape ordinance is to be revised to give incentives for retaining existing vegetation,
allowing xeriscaping and requiring the use of native vegetation.
The extension of City potable water facilities will be limited to the areas and time frames
shown in the City of Ocala Water and Wastewater Master Plan.


3-54











- Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element
Requires the enaction of a Wellfield Protection Ordinance to establish wellfield protection
zones, with stringent restrictions in zones in close proximity to the City wellfields.
Calls for an expansion of the City program to repair sinkholes.


Studies and Technical Reports
City of Ocala Water and Wastewater Plan (1991) This study provides an in-depth review
of the existing water supply system and makes recommendations for improvements and
expansion. The plan study area of 77 square miles is approximately 27 square miles larger
than the Urban Service Area established in the Comprehensive Plan, encompassing
significant additional portions of unincorporated Marion County west of 1-75. Based on
projections of growth in the area, an additional wellfield was recommended prior to the year
2003. The proposed location of that wellfield is in unincorporated Marion County in the
southwest corner of the planning area. Unlike the existing wellfield, the groundwater drawn
by the proposed wellfield would not lie under the bulk of the city's population.


Implementing Ordinances
Potable Water Wellhead Protection Ordinance (1992) This ordinance designates five zones
of protection within the city to protect the existing City wellfield. The protection zones are
as follows:
Zone A Wellfield Management Zone. This is a 1,500 foot radius around each well in
the wellfield.
Zone B The land between Zone A and the theoretical one year travel time contour.
Zone C The land between Zone B and the theoretical five year travel time contour.
Zone D The land between Zone C and the theoretical ten year travel time contour.
Zone E The remaining land within the city limits.


A simulation of the theoretical groundwater flow for the City's wellfield, at 20 MGD, was
modeled using the USGS programs MODFLOW and MODPATH. Septic tanks are to be


3-55









eliminated from Zones A & B within a 3-5 year period after passage of the ordinance.
Existing underground storage tanks in Zone A & B are to be removed or modified to
include a secondary containment system. Discharge of regulated substances are not
allowed in close proximity to sinkholes (100 feet in Zones A & B, 200 feet in Zones C &
D). Other prohibitions and conditions are included in the ordinance.


Conclusion
Data and analysis was not readily available at the time of the preparation of the comprehensive plan,
particularly in the areas of aquifer characteristics and modeling. The comprehensive plan provides
the framework for a wellhead protection ordinance, which, when enacted, was quite detailed.
Because of the location of their only wellfield, the City took some strong steps to limit the likelihood
of groundwater contamination. The City also identified water conservation measures within the
comprehensive plan. Areas receiving little, if any, treatment included coordination with the
SWFWMD, the issue of water transfer and the identification and protection, in concert with the
County, of areas outside the city limits where future wellfields might be located.



Utility System (see Table 3-16)

Because if its size and history, the City of Ocala has become the most significant potable water
supplier in Marion County. The Ocala Utilities Department provides water to approximately
10,973 residential connections and 3,106 commercial connections within its service area, which
extend beyond the city limits. The supply infrastructure is made up of a network of primary
distribution lines ranging from eight-inches to twenty-four-inches in diameter. The system has
been looped wherever possible to maintain adequate pressures and flows throughout the system.
There is one water treatment plant and a total of five wells which produce an average daily supply
of 8,079,000 GPD. The wells are located in the northeast section of the Ocala, with the "capture
area" underneath the center of development. The City of Ocala currently holds a water use
permit at 11,300,000 GPD. System boundaries and major transmission lines are shown in Figure
3-10.


3-56










Table 3-16


Notes: Data for Average Usage collected from the individual facilities Monthly Operating Reports (January December 1994). All other
data compiled from St. Johns River Water Management District data files for average daily groundwater withdrawal rates (January
1995).


Population Projections

The City of Ocala Planning Department generally works with the BEBR medium estimate for

Marion County in developing population projections. The city population in 1995 is estimated

at 44,029 persons. This figure is expected to increase to 46,012 in the year 2000, 47,996 in 2005

and 53,947 in the year 2,020.- Annexation is expected to respectively add 27,652, 31,530, and

43,149 persons in the year 2000, 2005, and 2020. The expected result will be 50% increase in
the City's population. These projections are shown on Table 3-17.


Table 3-17

City of Ocala Population Estimates

Planning Sector 1995 2000 2005 2020
Within Current City Limits 44,029 46,012 47,996 53,947
Within Utility Service Area 23,778 27,652 31,530 43,149
TOTAL 67,807 73,664 79,526 97,096
Source: Ocala Planning Depanmen. March 1995


3-57


CITY OF OCALA WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

System Permitted Average Residential Commercial
Capacity Usage Connections Connections
(GPD) (GPD)

City of Ocala
Water System 11,300,000 8,079,000 10,973 3,106








N



E





SCALE 1 4000
4000 8000




















Il
12"













I'i

















SOURCE:
COASTAL ENGINEERING ASSOC., INC.
BASED UPON INFORMATION SECURED
FROM THE CITY OF OCALA UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT.


































































LEGEND

City Limit Line
Existing Service Area
wmmeeemmm Exist. Major Distribution Lines

O Existing Well Field
OCT. 1995









Projections of Potable Water Demand

A planning factor of 150 gallons per day (GPD) was chosen to approximate the increase in potable
water use resulting from each additional resident. This factor accounts for the commercial,
industrial and institutional water demand that accompanies an increase in population. The
resulting water demand is depicted on Table 3-18.


Table 3-18

Existing and Projected Demand for Major Potable Water Supply Systems The City of Ocala
Gallons Per Day (GPD)
Utilities System Existing 2010 2020
Water Demand Water Demand Water Demand
8.080,000 12,810,000 14,565,000

Future Service Areas, Wellfields and Facility Plans

The City of Ocala needs a new wellfield, not only for growth, but to provide a source of potable
water where the capture area does not lie under the urban center of the City. With the projected
growth extending westward from the City's existing boundaries, a wellfield in that direction would
have advantages in the expansion of utility lines. It would also provide a geographical balance, since
the existing wellfield is at the opposite-end of the City. There would be advantages due to increased
pressure and water quantity that are very important in areas of high demand and for providing fire
flows. While environmental factors such as water quality and quantity would lean toward a wellfield
in unincorporated Marion County, southwest of Ocala, the City is interested in maintaining both of
their permits with the same water management district, in this case the SJRWMD. A suitable site
was located to the south-southwest of the city limits. It could very easily be integrated into the
City's existing transmission network. Figure 3-11 indicates the proposed location of both wellfields
and a possible configuration of subsequent transmission lines.


3-59























SCALE 1 8000

8000


16000


WEST OCALA
'x WELL FIELD SITE


I '































































LEGEND
CITY LIMIT LINE
FUTURE MAJOR DISTRIBUTION LINES
Immmmmmmm EXIST. MAJOR DISTRIBUTION LINES
FUTURE SERVICE AREA

*c SIZE PENDING FUTURE DESIGN

x

x PROPOSED WELL FIELD LOCATION
x


0 EXISTING WELL FIELD

COASTAL ENGINEERING ASSOC., INC.
BASED UPON INFORMATION SECURED
FROM THE CITY OCALA UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT. OCT.









GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WELLFIELD

CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE


The WRWSA has been requested to develop wellfields or assist in the development of wellfields
and associated storage and distribution lines. Since additional requests are anticipated in the future,
it is a useful step to establish general criteria to be considered in the design of such facilities. The
following information should be utilized as guidelines and is not meant to supply project-specific
design criteria developed by a qualified engineer.


Wellfield Construction Criteria


Hydrogeologic analysis indicates that the best depth for public supply wells is approximately 200-
300 feet into the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Groundwater quality modeling at these depths shows the
best quality water. When considering withdrawal below this range, the groundwater quality analysis
is more likely to reveal lower results.


Wells that are designed to pump more than 1.0 MGD should be no less than 12 inches in diameter
with a minimum wall thickness of 0.375 inches. General construction and testing requirements
should follow the American Water Works Association (AWWA) A-100 Deep Well Specifications.
The AWWA provides general guidelines for construction and testing; specific requirements include
running a video log of the completed well (under pumping and non-pumping conditions), step
drawdown testing so that a demonstration of acceptable well efficiency (generally 80 to 90%) can
be made and a testing of sand concentration (<5mg/L and turbidity <1NTU) will be accomplished.


The AWWA A-100 specifications discuss use of neat cement grout and acceptable additives. The
SWFWMD and SJRWMD give specific requirements on grouting and casing that a water well
contractor must follow. The applicable rules are 40D-3 (SWFWMD) and 40C-3 (SJRWMD).


3-61









In general, the specifications should require that AWWA A-100, 40D-3 or 40C-3 be followed, as
well as specific testing to meet well efficiency, turbidity and sand concentration criteria.


Finished Water Storage


The following information is derived from the "Recommended Standards for Water Works by the
Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health & Environmental Managers".


GENERAL
The materials and designs used for finished water storage structures shall provide stability and
durability as well as protect the quality of the stored water. Steel structures shall follow the current
AWWA standards concerning steel tanks, standpipes, reservoirs, and elevated tanks wherever they
are applicable. Other materials of construction are acceptable when properly designed to meet the
requirements of this section.


Sizing: Storage facilities should have sufficient capacity, as determined from engineering studies,
to meet domestic demands, and where fire protection is provided, fire flow demands.


a. Fire flow requirements established by the appropriate state Insurance Services Office
should be satisfied where fire protection is provided.


b. The minimum storage capacity (or equivalent capacity) for systems not providing fire
protection shall be equal to the average daily consumption. This requirement may
be reduced when the source and treatment facilities have sufficient capacity with
standby power to supplement peak demands of the system.


3-62










Location of ground-level reservoirs:


a. The bottom of reservoirs and standpipes should be placed at the normal ground surface
and shall be above maximum flood level.


b. When the bottom must be below normal ground surface, it shall be placed above the
groundwater table. At least 50 per cent of the water depth should be above grade.
Sewers, drains, standing water, and similar sources of possible contamination must be
kept at least fifty feet from the reservoir. Water main pipe, pressure tested in place to
50 psi without leakage, may be used for gravity sewers at distances greater than 20 feet
and less than 50 feet.


c. The top of a reservoir shall not be less than two feet above normal ground surface.
Clearwells constructed under filters may be excepted from this requirement when the
total design gives the same protection.


Protection: All finished water storage structures shall have suitable watertight roofs which exclude
birds, animals, insects, and excessive dust.


Protection from trespassers: Fencing, locks on access manholes, and other necessary precautions
shall be provided to prevent trespassing, vandalism, and sabotage.


Drains: No drain on a water storage structure may have a direct connection to a sewer or storm
drain. The design shall allow draining the storage facility for cleaning or maintenance without
causing loss of pressure in the distribution system.


Overflow: All water storage structures shall be provided with an overflow which is brought down
to an elevation between 12 and 24 inches above the ground surface, and discharges over a drainage
inlet structure or a splash plate. No overflow may be connected directly to a sewer or a storm drain.
All overflow pipes shall be located so that any discharge is visible.


3-63











a. When an internal overflow pipe is used on elevated tanks, it should be located in the
access tube. For vertical drops on other types of storage facilities, the overflow pipe
should be located on the outside of the structure.


b. The overflow of a ground-level structure shall open downward and be screened with
twenty-four mesh noncorrodible screen installed within the pipe at a location least
susceptible to drainage by vandalism.


c. The overflow pipe shall be of sufficient diameter to permit waste of water in excess
of the filling rate.


Access: Finished water storage structures shall be designed with reasonably convenient access to
the interior, for cleaning and maintenance. Manholes above the waterline
shall be framed at least four inches, and preferably six inches, above the surface of
the roof at the opening; on ground-level structures, manholes should be-elevated 24
to_36 inches above the top or covering sod;

shall be fitted with a solid watertight cover which overlaps the framed opening and
extends down around the frame at least two inches,

should be hinged at one side,

shall have a locking device.


Vents: Finished water storage structures shall be vented. Overflows shall not be considered as
vents. Open construction between the sidewall and roof is not permissible. Vents
shall prevent the entrance of surface water and rainwater,

shall exclude birds and animals,


3-64









should exclude insects and dust, as much as this function can be made compatible
with effective venting. For elevated tanks and standpipes, four-mesh noncorrodible
screen may be used;

shall, on ground-level structures, terminate in an inverted U construction with the
opening 24 to 36 inches above the roof or sod and covered with twenty-four mesh
noncorrodible screen installed within the pipe at a location least susceptible to
vandalism.


Roof and sidewall: The roof and sidewalls of all structures must be watertight with no openings
except properly constructed vents, manholes, overflows, risers, drains, pump mountings, control
ports, or piping for inflow and outflow.


a. Any pipes running through the roof or sidewall of a finished water storage structure
must be welded, or properly gasketed in metal tanks. In concrete tanks, these pipes
shall be connected to standard wall castings which were poured in place during the
forming of the concrete. These wall castings should have seepage rings imbedded
in the concrete.


b. Openings in a storage structure roof or top, designed to accommodate control
apparatus or pump columns, shall be curbed and sleeved with proper additional
shielding to prevent the access of surface or floor drainage water into the structure.


c. Valves and controls should be located outside the storage structure so that the valve
stems and similar projections will not pass through the roof or top of the reservoir.


d. The roof of concrete reservoirs with earthen cover shall be sloped to facilitate
drainage. Consideration should be given to installation of an impermeable membrane
-roof covering.


3-65









Drainage of roof: The roof of the storage structure shall be well drained. Downspout pipes shall
not enter or pass through the reservoir. Parapets, or similar construction which would tend to hold
water and snow on the roof, will not be approved unless adequate waterproofing and drainage are
provided.


Safety: The safety of employees must be considered in the design of the storage structure. As a
minimum, such matters shall conform to pertinent laws and regulations of the area where the
reservoir is constructed.


a. Ladders, ladder guards, balcony railings, and safely located entrance hatches shall be
provided where applicable.


b. Elevated tanks with riser pipes over eight inches in diameter shall have protective
bars over the riser openings inside the tank.


c. Railings or handholds shall be provided on elevated tanks where persons must
transfer from the access tube to the water compartment.


Freezing: All finished water storage structures and their appurtenances, especially the riser
pipes, overflows, and vents, shall be designed to prevent freezing which will interfere with
proper functioning.


Internal catwalk: Every catwalk over finished water in a storage structure shall have a solid
floor with raised edges so designed that shoe scrapings and dirt will not fall into the water.


Silt stop: The discharge pipes from all reservoirs shall be located in a manner that will prevent
the flow of sediment into the distribution system. Removable silt stops should be provided.


3-66









Grading: The area surrounding a ground-level structure shall be graded in a manner that will
prevent surface water from standing within 50 feet of it.


Painting and/or cathodic protection: Proper protection shall be given to metal surfaces by
paints or other protective coatings, by cathodic protective devices, or by both.


a. Paint systems shall be acceptable to the reviewing authority. Interior paint must
be properly applied and cured. After curing, the coating shall not transfer any
substance to the water which will be toxic or cause tastes or odors. Prior to
placing in service, an analysis for volatile organic compounds is advisable to
establish that the coating is properly cured.


b. Wax coatings for the tank interior should not be used on new tanks. Recoating
with a wax system is discouraged; however, the old wax coating must be
completely removed to use another tank coating.


c. Cathodic protection should be designed and installed by competent technical
personnel; a maintenance contract should be provided.


Disinfection:
a. Finished water storage structures shall be disinfected in accordance with current
AWWA Standard C652. Two or more successive sets of samples, taken at 24-
hour intervals, shall indicate microbiologically satisfactory water before the
facility is placed into operation.


b. Disposal of heavily chlorinated water from the tank disinfection process shall be
in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.


3-67









c. The disinfection procedure (AWWA C652 chlorination method 3 2 section 4.3)
which allows use of the chlorinated water held in the storage tank for disinfection
purposes is not recommended. When that procedure is used, it is recommended
that the initial heavily chlorinated water be properly disposed in order to prevent
release of water which may contain various chlorinated organic compounds into
the distribution system.


Provisions for Sampling: Appropriate sampling tap(s) shall be provided to facilitate collection
of water samples for both bacteriologic and chemical analysis.


PLANT STORAGE


Washwater tanks: Washwater tanks shall be sized, in conjunction with available pump units and
finished water storage, to provide the backwash water. Consideration must be given to the
backwashing of several filters in rapidsuccession.


Clearwell: Clearwell storage should be sized, in conjunction with distribution system storage, to
relieve the filters from having to follow fluctuations in water use.


a. When finished water storage is used to provide contact time for chlorine special
attention must be given to size and baffling.


b. To ensure adequate chlorine contact time, sizing of the clearwell should include extra
volume to accommodate depletion of storage during the nighttime for intermittently
operated filtration plants with automatic high service pumping from the clearwell
during non-treatment hours.


c. An overflow and vent shall be provided.


d. A minimum of two clearwell compartments shall be provided.


3-68









Adjacent compartments: Finished water must not be stored or conveyed in a compartment
adjacent to unsafe water when the two compartments are separated by a single wall.


Basins and wet-wells: Receiving basins and pump wet-wells for finished water shall be designed
as finished water storage structures.


HYDROPNEUMA TIC TANKS


Hydropneumatic (pressure) tanks, when provided as the only storage facility, are acceptable only
in very small water systems. When serving more than 150 living units, ground or elevated
storage designed in accordance with the finished water storage section should be provided.
Pressure tank storage is not to be considered for fire protection purposes. Pressure tanks shall
meet ASME code requirements or an equivalent requirement of state and local laws and
regulations for the construction and installation of unfired pressure vessels.


Location: The tank shall be located above normal ground surface and be completely housed.


Sizing: Consists of the following criteria:


a. The capacity of the wells and pumps in a hydropneumatic system should be at
least ten times the average daily consumption rate. The gross volume of the
hydropneumatic tank, in gallons, should be at least ten times the capacity of the
largest pump, rated in gallons per minute. For example, a 250 gpm pump should
have a 2,500 gallon pressure tank.


b. Sizing of hydropneumatic storage tanks must consider the need for chlorine detention
time, as applicable, independent of the requirements in above.


Piping: The tank shall have bypass piping to permit operation of the system while it is being
repaired or painted.


3-69











- Appurtenances: Each tank shall have an access manhole, a drain, and control equipment
consisting of pressure gauge, water sight glass, automatic or manual air blow-off, means for
adding air, and pressure operated start-stop controls for the pumps. Where practical the access
manhole should be 24 inches in diameter.


DISTRIBUTION STORAGE


Pressures: The maximum variation between high and low levels in storage structures providing
pressure to a distribution system should not exceed 30 feet. The minimum working pressure in the
distribution system should be 35 psi and the normal working pressure should be approximately 60
psi. When static pressures exceed 100 psi, pressure reducing devices should be provided on mains
in the distribution system.


Drainage: Storage structures which provide pressure directly to the distribution system shall be
designed so they can be isolated from the distribution system and drained for cleaning or
maintenance without necessitating loss of pressure in the distribution system. The drain shall
discharge to the ground surface with no direct connection to a sewer or storm drain.


Level controls: Adequate controls shall be provided to maintain levels in distribution system
storage structures. Level indicating devices should be provided at a central location.


a. Pumps should be controlled from tank levels with the signal transmitted by
telemetering equipment when any appreciable head loss occurs in the distribution
system between the source and the storage structure.




b. Altitude valves or equivalent controls may be required for a second and subsequent
structures on the system.


3-70









c. overflow and low-level warnings or alarms should be located at places in the
community where they will be under responsible surveillance 24 hours a day.


Distribution Systems


The following information is derived from the "Recommended Standards for Water Works by the
Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health & Environmental Managers"


MATERIALS


Standards, materials selection: Pipe, fittings, valves and fire hydrants shall conform to the latest
standards issued by the AWWA and/or NSF, if such standards exist, and be acceptable to the
reviewing authority. In the absence of such standards, materials meeting applicable Product
Standards and acceptable to the reviewing authority may be selected. Special attention shall be given
to selecting pipe materials which will protect against both internal and external pipe corrosion. Pipes
and pipe fittings containing more than 8% lead shall not be used. All products, shall comply with
ANSI/NSF standards.


Permeation of system by organic compounds: Where distribution systems are installed in areas
of groundwater contaminated by organic compounds:


a. Pipe and joint materials which are not subject to permeation of the organic
compounds shall be used.


b. Non-permeable materials shall be used for all portions of the system including water
main, service connections and hydrant leads.


3-71









Used materials: Water mains which have been used previously for conveying potable water may
be reused provided they meet the above standards and have been restored practically to their original
condition.


Joints: Packing and jointing materials used in the joints of pipe shall meet the standards of the
AWWA and the reviewing authority. Pipe having mechanical joints or slip-on joints with rubber
gaskets is preferred. Lead-tip gaskets shall not be used. Repairs to lead-joint pipe shall be made
using alternative methods.


WATER MAIN DESIGN


Pressure: All water mains, including those not designed to provide fire protection, shall be sized
after a hydraulic analysis based on flow demands and pressure requirements. The system shall be
designed to maintain a-minimum pressure of 20 psi at ground level at all points in the distribution
system under all conditions of flow. The normal working pressure in the distribution system should
be approximately 60 psi and not less than 35 psi.


Diameter: The minimum size of water main for providing fire protection and serving fire hydrants
shall be six-inch diameter. Larger size mains will be required if necessary to allow the withdrawal
of the required fire flow while maintaining the minimum residual pressure of 20 PSI.


Fire protection: When fire protection is to be provided, system design should be such that fire
flows and facilities are in accordance with the requirements of the state Insurance Services office
and/or local fire district.


Small mains: Any departure from minimum requirements should not be considered unless justified
by hydraulic analysis, and limited future water use.


3-72









Hydrants: Water mains not designed to carry fire-flows shall not have fire hydrants connected to
them.


Dead ends:


a. In order to provide increased reliability of service and reduce head loss, dead ends shall
be minimized by making appropriate looped systems whenever practical.


b. Where dead-end mains occur, they shall be provided with a fire hydrant if flow and
pressure are sufficient, or with an approved flushing hydrant or blow-off for flushing
purposes. Flushing devices should be sized to provide flows which will give a velocity
of at least 2.5 feet per second in the water main being flushed. No flushing device shall
be directly connected to any sewer.


VALVES
Sufficient valves shall be provided on water mains so that inconvenience and sanitary hazards will
be minimized during repairs. Valves should be located at not more than 500 foot intervals in
commercial districts and at not more than one block or 800 foot intervals in other districts.


Where systems serve widely scattered customers and where future development is not expected, the
valve spacing should not exceed one mile.


HYDRANTS


Location and spacing: Hydrants should be provided at each street intersection and at intermediate
points between intersections as recommended by the state Insurance Services Office on local fire
district. Generally, hydrant spacing may range from 350 to 600 feet depending on the area being
served.


3-73









Valves and nozzles: Fire hydrants should have a bottom valve size of at least five inches, one 4-1/2
inch pumper nozzle and two 2-1/2 inch nozzles.


Hydrant leads: The hydrant service piping shall be a minimum of six inches in diameter. Auxiliary
valves shall be installed on all hydrant service piping.


Drainage: Hydrant drains should be plugged. When the drains are plugged the barrels must be
pumped dry after use during freezing weather. Where hydrant drains are not plugged, a gravel
pocket or dry well shall be provided unless the natural soils will provide adequate drainage. Hydrant
drains shall not be connected to or located within 10 feet of sanitary sewers or storm drains.


AIR RELIEF VALVES; VALVE, METER AND BLOW-OFF CHAMBERS


Air relief valves: At high points in water mains where air can accumulate provisions shall be made
to remove the air by means of hydrants or air relief valves. Automatic air relief valves shall not be
used in situations where flooding of the manhole or chamber may occur.


Air relief valve piping: The open end of an air relief pipe from automatic valves shall be extended
to at least one foot above grade and provided with a screened, downward-facing elbow. The pipe
from a manually operated valve should be extended to the top of the pit. Use of manual air relief
valves is recommended wherever possible.


Chamber drainage: Chambers, pits or manholes containing valves, blow-offs, meters, or other
such appurtenances to a distribution system, shall not be connected directly to any storm drain or
sanitary sewer, nor shall blow-offs or air relief valves be connected directly to any sewer.


Such chambers or pits shall be drained to the surface of the ground where they are not subject to
flooding by surface water, or to absorption pits underground.


3-74









INSTALLATION OF MAINS


Standards: Specifications shall incorporate the provisions of the AWWA standards and/or
manufacturer's recommended installation procedures.


Bedding: A continuous and uniform bedding shall be provided in the trench for all buried pipe.
Backfill material shall be tamped in layers around the pipe and to a sufficient height above the pipe
to adequately support and protect the pipe. Stones found in the trench shall be removed for a depth
of at least six inches below the bottom of the pipe.


Cover: All water mains shall be covered with sufficient earth or other insulation to prevent freezing.


Blocking: All tees, bends, plugs and hydrants shall be provided with reaction blocking, tie rods or
joints designed to prevent movement.


Pressure and leakage testing: All types of installed pipe shall be pressure tested and leakage tested
in accordance with the latest edition of AWWA Standard C600.


Disinfection: All new, cleaned or repaired water mains shall be disinfected in accordance with
AWWA Standard C651. The specifications shall include detailed procedures for the adequate
flushing, disinfection, and microbiological testing of all water mains.


SEPARATION OF WATER MAINS, SANITARY SEWERS AND STORM SEWERS


General: The following factors should be considered in providing adequate separation:


a. materials and type of joints for water and sewer pipes,
b. soil conditions,
c. service and branch connections into the water main and sewer line,
d; compensating variations in the horizontal and vertical separations,


3-75









e. space for repair and alterations of water and sewer pipes,
f. off-setting of pipes around manholes.


Parallel installation: Water mains shall be laid at least 10 feet horizontally from any existing or
proposed sewerage or storm sewer systems. The distance shall be measured edge to edge. In cases
where it is not practical to maintain a ten foot separation, the reviewing authority may allow
deviation on a case-by-case basis, if supported by data from the design engineer. Such deviation may
allow installation of the water main closer to a sewer, provided that the water main is laid in a
separate trench or on an undisturbed earth shelf located on one side of the sewer at such an elevation
that the bottom of the water main is at least 18 inches above the top of the sewer.


Crossings: Water mains crossing sewers shall be laid to provide a minimum vertical distance of 18
inches between the outside of the water main and the outside of the sewer. This shall be the case
where the water main is either above or below the sewer. At crossings, one full length of water pipe
shall be located so both joints will be as far from the sewer as possible. Special structural support _
for the water and sewer pipes may be required.


Exception: The reviewing authority must specifically approve any variance from the requirements
of the parallel installation and crossing sections and when it is impossible to obtain the specified
separation distances. Where sewers are being installed and minimum separation cannot be met, the
sewer materials shall be ductile iron water main pipe pre-concrete encased or equivalent and shall
be pressure tested to ensure water tightness prior to final acceptance.


Force mains: There shall be at least a 10 foot horizontal separation between water mains and
sanitary sewer force mains. There shall be an 18 inch vertical separation at crossings as required in
the crossing section.


Sewer manholes: No water pipe shall pass through or come in contact with any part of a sewer
transmission system manhole or lift station.


3-76









Separation of water mains from other sources of contamination: Design engineers should
exercise caution when locating water mains at or near certain sites such as sewage treatment plants
or industrial complexes. Individual septic tanks must be located and avoided. The engineer must
contact the reviewing authority to establish specific design requirements for locating water mains
near any source of contamination.


SURFACE WATER CROSSINGS


Surface water crossings, whether over or under water, present special problems. The reviewing
authority should be consulted before final plans are prepared.


Above-water crossings: The pipe shall be adequately supported and anchored, protected from
damage and freezing, and accessible for repair or replacement.


Underwater crossings: A minimum cover of two feet shall be provided over the pipe. When
crossing water courses which are greater than 15 feet in width, the following shall be provided:


a. the pipe shall be of special construction, having flexible watertight joints,


b. valves shall be provided at both ends of water crossings so that the section can be
isolated for testing or repair; the valves shall be easily accessible, and not subject to
flooding; and the valve closest to the supply source shall be in a manhole,


c. permanent taps shall be made on each side of the valve within the manhole to allow
insertion of a small meter to determine leakage and for sampling purposes.


3-77









CROSS-CONNECTIONS AND INTERCONNECTIONS


Cross-connections: There shall be no connection between the distribution system and any pipes,
pumps, hydrants, or tanks whereby unsafe water or other contaminating materials may be discharged
or drawn into the system.


Cooling water: Neither steam condensate nor cooling water from engine jackets or other heat
exchange devices shall be returned to the potable water supply.


Interconnections: The approval of the reviewing authority shall be obtained for interconnections
between potable water supplies.


Back Flow Prevention: There shall be no connection between the distribution system and any
connected moderate hazard facility which allows backflow into the primary distribution system. A
double check valve assembly should be installed on the discharge side of the water meter service line
to provide siphonage from the facility connected.


Booster pumps: Individual booster pumps shall not be allowed for any individual service from the
public water supply mains.


3-78








REUSE AND CONSERVATION


Water conservation and the reuse of water is not generally pursued in areas where potable water is
plentiful and cheap. Due to permitting requirements (SWFWMD) and the difficulty in securing new
supplies of water, however, areas such as Pinellas County are now leaning more heavily on reuse and
conservation. Those responsible for growth management in all areas should include these concepts
as an integral component of their master planning effort. Conservation can be encouraged through
regulations, building codes and educational programs. Reuse primarily involves utilizing treated
wastewater in golf course irrigation, grey water systems or rehydration. Programs and literature have
been developed by various governmental agencies to promote efficient water use practices. A
synopsis of these programs, and available literature, are described below.


SWFWMD Program
The management of water supply within the WRWSA area is handled primarily by SWFWMD. As
part of their management efforts, they have developed an extensive array of literature and educational
material on water use and conservation and are the primary source for such information within the
region. They approach water conservation and use issues through educational, planning (via district
water management plans), and regulation. A brief discussion of their major programs is provided
below.


Water Education Program
The District has developed classroom presentations, field study trips, curriculum materials, teacher
workshops, and the Newspapers in Education (NIE) program. All of these programs are designed
for children and young adults between kindergarten and ninth grade. The district provides speakers,
demonstration sites, and learning materials to teach about water quality, conservation, supply and
protection issues. These educational programs can provide a foundation that supports the policies
and management philosophy recommended in the master plan.


3-79








Water Management Planning
The management and protection of water resources frequently involves conflicting choices and needs
that can only be met through comprehensive planning. District Water Management Plans (DWMPs)
provide long-range guidance for District decision making, an integrated approach to water planning,
a vehicle for state, regional and local coordination of water management activities, and serve as a
collection of water resource information for better water management. The Needs and Sources
report analyzes future water needs within the District and their relationship to available sources.
Many of the water sources within the District are stressed and their management has received special
attention through Water Resource Assessment Projects (WRAP). Of interest to the WRWSA is the
Northern Tampa Bay WRAP which includes portions of southern Hernando County. All of the plans
discussed in this section are addressed in more depth under Chapters 1 and 4 of the WRWSA Master
Plan.


Leak Detection Program
The District has established the Leak Detection program as a means to protect water resources and
assisting water utilities in meeting current and future permitting requirements. Leak surveys are
conducted by inspecting public or private water supply distribution systems. Leaks that have been
detected and eliminated result in a reduction of water use thereby protecting its source.


Urban Outdoor Water Conservation Program
Because lawn and garden irrigation comprise a major use of water, the District, in conjunction with
the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences through the Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
has developed a series of brochures related to plant watering requirements. These brochures include
topics such as xeriscaping, developing watering systems, and the selection and maintenance of
turfgrass. These brochures could be used to support the review, development, and evaluation of
landscaping ordinances that are sensitive to water conservation.


Florida Department of Environmental Protection
The primary focus of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is water quality
protection rather than supply management. They do, however, permit and regulate artificial aquifer
recharges and support SWFWMD's water conservation efforts. To support conservation efforts, they
have produced the document "Reuse of Reclaimed Water". In this booklet, FDEP explains the


3-80








concept of water reuse, its applications and its safety. It also lists and describes several water reuse
projects within the state. The best use of this brochure would be as an introduction to, and the
potential of water reuse.


Gulf Coast Soil and Water Conservation District (United States Department of Agriculture)
The Gulf Coast Soil and Water Conservation District provides technical assistance to the residents
of Hemando and Citrus counties regarding land stewardship and how it can improve water quality
and conservation. While traditionally serving agricultural interests, the District is addressing urban
uses more often, due to this developing nature of the region. They offer educational and technical
assistance in preventing contamination of ground or surface water by nonpoint source runoff, solving
identified water quality problems, and conservation planning. The Mobile Irrigation Lab (MIL) was
developed specifically to help residents within urban areas of Florida conserve water. The MIL
provides on-site evaluations of individual irrigation systems, identifies problems, and teaches
homeowners how to use water more efficiently.


Florida Cooperative Extension Service,-University of Florida Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences
The Cooperative Extension Service is a research and public education arm of the Institute. They
have a statewide network of specialists that provide current information on agriculture, home
economics, and related fields. In conjunction with SWFWMD, they offer publications about drought
tolerant landscaping, residential irrigation, and home water conservation.


Conclusion
In Section 1 of this Master Plan, conservation and reuse policies are recommended for consideration
in the Local Government Comprehensive Plans and the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council's
Strategic Regional Policy Plan. While the immediate need for conservation and reuse in the
WRWSA region is not as pressing as it is-for regions to the south, those measures will reduce the
need for future water withdrawals.


3-81




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