Title: A Report on The Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004526/00001
 Material Information
Title: A Report on The Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Staff of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Conservation
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - A Report on The Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund (JDV Box 91)
General Note: Box 23, Folder 1 ( Miscellaneous Water Papers, Studies, Reports, Newsletters, Booklets, Annual Reports, etc. - 1973 -1992 ), Item 29
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004526
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

















A REPORT ON

THE WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE TRUST FUND






















BY STAFF OF

THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

SENATOR RICK DANTZLER, CHAIRMAN

JANUARY 1993





















A REPORT ON

THE WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE TRUST FUND






















BY STAFF OF

THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

SENATOR RICK DANTZLER, CHAIRMAN

JANUARY 1993











TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1

SUMMARY ...... .......... ................................ 2

FINDINGS .. .............................. ............. 6

A. The Law ..................................... 6

B. Funding and Expenditures...................... 9
1. Uses ..................................... 9
2. Site Cleanup Process .................... 10
3. Funding................... ............... 12
4. Expenditure Analysis ..................... 13

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 23

APPENDIXES ... .................... ...... ................ 25

Appendix A: Florida's Superfund Hazardous
Waste Sites

Appendix B: Florida's State-Funded Action Sites











INTRODUCTION

The Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund, s. 376.307,
F.S., was established in 1983 to provide a source of funding
to clean up hazardous and toxic waste sites, to provide for
emergency response operations for hazardous or toxic waste
contamination, and to rehabilitate contaminated drinking
water systems. The fund is primarily financed through a tax
on various pollutants. Since the fund was created in 1983,
the financial demands on the fund have increased to the
point where the fund is unable to support its current
demands.

Recently, concerns have arisen over the fact that the
fund balance is insufficient to clean up sites contaminated
with hazardous materials and is being used to expand water
supply systems in contaminated areas and other such uses at
the expense of other priority items. Also, there is a
concern that the fund may be used to clean up sites that are
contaminated by substances that are not currently being
taxed for water quality purposes. Further, the fund is
currently in a deficit-spending pattern by spending or
encumbering more than the revenues that it is taking in,
thereby rapidly depleting fund reserves.

This report examines the trends and needs for funds
from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund.











SUMMARY


In 1983 the Legislature enacted the Water Quality
Assurance Act of 1983. This act provided for a system of
monitoring and responding to the threats to the water
quality of the state. As part of the act, the Water Quality
Assurance Trust Fund was established to provide a source of
funding for cleaning up hazardous and toxic waste sites, to
provide for emergency response operations for hazardous or
toxic waste contamination, and to rehabilitate contaminated
drinking water systems.

The Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund is administered
by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The fund was
initially financed by a one-time transfer of $11 million
from the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund, a monthly
transfer of the interest from the State Water Pollution
Control Trust Fund, and an excise tax on certain pollutants
when the fund's balance fell below $3,000,000. Today, s.
376.307, F.S., provides that the Water Quality Assurance
Trust Fund is to be funded by the annual transfer of a
portion of the interest funds from the Florida Coastal
Protection Trust Fund; a monthly transfer of the interest
from the State Water Pollution Control Trust Fund; excise
taxes levied and collected on certain pollutants; penalties,
judgments, recoveries, reimbursements, and other fees and
charges credited to the fund; and the fees collected on the
retail sale of lead-acid batteries.

The uses for the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund are
specified in s. 376.307(4), F.S. Those uses, in priority
order, are:

1. Emergency actions necessary to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare.

2. Previous obligations.

3. Restoration or replacement of contaminated private
potable wells or water systems.

4. Response actions carried out pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA).

5. Other response actions carried out or authorized by
the DER.

In recent years, the expenditures from this fund have
exceeded the revenues coming into the fund. The DER has
indicated that there will be be insufficient funding for










fiscal year 1992-1993 for the programs and cleanup and
restoration activities which are mandated by the statutes.
For fiscal year 1992-1993, the DER has estimated that $15-
$20 million in additional revenue would be needed for the
anticipated cleanup and restoration activities to proceed in
a timely manner without delays. For fiscal year 1992-1993,
almost 45 percent of the projected expenditures will be for
hazardous waste cleanup. Waste cleanup includes
expenditures for state-funded site cleanup, state matching
funds for the Superfund cleanup, and the supplying of
bottled water.

As part of the federal Superfund program, the federal
government provides matching funds to the states to clean up
sites listed on the National Priorities List on nine-to-one
basis. There are currently 53 active Superfund sites in the
state with two additional sites proposed for inclusion on
the National Priorities List. Superfund site cleanup costs
range from $500,000 to $26 million. For fiscal year 1991-
1992, of the $15.2 million expended for hazardous waste
cleanup, $4.2-$4.3 million was the state's share for
Superfund site cleanup.

There are currently 22 active state-funded sites with
another four proposed for inclusion in the state's program.
The cleanup costs for the state-funded sites range from
$300,000 to $4 million per site. The total amount of
encumbered Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund moneys for
contracts to clean up state-funded sites for fiscal year
1991-1992 was $1.76 million.

Other activities and programs supported by expenditures
from this fund include salaries, OPS, data processing,
capital outlay, grants-and-aid to local hazardous waste
collection programs, grants-and-aid for certain landfill
construction and closure activities, grants-and-aid for the
Lakewatch Program, EDB contaminated water wells cleanup, and
the service charges that must be paid to the Department of
Revenue for the collection of the revenues for the Water
Quality Assurance Trust Fund.

The DER has indicated that it has never received the
Department of Revenue's projected pollutant tax revenue
amounts. This is because the DOR has been unable to collect
all the taxes that should be collected, particularly those
levied on solvents and solvent mixtures. The DOR officials
have indicated that this tax is one of the most cost
ineffective taxes to collect and administer because it
covers too broad a base and it is unclear which products are
subject to the tax and when.

Another reason the revenues from the pollutant tax for
water quality are not as high as they could be stems from










the fact that the statutes provide for certain exemptions
from and refunds of these excise taxes.

There have been several proposals for addressing the
shortage of revenue in this fund. However, at this time,
there is no consensus on a possible solution. Management of
the financial demands on this trust fund are needed to
assure that the expenditures do not continue at the current
dangerously low year-end amounts. Staff believes that the
expected financial demands on this fund for matching federal
Superfund sites, cleanup activities for state sites not
eligible for Superfund, and providing emergency water
supplies for homes affected by nearby groundwater
contamination should be the primary focus of this fund.
Efforts should be made to move away from using the fund as a
grants-and-aid program for a variety of special projects
such as landfill construction assistance to rural counties
and the continuation of state funding for the Lakewatch
Program. If these resources were refocussed through
appropriation policy decisions, more funds could be
available for a more narrowly focused program.

If the Legislature does not address the policy of a
refocussed water quality program or provide additional
revenues for the ever growing demands, the DER will be
obligated to manage the variety of activities eligible for
funding in such a manner as to assure that expenditures do
not exceed the available annual revenues. This likely will
result in delays for cleanup activities at identified
contaminated sites. Delays in cleanup activities likely
will result in greater groundwater contamination and
ultimately higher costs in cleaning up such sites.

In recent years, the demands on the fund have continued
to grow while the revenues have remained constant or even
declined. The fund can no longer support the demands that
the Legislature and the statutes have placed on it without
some comprehensive revisions by the Legislature. The basic
choices for a long-term solution are clear: (1) increase
the revenues coming into the fund, or (2) decrease the
demands on the fund.

In the short-term, staff believes there are some
measures that could improve the financial status of the
fund. By eliminating the priority system for the uses of
the fund, the Department of Environmental Regulation would
have greater flexibility in managing the financial resources
of the fund to better meet the state's overall water quality
needs.

Also, a contaminated site may have a greatly diminished
property value and often the responsible party is unable to
afford the cleanup costs. The state then uses its financial










resources to clean up the site. Once the property is
cleaned up, its commercial value again appreciates. The
state should be able to have the ability to place a lien on
the property so that in the event the property is sold, the
state would be able to recover the cleanup costs from the
proceeds of the sale.

Finally, it would be beneficial to the Legislature to
have the Auditor General undertake an audit of the DOR's
water quality tax collection activities to determine if such
funds are actually used to collect this tax or if they are
being used to enhance the DOR's general tax collection
activities. If the funds are being used for water quality
tax collection, perhaps an audit could reveal some
suggestions on improvements to the collection practices.











FINDINGS


A. THE LAW

In 1983, the Legislature enacted the Water Quality
Assurance Act of 1983. This act provided for a system of
monitoring and examining the threats to the water quality of
the state. This comprehensive act was comprised of several
parts. Among other things, the act provided for the
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to be the
central repository for scientific information generated by
groundwater research throughout the state. Also, the
department was required to establish a groundwater quality
monitoring network throughout the state and to implement a
continuing inspection program for package sewage treatment
facilities. To prevent contamination or to minimize the
danger of contamination to potable water supplies, the DER
was required to coordinate with the Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services to establish certain programs
regarding the monitoring of well fields.

This act also created several provisions relating to
hazardous waste. A tax on the annual gross receipts of
privately-owned commercial hazardous waste storage,
treatment or disposal facilities, was imposed which would
accrue to the local government in whose jurisdiction the
facility is situated. A program of local hazardous waste
management assessments was created so that regional planning
councils or counties could identify small quantity hazardous
waste generators and inform such generators of appropriate
disposal methods. Amnesty Days were established to provide
the public with an opportunity to dispose of hazardous
materials free of charge and to create more awareness for
proper handling of such materials.

More stringent requirements for the installation of
onsite septic tanks and individual sewage disposal systems
were imposed in order to protect private and public drinking
water wells. Grants were provided, particularly to small
communities, for the construction of sewage treatment
facilities.

The DER was empowered to adopt rules regulating
aboveground and underground storage tanks.

In order to fund the activities and programs of the
Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983, the Water Quality
Assurance Trust Fund was established. This trust fund is
administered by the DER. The fund was initially financed by
a one-time transfer of $11 million from the Florida Coastal










Protection Trust Fund and a monthly transfer of the interest
from the State Water Pollution Control Trust Fund. The
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund was intended to fund the
entire Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983 for the 1983-84
fiscal year, to provide for the state's share of the moneys
for the cleanup of Superfund sites and, to provide funding
for the cleanup of state uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

As established in 1983, the fund had a cap of
$12,000,000 and a bottom-end trigger of $3,000,000. When
the fund balance fell below $3,000,000, a 2-cent per barrel
tax on pollutants, including oil of any kind and in any
form, gasoline, pesticides, ammonia, chlorine and
derivatives thereof, was triggered and collected until the
fund balance once again reached $12,000,000.

The funding provisions for the Water Quality Assurance
Trust Fund were amended in 1984 by ch. 84-338, L.O.F. This
act provided that whenever the fund balance was less than or
equal to $3 million, the 2-cent per barrel tax would resume
within 90 days following the end of the month in which that
balance occurs and would continue until the balance in the
fund again equals or exceeds an unobligated balance of $12
million. In addition, if the fund is unable to pay any
proven costs against it, the excise tax would be increased
to 5 cents per barrel and would continue until the fund
balance equals or exceeds $1.5 million, at which time the
tax drops to 2 cents per barrel.

In 1986, the Legislature revised the excise tax
provisions on pollutants for water quality. Chapter 86-159,
L.O.F., provided that the tax would be imposed only once on
each barrel of pollutant when first produced in or imported
into this state. This act further established a priority
system for the uses of the moneys in the fund. As noted, in
the act, the fund is to be used to generally carry out the
provisions of ss. 376.30-376.319, F.S., (relating to the
pollution of surface and ground waters), the expeditious
restoration or replacement of potable water supplies as
provided in s. 376.30(3)(c)1., F.S., and for the
investigation, assessment, cleanup, restoration,
maintenance, and monitoring of sites contaminated with
hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, and pollutants. For
the first time, the DER was statutorily required to disburse
funds in the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund according to
a specified priority order. The specified priority order
was as follows:

(1) Emergency actions necessary to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare.

(2) Previous obligations.










(3) Restoration or replacement of contaminated private
potable wells or water systems.

(4) Response actions carried out pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA).

(5) Other response actions carried out or authorized
by the DER.

(6) Other authorized activities, except that, upon a
determination by the secretary that sufficient unobligated
funds are not available in the trust fund to adequately fund
certain other activities, the secretary may elect to
disburse available moneys to partially fund such activity or
activities, or to withhold funding for such activity or
activities.

Generally, the DER is required to recover from a person
or persons at any time causing or having caused the
discharge, or from the Federal Government, jointly and
severally, all sums owned or expended from the fund.
However, the DER may decline to pursue such recovery if it
finds the amount involved is too small or the likelihood of
recovery is too uncertain.

In 1988, ch. 88-393, L.O.F., provided that after
January 1, 1989, certain limitations would be imposed
regarding the amount and use of funds for water supply
systems or filters for contaminated potable water wells.

In 1989, the Legislature imposed a fee on each lead-
acid battery sold at retail in this state. The proceeds
collected from this fee are transferred into the Water
Quality Assurance Trust Fund and are available to be used to
clean up contaminated sites.

In 1990, the Legislature provided another source of
funding for the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund. Chapter
90-331, L.O.F., provided that the fees received from the
examination and certification of water and wastewater
treatment facilities operators would be deposited into the
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to be used by the DER in
the administration of the water and wastewater treatment
facilities program.

In 1992, several attempts were made to modify the
funding provisions of the Water Quality Assurance Trust
Fund. Those measures did not pass. Committee Substitute
for House Bill 1863, however, did pass the Legislature but
was subsequently vetoed by the Governor. This bill would
have allowed the DER to use moneys in the Water Quality
Assurance Trust Fund for the restoration or replacement of










private potable wells or water systems found by the
secretary to be at risk of contamination based upon
documentation that groundwater contamination existed in
proximity to such wells or systems. The sum of $5 million
would have been transferred from the Florida Coastal
Protection Trust Fund to the Water Quality Assurance Trust
Fund to be used to fund the restoration or replacement of
private potable wells or water systems found by the
secretary to be at risk of contamination. This loan was
required to be repaid by June 30, 1994. In his veto
message, the Governor acknowledged that it was unlikely that
the fund would be solvent enough to repay the $5 million
loan. There are currently insufficient funds in this fund
to meet the demands of the currently mandated programs. The
bill would have yielded one of two undesirable results --
either the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund will not repay
its loan to the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund or the
DER will not have the funds for the mandated activities that
were statutorily prioritized ahead of the replacement of the
private potable wells that are at risk of contamination.

Another measure that was enacted in 1992, (ch. 92-75,
L.O.F.) transferred the certification of water and
wastewater operators from the DER to the Department of
Professional Regulation. Prior to this act, certification
fees were deposited into the Water Quality Assurance Trust
Fund. Under ch. 92-75, L.O.F., such certification fees must
be deposited into the Professional Regulation Trust Fund.



B. FUNDING AND EXPENDITURES


1. USES

According to the DER, expenditures from this trust fund
are accounted for by appropriation category rather than by
statutory priority. The department has indicated that it
follows the priorities established by statute, but each
priority is not necessarily tracked as a separate category.

The highest statutory priority is for emergency actions
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Expenditures for this priority are generally found in the
sub-categories of the hazardous waste cleanup category of
the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund budget. Those sub-
categories include Pollutant Spills and Emergency Response.

The second priority, previous obligations, consists of
multi-year contracts and contracts for state and federal
cleanup already underway, i.e., the state's matching share
for Superfund site cleanup and state-funded sites.










The third priority is for the restoration of
contaminated wells or water systems.

The fourth priority, other response actions carried out
by the department, include costs for lab overflow, pesticide
study and ground water monitoring, and toxicological
research. It also includes the cost of preliminary
investigations for state cleanup sites.

The fifth priority, other authorized activities,
includes various categories of expenditures and encumbrances
from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund.


2. SITE CLEANUP PROCESS

Of all of the authorized uses of the fund, site cleanup
and restoration constitutes the largest percentage of
expenditures from the fund. At the present time,
approximately 45 percent of the fund is being used for
hazardous waste cleanup.

Hazardous waste sites may be identified in several
ways. Many of the older sites that are currently listed in
the EPA and DER inventories were identified through RCRA and
CERCLA release notification forms, surveys, or existing
enforcement inventories. Some sites are identified by
complaints made directly to the EPA or the DER by private
citizens.

Once a site has been determined to be an environmental
problem, there are three approaches to site cleanup. First,
sites are referred for enforcement actions where the DER
encourages the responsible parties to conduct the site
assessment and take the necessary corrective action using
their own financial resources. A large percentage of sites
are handled in this manner.

If the responsible party cannot or will not clean up
the site, and there is little chance for managing the site
through an enforcement action, the site cleanup is referred
to the Bureau of Waste Cleanup in the DER for possible
inclusion in the state cleanup program (funded by the Water
Quality Assurance Trust Fund).

Finally, sites that meet the criteria for inclusion on
the EPA's National Priorities List are handled by the EPA's
personnel under the Superfund program.

Often, before the actual cleanup process to permanently
restore the site can begin, interim steps must be taken
immediately to prevent an imminent threat to the public or
the environment. Such interim measures may include










excavation and off-site disposal of buried tanks or drums of
hazardous wastes; excavation and disposal of contaminated
soils or sludges; incineration of contaminated soils; and
the installation of systems to recover oil, contaminated
groundwater, or leachate from ponds or ditches. Interim
measures may be performed by the EPA or by DER emergency
contractors.

Further, the actual cleanup process does not begin
until a permanent remedy and cleanup program is designed.
Cleanup programs include:

a) Contamination assessments or remedial
investigations;

b) Remedial design, and

c) Construction and cleanup.

Site cleanup is often a slow and protracted process.
Many factors influence the speed and efficiently with which
a site is cleaned up. Where private property is involved,
the acquisition of or denial of access to such property may
hamper the site remediation efforts.

Another contributing factor to delays at the state
level have occurred because of an exceptionally high rate of
turnover within the Bureau of Waste Cleanup at the DER.
Some projects have had as many as five or six different
managers. Low state salaries, compared with those of the
private sector, have been cited as the primary cause for
such turnover.

Delays in site management and cleanup also occur when a
state-funded site is added to the Superfund's National
Priorities List. Compliance with expensive and time-
consuming EPA regulations and changing EPA requirements can
delay cleanup when cooperation from the proposed responsible
parties is necessary.

In short, the steps involved in cleaning up and
restoring a contaminated site include:

a) Site discovery;

b) Remedial investigation;

c) Feasibility study;

d) Remedial design;

e) Construction;










f) Operation and maintenance (cleanup); and


g) Removal of the site from the list.


3. FUNDING

As provided in s. 376.307, F.S., the Water Quality
Assurance Trust Fund is funded by the annual transfer of a
portion of the interest funds from the Florida Coastal
Protection Trust Fund; a monthly transfer of the interest
from the State Water Pollution Control Trust Fund; excise
taxes levied and collected pursuant to s. 260.9935(2) and s.
206.9945(1)(b), F.S.; penalties, judgments, recoveries,
reimbursements, and other fees and charges credited to the
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund; and the fees collected
on the retail sale of lead-acid batteries.

The State Water Pollution Control Trust Fund was
originally established to provide funding for sewage
treatment infrastructure. At one time, this fund had a
balance of several million dollars and the interest payments
that were transferred to the Water Quality Assurance Trust
Fund were substantial. Today, that fund is almost depleted
and in the near future this source of funding for water
quality will no longer exist.

Section 206.9935(2), F.S., provides that the tax for
water quality is established in two tiers based on the
unobligated balance of the Water Quality Assurance Trust
Fund. For the first tier, the amount of the tax is $1.50
per new or remanufactured lead-acid battery; 2.36 cents per
gallon of solvents and solvent mixtures; 1 cent per gallon
of motor oil or other other lubricants; and 2 cents per
barrel of petroleum products, ammonia, and chlorine produced
in or imported into the state, until the unobligated balance
of the fund equals or exceeds a balance of $12 million, at
which time the tax will be discontinued until is necessary
to reinstate the tax.

The second tier is triggered when the unobligated
balance of the fund is at or falls below $3 million. At the
second tier, the tax is $1.50 per new or remanufactured
lead-acid battery; 5.9 cents per gallon of motor oil or
other lubricants; 2 cents per barrel of ammonia; and 5 cents
per barrel of petroleum products, pesticides and chlorine,
until the unobligated fund balance exceeds $5 million, at
which time the tax shall revert to the lower rate. In
January, 1990, the Secretary of the DER initiated the second
tier rates when the fund balance fell below $3 million. The
higher tax rate is still in effect.











4. EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS


As indicated previously, there are two tiers for the
excise taxes imposed for water quality and Florida is
currently taxing at the higher second tier. The currently
projected annual revenue from these taxes, according to the
DER, is approximately $25 million, with almost half of that
revenue being derived from the tax imposed on petroleum and
petroleum products. The next largest revenue producer is
the tax on lead-acid batteries which produces approximately
$5.6 million per year.

The DER has indicated that there will be insufficient
funding for fiscal year 1992-1993 for the programs and
cleanup and restoration activities which are mandated by the
statutes. For fiscal year 1992-1993, the DER has estimated
that $15-$20 million in additional revenue would be needed
for the anticipated cleanup and restoration activities to
proceed in a timely manner without delays.

Table I is a comparative analysis of the status and
activity of the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund as
provided by the DER. As the table indicates, hazardous
waste cleanup expenditures amounted to almost 45 percent of
the projected expenditures for fiscal year 1992-1993. This
category includes expenditures for state-funded site
cleanup, state matching funds for the Superfund cleanup,
and the supplying of bottled water.






Table I


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUND STATUS AND ACTIVITY
WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE TRUST FUND


ACTUAL
FY 1990/91

$13.720.587.08


FUND BALANCE 7-1


REVENUES:

LICENSES AND PERMITS 95.105.00
INTEREST EARNINGS 1.697.706.06
FINES.FORFETUJRES AND JUDGEMENTS 830.297.80..
TAX ON POLLUTANTS 22,170,108.41
REFUNDS 433.869.52
MISCELLANEOUS 329.62
TRANSFER/STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TF 1.243.362.57
TRANFER/POLLUTION RECOVERY TF 0.00
TRANSFER/INLAND PROTECTION TP 0.00
LOAN FROM DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES 0.00

TOTAL REVENUE 26.470.778.98

TOTAL AVAILABLE 40.191.366.06

EXPENDITURES:

SALARY 5.551.642.58
OPS 3.333.725.69
EXPENSE 885.160.97
G/A WATER MGMT DISTRICT PERMIT ASSIST 250,000.00
G/A LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION 1,012.737.19
OCO 283.166.68
G/A WATER RECOVERY SYSTEM TAMPA 0.00
G/A CONSTRUCT TRI-COUNTY LAND FILL 1.196.148.00
G/A CLOSE LAND FILL/UNION COUNTY 111,200.00
G/A GROUND WATER MONITORING NETWORK 0.00
TRANSFER TO HRS (PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY) 500.000.00
G/A LAKEWATCH PROGRAM/IFAS 43.000.00
HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP 4.544.959.93
TRANSFER TO DEPT OF REVENUE 231.092.00
USGS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 0.00
WATER WELL CLEANUP 1.311.577.39
TRANSFER DEPT OF ADMIN (STATE HEALTH) 22.523.00
DATA PROCESSING 347,209.00
REISSUES/REFUNDS 13.359.98
SERVICE CHARGE TO GENERAL REVENUE 182.224.79
TRANSFER TO DNR 0.00
TRANSFER TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAB TF 0.00
TRANSFER TO INLAND PROTECTION TF 0.00
LOAN REPAYMENT TO DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES 0.00

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 19.819.727.20

UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 6-30 520.371.638.86


ACTUAL
FY 1991/92

$20.371,638.85



142.665.00
1.367.471.99
1,062.993.79
22.947.089.90
11.924.80
4,978.91
679.516,00
19.580.81
0.00
0.00

26.236.221.20

46.607.860.06



6.977.557.32
869.255.39
1.222.627.92
250,000.00
1.304.637.12
23.750.00
0.00
603.844.80
0.00
1.393.494.01
500,000.00
387.040.00
15.175.116.82
231.092.00
214,897.00
2.234.338.32
0.00
633.027.00
6.853.58
118.857.92
15,000.00
105.000.00
4.000.000.00
0.00

36.266.389.20

$10.341.470.86


PROJECTED PROJECTED
FY 1992/93 F 1993/94

S10.341,470.86 S9.582.472.66


25,000.00
1.500.000.00
0.00
23.500.000.00
0.00
0.00
279.000.00
0.00
4,000.000.00
2.600.000.00

31.904.000.00

42.245.470.86



7.668.084.00
354.080.00
1.691.702.00
250,000.00
1.000,000.00
8.434.00
0.00
200.007.20
188.800.00
1.424.027.00
500.000.00
215,040.00
15.806.713.00
281.092.00
214,897.00
1.889.202.00
0.00
864.170.00
0.00
106.750.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

32.662.998.20

59.582.472.66


25.000.00
1.500.000.00
0.00
23.500.000.00
0.00
0.00
46.500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

25.071.500.00

34.553.972.66



8.074.192.00
810.580.00
1.955.581.00
-250.000.00
1.000.090.00
340.120.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.424.027.00
800,000.00
215.040.00
13.205.713.00
281.092.00
214.897.00
1.889.202.00
132.460.00
864.170.00
0.00
106.75C.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.600.000.00

34.1 64.324.00

5489.148.66


I=s=.==srslss s~zI=z====s==


Source: Department of Environmental Regulation, October 1992.










As part of the federal Superfund program, the federal
government provides matching funds to the states to clean up
sites listed on the National Priorities List on a nine-to-
one basis. The DER presently has contracts with the EPA to
provide approximately $3.8 million of state funds from the
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for six Superfund sites
in Florida. There are currently 53 active Superfund sites
in the state with two additional sites proposed for
inclusion on the National Priorities List. (See Appendix
A.) Superfund site cleanup costs range from $500,000 to $26
million. The state's Superfund contracts with the EPA must
encumber the funds; however, the contracts may be cancelled
in the future if the EPA is able to collect and recover the
cleanup costs from the responsible parties. For fiscal year
1991-1992, of the $15.2 million expended for hazardous waste
cleanup, $4.2-$4.3 million was the state's share for
Superfund site cleanup.

There are currently 22 active state-funded sites with
another four proposed for inclusion in the state's program.
(see Appendix B.) The cleanup costs for the state-funded
sites range from $300,000 to $4 million per site. The total
amount of encumbered Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
moneys for contracts to clean up state-funded sites for
fiscal year 1991-1992 was $1.76 million.

The DER also conducts site investigations for potential
and known contamination sites to support its enforcement
actions aimed at requiring responsible parties to conduct
the cleanup. In fiscal year 1991-1992, the DER recovered
$1,062,993 in fines, forfeitures and judgments.
Approximately 17 sites per year are investigated at an
average cost of $100,000 per site. In fiscal year 1991-92,
the DER spent $1.7 million for contamination assessments.
There are approximately 900 potential sites in Florida;
however, many of those sites with confirmed contamination
will be cleaned up by responsible parties through
enforcement actions.

As indicated in Table I, another significant percentage
of the fund goes for expenditures for salaries, OPS, data
processing, and operating capital outlay. Since the DER
receives little or no General Revenue funds for the
administration of the activities funded by the Water Quality
Assurance Trust Fund, the fund must also support the DER's
staff to administer these programs and activities.

Table I also indicates some of the other activities
supported and financed by this fund. Those activities
include grants-and-aid to local hazardous waste collection
programs, grants-and-aid for certain landfill construction
and closure activities, a grants-and-aid for the Lakewatch
Program, contracts with the federal government for certain










groundwater samplings, EDB contaminated water wells cleanup,
and the service charges that must be paid to the Department
of Revenue for the collection of the revenues for the Water
Quality Assurance Trust Fund.

As provided in s. 215.20, F.S., the gross pollutant
taxes collected are subject to a 7 percent service charge
which is collected by the Department of Revenue (DOR) for
deposit into the General Revenue Fund. The DER is also
required to transfer to the DOR from the Water Quality
Assurance Trust Fund an annual appropriated sum in the
amount of $281,092 for the DOR's tax collection staff
salaries.

Table II is a graphic illustration of the comparison of
the fund's expenditures to revenues since 1985. In 1985 and
1986, the fund's revenues equaled or exceeded the
expenditures. In 1987, however, the expenditures exceeded
the revenues coming into the fund. Legislative amendments
adopted in 1988 and 1989 resulted in the increase of
revenues to the fund by making certain changes to the types
of pollutants subject to the excise tax and by placing
limitations on the expenditures for the replacement or
restoration of potable water supply wells and the
establishment of or the connection to water supply systems
after January 1, 1989.







DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE TRUST FUND
COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES TO REVENUES


35

30
3 .....8.5...... ... ................92..3


M
I 20 ...--- -.... ..... ......
L
L


S
5
0
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 .92 93

I EXPENDITURES I REVENUES


Source: Department of Environmental Regulation, September 1992.










In fiscal year 1992-1993 and beyond, financial demands
for the fund's resources will grow and exceed the revenues
coming into the fund, which are expected to remain fairly
constant. There are several reasons for this. Each year
more and more contaminated sites are discovered for which
some type of state action will be required. Some of these
sites will be added to the list of the state-funded sites.
Others may be added to the National Priorities List under
the Superfund program. If sites are added to the National
Priorities list, then state moneys will be needed to provide
the match for the federal Superfund moneys. The DER
estimates that there will be three to five new state-funded
sites per year.

Each year as the number of contaminated sites
increases, there is an increase in the number of industries
affected which are responsible for the contamination and an
increase in the number of categories of contamination. The
most complete data base available to the DER for identifying
sites that have confirmed contamination or are suspected of
causing contamination due to the release of hazardous
substances into the environment is the EPA's Comprehensive
Environmental, Response, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS). The CERCLIS categories include landfills,
pesticide and fertilizer sites, electronics facilities,
chemical manufacturing sites, engine repair and maintenance
facilities, metal and machinery sites, painting operations,
wood treatment and processing facilities, PCB and waste oil
disposal sites, coal gasification facilities, plating
operations, printers and graphics sites, battery sites,
phosphate mines, and other sites. Included in the category
of other sites are asphalt, roofing and construction sites;
medical supply facilities and laboratories; plastic
manufacturing company sites, and abandoned drum sites.

There is a growing concern that many of the sites for
which cleanup funding comes from the Water Quality Assurance
Trust Fund may be contaminated with substances that are not
subject to the excise tax for water quality. Also, the DER
has indicated that it has never received the DOR projected
pollutant tax revenue amounts. The DOR has indicated that
they have been unable to collect all the taxes that should
be collected, particularly those levied on solvents and
solvent mixtures. This is because the DOR officials have
indicated that this tax is one of the most cost ineffective
taxes to collect and administer because it covers too broad
a base and it is unclear which products are subject to the
tax and when. Many household cleaning products contain
taxable solvent mixtures in varying percentages. This tax
has traditionally not been collected at the retail level.

Table III indicates that for fiscal years 1989-1990,
1990-91, and 1991-1992, revenue estimates for the collection










of the excise tax on solvents by the DOR have far exceeded
the actual collections. In fiscal year 1990-1991, the
estimate exceeded the actual collection by almost $9
million.
















fn:wtrqual
10/23/92


Historical Comparison
Water Quality Tax Receipts and Estimates


* Original Actual
Estimates for Receipts
FY 1989-90 FY 1989-90 Difference


f(m)


($m)


Solvents 6.40 1.96 (4.44)
Motor Oil & Lubric. 0.80 1.44 0.64
* Lead Acid Batteries 5.95 5.47 (0.48)
Ammonia 0.63 0.54 (0.09)
Other 6.82 7.14 0.32

IAnnualized Revenues 1 $20.59 $16.54 ($4.05)


Original Actual ** Original Actual
Estimates for Receipts Estimates for Receipts
FY 1990-91 FY 1990-91 Difference FY 1991-92 FY 1991-92 Difference


($m) ($m) ($m)
2.73 2.58 (0.15)
1.68 2.01 0.33
6.50 6.67 0.17
0.56 0.45 (0.11)
13.10 12.63 (0.47)


I $33.11 I $24.46 I ($8.65)1 $24.57 I $24.34 I ($0.23)1


* Estimates were developed for the 1989 legislative changes; they are adjusted to reflect any mid-year rate changes.

** The FY 1992 estimates were developed using actual collection data.




Source: Florida Department of Revenue-October 1992


($m) ($m) ($m)
11.84 3.02 (8.82)
1.49 1.95 0.46
6.06 6.24 0.18
1.11 0.59 (0.52)
12.61 12.66 0.05










Another reason the revenues from the pollutant tax for
water quality are not as high as they could be stems from
the fact that the statutes provide for certain exemptions
from and refunds of these excise taxes. Exemptions include
any product that could be characterized as a pollutant but
because it is intended for application to the human body, or
for use in human personal hygiene, or for human ingestion is
not considered a pollutant for purposes of the excise taxes.
Exempt items may include items such as certain skin lotions
and fingernail polish remover. Also, petroleum products and
pollutants which are exported from the state from the first
storage facility or warehouse where they are held in the
state, and solvents and solvent mixtures consumed in the
making of a product that is not a pollutant are exempt.
Certain refunds are allowed on pollutants that have been
exported, solvents and solvent mixtures consumed in
manufacturing, or solvent mixtures or pollutants products
containing previously taxed solvents or solvent mixtures.

There have been a few proposals for addressing the
shortage of revenue in this fund. However, at this time,
there is no consensus on a possible solution. DER's
projections for fiscal year 1993-1994 indicate that the
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund will be drawn down to a
balance of $489,000. This represents the smallest year-end
balance in many years.

Management of the financial demands on this trust fund
are needed to assure that expenditures do not continue at
such dangerously low year-end amounts. Perhaps the purposes
of the trust fund need to be refocussed along slightly more
narrow objectives. Staff believes that the expected
financial demands on this fund for matching federal
Superfund sites, cleanup activities for state sites not
eligible for Superfund, and providing emergency water
supplies for homes affected by nearby groundwater
contamination should be the primary focus of this fund.
Efforts should be made to move away from using the fund as a
grants-and-aid program for a variety of special projects
such as landfill construction assistance to rural counties
and grants for water monitoring projects including the
continuation of state funding for the Lakewatch Program.
These grants-and-aid activities in 1991-1992 made up
approximately $3.5 million. If these resources were
refocussed through appropriation policy decisions, more
funds could be available for a more narrowly focused
program.

If the Legislature does not address the policy of a
refocussed water quality program or provide additional
revenues for the ever growing demands, the DER will be
obligated to manage the variety of activities eligible for
funding in such a manner as to assure that expenditures do










not exceed the available annual revenues. This likely will
result in delays for cleanup activities at identified
contaminated sites. Delays in cleanup activities likely
will result in greater groundwater contamination and
ultimately higher costs in cleaning up such sites.

In cleaning up contaminated sites, the goal of the DER
is to restore the site and provide safe drinking water.
However, for some chemicals, there are virtually no drinking
water standards. So, the question becomes, how clean is
clean? To restore some sites to drinking water standards
would take several years and millions of dollars. In such
instances, a site specific approach is often taken by the
DER. A risk analysis is done to balance the time and costs
of cleaning up the site to drinking water standards against
the projected land use for the site. If there is little or
no possibility that the site would be used to provide
drinking water or if the site is not in the proximity of a
drinking water supply, the cleanup efforts could be less
than those required to meet drinking water standards.











CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund was established
by the Legislature in 1983 to provide a source of funding
for cleaning up hazardous and toxic waste sites, providing
for emergency response operations for hazardous or toxic
waste contamination, and rehabilitating contaminated
drinking water systems. In the early years of the fund,
revenues exceeded expenditures and the fund appeared capable
to support the demands placed upon it. However, in recent
years, the demands on the fund have continued to grow while
the revenues are expected to remain constant or even
decline. As a result, the Water Quality Assurance Trust
Fund has been in a deficit spending pattern. Simply put,
the fund can no longer support the demands that the
Legislature and the statutes have placed on it without some
comprehensive revisions by the Legislature. There are no
simple and obvious solutions that those closely involved
with the fund can agree upon. However, the basic choices
for a long-term solution are clear: (1) increase the
revenues coming into the fund, or (2) decrease the demands
on the fund.

In the short-term, staff believes there are some
measures that could improve the financial status of the
fund. Under current law, s. 376.307(4), F.S., requires that
the moneys in the fund must be spent on specified uses in
priority order. Staff can find no apparent benefits of
having a statutorily mandated priority use system. Most of
the other environmental trust funds in the state do not rank
the uses of the fund in priority order, but rather identify
the eligible uses for the fund. By eliminating the priority
system for this fund, the Department of Environmental
Regulation would have greater flexibility in managing the
financial resources of the fund to better meet the state's
overall water quality needs.

At the present time, a contaminated site may have a
greatly diminished property value. Further, the responsible
party may not be financially able to clean up the site. As
a result, the state may ultimately fund the cleanup
activities from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund.
Once the property is cleaned up, its commercial value again
appreciates. The state should be able to have the ability
to place a lien on the property so that in the event the
property is sold, the state would be able to recover the
cleanup costs from the proceeds of the sale.

Finally, s. 206.9935(2), F.S., specifies the products
upon which an excise tax for water quality is to be levied.
Unfortunately, the Department of Revenue has been unable to










collect the entire amount of the tax that should be levied
and collected on solvents and solvent mixtures. The DOR has
indicated that this is one of the most difficult taxes to
collect and that they do not have the personnel to devote to
its collection. The DER annually transfers an appropriated
amount from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to the
DOR for personnel to collect this tax. Perhaps it would be
beneficial to the Legislature to have the Auditor General
undertake an audit of the DOR's water quality tax collection
activities to determine if such funds are actually used to
collect this tax or if they are being used to enhance the
DOR's general tax collection activities. If the funds are
being used for water quality tax collection, perhaps an
audit could reveal some suggestions on improvements to the
collection practices.

























APPENDIXES












Site I .c:ation Cuntv"Ly City districtt Status
Agrico Chemical 118 E Fairfield Dr Escambia Pensacola NW active
Airco Plating 3650 NW 46 St Dade Miami SE active
Alpha Chemical 4620 N Galloway Rd Polk Lakeland SW active
SAmerican Creosote 701 S "J' St Escambia Pensacola NW active
Anaconda/Milgro 3630 NW 76 sT Dade Miami SE active
Anodyne 270 NW 165 St Dade N Miami Beach SW active
,&B Chemical 875 W 20 St Dade Hialeah SE active
Beulah Landfill Rt 9, US Hwy 90 Escambia Pensacola NW active
BMI Textron 1121 Silver Beach Rd Palm Beach Lake Park SE active
Broward Co 21st St Manor Dump Between SW 46 Ave & SW 43 Way Broward Ft. Lauderdale SE active
Brown Wood Preserving Goldkist Blvd & Sawmill Rd Suwannee Live Oak NE active
Cabot Carbon/Koppers NW 23 Ave & Main St Alachua Gainesville NE active
Cecil Field Naval Air Station, 103 St & Normandy Blvd Duval Jacksonville NE active
Chemform 1410 SW 8 St Broward Pompano Beach SE active
City Chemical Forsyth Road 3290 Forsyth Rd Orange Sanford CEN active
Coleman-Evans 101 Celery St Duval Whitehouse NE active
Davie Landfill 4001 SW 142 Ave Broward Davie SE active
Dubose Oil Products Hwy C 97, 1 mi N of Hwy C 184 Escambia Cantonment NW active
Florida Steel Company SR 710, 2 mi NW of Indiantown Martin Indiantown SE active
Gold Coast Oil 2835 SW 71 Ave Dade Miami SE active
Harris Corporation Palm Bay Blvd & Conlin Blvd Brevard Palm Bay SE active
Helena Chemical 2405 N 71 St Hillshorough Tampa SW active
Hipps Road Landfill Hipps Rd & Exline Rd Duval Jacksonville NE active
Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal 700 NW 57 Place Broward Ft. Lauderdale SE active
Homestead Air Force Base Fla Turnpike E, Homestead AFB Dade Dade County SE active
Jacksonville Naval Air Station NAS BIdg 826, Jacksonville NAS Duval Jacksonville NE active
Kassouf Kimmerling/aka Timberlake NE Cor 58 & Columbus Dr Hillsborough Tampa SW active
Madison County Landfill SE Junction of Rockford Rd & Jest Lamb Sch Rd Madison Madison NE active
Miami Drum (Biscayne Aquifer) 7049 NW 70 St Dade Miami SE active
Munisport Landfill 152 St NE & Biscayne Blvd Dade Miami SE active
NorthWest 58th Street Landfill 8831 NW 58 St Dade Miami SE active
Parramore Surplus SW cor of US Hwy 90 & Service Rd 379 Gadsden Mt. Pleasant NW delisted
Peak Oil/Bay Drum 1/4 mi W of Faulkenberg Rd, S of SR 574 Hillsborough Tampa SW active
Pensacola Naval Air Station NAS Bldg 3 Escambia Pensacola NW active
Pepper's Steel & Alloy 11100 NW So. River Dr Dade Medley SE active
Petroleum Products 3130 SW 17 St Broward Pembroke Park SE active
Pickettville Road Landfill 5150 Pickettville Rd Duval Jacksonville NE active
Pioneer Sand Saufley Field Rd, 1/2 mi W of Blue Angel Pkwy Escambia Pensacola NW active
Piper/Vero Beach Piper Dr & Aviation Blvd Indian River Vero Beach CEN active
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing 9510-20 E Broadway Hillsborough Tampa SW active
Sapp Battery Salvage County Rd C-200, 2 mi N of Alford Jackson Marianna NW active
Schuylkill Metals 402 S Woodrow Wilson Dr Hillsboroueh Plant City SW active
Sherwood Medical 2010 New Daytona Rd Volusia Deland CEN active
Sixty-Second Street Dump NW cor of Columbus & 62 St Hillsborough Tampa SW active
Standard Auto Bumper 2500 W 3 Ct Dade Miami SE active
Stauffer Chemical (Tampa) 2009 Orient Rd Hillsborough Tampa SW proposed
Stauffer Chemical (Tarpon Springs) Ancolte Rd Pinellas Tarpon SpringsSW proposed
Sydney Mine Hwy 60, 5 mi E of Dover Rd Hillsborough Valrico SW active
Taylor Road Landfill Taylor Rd, I mi S of Pruitt Rd Hillsborough Seffner (Tampa) SW active
Tower Chemical County Rd 455 & Montverde Rd Lake Clermont CEN active
Tri-Cit Oil 8767-1/2 N 50 St lillsborough Tampa SW delisted
Vairsl (Biscayne Aquifer) SR 836, Miami Int'l Airpo Dade Miami SE delisted
Vhitchliosc Oil Pits Clhaffee Rd 1/2 mi N of Iwy 90 Durval Wlichouse NE active
Wilson Concepts 1408 SW 8 St Broward Pompano Beach SE active
Wingate Road Dump 1300 NW 31 Ave Broward Ft. Lauderdale SE active
Woodbury Chemical 13690 SW 248 St Dade Princeton SE active
Yellow Water Road 1190 Yellow Water Rd Duval Jacksonville NE active
Zellwood Groundwater Contamination 803 Jones Ave Orange Zellwood CEN active

Source: Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation


Appendix A


- 1 --I------------~--~--1-


Il,'1.01411A'S' '-S)1'1-'.I;UNI)" HAZARDKIOUS W~ASTE'1 SI'1'1-'.


























FLORIDA'S STATE-FUNDED ACTION SITES I t
Site IJocation County City District Status
Ace Parker 3500 NW 79 St Dade Miami SE active
American Celcure Wood Preserving 1074 E 8th St Duval Jacksonville NE proposed
Belleview Gasoline Contamination Robinson Rd & US Hwy 441 Marion Belleview CEN active
Camview 1-75 & SR 484 Marion Ocala CEN delisted
Citra US 301 & SR 318 Marion Ocala CEN delisted
City Chemical Sanford Airport Blvd & Jewett Ln Seminole Sanford CEN active
City Chemical University Bulevard 6586 University Blvd Orange Orlando CEN active
Cocoa Beach Gasoline Contamination 420 W Cocoa Beach Causeway Brevard Cocoa Beach CEN delisted
Control Products Associated First St & Brainard Rd St. Johns St. Augustine NE delisted
Edmonds Salvage Yard SR 151, 8 mi N of Cross City Dixie Cross City NE delisted
Emerson Electric 440 Plumosa Ave Seminole Casselberry CEN delisted
Escobio 1907 St. John St Hillsborough Tampa SW active
Fashion Dry Cleaners 6157 N 9 Ave Escambia Pensacola NW active
FDER Bill's Road Bills Rd & Emerson St Duval Jacksonville NE active
Florida Peach Baseline Off SR 35 S, on Baseline Rd, 2 mi N of City of Belleview Marion Belleview CEN delisted
Florida Peach Belleview 13 mi S of Ocala, on E side of 1-75 & Hwy 475A interchg Marion Belleview CEN delisted
Florida Peach Martin Off SR 35A & 1-75 Marion Martin CEN delisted
Harp Lead 1095 Lincoln Terrace Orange Winter Garden CEN active
Helms Drum Service 1764 Hwy 655 Polk Aubudale SW proposed
Jorge Leon Dump NW 41St & 122 Ave Dade East Everglades SE delisted
K & K Grocery Intersec. Hwy 2 & Hwy 179-A Holmes New Hope NW active
Lake Butler Gasoline Contamination SW 3 St & Main St Union Lake Butler NE delisted
McClusky Dump SR 29, 5.5 mi S of LaBelle Hendry LaBelle SOD active
Miguel's Auto Service 2201 NW 95 St Dade Miami SE delisted
Montco Research Products 3 mi N of Hollister on Janice Dr Putnam Hollister NE active
Newberry Landfill County Rd 337, 1 1/2 mi W of Newberry Alachua Newberry NE delisted
Ocala Plating 3610 SW 25 Place Marion Ocala CEN active
Old 441 Gasoline Contamination Old US 441 & NW 35 St Marion Ocala NE active
Omni-Vest Landfill Idlewood Dr, W of Keys Ct Escambia Pensacola NW active
Pitch Pine Lumber 1607 N 43 St Hillsborough Tampa SW proposed
Reliable Circuits 12880 Automobile Blvd Pinellas Clearwater SW active
Silvex SR 16, 8 mi W of 1-95 St. Johns near Elwood NE active
Skipper's III 2409 N Cocoa Blvd Brevard Cocoa SE proposed
Southern Crop Services 7205 W Atlantic Ave Palm Beach Delray Beach SE active
Sparr Gasoline Contamination Route 200-A Marion Sparr CEN active
Town & Country 1925 Park Ave Clay Orange Park NE active
Tropical Acres 12508 Lenwood Ln Hillsborough overview SW active
USDA Experimental Station N of L-9 Canal, E of Fla Turnpike Palm Beach Whisper'g Pines St P SE delisted
Vroom Pete's Lane, W of SR 547 Polk ougman SW active
Wacissa Groundwater Contamination County Rd 259 & SR 59 Jefferson Wacissa NW active


Source:


Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation


Appendix B




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