PERCEIVED PROBLEMS WITH WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT
Responses To The Water Supply Development Core Committee
10/29/96 10:46 F.A 9046295391 OCALA.CITY MGR. 00
Municipal Water Supplies Planning. Implementation and Regulatory Issues
The uncertainty of land development as to what extent, where and when it will take place has always been a key
factor when either doing or updating Master Plans for water supply. Growth projections used are usually based
on an average of recent growth trends but do not project comprehensive plan revisions, changes, or
modifications. A good example would be the problems the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority is
facing regarding adequacy of its own water supplies to keep up with area growth demands. Another example is
our own experience regarding the uncertainty about who was going to provide water and sewer services outside
the Ocala's city limits. Our concern came to a critical focus because the system's 20-year master plan was at the
point where we needed to identify what was expected of us in the future regarding system expansions as well as
costs and funding sources to support those functions. Intergovernmental coordination is critical but too often
one government agency can actually cause a problem for another because it does not perceive the urgency of the
matter from the other government's perspective. This creates an animosity and hinders good planning and
efficient utilization of all available resources.
Suitable lands are needed for both water and wastewater treatment facilities as well as what infrastructure
upgrades will be needed to meet those plans. Growth in a water system dictates the necessity to plan for
wastewater treatment and reuse of both water and solid residuals from that treatment process. You cannot plan
for one without the other unless you know another entity is willing to take over the responsibility of providing
the other services. Another critical factor regarding water supplies is not knowing where there are sustainable
quantities of quality water supplies within a given area and how those supplies will be impacted by growth in,
on or around them. This is especially true when the area in question is not directly within your jurisdictional
boundaries. An excellent location for a new well field may be in the middle of a proposed commercial,
industrial or residential development. Unless all potential water supply locations are identified and cataloged
with associated quality and quantity data, there is no way to protect them for future use, nor can they be
effectively or efficiently utilized and still protect surrounding ecosystems. To mark or dedicate a proposed site
by itself for future water supply is not the solution by itself. Surrounding land uses could dramatically impact
the proposed water supply location. A good example would be allowing a heavy industrial plant or a mining
facility to be located on adjacent property. A similar case can be made for siting of wastewater related facilities
which as previously stated are a necessary bi-product of water supply facilities.
With respect to regulatory aspects, too often regulations are instituted without much input from the utilities as to
the effect on their operations, costs, or impact on the customers. Unanticipated new environmental regulations
cause major impacts on the utilities' ability to plan adequately for implementation of those rules or modify
existing master plans to include the new rules. There is more effort now by all agencies to elicit input from the
utilities prior to promulgating new rules, but to often even this input is not taken seriously by the regulatory
agency because it does not meet their preconceived goals or anticipated outcome. A regulatory agency looks at
unaccounted for water within a system as unnecessarily wasting water which needs to be stopped because it is
not promoting water conservation. However, the utility looks at it from a potential lost revenue perspective and
that if the costs of fixing the problem greatly outweigh the revenues gained, then why do it. The Utility would
also question the conservation issue because if the water is leaking back into the ground, the groundwater is
being replenished with a higher quality water and thus not wasted. In addition, there is significant disparity
between rules of the different agencies as well as who has the ultimate say on those issues. While this is most
visible between the water management districts, there have been cases where DEP regional offices disagree on
interpretation of its own rules. This has a significant impact on the water supplier planning and implementation
when they may be split between multiple water management districts' and/or DEP regions. The expected
approach being proposed by the EPA, on requiring the specified rules to be followed only when the rule is
applicable to the respective location, appears to be a step in the right direction. Why should a supplier be
expected to test for a chemical or agent that is not found or used in that area? This type of perspective could bo
used in the case of split regional or district boundaries here.
Problems Geographic Process Institutional
n Approved local government Ability of agriculture to RWSA and utitties need to perfonn
g comprehensive plans provide predict future demands Ihmg em phnniag
for growth beyond available Regional scale of planning Local Comprehensive Plan needs
traditional supplies in areas makes it difficult for consistency with water supply plans.
listed below individual pennittees to District rules and needs & sources
It is observed that 80% of the evaluate how plans affect document
growth will be within 20 them
miles of the coast Agriculture not adequately
represented in WSP process
due to lack of technical/
industry resources and unified
e l Additional modeling tooobetween CUP Rese standards, brine dispo and
Sdata needed to implement the renewal dates and changes in ASR standards not flcxible enough
Plan for CUP plans/ules/data for water supply development process
Inconsistent criteria at Technical information
boundaries in problem areas constantly improving
resulting in -oudated'
criteria and existing permits
that need review
Permit duration may be
insufficient to recover
lemen tion Lack of delivery/storage Need for long term phased Existing old capital infrastructure
infastucture and lack of implementation of plans due PSC rare setting
traditional sapplics for areas to need for extensive funding Parochial view of resource use
listed below of infrastntuare and Cost feasibility of certain options and
Resource impacts from alternative sorces causes user groups' ability to pay
expansion of traditional delays in Plan benefits Utility revenues re-directed to non-
sources or new sources Lad of regional consensus water supply uses
Lack of/infeasibility of on source development and
alternative water supplies in funding allocation
certain areas Long term funding needs
versus short tern budget
Traditional Sources Existing Fute
Pasco to Polk and South Dadc, Browaud, Palm BeacL,
Limited A ilabiity Santa Rosa, Walton. Hendry, Lee, Glades, Lake.
Oaloosa, Gadsden Co., Volusia, Orange, Seminole.
South Broward Co. Coastal Flaglcr/St. Johns/N.
Brevard, Gulf, Franklin
10/28/96 12:52 NO.571 P002/002
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING, REGULATORY AND IMPLEMENTATION IMPEDIMENTS
TO WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT
L PLANNING (Note: These issues are not listed in priority order.)
A. Changing regulatory regimes and slowness of agency responsiveness.
B. Uncertainty of all regulations-wetlands policies, permit conditions, groundwater management criteria,
C. Lack of information from the water management districts, such as groundwater basin inventories, needs
and sources, minimum flows and levels, and growth projections for water demands.
D. Lack of intergovernmental coordination between the local governments, public utilities and water
management districts. For example, public utilities prepare Master Plans that identify future funding
needs and sources, yet the water management districts do not adequately provide the growth projections
so they can adequately plan for future needs.
E. Lack of clarity of the role of local governments, water management districts and state agencies in water
supply planning, development and implementation.
F. Lack of statutory definitions for key terms such as "sustainable," "minimum flows and levels," and "water
G. Unknown needs and sources for all users and lack of defined criteria or level of service for
supplying source water.
H. Lack of integration of permitting and planning at the local, regional and state level.
I. Lack of recognition of regional water issues & solutions--"one size does not fit all."
J. Deficiencies in planning to ensure suitable lands for water and wastewater facilities.
IL REGULATORY (Note: These issues are not listed in priority order.)
A. Role of"players" in water supply development--e.g., conflict with water suppliers being regulators.
B. Lack of coordination between DEP and water management districts, at both state headquarters and
regional district levels. Additionally, problems arise when multiple districts are involved--e.g., different
alignment of the regulatory agencies on reuse policies.
C. Permit duration--local governments must plar., design and construct facilities based on long-term
economic factors as well as water and natural resource protection. Longer permit duration would
provide higher bond ratings, more certainty for finance purposes, and coincide with the planning horizons
in the local comprehensive plans. However, this issue gets caught up in the water allocation issue and
does not move forward.
D. Regulations are developed without adequate input from public utilities.
E. Lack of independent scientific peer review to verify data which would foster confidence in and
acceptability for the scientific basis for regulations.
F. Inability to mitigate wetland impacts from welfield withdrawals like other wetland permitting criteria.
G. Excessive time delays to adapt existing regulations to accommodate the utilization of
emerging technologies for alternative water supply development, such as aquifer storage & recovery,
desalination and reuse.
H, Lack of regulatory incentives (allocation rewards, longer permit duration) for alternative technologies and
sources, such as reuse for effluent disposal.
II. IMPLEMENTATION (Note: These issues are not listed in priority order.)
A. All of the issues identified under Planning and Regulatory are impediments to
implementation for water supply development.
B, High capital costs are a deterrent to implementing emerging technologies.
OCT-28-19S6 15:16 P.02
WATER SUPPLY POSITION STATEMENT
FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL COALITION
All Floridians are affected by how the State deals with water supply development, but
none are more impacted than those who work in the State's second largest industry agriculture.
Agriculture's major water concern is source security. Without available, high quality water,
agriculture cannot survive. In order to provide a stable environment for the State's economy, it is
important to provide some protection for existing legal water users while providing enough water
to meet the future needs of all our citizens. Over the short-term, source security can be enhanced
by strengthening existing legal user's rights to permit renewals and by the issuance of maximum
duration consumptive use permits.
Over the long-term however, agriculture's water concerns are inextricably tied to the
water needs of other users. If water becomes a scarce commodity agriculture stands to lose
source security regardless of existing legal protections because of the political imbalance between
urban and rural users of water.
The Florida Agricultural Coalition is on record in support of a clear delineation of
responsibility for water supply. This includes the research, development, facilitation, promotion,
and permitting of water supply. The Coalition is also on record in seeking legislative clarification
that the primary responsibility of Florida water management districts is water supply and that the
districts be charged with an affirmative obligation to seek and find sources for the continued use
of water for all of Florida's water needs.
0CK-28-96 MON 12:52 PM Everglades CampaignS EvG
Environment & Citizens Sub-Group
Water Supply Development
1. In many areas of the state, water resources are already drastically over-permitted.
Most of this problem is due to the fact that the Water Management Districts only recently
began to establish minimum flows and levels. Meanwhile, the absence of minimums has
resulted in excessive groundwater withdrawals that have caused major adverse impacts to
water resources. In West Florida, excessive groundwater pumping has damaged or
destroyed scores of lakes and over ten thousand acres of wetlands. And saltwater intrusion
advances at the rate of five inches per day on the sixty mile front south of Tampa Bay.
2. Over-withdrawals are also occurring, however, where minimum flows and levels
have been established but are not being enforced. The Southwest Florida Water
Management District, for example, has had minimum flows and levels on some lakes for
close to twenty years, but has continued to issue groundwater withdrawal permits despite
the fact that those lakes are several feet below their minimums. These problems will only
multiply unless accurate water resource capacities are reflected in local land planning efforts
statewide, and minimum flows and levels are enforced.
3. Existing users compound the water supply problem by resisting conservation and
ruse measures. They have continued unsustainable groundwater pumping rates and are
now trying to shift Florida toward the "prior appropriation" system of the western United
States. This "use it or lose it" system provides a powerful incentive to avoid conservation
and to waste water. Predictably, the result in western states has been the steady depletion
of underground aquifers and chronic water shortages. In addition, this approach ignores
the needs of new users in a growing state and increases the potential for water wars instead
of facing the need for equitable, sustainable uses.
4. The development of water supply has been done without adequate consideration of
the tie between land use plans and the availability of sustainable water supplies. Clearly,
plans for increased density and intensity of land use will create need for additional water,
yet we plan new development without adequately considering the availability and cost of
new water. Local land use decisions and permitting of development is based on capacity of
the utility plants rather than on the capacity of the aquifer or well field.
5. The core problem is that water is not being managed to assure that it will be a
sustainable resource over time. It has been easier to move well-fields inland as saltwater
intrudes, to look farther and farther afield for sources for water, to look to lands currently
set aside for conservation and to avoid implementing options for conservation and reuse.
All these "solutions" ignore environmental impacts of over-withdrawal, negative impacts
on property values in overdrawn areas and the ability to assure long-term sustainable water
supply in a growing state. They also ignore the desire of the low population areas, from
which long-distance water is to be taken, to experience their own growth and a subsequent
need for their own increased water supply.
6. Finally, the present system for making water supply development decisions denies
the public the opportunity to participate in a consensus building process. Litigation is used
as the primary means to resolve the debates over allocation of resources. This prevents
timely resolution and implementation of water supply development projects and results in
piecemeal allocation of water resources.
FAX NO. 305 3716398
10/29/96 11:50 PENNINGTON,CULPEPPER AND MOORE 700#11278a9225380 NO.573 P003
Water Supply Developient Problems
West Coast Regibnal Wateri-Suply Authority
1. Water use permits are not o--sufficiently long duration
to provide reasonable assurance that large capital investments in
water supply development projects will i;be amortized.
2. Water supply development projects will continue to be
opposed until there is a resolution'r d:the conflict over water
transport rights and limitations.
3. Because the law and policy', r. ardina how minimum flows
and levels are to be established adi.!ii forced remains unclear,
water supply development projects wil continue to generate
objections related to MFLs.
4. Consensus support for water;:iSpply development projects
will be difficult or impossible withitiuba concurrent proposal for
equitable allocation of development a'nd delivery costs.
5. Water supply developmeAt ei. cts will be opposed if
existing water users are forced to terminate preferred water
'* i ,"ii ] \ .
PENNINGTONCULPEPPER AND MOORE 700#11278r9225380
PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA
DADE CITY (352) 521-4274 UTILITIES SERVICES BRANCH
LAND 0' LAKES (813) 996-734L PUB. WS./UTILITIES BLDG., S-213
NEW PORT RICHEY (813) 847-8145 7530 LITTLE ROAD
FAX (813) 847-8064 NEW PORT RICHEY, FL 34654
October 24, 1996
Mr. Bram D. E. Canter
Pennington, Culpepper. Moore,
Wilkinson, Dunbar & Dunlap, P.A.
Post Office Box 10095
Tallahassee, FL 32302-2095
RE: Request for List of Perceived
Problems Water Supply Development
Dear Mr. Carter:
The "perceived" or "real" problems for Pasco Couaty in development of a sustainable
water supply in West Central Florida are complex, but so simple. Since Pinellas
County has blocked all alternative sources to date, except for their insistence of
more overpumping of groundwater, this has been the single and most devastating
problem over the past 20 years.
The following is my list of real problems for Pascob County:
1. Pinellas County refusal to fund alternative sources.
2. Lack of adequate and enforceable minimu~i flows and levels by the
Southwest Florida Water Management District.
3. The lack of strong legislation and'lead'r&hip in Tallahassee to make
needed, substantial changes to Chapter 373.
4. The current administration of West Coa.st Regional Water Supply
Authority clearly favors requests from Pinellas County and discounts
the needs of smaller member governments. These actions, in fact,
support the Pinellas County control of the General Manager.
5. Water Supply Authority district boundaries cause severe "turf"
battles, which eliminates the ability to develop substantial surface
water and groundwater sources.
6. If the decision is made to place the development of water supplies
directly under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the
Page 1 of: 2-
PENNINGTONCULPEPPER AND MOORE 7800#1127849225380
threat of doing so will probably create anh 'initiative to solve these
problem quicker than any other proposed alternatives!
7. Funding problems are primarily caused governmentss that refuse to
accept the fact that "cheap" water is a thThg of the past!
8. Funding of new sustainable water resources ti'West Contral Florida has
been delayed because of the Pinellas County refusal to fund alterna-
tive sources. Resolve this problem and you have fixed the major
stumbling block for Pasco County.
9. Finally, please review the attached 'report, which clearly shows that a
"drought" or lack of rainfall has not caused the severe environmental
damages on and adjacent to regional :well'ifteds in Pasco County.
I wish you well in these endeavors and can only;hope that someone will step forward
and make decisive, substantial changes during the.1997 Legislative Session.
Assistant County Admlin trator
cc; Don Conn, West Coast Regiohal Water Shpply Authority, 2535
Clearwater, FL 34621
The Honorable Ed Collins, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
John J. Gallagher, County Administrator
Page 2 of~ 2
PENNINGTON.CULPEPPER AND MOORE 700t1127899225390
Cto 8L Petfbufg
OCft o0 the City Attorney
TO r ~eam Canter, Eaquire -PAX NO.$ 904-222-2126
FRON im Streeter. Assistant City Attorney
DATS I OcQobr 28. 1.9S2 NO- OF PAGES including g Cove Page) : 1
COPY : (Will follow by mail)
X (Will not follow by ai.l)
MESSAGE s Re Governor' s Committme on. i Water .SuDnalyDevelcment
The City woul like to see thesr.,toJowin a issues addresaed
by the above refereneed .group_ a
-L In addreAeina the develoTnsnt ofwater supply. will there be
AM ansumation that exitina., e -mitted water suDmliea will
continue? If not, how will exiLtint.. leaAl u00o be treated?
L. Will mitigation be Dermitted to offset affected and/or inacts
to the environment and ourfaS ifeaturec oe+ureirin from
groundwater and/or surface water withdrawals?
I believe these one-ern ar. not uniiuo to St. Peterobu ,.
Pleae .contact me at 892-5401 if: vou osed any additional
cc: Bill Johnson
SENDER'S PAX NO.: (813) 892-5262
SENDER'S TELEPHONE NUMBERs (813) 893-7403
SENDER'S tfMRt P FRANCES R. SCOTT
TaE zNFroMATION coWrAOzna IN TraO hAC9LB .asiJB ZO8 TTOCRUs PRrVLQOZD AMD
cootaftrrraL mrTORnJTIO =nT zro oxue cOR rt mB veo or tEs un ovIO .L OR =wrrs
NAMW ABOVn. zr T ItA PU1or Or Ts? MoSs)oB IS WOT 7Ba Xwrm eZ RnwCZDWT, TY0
AR HUnRBY NOTZTVzrz THAT ANT DX~BMsfLNTOXn, OzDTRXiUTZon OR COPY Or ToXs
co2oWCcATXOIW a arTSTRcY PXOHZXBXTX. IF YOU BAV8 RItCMICvD Ti8 QOONwKICATZON
ZW ERROR, LXWWIS OTZrY U6 ZUWmDUZATXLZ BY TZBPROIN.
City or S PeterHbutg osi O ,c n lox M SI Petersbu, Flonam 13/:1 Ciiun1-M
TO'd 10ON ZZ:_T 96.8Z 130 Z9ZrZ689:a a '1,30 W931/313] 'IS
10:15 HOPPING GREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1079
FROM FCWLER&Wi:T E 81
FOWLER, WHITE, GILLCN, B
TAMPA ST. PE
(TUE) 10. 22' 96 14.21/ST. 14. 16/NO 3580527284 P 2/2
00os, VILLAREAL AND BANKER, P.A.
ORNCYS AT LAW ,
601 CAsT .CFrNcoy0 BLV0
POeT OrPICC 0oX 1438
TAMPA, PLOlIOA 33*01
HOPPING GREEN SAMS & SMITH
RHEA F. LAW
NAIOP OF FLORIDA, INC.
WATER SUPPLY QUESTIONS
OCTOBER 22. 1996
The problems we have been having with planning for water supply and with water supply
implementation is that no one knows what will, or should, be required, therefore, we are at the
whim and caprice.of anyone who has a [seemingly] good idea. Further, each of the regulatory
authorities seem to have different ideas about how water supplies should be developed and/or
enhanced. With so many different choices, there is no clear direction and, as is usually the case,
no one is willing to go out on a limb and make a decision. Much of this has to do with the
jurisdictions of the various agencies and local governments.
During 1996, the Florida Legislature established additional planning and management
requirements to promote development of water supplies and protect water resources in the srate.
The Tampa Bay area and Southeast Florida was designated as the first to be required to establish
minimum flows and levels for priority water bodies. As you know, we have always supported
water supply planning, however, these plans and studies should not be used to deprive local
governments of control over the growth and development within their communities. Further. this
effort should not result in greater bureaucracy and regulatory burdens which will adversely
impact the economic well-being of our communities.
I hope these comments are helpful. If you want any other conversation, call me.
10:15 HOPPING GREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1379
DAMES & MOORE
122 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone (904) 222-9600
Fax- (904) 222-9692
Wade Hopping Terry Bengtsson, DM, TPA
DATE October 25, 1996
SUBJECT Water Supply Development
Thank you for your request for comments on the water supply planning issues.
In our opinion, the biggest regulatory hurdle facing the water supply planning is the
(Z (1) duration of the permit Both public and private utility companies have to undertake
extensive studies on demographics, land use, hydrology, and develop plans to create
well fields. They need to make a projection on the available capacity and the needs of
the public. In some cases the projections on demands are mathematical projections
(some cases educated guesses) while the water management districts require specific
concrete numbers for permitting purposes.
In addition, the utilities have to decide on what to build and the hurdles to cross before
getting the permits renewed. For example, most of the water supply permits are valid
only for six years. Given the time it takes for the preparation of back-up documents and
processing of permits for renewal, invariably a utility company (private or public) has to
start preparing for renewal soon after the previous permit is issued. The process can
be simplified by long term permit This will give the utility ample time to come out with
realistic projections based on actual usage. The water management districts
traditionally have been uncomfortable with long term duration permits. If the permitting
duration stays the same as now, the projections are not likely to be based on realistic
numbers. The utilities feel comfortable in accepting long term permits with more
conditions than short term permits with potentially less conditions.
S CS/CS/HB 2385/2399 has the provision for an Independent scientific peer review if
there is a factual dispute regarding the minimum flows and levels. Since setting up of
HOPPING GREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1379
Memo To Wade Hopping
October 25, 1996
this number is going to determine the availability of water for purposes other than the
--- environment, it is essential that the peer review be mandatory, and that the peer review
should be expanded to include evaluation of needs of the environment and balance the
same with other needs from the same source.
It looks as if the water management districts would like to look at strictly local sources
of water to be developed including desalination and reverse osmosis. They do not
support interstate transfer of water (or this is a wrong issue to raise). If the peer review
O determines that there is some economic impact due an established minimum flow and
9Q y~jlevel, it may show that terstate transfer of water may be an issue to be looked at
without impacting the environment. As you have, most likely, heard from other people,
there is not a lack of water in the state. There is a problem of distribution of water
?h which is a policy issue and highly political one. It may also be necessary to promote
S()ASR and compare its cost effectivenesswith those of pipe line diversions before setting
the minimum lows, which fixes the amount of water available for other uses.
Hope this helps. Please let us know if you need addition information. We will be
interested in participating in the future committee meetings.
NO. 375 D04
10:16 HOPPING GKEEN SAMS SMIM rA '3J4 631 1079
FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
State Legislative Office
315 S. Calhoun Street Tallahassea, FL 32301 Telephone (904) 222-2557
TO: WADE HOPPING
FROM: BEN PARKS
RE: WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1996
Responses to Your Memo
Ron Hamel. Executive Vice President, Gulf Citrus Growers Association
1. Today's water planning is just water reallocation.
: 2. Water planning goal should be enhancement of water supplies. At a recent SFWMD meeting,
Sthe Board asked water planning officials about how much water we have and how much will we
Need in the future? The officials could not give any concrete answers.
Phil Leary. Director of Local Governmental Affairs, Florida Farm Bureau
1. Must protect existing agricultural use of water.
2. Need to seek cost-effective alterative resources (i.e., reuse).
3. Strongly oppose a consumptive water use fee (tax) on ag water use.
kDoug Bournique, Executive Director, Indian River Citrus League
Reply follows on next page.
Chuck Littleiohn, Florida Land Council
Call him for Ag's consensus on water planning (222-7535).
Please call me if you have any questions.
Z06 ZjT "DN N3BH9-9NIddOH '- "D.0 SI31 31BdiS u3rflnsd WH -1A CcCT 1Oc!7,
^J-u .31'M T
10/29/96 10:22 HOPPING GREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1379 N0.376 D04
PAVESE. GARNER, HAVERFIELD, DALTON, HARRISON & JENSEN
AYTORNEVS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
4"24 4Uf CLUs rOA
WE5T PALM BEACH, rLORIDA lXiS
FAX 1(611 471-0122
TO: Ben Parks, Ag Coalition
FROM: ne Kennedy Quincey
DATE: October 25, 1996
SUBJECT: Request for Information Response
We have been working with the water supply development and funding
process and there are significant lv;ues facing those in South Florida who are subject
to the ongoing Lower East Coast Planning process. I have attempted to summarize
these issues in a concise bullet format. I would be pleased to provide more information
Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671
10/2'/96 10:22 HOPPING GREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1379 N0.376 05.
10/28/96 13:41 FL FARM BUREAU STATE LEGIS OFC. HOPPING-GREEN NO. 140 D
Oct. 25 199 4:2PM No. 4505 P. 3/3
PLANNING FOR WATER SUPPLY PROBLEMS
S Lack of definition of the existing problems
S Lack of definition and consensus on environmental restoration
S Lack of definition of needs and sources
S Lack of clear responsibility for water management district to facilitate water
supply (as opposed to regulate water supply)
S Lack of completed modeling information..
S Lack of scientific data and peer review of modeling information.
S Short term permits
Lack of specific regional information which can be used in the regulatory
process, thus causing the applicant to evaluate more regional data bases.
S Inconsistent basin expiration dates dependent upon the use and not source
WATER SUPPLY IMPLEMENTATION
S Lack of funding
Inconsistent statewide goals with alternative programs.
S Delay in permitting, state and federal.
S Potential inconsistency with federal and state regulations.
Attempts to use water to control growth and/or to require more expensive water
Lack of focus on receiving water being wasted to tide.
Facilitation of the increased availability of potable and process water for all
Last year the "pink bill" process provided a good start for the substantive steps
which would need to be addressed to answer and define some of the above issues.
What was lacking was funding. One recommendation is to utilize that bill as a starting
point and expand the provlons of the SWFWMD on peer review for all districts. Funding
then could be addressed.
ie/29'5Z 10:23 HOPPING GREEN SArMS SMITH PA 904 681 :079 NO. 376 P06
PROM & w4 s7 e T 0 22 e
TO i l+8561 1396.10-26 14*S4 8370 24
10/24/98 TBU10.42 PA Z941 494 0625 DIANE GRAVEL .c.,-r .,
WATfl RBSOURCXS COOFDINATXN(3 C)X=TTZE
OCTOBER 28, 1996
W4 O 2X WAXI Z PRUIDSUT 0F (;=F Z0TIL CONANi, HBVE 19
/ Sor A jO Vz AS P733 =SNT OF TEE ILORZDA WATXRWOIaK ASSOCATZXN, WZICR TO THN
*czAPTi Or Tim fAT=ONAX ORGANIZATION Or nMSKTOR OWN= trLIT I8 .
X XATXONAL O~f3AZIZATXOWf XGXAMD UP OF OVIM
*:~-.; 3QEII3R` CC~B~ANII 'CB= YLOR.UI& CUAPT CONSISTS 07 15 07 '.t= ZrAXrNST
4 V8TQP-01W IJ LXIIX 8XRV=G OUR STATE.
*'T XNTX4WO3L1OWD UTZLITIZ3 PROVIDE A &IGNZWICANT PORTION 0O TIM PCTABLE WATER
h.DlLT IC rLO)LXA.
V DOT ON =HIs MAP "IPalsIITU A ecammxTT SalRms BY ov7R b
P.V'LEgAS V0T3 T"AT XHIY 3CO*.E CObgN=XTflB ARX SqVRY0 3Y OVR 17 0 V7RIY 9,ALL
W Ca~rr CW(PA 8 WXO AZ NOT XEPREStl]CSX MMa TODAY, TOGETEUZ WZ 5NRVX WELL
OVI 1.00c),000 CUSTOimEs.
; X L3 I DO NOT sAVz nlri9TPX TOTALS. WITU bM TOVAX, T=1 PH~ X' ALLOCATION
IOR R HI T=N LA=G38T PRZVTTM gTZILITZM9 AXyOE XS
N OY__ __I NQY .
I ~Z Q TIT AWcE C ~dPAbWBLS TO Tn LARGEST m=NZClPAL U'~'ZlIWCE 1)1
90=T or ALL TaIB ITS VI)LY TCO DEMONSTRATE MLT IlVIBTOR-0iN UTILITIES
UP A XWXZYCAW' P0RTZ039 O1 TXX W&TXXR 801PLY PROVXIfl TMS STATE O
AM AS BUcH Agg Szw rTrCAN CONSUMES O PLOHIDA'S wAT RX kSQOTmCZS.
4 .j. wA q MJofl=D AT TEE 3UI' 8o TO PEZAX WXITH ALL WATXR USE" A=W -UPPL!rL b IN
1' Z):i ~ SoDXK SOltON8 TO TJM WATER SU5PPLY CHALLMN5 WTACEOD pY ALI OF us EME
.n ROR ~Q~vE TOZ-OnD UTL.ZTI-S TO B9 PARt Or TIE SOLVTTON AND NOT PART
w "or, TIM PROB~L, AD19QUALTS COST RECOVERY ON TKX Inu5.T&=T XW :=0815Sz O2
'~W1 lATI 1FACILITZEB 19 XSSWXAL.
WITU TaRa Il MflXbiD, I wOULD LTCE SSjVIRAL pLORIIA wATEZRWOR7X ASSOCIATION
-'i.'CH To SHU&E WITR YOU T.IZR =XVIz3sNCUS WITE XE(3ILM TO COST RECOVBRY ON
=TERE IVXNSTN)MT IN CjRTAI= 7ACLIX TZES A=d RBLATZ NOW TEAT C= jXPACT THE
W~lT3R POLIcy OOALS OF OUR OTATE
10'29Z96 10:24 HOPPING GREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 :'?9 NO.376 -07
FRM1 204-877-90,i TO I S94.22,. 19sG.xe-2G 14ogr h370 P.09/09
OCT-24-98 THU 0:54
MAMUNT RYT Y GIDUL2 L AM% ZCU91PI2RaPEN
20=0 ARI~d 1229
Floida Citia WAtW COmPWzr (FCWC) Is 1 w*teV aud W towat c frlty operating in Colliers
LM Sanotl, Hilisboroagh maid Wtevad Coumzios Poincana M tilitie Inc. (Foincians) is an affiliated
water rd wostowater utility opgmtino in Osceola Wnd Polk Counties. These Com4p-n'is sexV a
gombMWd popubdon of approximateWy 161,000. It has beso our poOy to eoCply wfth 40
1" 0fr.8ulWtViy agewirsluck a5 the U. S, Fnyirovnmanta Protection Agency, (EA) the
Dpiunsit o(Edrongrm al Prowton QqEP), wnd the Wster Mamagemant Dbsets, thus
pnblio poicy. Compalano has reqred (mid oontiwma to requfre) subutsntiuv hwntments
UWntl ro0it.ly, to PSC has rcqgded t16 neessity opIt invOf lllents requ red for
roguilatry complianc e 1pludidg the rrog oFreclwsbun water and allowed towoveI through rates.
Nowsvr, bued on a MreetI rate OW P0pertaini os t. Ctyer o oPSC
d'anjed is positon In this regr, at least o a selective bsh, In IDis instancethe Company
i~inted $1.6 mlion in pLnt fgaliiea including $414000 in run f4c44itdes under the raardatOs of
*:.' ~ .L.b whEA FEP, South PFlidr, W& Wxt Distdot &W Lee County ere was no
~' iMt the Investmt was required by those Sovernmntal agencis. Notwithstandin the PSC
that thee plant addtlozwa 'ww bOt tsm=Y a nnd disallowed raovury.
we* notJm AY tIj. rqwioturc to ntlnu1 Q41E S hkC.f to
~uzly rbswi,w do bat ve t row to oadue riadg the tnvstwwnts rcq~uu'ed
.. ,~ sIrpat public policy unlda grAnted assurv=c by thoe settig our zacs that we will be allowed
F' 4~. i~j
1O'29/95 10:24 HOPPING GREEN SAMS SMITH PR 904 681 19 N
704+0 224+e1 .9S6,10-2S 14.65 M3'B
Thmge nald public policy muwt noopz tWt tbav is a cost tached to most WdtiatlvC
.8tsd to wStW ommvw mud ultmstely the cost mg st be paIod to the 0o00=0r. Notwithnsang
\.. youtrage.b~o m3 Epr0Wnd in meponse to higher wosth in tin dstaucc higher utility r4s. policy
2* ~-~tkon heve an obligtion to allow those wkoee burden. it Is to wrnpLyto z-ev their coa
HOPPING GREEN S&MS ,-I', --
in 34 ~60, 7
I FROM 1904-877-9031
OCT-25-96 FKI ei:0% PM PALM COAST UTILITY CORP
84 14z o
4370 P. 0/08
STATEKMNT BY YAM2S A. PBRRY
CkIW PFINAPNCTAL OFFICelk
PALtm COAST UTILITY COURPOPATION
Palm Coast Utility Corporation (PCUC) is an Investor owned utility with water and wastewater
'; oliida serving Palm Coast and adjacent developments in Flaglcr County. Since establishment in
S:: the early 1970's PCUC has consistently met the growth needs ofthhe fastest growing County in the
nation and has been recognized by PDEP with numerous awards for continuing quality service.
;.:. PCUC has been under Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) regulation since 1980 and has had
a ix rate cases before the commission including the current case.
S. I agree with the prior speakers and would like to shre two specific examples, although there are
may 'f' more which our utility and others force when attempting to recover the cost of our investments.
S-;:.: ';': The first example is the PSC non rule policy ofused/useful concepts for wastewater treatment plants,
PSC methodology is based on annual average flows Instead ofthe three months rolling maximum as
S required by FDEP. This PSC practice disrgards real world operation in dealing wilt maximum
flow, and seasonal usage and in ffect penllizck utilities for DEP compliance. For Palm Coast
Utility, by using annual 1fows rather than the "real world" three month's maximum flows, we were
not allowed to recover $1.5 million of o.ur investments in our wastoweter plant
My second example deals with PSC' inconsistent application of previously approved ind affirmed
S non rule rate wstting methodologies. Previously, the PSC alculated the used/useful percentage of
S" *I". wi er trsanmlsslon diatibution system or wastewater gravity lines based on a formula which at least
S a]*ttemzpted to reflet actual hydraulic usage of the lines. Now, the Commission ha decided to
c calculate the used/usel percentage of these lines based on the number of lots that are occupied by
,,residential customers only. For PCUC no consideration was given for commercial customer. For
other utilities commercial or condominium customers are considered as one lot. The effect of this
i: :. djdedion was to disallow cost recovery of $5.4 million of our investment which we were previously
S.:- allowed to recover.
SIn summary tlese adjustments and other "used/useful" adjustments reult in a reduction of our
.- investrrnts by $40 million. These ftelities which have already been constructed and in place are
needed to comply with DEP, EPA, and Water Management environmental regulations today,. .
NOT TOMORROW, BUT TODAY!
Without such facilities growth of the community and service to current and future customers would
not be possible.
4101 N.W. 70TH AVE.
MIAMI. FLORIDA 33166
FAX (305) 593-9791
Standard Sand & Silica Company
POST OFFICE BOX 35 HWY. 17 & 92 NORTH
DAVENPORT, FLORIDA 33837
FAX (941) 422-8610
October 25, 1996
600 EAST 8TH ST.
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32206
FAX (904) 355-2022
OCT : 1996
Carlton Fields Tallahassee
(.i---i r", \~-rn
Mr. Jake Varn
P.O. Drawer 190
Tallahassee, FL 32302-0190
Re: Water Supply Development
Dear Mr. Varn:
This letter was written in response to you memorandum to John Christensen, dated
October 18, 1996.
We are not aware of any serious water supply problems in Polk County. However, we are
concerned that exporting of water from our area to coastal counties could create water supply
problems for us in the future.
It is our understanding that the recent water-related problems in coastal areas, like Pinellas
and Hillsborough counties, should more accurately be referred to as "water economy
problems". They have not exhausted all of their water supplies, only the cheapest one:
groundwater. Alternative sources exist that are virtually untapped.
We feel very strongly that any area should be obliged to develop all of their local water
sources, including surface water, reuse of wastewater, desalination, and conservation, before
they are allowed to import water. It is reasonable to expect the cost of living and the cost of
water to increase in populous areas. It is also reasonable to expect the environmental quality
of an area to degrade as its population increases. It is not reasonable to require adjacent
areas with smaller populations to sacrifice their environmental integrity and future water
supplies so that residents of populous areas can save a few cents on their water bills.
P RCO[l '" 0 PRODUCTS FOR INDUSTRY
The well known economic principle of supply and demand applies equally well to water
supplies. If the price of water is allowed to fluctuate freely, then it will reflect local availability
and cost of production. Supply and demand will balance.
Please advise us of the work and meetings of the committee. My fax number is
Marc V. Hurst, PG
OCT 25 '96 11:25AM CAMP r SSER & MCKEE SAfiRSOTA
COM Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
To: Jake Vam, Carlton Felds
Dennis Barton, FES
From: Richard Moore, FES CEO Committee
Date: October 25, 1996
Subject: Water Supply Development
In response to your request, the following are two of the biggest issues impeding water
supply development in the Florida Gulf Coast area:
1. Concenate disclhr permitting from RO/mambrane treatment facilities is extremely
difficult, expensive and lengthy. This has hindWed development of bracdh
groundwater sources which are relatively low quality, and therefore, desirable from a
water resource management perspective. Clasification of membrane concentrate as
an industrial waste needs to change.
:2. Competing uses for surface 'waer includes downstream releases for maintaining
salinity, habitat, species, etc. The regulatory constraints need to fnd a reasonable
balance between the public wie supply demands and the real issues of downstream
FLORIDA HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION (FHBA) WATER SUPPLY POLICY
FOR THE 1996 LEGISLATIVE SESSION (Approved 2/26/96)
THE PRIME DIRECTIVE
With its abundant rainfall Florida has more than an adequate supply
of water to meet the demands of man and the natural systems. While
different areas of the state from time to time experience water
supply shortages, the provision of water is a matter of cost. The
Florida Legislature should create a public water supply program
designed to assure there is an adequate, affordable and consistent
supply of water for all present and future users in all parts of
Florida. This public water supply program, together with any
private water suppliers, should implement and provide necessary
water to accommodate growth projected in local comprehensive plans.
FHBA PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY POLICIES
1. There should be a locally/regionally based long range plan for
future public water supplies. This planning process should avoid
any unnecessary cumbersome bureaucratic review process, minimize
state involvement and oversight, rely on a system of citizen and
interested/affected person-entity involvement and enforcement and
enhance predictability in the issuance of permits.
2. While recognizing the viability and propriety of private water
supply providers and other water users, statutory changes should be
made to provide that local governments or, where created by local
governments, regional water supply authorities (RWSAs) have primary
responsibility for planning public water supply alternatives or
options and facilitating water supply development. Incentives
should be provided to encourage local governments to create RWSAs
to plan and develop regional water supplies. All local or regional
water supply plans should have common review dates established by
the appropriate water management district (WMD). A process for
mediating and resolving conflicts between plans shall be
established and the appropriate WMD shall be a necessary party.
3. There should be a recurring dedicated source of revenues for
use by local governments and RWSAs for planning and developing long
term public water supplies. For example, FHBA supports dedicating
a portion of the water management district (WMD) millage for water
supply capital facilities expenditures.
4. The long term public water supply plans should be developed
separate from the local government comprehensive plan process. In
the meantime, the legislature should amend chapter 163, F.S., so
that local governments will not be required to base a potable water
concurrency decision on water supply availability. After
completion and approval of WMD district water management plans and
local water supply plans, the legislature should determine whether
and how these plans should be integrated with the local government
5. WMDs' primary responsibility should be to remain a regulatory
body to protect and equitably allocate our water resources. WMDs
should provide water resources information and data to local
governments and RWSAs for use in water supply planning.
6. Chapter 373, F.S., should be amended to require that each WMD
prepare a District Water Management Plan (DWMP) containing water
supply resource information and data. Chapter 373 should clearly
set forth the requirements of the DWMP, including requiring the
adoption of those parts of the DWMP that impact third parties to be
adopted as a rule.
7. In permitting consumptive water use pursuant to chapter 373,
F.S., the chapter should be amended to consider and balance, as
part of the public interest criteria, the proximity of the proposed
source of water to the area in which it is to be used and other
economically and technically feasible alternatives to the proposed
source, including conservation, desalinization, reuse, stormwater
and aquifer storage and recovery. The policy of local sources
first should be encouraged and not mandated.
8. There should be economic and regulatory incentives to promote
economically and technically feasible alternatives such as
conservation, water reuse, desalinization and the use of surface
9. Where appropriate, public lands, such as parks, forests and
recreational areas, should be made available for multiple uses
including water supply.
10. The term of water use permits should be as long as possible,
but consistent with the amount of water available to use and the
11. FHBA supports the present authority in chapter 373, F.S., to
reallocate water in Florida based on the reasonable-beneficial use
standard and opposes any policies, proposals or concepts which will
weaken the standard.
12. Accountability of WMDs should be strengthened through enhanced
oversight by both the executive and legislative branch. In
particular, the Legislature should review and approve state water
OCT ,:1996 ,I
Carlton Fie!ds Tallahassee
MEMORANDUM FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS*
PO. Box 1853
TO: Jake Varn Tallahassee. FL 32302-1853
FROM: Howard E. Adams 200 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301-1872
Vice President of G mental Affairs 9022 00
DATE: October 23, 1996 E-Mail: FAR@FL.RealtorUSA.com
RE: Water Supply Development
Please find attached to this memorandum a draft copy of policies that the
Florida Association of REALTORS Water Policy Task Force has reviewed
on a preliminary basis. This policy is similar to that of the Florida Home
Builders Association and also some combined elements from the Florida
Farm Bureau and Agricultural Coalitions. While this policy has not yet
been finalized and adopted, I anticipate that the Florida Association of
REALTORS will adopt this in substantially this form at its January
Please utilize this draft policy to help guide you in the Water Supply
Development Committee to which you have been appointed. As you are
aware, I have also been appointed to the Funding Committee along with
Keith Hetrick of the Florida Home Builders Association. I look forward to
working with you on this committee as well.
Please let me know if I can furnish further information or be of any
assistance with your committee work.
PO. Box 8058
317 Wekiva Springs Road. Suite 200
Cathleen F. Smith
11924 Forest Hill Blvd.. 18
Wemt Palm Beach 33414
Margarer C. Turney
3 t Anchorage Drive
North Palm Beach 33408
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
Gerald W. Matthews, CAE
PO. Box 725025
Florida Association of REALTORS
Water Supply Policy
Florida is a peninsula and is surrounded by non-potable salt water on three sides. Florida
is largely dependent on rainfall for fresh potable water replenishment. Weather
irregularities and the randomness of the weather cause different areas of the state from
time to time, to experience water supply shortages. The provision of potable water to
both supply the people and to maintain the natural systems of Florida is increasingly a
matter of cost and redistribution of potable water supplies. The Florida Legislature should
create, through public policy, a public water supply program which will assure that there is
an adequate, affordable and consistent supply of water for present and future users. This
public water supply program should provide necessary potable water to accommodate the
growth expected in Florida and continue to supply current users with ample supplies for
their needs. This program and planning for adequate potable water supplies by the State
of Florida should incorporate planning guidelines for the preservation of the natural
environment. Florida's natural environment contains water and it is this natural
environment which attracts population to the state, both for its beauty and for recreational
purposes. Accordingly, the Florida Association of REALTORS espouses the following
policies regarding water supply and believes the government of Florida should carefully
consider these policies in developing its water supply policies and programs for the future.
FAR Public Water Supply Policies
1. There should be a local or regionally based long-range plan for future public water
supplies. This planning process should avoid bureaucratic review processes, minimize
state involvement and rely on a system of citizen and affected person involvement and
enforcement. In conjunction with this, the Florida Legislature should state that the
primary mission of water districts is regional water supply planning and development in
order to meet the needs of Florida's citizens, business, agriculture and the natural
2. While recognizing the viability and propriety of private water suppliers and other
water users, local governments or where jointly created by local governments, regional
water supply authorities should have primary responsibility for planning public water
supply. Incentives should be provided to encourage local governments to create regional
water supply authorities to plan and develop regional water supplies. All local or regional
water supply plans should have common review dates established by the appropriate water
management district. A process for mediating conflicts between plans who may use
common water sources should be established and the appropriate water management
districts should participate as parties in that dispute resolution. Water management
districts should also continue to retain responsibility for flood protection and the
management and storage of surface water at the district level.
3. There should be a recurring dedicated source of revenues for use by local
governments and regional water supply authorities for planning and developing long term
water supplies and water supply facilities. It is suggested that a portion of the water
management district millage rate be dedicated to the development of long term capital
facilities for water supply.
4. The long term public water supply plans should be developed separately from the
local government comprehensive planning process. Local governments should not be
required to base potable water concurrency decisions on water supply availability. Water
management districts should remain a regulatory body to protect and to allocate water
resources. Water management districts should provide water resource information and
data to local governments and to regional water supply authorities for use in water supply
5. Chapter 373, Fla. Statutes, should be amended to require that each water
management district prepare a District Water Management Plan (DWMP) containing
water supply resource information and data. Chapter 373 should clearly set for the
requirements of the DWMP, including requiring the adoption of those parts of the DWMP
that impact third parties to be adopted as a rule.
6. With regard to consumptive water use permitting, the duration of a water use permit
should be as long as is feasibly possible consistent with the amount of water available and
current demands. Water management districts should adopt a standard of twenty years of
consumptive use permit duration, unless to do so would cause irreparable harm to water
resources, or is otherwise inconsistent with demand. In permitting consumptive water
uses, Florida law should be amended to balance, as part of the public interest test, the
proximity of the proposed source of water in the area in which it is used and other
economic and technical alternatives to the proposed source. This includes conservation,
desalinization, reuse, stormwater or aquifer storage and recovery measures. The policy of
local sources should be strongly encouraged.
7. Water management districts and regional water supply authorities should develop
economic and regulatory incentives to promote alternatives such as conservation, water
reuse, desalinization, alternative storage methodology, and innovative uses of surface
8. Where appropriate, public lands should be made available for multiple uses including
water supply. Parks, forests and recreational areas can supply water and can be used in
this way compatible with other recreational uses. In addition, the Florida Legislature
should review on a regular basis the continued land acquisitions by water management
districts. Land acquisitions should be screened to insure a balance between the multiple
missions of water supply, water management and flood protection. Proper funding should
be provided for the management of purchased lands.
9. Concurrent with other organizations, the Florida Association of Realtors supports
present statutory authority which allows reallocation of water in Florida based on the
reasonable-beneficial use standard. The Florida Association of Realtors opposes any
policies, proposals or concepts which would weaken this standard and would recommend
strengthening existing user rights to permit renewals.
10. Water management districts as a sub-division of government should be made more
accountable through enhanced oversight by both the executive and legislative branch of
government. The Legislature should review and approve state water policy, water
management district budgets and review capitol improvement projects for funding. The
Legislature should also establish appropriate sub-committees or committees in the House
and Senate to annually review programs and budgets of the water management districts.
The Legislature should also continue to review the rulemaking authority of the water
management districts and take appropriate action where such rulemaking authority may
exceed the primary mission of the districts.
11. The Legislature should review and approve state water policy and all future
amendments should be ratified by the Legislature before taking effect.
12. Water management district governing boards should be provided with governing
board members who have experience in water management issues and who can gain
experience in order to serve the public. Gubernatorial appointments with Senate
confirmation to water management district boards should be maintained with terms of
appointments staggered to provide that the terms of no more than three members expire in
any given year. The Governor should also strive to appoint board members with
experience and the current limitation of two terms should be discontinued in order to
encourage those with experience to continue to serve the public.