Title: Memo Re; November 8, 1996 Meeting of the Core Committee
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004614/00001
 Material Information
Title: Memo Re; November 8, 1996 Meeting of the Core Committee
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Memo Re; November 8, 1996 Meeting of the Core Committee (JDV Box 70)
General Note: Box 24, Folder 3 ( Water Supply Development and Funding - 1996-1997 ), Item 16
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004614
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





MEMO


TO: Water Supply Development Core Committee

FROM: Jake Varn, Chair and David Guest, Vice-Chair

RE: November 8, 1996 Meeting of the Core Committee

DATE: November 1, 1996


Attached please find the following items:

1. Summary of the October 17 water supply development (WSD) committee meeting

2. A consolidated summary of the perceived problems with water supply development. This
is our best shot at taking your responses and distilling the issues common to them. I hope
this will make the discussion more manageable. If anything significant is not covered
under one of these issues, point it out and we will include it. Available at the meeting
will be copies of all the responses we received.

3. A draft agenda for the WSD committee meeting on November 8. You will receive a
more detailed agenda at the meeting.

4. A copy of a matrix put together (and still being expanded upon) by DEP staff, which
illustrates the roles and responsibilities of various entities in water supply development,
regulation, and planning. This will be a reference for discussion during our meeting

I think we can proceed with an orderly discussion by categorizing issues according to planning,
regulation, and development. Within those three categories, we can determine what is happening
at the state, regional, and local levels and then what needs to happen.

I look forward to seeing you on the 8th. Rest up.


JV/DG/tp











WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
November 8, 1996
1:00 3:30

DRAFT AGENDA

10:45 Explanation of Format (Jake Varn)

Overall format: Determining what is happening in water supply planning,
regulation, and development at the state, regional, and local levels; and what
needs to happen?

The objective for this meeting is to cover planning and as much of regulation as
possible, addressing broad concepts.

11:00 Planning (see matrix and list of perceived problems as references for discussion)

10-15 minute WMD presentation on regional water supply planning--What do the
WMDs see happening with regional water supply plans (what is their legal
significance, what ensures their implementation)?

Discussion of: What is happening in water supply planning at the state, regional
and local levels (and by whom)? Based on perceived problems in planning, what
needs to happen (and by whom)? How should these planning efforts be linked?

11:30 LUNCH

1:00 Planning (continued)

2:30 Regulation (see matrix and list of perceived problems as references for
discussion) What is happening in water supply regulation at the state, regional,
and local levels (and by whom)? Based on perceived problems in regulation,
what needs to happen (and by whom)?

3:00 Wrap-up

--Review of meeting
--Staff assignments
--Agenda for next meeting
--Discussion of need for additional meetings


Break--Adjourn to Full Group


3:15









WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY
October 17, 1996--Tallahassee


This committee elected a chair (Jake Varn) and vice chair (David Guest).

The committee set an immediate task for its core members: A one-page paper, representative of
each interest group on the core committee, which lists the perceived problems related to water
supply development. Core committee representatives are to submit the paper to Terry Pride by
October 28, so she can consolidate them into a paper for discussion by the committee at the
November 8 meeting. State agencies will collectively prepare a single paper. Other core
committee representatives will present a paper according to the interest area breakdown (e.g.,
env./citizen will do one paper, business/industry/development will do one paper, etc.)

The problem statements should be categorized according to geographic problems and process
problems

The committee identified the following information needs:

--Who is doing it now (How they're doing it, how well)?
--Impediments to fulfilling roles (financial, technical, regulatory, etc.)
--Historical Roles
--Clarify Philosophical Differences (among agencies, etc.)
--Regional problems and solutions
--Assess probability of success with existing tools/mechanisms
--Future demands by region

Possible format for information:

Roles State Regional Local Private

Planning

Regulation

Implementation

The committee also discussed:

OTHER TASKS NEEDING DISCUSSION

* Delivery Systems (Hardware)
* What are the existing and needed roles in water supply development?









ISSUES DISCUSSED DURING 1996 SESSION


Integration of Land/Water planning
Regional Water Supply Planning
Funding
Minimum Flows & Levels; scientific peer review (Reg)
Rate Structure; public vs. private utilities
Local Sources first (Reg.)
Permit duration competing permits
Source security (Reg.)
Water to meet all needs

Note: Not all of these were necessarily recommended for the committee to address, but as an
illustration of the range of issues that had been opened up, but not resolved, during session.

NEXT WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT MEETING:

* Look at Planning, Regulation, Implementation
what roles played at state, regional, local & private levels (matrix)--DEP staff are
putting together a background paper on existing roles in water supply development and funding.
A draft of this should be available before the next meeting. An agenda will be sent out by
November 1.

SYNOPSIS OF COMMITTEE STEPS:

--Identify critical problems
--Review DEP roles and responsibilities paper
--Each interest group on committee send one-page paper of perceived problems to Terry Pride by
noon on October 28.
--Agenda for next meeting to be sent out by November 1 (faxed)










Summary of Perceived Problems
Related to Water Supply Development

Committee on Water Supply Development
November 1, 1996

CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY OF PERCEIVED PROBLEMS


PLANNING

Statewide vs. regional problems and solutions: Need for flexibility of approach to develop
regional solutions; lack of regional consensus on source development and funding allocations;
parochial view of resource use.

Lack of clarity of roles: Of local governments, regional water supply authorities, WMDs, and
state agencies in water supply planning. Who takes the lead? How many levels of plans are
needed?

Lack of information: Regarding needs and sources, minimum flows and levels, water
availability, projections for water demands, etc., upon which to base water supply planning.
(Question: What is the cause of this and how can it be remedied? Is it due to funding, workload,
and technical limitations or poor coordination among governmental entities?); inability of
agriculture to predict its future demands; lack of peer review of modeling information.

Absence of linkages between plans and between permitting and planning: At the local,
regional, and state levels; confusion regarding the connection between regional water supply
plans and regulatory programs, and the legal significance of the plans; inadequate consideration
of the tie between land use plans and the availability of sustainable water supplies.

Inadequate representation in planning processes: Agriculture is not adequately represented in
water supply planning process due to lack of technical/industry resources and unified position;
the present system for making water supply development decisions denies the public the
opportunity to participate in a consensus-building process.

Gaps in statutory guidance: Inconsistent or inadequate statewide goals regarding development
of alternative supplies; lack of statutory definitions for key terms such as "sustainable,"
"minimum flows and levels," and "water supply development"; lack of defined criteria or level of
service for supplying source water.











Uncertainty, confusion, and inflexibility in regulation, including: Changing regulatory
regimes and slowness of agency responsiveness; different interpretations of regulations, e.g.,
wetlands policies, permit conditions, groundwater management criteria, reuse; inconsistent
criteria at WMD boundaries; lack of coordination between DEP and WMDS, at both state
headquarters and regional district levels; inability to mitigate wetland impacts from wellfield
withdrawals like other wetland permitting criteria; delays in adapting existing regulations to
accommodate the utilization of emerging technologies for alternative water supply development,
such as aquifer storage and recovery, desalination, and reuse; Unclear law and policy regarding
how MFLs are to be established and enforced; PSC rate setting (does not allow reasonable cost
recovery); lack of regulatory incentives for alternative technologies and sources.

Inadequate protection for existing legal users: There is a need for short-term source security,
e.g., stronger "rights" to permit renewals for existing legal users and issuance of maximum
duration consumptive use permits; permit durations generally are insufficient to recover
investments or provide certainty to agricultural users.

Inadequate protection for the environment: Water is not being managed to assure that it will
be a sustainable resource over time.

Interdistrict transfers of water: Concerns regarding both inappropriate water transfers and
unreasonable prohibition of water transfers.

Lack of independent scientific peer review: To verify data, which would foster confidence in
and acceptability for the scientific basis for regulations.

DEVELOPMENT

Lack of clarity of roles of state, regional, and local entities in water supply development:
Lack of consensus on what entity should have primary responsibility (e.g., local government,
water management districts, others); problems with structure and function of regional water
supply authorities.

Resistance to development of alternative sources,to conservation, and reuse (because of lack
of funding, regulatory obstacles, inadequate incentives, perception?).

Funding constraints: Lack of adequate, equitable,long-term funding, resulting in delays in
development and lack of infrastructure; utility revenues re-directed to non-water supply uses,
diverting a substantial source of funding for water supply development.












Entities and Their Roles


Entity

Local
Governments

Private
Utilities

RWSAs


RPCs

WMDs


DCA

DEP

DEP Water
Facilities


DEP Districts

PSC

HRS


Regulation, Planning &/or Monitoring

Land use planning, wellhead protection ordinances,
LDRs Monitoring (CUP Requirements)

None (may request WHP plan from LG)
Monitoring (CUP Requirements)

None, except by member gov'ts
Monitoring (CUP Requirements)


Indirect

Well Construction and Consumptive Use
Permitting
District Planning (DWMPs and regional plans)
Technical Assistance Demand Management
Promotion of Alternative Sources
Exploratory Drilling, Canal Operation, Land Acq.
for regional storage

LGCP reviews, DRI reviews, ACSC

State Water Policy, Oversight of WMDs

Facility permits, monitoring, compliance activities;
SDWA SRF implementation (DW and WW);
Ambient Monitoring: SW and GW

DW permit oversight

Rate setting limited to private utilities

Oversight of Limited Use DW facilities


Actual Capital Facility Development

Part of capital improvement plans, CIE of LGCPs
(Public Utilities)

Hundreds across state, but serve only a small
fraction of users

Varies by RWSA (Public Utilities)


None

Water Resources Capital Projects


Funding Sources

Revenue, municipal bonds;
customer revenues

Bond, stock sales; bank loans;
customer revenues

Ad valorem taxes; bonds,
loans; customer revenues
(from LGs, not users)

Various

Ad valorem tax revenue
Loans
Obligation, Revenue Bonds


None

None


None


SRF funds


None

None Fees on regulated community

None Permit fees


-------











EPA Drinking SDWA requirements None State Revolving Fund
Water
Program


Alternative Sources


WFF: funding of wastewater facilities with a revolving loan fund; reuse encouraged
Reuse Program: concerned mainly with water quality
NPDES: Any wastewater discharge to surface water, including reuse, needs a permit




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