Title: Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group - Recommendations of the Water Supply Development Committee, January XX, 1997 Draft
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004619/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group - Recommendations of the Water Supply Development Committee, January XX, 1997 Draft
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group - Recommendations of the Water Supply Development Committee, January XX, 1997 Draft (JDV Box 70)
General Note: Box 24, Folder 3 ( Water Supply Development and Funding - 1996-1997 ), Item 21
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004619
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





WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING WORK GROUP


Recommendations of the Water Supply Development Committee

January XX, 1997, DRAFT

Suggested Implementation:

L--Legislative
A--Administrative
V--Nongovernmental, voluntary


PLANNING

The State Role

1. There is a need for simplification of the water planning process. At a minimum, the
Legislature should revise Chapter 373, F.S., to provide for one water plan at the state
level. (L)

2. There should be more focus on water supply development and water resource
development in state-level planning than currently exists; not hands-on involvement, but
general guidance. Specifically, water supply development and water resource
development should be addressed more adequately in the Florida Water Plan (FWP) and
the State Water Policy (SWP) rule. (L or A)

Regional Water Supply Planning

4. Lack of regional planning for water supply development and water resource development
is not the primary problem, lack of plan implementation is the primary problem.

5. New: The WMDs should conduct regional water supply planning in an open public
process, in coordination and cooperation with local governments, private suppliers, self
suppliers, and other affected and interested parties. (L or A)

6. With allowance for regional variations, there should be some consistency in process and
format among the water management districts in developing their regional water supply
plans and needs and sources assessments. To achieve this where practicable, DEP and the
WMDs should use a conventions committee process, similar to that used for the Florida
Water Plan and District Water Management Plans. DEP, through its general supervisory
authority, should also oversee this process, with guidance from the Governor's office (See
Executive Order 96-297; this process is being initiated by DEP). (A)









7. "Water resource development" and "water supply development" should be distinguished
from each other and defined as follows (L):

"Water resource development" means the formulation and implementation of regional
water resource management strategies, including the collection and evaluation of surface
water and groundwater data; the development of regional water resource implementation
programs; and the construction, operation, and maintenance of major public works
facilities to provide for flood control, surface and underground water storage, and
groundwater recharge augmentation.

"Water supply development" means the planning, design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of public or private facilities for providing water for sale, resale or end use.

8. The function of RWSPs should be (L -):

a. To identify a menu of options for water supply development from which to
choose.

b. To identify water resource development projects.

c. To provide action-oriented steps, with flexibility but as much surety as possible for
users.

d. To guide funding of water resource development projects.

9. The RWSP should identify means of implementing nonregulatory parts of plans--a forcing-
action type of planning. This includes who will implement various projects, how they will
be implemented, implementation schedules, and sources of funding. (L oi

QUESTION: Where do we address who, what, when, and how with regard to water supply Dsk
development projects??

10. Needs of self suppliers, including projected future uses, should be addressed in RWSPs. It
should be made clear that it is a role of the WMDs to do this. (L)

11. The WMDs should adopt portions of RWSPs by rule or develop or amend rules if needed
to implement the plan, to the extent of the WMDs' statutory authorities. A RWSP would
not confer authority but would reflect strategies that could be implemented under existing
authorities. (L er-A

12. There should be a linkage between regional water supply planning and water regulation. /
For instance, a proposed consumptive use would have to be consistent (or not
inconsistent) with the rule-adopted portions of the plan in order to be permittable. (L)









Local Government Comprehensive Plans (LGCPs) and RWSPs


13. The LGCP water supply element (general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable
water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element) needs to indicate sources of
water, based on the relevant RWSP or other best available data. (L-e A)

14. Local governments should be encouraged to use water supply sources identified in the
relevant RWSP. () A

15. DEP, the WMDs, DCA, local governments, and others should increase communication
and provide early technical assistance--and financial assistance where possible--to ensure
that local comprehensive plans and local government actions are coordinated with WMD
needs and sources assessments and regional water supply plans. (A and V)

16. Data for local water supply planning should come from the WMDs, unless better data is
available. The WMD should be the primary source of data, but this would not preclude a
local government from using more accurate data. (,A,

17. At a minimum, DCA should rely on the WMDs for identification of water supply sources.
(A)


*EVELOPMENT

The State Role

18. The state should assure protection of water resources on state lands. (Lor A)

19. The state could enhance the acquisition of lands for recharge. () -

The Water Management District Role

20. The proper WMD role in water supply is planning and water resource development.
WMDs are not primarily in the water supply development business, but are not precluded
from providing assistance with water supply development (See consensus definitions). (L)

21. WMDs should account for cumulative impacts on water resources and manage those
resources in a manner to ensure their sustainability. (L)

22. WMDs could make WMD lands available for water supply, where not inconsistent with
the purposes for which the land was acquired. (L A









Reuse


23. Florida should maximize reuse. i -rA-The statutes already identify reuse as a state
objective. A meaningful legislative proposal would need more specificity than this
recommendation provides.

The Local Role

24. The proper local role (including local governments, regional water supply authorities, and
private utilities) in water supply is water supply development and not primarily water
resource development (see consensus definitions). However, this does not preclude local
assistance in water resource development. (L)

Minimum Flows and Levels

25. Establishment ofMFLs should be directed first to areas where water is being or will be
developed. (See Ex. Order 96-297) (L-oi A)

26. MFLS should be made a part of District Water Management Plans. They should be
accompanied by plans for their implementation and should be implemented in coordination
with water resource development and water supply development. (L)

27. New: One function ofMFLs should be to help us understand what is happening to the
resource in sufficient time to develop water supplies which will provide adequate water
for all reasonable-beneficial uses and prevent harm to water resources.

28. New: Create new section, 373.1715, F.S., to read:

373.1715 Minimum flows and levels; establishment and implementation.--
(1) If the existing flows or levels in a water body are below, or projected to fall
below, the applicable minimum flows or levels established pursuant to s. 373.042, the
department or governing board shall immediately initiate water resource development
strategies and other actions, consistent with the requirements aid authority in this chapter,
to:
(a) Prevent existing flows or levels from falling below the established minimum
flows or levels; or
(b) Achieve recovery to the established minimum flows or levels as soon as
practicable.

Any such strategies or actions shall include phasing or a timetable that will allow the
development and implementation of conservation or efficiency measures and water
resource development, including new or alternative water supplies, in conjunction with,
and to the extent practicable concurrent with, any reductions in permitted allocations or









current withdrawals of existing users. Withdrawals for new uses that would contribute to
a further decline below the established minimumflow or level shall not be authorized
{,except where they are part of the recovery strategy and where the new withdrawal and
use is otherwise consistent with the requirements of this chapter}.
(2) When establishing minimum flows and levels, consistent with the requirements
of s. 373.042, the department or governing board shall consider {take into account}
hydrologic changes that have occurred as a result of alterations to surface waters which
were authorized by a permit issued pursuant to part I or part IV or this chapter, which are
exempt from permitting under those provisions or which existed prior to those provisions,
and the constraints such alterations have had on the hydrology of an affected watercourse,
surface water body, or groundwaters. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
limit {or require} water resource restoration.
(3) The provisions of this section shall be considered supplemental to any other
specific requirements or authority provided by law.


REGULATION

Coordination

29. There should be a presumption of correctness or prudence by the PSC if DEP "approves"
an improvement by a utility. (L)

30. DEP and the PSC should consider developing a list of qualified reuse and other
equipment. (A)

31. The PSC, DEP, and the WMDs must coordinate their timeframes for cost recovery and
compliance with regulatory rules (especially for reuse). The PSC should allow a
reasonable time for cost recovery (length of planning period on which to base a calculation
of prudent costs). (L or-A

32. DEP and the WMDs must coordinate their feasibility requirements and criteria for reuse.
(The Reuse Coordinating Council meets regularly to address such issues.) (A)

33. DEP, the WMDs, and the Department of Health must coordinate their reuse criteria and
efforts. The Governor's Office should direct these agencies to do so through executive
order or other appropriate means. (A)

34. New: Amend s. 373.046, F.S., to read (L):

373.046 Interagency agreements.--
(5) Where the boundaries of a project or local government cross water
management district boundaries, the affected districts may designate one of them by









interagency agreement to implement, under the rules of the designated district, all or part
of the applicable regulatory responsibilities under chapter 373. The application, pursuant
to this provision, of any district rule which was adopted or formally noticed for adoption
on or before May 11, 1995. shall not be subject to s. 70.001.

Also, amend s. 373.2295, F.S., to read:

373.2295 Interdistrict transfers of groundwater.--
(14) The permitting provisions of this section are superseded by an interagency
agreement executed pursuant to s. 373.046(5).

Technical Considerations

35. DEP and the WMDs should explore the use of the new Administrative Procedures Act
waiver and variance provisions to keep up with changes in technology. 94 F

36. DEP and the WMDs should work with the Environmental Protection Agency and others
to solve technical and related legal obstacles to aquifer storage and recovery, etc. (A) ?

37. There should be accelerated research by WMDs, Universities, and others (cooperative
efforts where possible) to remove technical obstacles to the development of alternative
sources. (A) f

38. There should be scientific peer review at the front end for water supply-related research
and development, and for other processes, such as the technical aspects of water supply
planning, establishment of MFLs, etc. (LWoA) p

Long-term Consumptive Use Permits

39. New: Amend s. 373.236, F.S., to read:

373.236 Duration of permits.--
(1) Permits shall may be granted for a any period of time n t exueding 20 years.
if there is sufficient data to provide reasonable assurance that the amount of water
permitted will be available for the length of the permit. Permits may be issued for a
shorter duration, or during the term of the permit may be reviewed and modified, where
required by circumstances specific to the permit or as otherwise authorized by this
chapter. The governing board or the department may base the duration of permits on a
reasonable system of classification according to source of supply or type of use, or both.
(2) Five years after the issuance of a permit for ten years or more. and every five
years thereafter for the life of the permit, the governing board or the department shall give
notice in, accordance with s. 120.57. of opportunity to seek review of the permit to
address adverse impacts on existing legal users or water resources unanticipated at the









time of permit issuance. Members of the public shall have 14 days after the notice to
petition for review. If the governing board or department determines that good cause
exists for a petition received, it shall hold a hearing to consider. and order as necessary.
permit modifications to eliminate or prevent any unanticipated adverse impacts on existing
legal users or water resources.

Wellhead Protection

40. Wellhead protection should be encouraged to protect existing and future water supplies
and public health.









Unresolved Issues


D-1 Subcommittee proposal for simplification of planning process (to be submitted)

D-2 through D-5, Not Discussed--NOT CRITICAL TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS

D-8 Statement of objectives for water supply planning (to be subfnitted)

D-9 and D-10, Not Discussed--CONTROVERSIAL

D-12 MFLs (see proposal)

D-13 Long-term CUPs (see proposal)

D-14 Wellhead protection (consensus on first sentence, rest unresolved)

The City of Ocala recommends that the WMD identify to utilities potential wellfield
sites, which would then be included in the relevant local comprehensive plan, and that
these utilities collect revenues (fees, charges, rates), to be specifically earmarked for the
purchase of the identified wellfields to meet future growth needs. (This is a staff
paraphrase of the recommendation)

Statements regarding water resource development and water supply development. Proposals:

1. Water resource development should support water supply development and should be
conducted in a manner to help ensure the sustainability of water resources and of all
existing and projected reasonable-beneficial uses of water.

2. Water resource development should be conducted in supportive interaction with private
and public water users and water suppliers.

3. Water resource development should be based on aquifers and watershed basins, whenever
practicable.

4. Water supply development should be conducted in coordination with WMD regional
water supply planning and water resource development.





01/16/97 16:49 FAX 9046298391


o003


CITY OF OCALA

Interdepartmental Correspondence
Water & Sewer Administration

January 14, 1997

TO: Oel Wingo, Assistant City Manager

FROM: Henry K. I-icks, Water & Sewer Directo

SUBJECT: Water Supply Development Subcommittee Consensus Items Comments

C-2 State-level Role With regards to Water Supply Planning

There needs to be a clear distinction between what Water Supply Planning is and Water Resource
Planning. Supply being the responsibility of the individual utilities and Resource being the
responsibility of the State or WMD's.

D-6 Proposed Definitions (revised):

"Water Supply Development" definition is not complete. It ends at bottom of page and I could
not find where it was picked up again? This definition should also include a statement on
maintaining sustainability of water resource. In other words, if the utility sees that the resource is
being diminished by its over-pumping, the utility should take immediate corrective and remedial
actions including notifying regulatory agencies.

D-11

Funding should only be made for exotic or newly developed treatment technologies such as RO or
Desal. Funding should be partial and not the total needed to cover the cost of the project.
Funding should be to cover the costs above advanced conventional treatment costs.

C-17

Statement needs to be added to include in the role of the WMD "ensuring the sustainability of the
resources".

C-20

Nice statement but, doesn't give any guidance or direction. Problem with reuse is that law does
not dictate that reuse must be used when available. Law does not set minimum fees, rates, or
charges for reuse water sale. Prices for reuse vary from nonexistent to many completely different
types of structures (no consistency). This causes a problem for utilities in water plentiful areas to
get people to accept reuse (usually have to give it away in order to meet DEP or WMD CUP

RECEIVED

r4tU 16 1997


PIITV Mfo ntc


OCALA CITY MGR.





01/16/97 16:49 FAX 9046298391


requirements and then can't recover those costs). In addition, people in water plentiful areas can
just as easily have a well drilled instead of taking reuse at a price. This mentioned in C-25d but
sets no specifics.

C-27

Should not limit it to EPA but include all resources including private sector, universities, etc.

C-28a

Repeating what was stated in C-20, the problem with reuse is that law does not dictate that reuse
must (recommends) be used when available. Nor does the law set minimum fees, rates, or
charges for reuse water sale. Prices for reuse vary from nonexistent to many completely different
types of structures (no consistency). This causes a problem for utilities in water plentiful areas to
get people to accept reuse (usually have to give it away in order to meet DEP or WMD CUP
requirements and then can't recover those costs). In addition, people in water plentiful areas can
just as easily have a well drilled instead of taking reuse at a price. This mentioned in C-25d but
sets no specifics.

D-14 b

Recommend that as part of growth management plan the WMD identify potential well-field sites
to utilities and that these utilities collect revenues (fees, charges, rates) and that those fees, rate,
charges be specifically earmarked for the purchase those new well-fields to meet future growth
needs.


OCALA CITY MGR.


[004










Water Supply Development Core Group
Issue Identification and Draft Recommendations
January 10, 1997, Draft


Potential Recommendations for Further
Discussion:


Water Planning Process


**C-1. There is a need for simplification of the
water planning process (AT A MINIMUM, REVISE
THE STATUES TO PROVIDE FOR ONE PLAN AT THE
STATE LEVEL).


State-level Role With Regard to Water Supply
Planning

**C-2. There should be more focus on water supply
development and water resource development than
"frrently exists in state-level planning (NOT
LiANDS-ON INVOLVEMENT, BUT GUIDANCE) .


C-3. Water supply development and water
resource development should be addressed more
adequately in Florida Water Plan (FWP) and State
Water Policy (SWP) rule.








Regional Water Supply Planning

C-4. Lack of planning for water supply
development and water resource development is
not the primary problem, lack of plan
implementation is the problem.


D-1. Discuss subcommittee proposal for
simplification of the process.







D-2. Either a new entity or better implementation
by DEP with more resources.




D-3 Include timeframes in the Florida Water Plan
with regard to water supply planning and
development.

D-4. Include policy guidance in the FWP and SWP
rule adequate for FLWAC to deal with related
appeals.

D-5. Identify needs and sources in a single,
statewide document.


Planning Issues,
Consensus Recommendations:











Potential Recommendations for Further
Discussion:


Regional Water Sunnlv Plannine (cont.) I


C-5a. While there should be allowancefor
regional variations, there is a need for consistency
among the water management districts in
developing their regional water supply plans and
needs and sources assessments..

b. Use conventions committee approach for
achieving consistent process/format among WMDs
in developing regional water supply plans
(RWSPs), similar to conventions process for
District Water Management Plans.

c. Achieve consistency also through DEP general
supervisory authority and guidance of Governor's
Office. (See Executive Order 96-297.)


C-6. "Water resources development" and "water
supply development" should be distinguished from
each other and defined.


**D-6 Proposed Definitions (revised):

"Water resources development" means the
development and implementation of integrated
water resources management strategies using
aquifers and watershed basins as the planning units
and including the following: surface water and
groundwater data collection and evaluation; the
preparation of strategic plans; construction,
maintenance and operation of major public works
facilities to provide for flood control, surface and
underground storage, groundwater recharge
augmentation, and sustainability of all reasonable
and beneficial water uses: and supportive
interaction with to support private and public water
users and water suppliers.

"Water supply development" means the planning,
construction, maintenance, and operation of public
and private facilities for extraction of water from


Planning Issues,
Consensus Reconmnendations:


I 1










Planning Issues, Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations: Discussion:


Regional Water Supply Planning (cont.)


C-7 The function and effect of RWSPs should be:

a. To identify a menu of options for water supply
development from which to choose.

b. To identify water resource development
projects.

c. To provide action-oriented steps, with flexibility
but as much surety as possible for users.

d. To guide funding of water supply projects. For
instance, if a project is consistent with the plan, it
is eligible for specified funding. ("Consistent" is
not the legal chapter 163 meaning, but in concert
*th the plan, not at cross purposes with the plan,
,jmpatible.)
**C-8. The RWSP should identify means of
implementing nonregulatory parts of plans--a
forcing-action type ofplanning. (E.G., ACTUAL
DEVELOPMENT OF SUPPLIES--THIS INCLUDES
WHO WILL IMPLEMENT VARIOUS PROJECTS,
TIMEFRAMES, HOW IT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED,
AND SOURCES OF FUNDING)

C-9. Needs of self suppliers, including projected
future uses, should be addressed in WMD regional
water supply plans. It should be made clear that it
is a role of the WMDs to do this.


D-7. Regarding the general function of RWSPs,
consider language similar to that in s. 187.101, F.S.,
such as:

A regional water supply plan does not create
regulatory authority or authorize the adoption of
rules, criteria, or standards not otherwise authorized
by law. The provisions of the plan shall be
reasonably applied where they are environmentally,
economically, and technically feasible and no
specific goal or policy in the plan shall be construed
or applied in isolation from the other goals and
policies in the plan. The objective of the plan shall
be to meet the water supply needs of all existing
and future legal uses within the planning region in a
manner which sustains water resources and related
natural systems.

D-8. Statement of objectives for water supply
planning (Discuss subcommittee proposal).









,----
Planning Issues, Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Reconmnendations: Discussion:


Regional Water Sunnly Planning (cont.)


C-10. (Consistent with D-7) Portions ofRWSPs
could be adopted by rule, as appropriate, or rules
could be developed or amended to implement the
plan, to the extent of the WMDs' statutory
authorities. (THE PLAN WOULD NOT CONFER
AUTHORITY BUT WOULD REFLECT STRATEGIES
THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED UNDER EXISTING
AUTHORITIES.)

C- 11. There should be a linkage between regional
water supply planning and water regulation (E.G.,
A CONSUMPTIVE USE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULE-ADOPTED
PORTIONS OF THE PLAN IN ORDER TO BE
PERMITTABLE).

relationshipp Between Local Government
comprehensive Plans (LGCPs) and RWSPs

C-12. LGCP water supply element* needs to
indicate sources of water, based on RWSP or other
best available data.

*"general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage,
potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer
recharge element"

C-13. Local governments should be encouraged to
use sources identified in R WSPs


D-9. Require a water supply element in LGCPs.

D-10. Require that LGCPs be consistent with
RWSPs (rule-adopted portions, data?)

**D-11. DEP, the WMDs, DCA, local
governments, and others should focus on increasing
communication and providing early technical
assistance--and financial assistance where possible--
to ensure that local comprehensive plans and local
government actions are coordinated with WMD
needs and sources assessments and regional water
supply plans.










Planning Issues, Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations: Discussion:


Data for local water supply planning.

C-14. Data should come from the WMDs, unless
better data is available. WMD should be primary
source of data, but this would not prechlde a local
government from using more accurate data.

C-15. At a minimum, DCA should rely on the
WMDs for identification of sources.


Coordination Among Local Governments in NO RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPED
Water Supply Planning



Development Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

ite Role in Water Supply Development

C-16a. The state should assure protection of water
resources on state lands.

b. The state could enhance the acquisition of lands for
recharge.


WMD Role in Water Supply Development


**C-17. The proper WMD role in water supply is
planning and water resource development. WMDs are
not primarily in the water supply development business,
but are not precluded from providing assistance with
water supply development. (See consensus definitions
when finalized, D-6)










Development Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

WMD Role in Water Sunnlv Develonment


**C-18. WMDs should account for cumulative impacts
on water resources and manage the resources in a
sustainable manner.

**C-19. WMDs could make WMD lands available for
water supply, with appropriate safeguards.


Reuse

C-20. Florida should maximize reuse.


Local Role in Water Supply Development
**C-21. The proper local role (including local
governments, regional water supply authorities, and
privatee utilities) in water supply is water supply
developmentt and not primarily water resource
development (see consensus definitions when finalized,
D-6). However, this does not preclude local assistance
in water resource development.

Minimum Flows and Levels

**C-22. MFLs should be directed to areas where water
is being or will be developed. (See Ex. Order 96-297)

**C-23. MFLS should he integrated into District Water
Management Plans (IN CONJUNCTION WITH
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR MFLS, WATER SUPPLY
DEVELOPMENT, AND WATER RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT).

**C-24. One major goal ofMFLs should be to help us
understand what is happening to the resource in
sufficient time to focus efforts and money to provide
additional water supplies.


**D-12. If, at the time a MFL is established,
the water level is below the MFL, the WMD
shall immediately take action to develop and
implement a regional water supply plan to
achieve recovery of the MFL. In the absence
of irreparable, significant, or permanent harm
to the water resources, the plan to achieve
recovery shall include a timetable that will
allow the development of new supplies to
replace the reductions brought about by the
establishment of the MFL.












Regulatory Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

Regulatory Constraints on the Development of
Sustainable Water Supplies

C-25a. There should be a presumption of correctness
or prudence by the PSC ifDEP "approves" an
improvement by a utility.

b. The PSC should allow a reasonable time for cost
recovery (length of planning period on which to base a
calculation of prudent costs)

c. Perhaps have a DEP/PSC list of qualified reuse and
other equipment.

**d. PSC/DEP/WMDs MUST coordinate timeframes for
compliance and cost recovery (especially for reuse).

**C-26. AGENCIES SHOULD explore the use of the new
.-PA waiver and variance provisions to keep up with
changes in technology.

**C-27. AGENCIES SHOULD work with EPA to solve
technical and related legal obstacles for ASR, etc.


**C-28a. DEP and the WMDs MUST coordinate
feasibility requirements and criteria for reuse. (The
Reuse Coordinating Council meets regularly to address
such issues.)

**b. DEP, the WMDs, and the Dept. of Health MUST
coordinate reuse criteria and efforts. THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE SHOULD DIRECT THESE
AGENCIES TO DO SO THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDER OR
OTHER APPROPRIATE MEANS.


20










Regulatory Issues
Consensus Recommendations


Regulatory Contraints on the Development of
Sustainable Water Supplies. (cont.)


**C-29. WMDs should identify the areas of overlapping
jurisdiction where they have conflicting regulatory
criteria and plans and should coordinate with each
other to reduce or eliminate such conflicts; statutory
impediments to such coordination should be removed
and, if necessary, specific statutory authority (AND
DIRECTION?) should be provided to assure
coordination (POSSIBLY ALLOW DELEGATION
BETWEEN WMDS).


Technical Constraints on the Develonment of


Sustainable Water Supplies


C-30. There should be accelerated research by WMDs,
Universities, and others (cooperative efforts where
possible) to remove technical obstacles to the
development of alternative sources.

Scientific peer review

C-3 1. There should be scientific peer review at the
front end for research and development, and for other
processes, e.g,. technical aspects of planning, MFLs.

Consumptive use permit terms

**C-32. Long-term consumptive use permits are
acceptable where long-term supplies are available and
where there is adequate review to ensure against
adverse effects on the environment and on existing legal
users. (REVISED--SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION
PRIOR TO THE 1-10 MEETING)


Potential Recommendations for Further
Discussion


D-13. Discuss subcommittee proposal for
long-term CUPs. (subcommittee is to review
SJRWMD rules on long-term permits)


I










Regulatory Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Reconmmendations Discussion
Wellhead Protection **D-14. Subcommittee Proposal:

Wellhead protection should be encouraged to
protect existing and future water supplies and
public health. Because of the permeable sand
and porous limestone soil in Florida, the
groundwater is highly susceptible to
contamination from spills of hazardous or
toxic material. Established zones of
protection around wellfields that pump water
would restrict the use of regulated substances
such as solvents, gasoline, and pesticides to
help prevent contamination of the
groundwater by these materials.

In addition to well head protection, local
governments should include, as a provision of
future residential development, an allocation
or dedication of that development for water
supply to accommodate the increased demand.
This could include, within the existing open
space requirements, dedicated future wellfield
sites integrated within the development
design.


22





JAN-17-1997 13:47 FROM HOBBY,ANDERSON,& GREY


MEMORANDUM

TO: Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group

FROM: Clyde Hobby
Fred Reeves

DATE: January 17, 1997

RE: Comments to Minutes and Materials from December 18, 1997
Meeting


At the December 18, 1996 meeting, minimum flows and levels
were discussed in some detail my the members present. We add the
following comments:

1. Minimum flows and levels ("mfls") are a necessary tool to
preserve and renew the environment (lakes, ponds, aquifers,
wetlandss, etc.) and the water resource in areas of significant
groundwater withdrawals where environmental and water resource
damage has occurred.

2. While water supply plans and new regional sources
(including sources other than groundwater) may be desirable in
conjunction with implementation of minimum flows and levels, to tie
compliance with adopted mfls to the adoption of water supply plans
or new regional sources "coming on-line" may exacerbate the ongoing
and continuing damage to environmental systems and the water
resource. Water supply plans and new regional sources could take
years to develop, while the environment continues to degrade and
the water resource continues to sustain damage.

3. Mlls should become a component of the water management
districts' consumptive use permitting criteria, especially in
problem areas such as those described in paragraph 1.

4. If an applicant or permitted has difficulty meeting one
or more mfls, perhaps water management district rule criteria
should allow more leniency in meeting the mil or mfls if meaningful
progress can be shown in developing other sources.

5. Alternative sources to groundwater, such as desalination,
must be considered and developed if mfls cannot be met in and
around stressed areas at and in the vicinity of groundwater
withdrawals.


TOTAL P.02


19049225380 P.02/02




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