Title: Revised List of Draft Recommendations and Discusssion Items and Results of the Consensus Testing on the December 12 Draft of the Recommendations
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004628/00001
 Material Information
Title: Revised List of Draft Recommendations and Discusssion Items and Results of the Consensus Testing on the December 12 Draft of the Recommendations
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Revised List of Draft Recommendations and Discusssion Items and Results of the Consensus Testing on the December 12 Draft of the Recommendations (JDV Box 70)
General Note: Box 24, Folder 3 ( Water Supply Development and Funding - 1996-1997 ), Item 30
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004628
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
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53 .


ArrAc4cD


MEMORANDUM


FROM:

TO:


DATE:


Jake Varn and David Guest

Water Supply Development Core Committee


Ia CVari
SO Copy


January 10 Meeting

January 3, 1997


Happy new year to all of you. Attached are a revised list of draft recommendations and
discussion items (January 2 draft) and the results of the consensus testing on the December 12
draft of the recommendations. Please refer to your December 12 draft when reviewing these
results.

As you know, the next meeting of the full group and the core committees has been moved to
January 10. It will be held in Tallahassee at the PSC building (Betty Easely Conference Center),
room 171, from 9:00 to 3:00, At our core committee meeting we plan to finalize the draft
recommendations, determine the remaining issues to be resolved, and make final subcommittee
assignments. The agenda and a detailed summary of the December 18 meeting will be available at
the January 10 meeting.

The Funding Core Committee will meet oh January 9 as well as on January 10. The January 9
meeting will be held in Tallahassee, room 171 of the Betty Easely Conference Center, rom 9:00 to
3:00, You are welcome to participate in this meeting.

We look forward to seeing you on the 10th.

JV/DG/tp

Attachments
cc: Estus Whitfield
Dan Stengle
Paula Allen
Funding Core Committee


BL(f (t0otCte( -



1So~ite pe~JbiPftaLT,~


T 1~M CtA


WbfDL Svp -So 'f 1D


UIJMW ) "-L0PA1) tv l l4 (LtD& IA W) rT.


Jan 5 '97


1:21 P.01/12





ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53


Water Supply Development Subcommittee
S 12/13/96


Mr. Joseph W. Adcock, AICP, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., Phone: 941/351-7100, FAX: 941/355-5311
Mr. Chuck Aller, DACS, Phone: 488-3022, FAX: .488-7585
Ms. Eva Armstrong, Florida Audubon Society, Phone: 222-2473, FAX: 224-6056
Mr. Butch Calhoun, FL Fruit & Vegetable Asssoc., Phone: 877-3181, FAX: 877-0981
Mr. Bram Canter, WCRWSA, Phone: 222-3533, FAX: 222-2126
Ms. JoAnn Chase, Public Service Commission, Phone: .413-7003, FAX: 413-7004
Ms. Sherry Coven, FL Regional Councils Assoc., Phone: 488-6211, FAX: 488-1616
Mr. David Guest, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Phone: 681-0031. FAX: 681-0020
Mr. Wade Hopping, Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, Phone: 222-7500, FAX: 224-8551
Mr. Philip Leary, AICP, FL Farm Bureau, Phone: 352/374-1522, FAX: 352/374-1501
Mr. Dexter Lehtinen, Lehtinen, O'Donnell, Fargas & Reiner, Phone: 305/279-1166, FAX: 305/279-1365
Mr. Chuck Littlejohn, FL Chamber, FES, Phone: 222-7535, FAX: 681-8796
Ms. Janet LLewellyn, Office of Water Policy, FDEP, Phone: 488-0784, FAX: 922-5380
Mr. John McCue,., Phone: 926-8876, FAX:. 926-2071
Mr. Charles Pattison, Dept. of Community Affairs, Phone: .488-2356, FAX: 488-3309
Mr. Fred Rapach, Palm Beach Cty Water Dept. Phone: 407/641-3429, FAX: 407/641-3472
Mr. Jack Shreve, Ofc. of Public Counsel, Phone: 488-9330. FAX: 488-4491
Mr. Mike Slayton, SFWMD, Phone: 561/687-6540, FAX: 561/687-6200
Mr. Jackson Sullivan, Withlacoochee Regional Wtr. Supply Authority, Phone: 224-5366, FAX: 222-0398
Mr. Jake Van, Carlton, Fields, Phone: 224-1585, FAX: 222-0398
Mr. Oel Wingo, Phone: 352/629-8401, FAX: 352/629-8391


Water Supply Funding Subcommittee
12/13/96

Mr. Gene Adams, FL Associate of Realtors, Phone: 904/224-1400. FAX: 904/224-0701
Ms. Debbie Drake, The Nature Conservancy, Phone: FAX: 222-0973
Mr. Mercer Fearington, Phone: 224-1215: FAX: 222-8826
Ms. Casey Gluckman, Gluckman & Gluckman, Phone: 421-0152, FAX: 421-2426
Ms. Jane Hayman, FL League of Cities, Phone: 222-9684, FAX: 222-3806
Mr. Keith Hetrick, FL Home Builders Assoc.: Phone: 224-4316, FAX: 224-1359
Mr. Dexter Lehtinen. Lehtinen, O'Donnell, argas & Reiner, Phone: 305/279-1166, FAX: 305/279-1365
Ms. Pam McVety, FDEP, Phone: 488-7454!, FAX: 414-0060
Mr. Philip Parsons,, Phone: 681-0311, FAX: 224-5595
Mr. Roy A. Reynolds, Broward Cty Water Mgmt., Phone: 954/831-0767, FAX: 954/831-0708
Mr. Bill Segal, SJRWMO Governing Brd., Phone: 904/329-4500, FAX: 904/329-4125
Mr. Jack Shreve, Ofc. of Public Counsel, Phone: 488-9330; FAX: 488-4491
Mr. E.D. ""Sonny" Vergara, Peace River/Manasota Regional, Phone: 941/741-3049, FAX: 941/741-3058
Mr. Steve Walker, Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A., Phone: 561/640-0820, FAX: 561/640-8202
Mr. John Williams, Public Service Commission, Phone: 413-6986, FAX: 413-6987


Jan 5 '97


1:22 P. 02/12





ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53


Jan 5 '97 1:22 P.03/12


Water Supply Development Core Group
Issue Identification and Draft Recommendations
January 2, 1997, Draft


Planning Issues, Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion:


Water Planning Process


**C-1. There is a needfor 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 Sunnlv


Planning


**C-2. There should be more focus on water supply
than currently exists in state-levelplanning (NOT
HANDS-ON INVOLVEMENT, BUT GUIDANCE).


C-3. Water supply 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 water supply planning is not the
problem, lack ofplan 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.


---





ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53


Planning Issues.
Consensus Recommendations:


Regional Water Supply Planning (cont.)


C-5a. There is a needfor consistency in regional
water supply planning, needs and sources
assessments, with regard for regional variations.

b. Use conventions committee approachfor
achieving consistent process/format among WMDs i
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 distinguishedfrom
each other and defined


Potential Recommendations for Further
Discussion:


*"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 t 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
watersheds and aquifers for local treatment,
transmission, and distribution for resale or end use.


__ _1 __


Jan 5 '97 1:23 P.Q-4/12




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53


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

c. 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
with the plan, not at cross purposes with the plan,
compatible.)


"C-8. The RWSP should identify means of
implementing nonregulatory parts ofplans-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 iU
is a role of the WMDs to do this.


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.)


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).


Jan 5 '97


1:23 P. 35/12





ECOSYSTEM MRNRGEMENT Fax:904-922-53


Potential Recommendations for Further
Discussion:


Reyionnl Water Sunnlv Plannine (cont.


C- 1. 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).

Relationship 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 groundaer aquifer
recharge element"

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




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 preclude a local
government from using more accurate data.

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


.Coordination Among Local Governments in
Water Suonlv Planning.


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.












NO RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPED


Planning Issues,
Consensus Recommendations:


I I


- --


Jan 5 '97 1:23 P.06/12




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53 Jan 5 '97 1:24 P. 07/12




Development Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

State Role in Water Supply Develonment

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)

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 availablelfor
water supply, with appropriate safeguards.


JReuse

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
private utilities) in water supply is water supply
development and not primarily water resource
development (see consensus definitions when finalized,
D-6). However, this does not prechtde local assistance
inh water resource development.




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53


Development Issues
Consensus Recommendations


Potential Rlecommendations for Further
SDiscussion


Minimum Flows and Levels


S**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 be integrated into District Water
Management Plans (IN CONJUNCTION wrTH
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR MFLS AND FOR WATER
SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT).

**C-24. One major goal of MFLs 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.


*~9D2. Where, at the time of its
establishment, a MFL is already below the
limit at which it is established and the resource
is recoverable, the WMD shall immediately
take action to develop or implement an
existing regional water supply plan to achieve
recovery of the established minimum flow or
level as soon as practicable and provide
adequate water supplies for all existing and
projected reasonable-beneficial uses. The plan
shall contain reasonable short-term and long-
term measures and a reasonable timetable for
achieving recovery and for developing
adequate water supplies.

(SUBJECT TO REVISION PRIOR TO THE I-10
MEETING)


______


Jan 5 '97


1:24 P. 03/12





ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53 Jan 5 '97 1:25 r. '9/12


Regulator 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 ofqualified reuse and
other equipment.

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

**C-26. AGENCIES SHOULD explore the use of the new
APA 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 j
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 lMUST
coordinate reuse criteria and efforts. THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE SHOULD DIRECT THESE
AGENCIES TO DO SO THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDER OR
OTHER APPROPRIATE MEANS.




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53


Regulatory Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

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


**C-29. WMDs should identify the common boundary
areas 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 Development 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 ofalternative sources.
Scientific peer review

C-31. There should be scientific peer review at the
front end for research and development, andfor other
processes, e.g,. technical aspects ofplanning, 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. (REVISEU--SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION
PRIOR TO THE 1-10 MEETING)


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


Jan 5 '97


1:25 P. 10/12




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53 Jan 5 '97 1:25 11/12




Regulatory Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations 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.




S ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53


KEYED TO THE DECEMBER 12 DRAFT
OF THE CORE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group

Consensus Testing Results

The Core Group was asked to rate the acceptability of 23 draft
recommendations from the Development Committee at the December 18th
meeting using the following scale:

5 = Wholeheartedly support
4 = Good, but could be better
3 = Neutral, there are pros and cons
2 = Serious concerns
1 = Opposed
0 = I don't have enough information to make a judgment


Recom- Funding Core Group
mendation 5 4 3 2 1 0


521100
5 2 1 1 0 0
430200
2 5 2 1 0 1
4 3 0 2 0 0
3 3 3 1 0 0

1 4 4 2 0 0
3 4 2 1 0 0
342100
4 4 1 1 0 0
5 4 0 0 0 1
3 5 1 1 0 0

4 6 1 0 0 0
351100
461000
560000



3 6 1 0 0 0
5 4 0 0 1 0


7 2 0 0 0 0
3 4 3 0 0 0
9 2 0 0 0 0
4 4 1 0 0 1
540000



4 6 0 0 0 0
6 4 0 1 0 0
720000
343000
920000
441001
460000
640100


Dev. Core Group
54321


8 2 0
820

6 5 1

7 3 2
5 4 2
732

5 4 2
542
5 4 1
5 7 0
8 2 2
822
11 1 0
10 1 0
9 2 1
3 3 4
9 3 2

9 3 2
8 4 0
9 2 1
8 3 1
10 1 0
8 2 0
6 5 10
6 4 1
334
932

932

921
831
10 1 0
820
641


0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0


KEYED TO THE DECEMBER 12 DRAFT OF THEi CUKE WUmiTTEE'S RECOmMUNDATIONS


Avg.

4.53
4.32
4.24
4.21
4.10

3.82
4.18
4.25
4,41
4.27

4.61
4.68
4,57
3.95
4.52

4.43
4.48
4.47
4.32
4.86
4.58
4.48
4.30


Jan 5 '97


1:25 P.12/12




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