Title: Water Recommendations in Different Order, Dated Feb. 10, 1997 by Jake Varn
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004794/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Recommendations in Different Order, Dated Feb. 10, 1997 by Jake Varn
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Water Recommendations in Different Order, Dated Feb. 10, 1997 by Jake Varn (JDV Box 39)
General Note: Box 29, Folder 3 ( Water Supply Funding & Development - 1997 ), Item 18
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004794
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





CARLTON FIELDS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

215 SOUTH MONROE STREET. SUITE 500 MAILING ADDRESS:
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301-1866 POST OFFICE DRAWER 190
TEL (904) 224-1585 FAX (904) 222-0398 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32302-0190

February 10, 1997

VIA TELECOPY

MEMORANDUM

TO: Jim Garner

FROM: Jake Varn

RE: Water Recommendations

Attached is a copy of the proposed water recommendations.
These are the recommendations as circulated by Estus and Dan,
however, I have placed them in a different order. Again, I have
made no revisions to the proposed recommendations.

Also attached is a revised Recommendation 3. This is my
effort to make the Regional Water Supply Plans meaningful and
action-oriented.

I would appreciate your comments, suggestions and
observations on both of these documents.

JDV:dgb
Attachment


CARLTON. FIELDS. WARD. EMMANUEL. SMITH & CUTLER, P.A.
TAMPA ORLANDO PLNSACOLA TAIlAHfASSEE WEST PALM [BEACH S PLTLRSBUJRG









1 On pages 3 and 4, strike all of item 3 and insert the following:
2
3 3. The WMDs should conduct regional water supply planning in an
4 open public process, in coordination and cooperation with
5 local governments, private suppliers, self suppliers, and
6 other affected and interested parties. We recommend that
7 Chapter 373, F.S., be amended to direct the WMDs to develop
8 regional water supply plans, through a public process, and
9 require RWSPs to include, among other things, a water supply
10 development component and a water resource development
11 component.
12
13 a. The water supply development component shall include
14 the following:
15
16 (1) A quantification of the water supply development
17 needs for all existing and future users for the
18 selected planning horizon;
19
20 (2) A menu of options of water sources for water
21 supply development that will more than meet the
22 needs of the quantities identified in (1) above
23 and from which local government and water supply
24 decision makers may choose; and
25
26 (3) For each water supply development option on the
27 menu, an estimate of the costs of developing the
28 option, an estimate of the amount of water
29 available for use, and the identity of potential
30 sources of funding from the WMD.
31
32 b. The water resources development component shall include
33 the following:
34
35 (1) A listing of water resource development projects;
36 and
37
38 (2) A listing for each water resource development
39 project identifying (a) the timetable for
40 implementing or constructing the project, (b) the
41 estimated costs for implementing and maintaining,
42 (c) an estimate of the amount of water to be
43 available as a result of the project, (d) sources
44 of funding, (e) the existence of any funding
45 shortfall, (f) who will implement the project, and
46 (g) how the project will be implemented.
47
48 In addition, each RWSP shall include consideration of how
49 the option or options addressed result in overall cost
50 savings through avoiding the loss of natural resources or
51 avoiding greater expenditures later associated with other
52 potential high cost projects for water resource development
53 or water supply development.


Y#49713.1












GOVERNOR'S
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING WORK GROUP
Pursuant to Executive Order 96-297
Final Report
February 4, 1997 DRAFT


I. INTRODUCTION


Issues Background
Executive Order Charges
Formation of Committees
Problem statement/guiding principles
Acronym list


1 II. FINDINGS
2
3 The Work Group made two fundamental, related findings:
4
5 1. Lack of regional planning for water supply development and water
6 resource development is not the primary problem, lack of plan
7 implementation is the primary problem.
8
9 2. There is significant existing revenue-raising authority for water
10 projects at local, regional, and state levels. However, present and
11 projected water demands, limited natural systems, and growing
12 competition among water users suggest that additional revenue
13 sources are needed to address existing and potential problem areas
14 where supplies are or soon will be insufficient.
15
16 Two additional findings address complications in specific regions of the state:
17
18 3. The constitution caps the taxing authority of the Northwest Florida
19 Water Management District at 0.05 mills, which is one twentieth of
20 the taxing authority of the other water management districts. This
21 financial constraint seriously limits the district's ability to undertake
22 the development and implementation of regional water supply plans,
23 minimum flows and levels, and water resource development projects.


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am









DRAFT


1 4. The complexity and interdependency of water resource development,
2 water supply development, and the need for environmental protection
3 and restoration in the Lower East Coast are of such magnitude relative
4 to other areas in the state that this area may require special funding
5 sources and a different combination of sources than other areas.
6
7 II. RECOMMENDATIONS
8
9 The following Work Group recommendations are for both administrative and
10 legislative actions. Unless a recommendation specifically refers to legislative
11 enactment, it is intended to be implemented administratively.
12
13 STATE
14
15 Planning
16
17 1. There is a need for simplification and clarification of the statutory
18 water planning framework. We recommend that the Legislature
19 update Chapter 373, F.S., at a minimum to provide for one water plan
20 at the state level (rather than two). The following statutory
21 framework is proposed:
22
23 Revise section 373.036, F.S., to remove reference to the state water
24 use plan and to provide for:
25
26 a. Florida Water Plan--This would be the one state-level water
27 resources plan, addressing four areas of responsibility (water
28 quality, water supply, flood protection, and natural systems).
29 The Florida Water Plan would contain both Department of
30 Environmental Protection and Water Management District
31 objectives and strategies. The District Water Management
32 Plans would play a big role in the development of the FWP.
33 The FWP would include, among other things:
34
35 1) The State Water Policy rule (which should be renamed
36 the "Water Resources rule")
37
38 2) State water quality standards
39
40


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am









DRAFT


1 3) Report on the status of water supply planning (From Ex.
2 Order 96-297)
3
4 b. District Water Management Plans--These are detailed regional
5 water resources plans covering the four areas of responsibility.
6 DWMPs would include, among other things:
7
8 1) Needs and sources assessments and other technical data
9
10 2) Established minimum flows and levels
11
12 3) Regional water supply plans
13
14 2. There should be more guidance with regard to water supply
15 development and water resource development in state-level planning
16 than currently exists; not hands-on involvement, but adequate
17 guidance, based on statutory water policy. Specifically, water supply
18 development and water resource development should be addressed
19 more adequately in the Florida Water Plan and the State Water Policy
20 rule.
21
22 Development
23
24 3. We recommend that the Legislature amend s. 373.016, F.S., to
25 include a policy that the state assure protection of water resources on
26 state lands.
27
28 4. The state could enhance the acquisition of lands for recharge.
29
30 5. Florida should promote reuse to replace the use of limited supplies.
31
32
33 Regulation
34
35 6. We recommend that the Legislature establish by statute a
36 presumption of correctness or prudence by the Public Service
37 commission if DEP "approves" an improvement by a utility.
38
39 7. DEP and the PSC should consider developing a list of qualified reuse
40 and other equipment.


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am









DRAFT


1 8. We recommend that the Legislature direct the PSC, DEP, and the
2 WMDs by statute to coordinate their timeframes for cost recovery and
3 compliance with regulatory rules (especially for reuse); and direct the
4 PSC to allow a reasonable time for cost recovery (length of planning
5 period on which to base a calculation of prudent costs).
6
7 9. DEP and the WMDs must eliminate inconsistencies in their feasibility
8 requirements and criteria for reuse. (The Reuse Coordinating Council
9 meets regularly to address such issues.)
10
11 10. We recognize that local governments already have authority for
12 setting conservation rates. We recommend that the Legislature give
13 the PSC clear authority to set conservation rates for investor-owned
14 utilities. In addition, the DEP, WMDs, and PSC should work in
15 conjunction with investor-owned utilities to implement conservation
16 rate structures which provide incentives to customers to use less
17 water and which do not work as a disincentive to the utility to
18 promote conservation.
19
20 11. DEP, the WMDs, and the Department of Health must eliminate
21 inconsistencies in their reuse criteria and coordinate their efforts. We
22 recommend that the Governor's Office direct these agencies to do so
23 through executive order or other appropriate means.
24
25 12. DEP and the WMDs should explore the use of the new Administrative
26 Procedures Act waiver and variance provisions to keep up with
27 changes in technology.
28
29 13. DEP and the WMDs should work with the Environmental Protection
30 Agency and others to solve technical and related legal obstacles to
31 aquifer storage and recovery, etc.
32
33 Funding
34
35 14. The water resource problems and water supply development needs
36 vary so widely across the state that a mandatory set aside from
37 existing funding sources is not recommended.
38
39 15. It is in the long-term best interest of Florida for the Legislature to
40 adopt enabling legislation and to appropriate the required 20%


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am









DRAFT


1 matching funds to allow the use of a revolving loan fund through
2 access to new moneys available under the 1996 amendments to the
3 federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The following is the total amount of
4 funding under this program that is available to Florida:
5
6 a. State appropriation of $8.8 million for federal fiscal year 1997
7 generates a total of $57 million.
8
9 b. State appropriation of $6.9 million for federal fiscal year 1998
10 generates a total of $41 million.
11
12 c. Future allocations for each state will be based on a needs
13 assessment, which will likely increase the available funding for
14 Florida.
15
16 16. There should be additional funding to allow the districts or state to
17 assist in funding projects which contribute to the greater public good.
18 To be of "greater public good", a project must be of regional or
19 statewide significance, must be found to be consistent with the
20 relevant regional water supply plan and must:
21
22 a. Support establishment of a dependable, sustainable supply of
23 water which is not otherwise financially feasible;
24
25 b. Be environmentally superior to other available alternatives in
26 preventing or limiting adverse water resource impacts, but
27 requires funding assistance to make the alternative
28 economically competitive to other options; or
29
30 c. Significantly implement reuse, storage or conservation of water
31 in a manner which contributes to the sustainability of regional
32 water sources.
33
34 REGIONAL
35
36 Planning
37
38 17. The WMDs should conduct regional water supply planning in an open
39 public process, in coordination and cooperation with local
40 governments, private suppliers, self suppliers, and other affected and


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am









DRAFT


1 interested parties. We recommend that the Legislature direct the
2 WMDs by statute to develop regional water supply plans, through a
3 public process, and require RWSPs to include, among other things:
4
5 a. Water supply development needs and water sources for local
6 government and water supply decision makers; a menu of
7 options for water supply development from which to choose.
8
9 b. Needs of self suppliers, including projected future uses.
10
11 c. Identification of water resource development projects, action-
12 oriented steps for their implementation, and means of
13 implementing nonregulatory parts of plans. This includes who
14 will implement various projects, how they will be implemented,
15 and implementation schedules.
16
17 d. A financial section which includes an estimate of funding
18 needs, potential sources of funding, and the identification of
19 funding shortfalls for water supply development and water
20 resource development. When this involves multiple water
21 supply development options for local government and water
22 utilities, the WMD need only identify an estimated range of
23 funding needs, potential sources of funding, and funding
24 shortfalls.
25
26 e. Consideration of how the option or options presented will save
27 costs overall through avoiding the loss of natural resources or
28 avoiding greater future expenditures for higher-cost water
29 resource development or water supply development projects.
30
31 18. We recommend that the Legislature require the WMDs to adopt
32 portions of RWSPs by rule or order or develop or amend rules, if
33 necessary to implement the plan, to the extent of the WMDs'
34 statutory authorities. It should be made clear that a RWSP does not
35 confer authority, but reflects strategies to be implemented under
36 existing authorities.
37
38 19. We recommend that the Legislature establish a linkage between
39 regional water supply planning and water regulation. For instance, a
40 proposed consumptive use would have to be consistent (or not


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am









DRAFT


1 inconsistent) with the rule-adopted portions of the plan in order to be
2 permittable.
3
4 20. With allowance for regional variations, there should be some
5 consistency in process and format among the water management
6 districts in developing their regional water supply plans and needs and
7 sources assessments. DEP and the WMDs should form a working
8 group, to reach consensus on how to achieve this consistency where
9 practicable. DEP, through its general supervisory authority, should also
10 oversee this process, with guidance from the Governor's office (See
11 Executive Order 96-297; this process is being initiated by DEP).
12
13
14 Development
15
16 21. For purposes of this report we define and recommend that the
17 Legislature define, "water resource development" and "water supply
18 development" as follows:
19
20 "Water resource development" means the formulation and
21 implementation of regional water resource management strategies,
22 including the collection and evaluation of surface water and
23 groundwater data; non-structural programs to protect and manage
24 water resources; the development of regional water resource
25 implementation programs; the construction, operation, and
26 maintenance of major public works facilities to provide for flood
27 control, surface and underground water storage, and groundwater
28 recharge augmentation; and related technical assistance to local
29 governments and water utilities.
30
31 "Water supply development" means the planning, design,
32 construction, operation, and maintenance of public or private facilities
33 for water collection, treatment, transmission, and distribution for sale,
34 resale or end use.
35
36 22. Water resource development should support water supply
37 development and should be conducted in a manner to help ensure the
38 sustainability of water resources and of all existing and projected
39 reasonable-beneficial uses of water.
40


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am









DRAFT


1 23. Water resource development should be based on aquifers and
2 watershed basins, whenever practicable.
3
4 24. Water management districts are not primarily in the water supply
5 development business. We recommend the Legislature establish by
6 statute that the proper WMD role in water supply is primarily planning
7 and water resource development, but that this does not preclude them
8 from providing assistance with water supply development.
9
10 25. We recommend that the Legislature direct the water management
11 districts by statute to account for cumulative impacts on water
12 resources and manage those resources in a manner to ensure their
13 sustainability.
14
15 26. The water management districts should consider making district lands
16 available for water supply, where not inconsistent with the purposes
17 for which the land was acquired.
18
19 Regulation
20
21
22 27. In addition to the considerations for priority establishment of MFLs set
23 out in Executive Order 96-297, establishment of MFLs should be
24 directed to areas where water is being or will be developed.
25
26 28. MFLS should be made a part of District Water Management Plans.
27 They should be accompanied by plans for their implementation and
28 should be implemented in coordination with water resource
29 development and water supply development. (See also
30 recommendation 1)
31
32 29. One function of MFLs should be to help us understand what is
33 happening to the resource in sufficient time to develop water supplies
34 which will provide adequate water for all reasonable-beneficial uses
35 and prevent harm to water resources.
36
37 30. We recommend the Legislature direct by statute that:
38
39 a. If an existing flow or level in a water body is below, or is
40 projected to fall below, an established minimum flow or level,


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am









DRAFT


1 DEP or the WMD shall immediately implement a recovery or
2 prevention strategy, that includes water resource development
3 and other actions consistent with their existing authorities,
4 which will: achieve recovery to the established minimum flow
5 or level as soon as practicable; or prevent the existing flow or
6 level from falling below the established minimum flow or level.
7 b. The recovery or prevention strategy shall include phasing or a
8 timetable that will allow for water resource development and
9 water supply development, including new traditional or
10 alternative water supplies, and implementation of conservation
11 and other efficiency measures, in coordination with, and to the
12 extent practicable concurrent with, any reductions in permitted
13 allocations or withdrawals. (This is not intended to prohibit or
14 require reductions in permitted allocations or withdrawals.)
15
16 c. When establishing minimum flows and levels, DEP or the
17 WMDs shall consider alterations to surface waters which were
18 authorized by a permit issued under parts I or IV of Chapter
19 373, F.S., which are exempt from permitting under those
20 provisions, or which existed prior to those provisions, and any
21 effects such alterations have had, including any constraints
22 they have placed, on the hydrology of water courses, surface
23 water bodies, or groundwaters. This provision does not limit or
24 require water resource restoration.
25
26 31. We recommend that the Legislature authorize the WMDs to designate
27 through interagency agreement, with the concurrence of the affected
28 local government, a single affected WMD to implement under its rules
29 all or part of the applicable regulatory responsibilities under Chapter
30 373, in local governments which cross water management district
31 boundaries. We recommend the Legislature also confer this authority,
32 without requiring additional consent, where a WMD project crosses
33 WMD boundaries. We recommend the Legislature provide reasonable
34 exceptions to sections 70.001 and 373.2295, F.S., for the
35 application of this authority.
36
37 32. We recommend the Legislature provide by statute that, when reliable
38 data exists ensuring water supplies are sufficient for a 20-year period,
39 a permit shall be issued for that duration; that permits with a duration
40 of 10 years or more are subject to a recurring five-year review which


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am









DRAFT


1 gives the public the opportunity to seek limited review to address
2 unanticipated adverse impacts on existing legal users or water
3 resources; and that permit modifications to 20-year permits are not
4 subject to competing applications if there is no increase in the
5 permitted allocation or permit duration.
6
7 Alternative Language for Consideration: We recommend the
8 Legislature direct by statute that 20-year consumptive use permits
9 shall be issued when there is sufficient data to provide reasonable
10 assurance that the conditions for permit issuance will be met for the
11 duration of the permit. We recommend also that the Legislature
12 provide for reasonable review and any needed modification of these
13 long-term permits to ensure that permit conditions are being met, and
14 provide that modifications to these permits are not subject to
15 competing applications if there is no increase in the permitted
16 allocation or permit duration.
17
18
19 Funding
20
21
22 33. Water management districts should take the lead in identifying and
23 implementing water resource development projects; they should be
24 responsible for securing necessary funding for regionally significant
25 water resource development projects.
26
27 34. Regionally significant water supply projects serving a greater public
28 good may be funded from sources in addition to local water users and
29 other local funding sources.
30
31 35. We have preliminarily identified several potential dedicated and
32 recurring sources of funding for water resource development which
33 are candidates for future consideration. These potential funding
34 sources require analysis and assessment in conjunction with the
35 RWSPs. The unmet funding needs for water resource development
36 projects should be identified in the RWSPs pursuant to
37 recommendation 3. When the nature and scope of these unmet needs
38 have been determined, additional funding alternatives should be
39 considered based on justification presented by the requesting entity.
40


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am


___










DRAFT


1 The following table sets forth funding options for future consideration,
2 to be used primarily for water resource development:
3
POTENTIAL WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FUNDING OPTIONS (TABLE 1)

Option Who Who Pays? Who Spends? Estimated Amount Requirements
Collects
Allocate County Tax Real estate & loan Legislature 96/97 total = 826M Legislative
portion of doc Collector to financing 188.6M to Gen Rev authorization
stamp DOR customers potentially available for
water resource
development
Statewide State (DOR) Public (end WMDs Not yet determined Legislative
removal of consumers and authorization
sales tax water users)
exemption on
bottled water
Increase County tax Property owners in WMDs $87.5M/yr for all 5 No legislative
WMD ad collector to the district districts based on authorization
valorem tax WMDs legislative cap. needed
statutory **
caps
$101.6M state wide in
*NWFWMD addition to 87.5M above .Required
constitutional based on const cap legislative
cap limit authorization to
(0.05mil) constit. cap.
New Ad County tax Property owners in WMDs and/or To be determined Constitutional
Valorem tax collectors to WMD local govt. amendment
WMDs
and/or local
govt
Water Use WMDs Consumptive use WMDs Depends on rate per Legislative
fee permit holders 1000 gal. Assessed e.g. authorization
$.25/1000 gal if all dist
levied generates
$266.9M/yr for public
supply
Water use
fees
unmetered


Y#49726.3 021097 9:39 am










DRAFT


Option Who Who Pays? Who Spends? Estimated Amount Requirements
Collects
Statewide State (DOR) Public (end WMDs 270/M/yr (est at 6%) Legislative
removal of sales consumers and authorization
tax exemption water uses)
on wells and
utilities water
sales
State wide gross State (DOR) Utility- is passed WMDs Depends on rate. If Legislative
receipts tax on on to customers 2.5% is used, could authority
water be 11OM/yr.
Regulatory fees State or Co. Permit recipient State or Co. Estimated amount Legislative
minimal authorization
and/or county
ordinance
Franchise fees State or Franchise passed State or local To be determined Legislative
local govt. to customer govt. authorization
and/or contract
agreement
New taxes DOR Citizens Legislature To be determined Legislative
general revenue, authorization and
approp.
Congressional
appropriation
Congressional IRS Citizens of the State / WMD To be determined Congressional
appropriation U.S. could be substantial authorization and
approp.

1
2 36. The RWSPs could affect the existing water supply development projects of
3 local governments and private utilities. The RWSP should quantify these
4 impacts and identify unmet funding needs. These impacts which are
5 determined to be for the "greater public good" should be eligible for district
6 or state assistance either from existing funding sources or from the potential
7 Water Resource Development Funding sources listed in Recommendation 46.
8 Staff suggests that this recommendation be clarified.


Y#49726.3 021097 10:12 am









DRAFT


1 LOCAL
2
3 Planning
4
5 37. The LGCP infrastructure element (general sanitary sewer, solid waste,
6 drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element)
7 should indicate sources of water, based on the relevant RWSP or other best
8 available data.
9
10 38. Local governments should be encouraged to use water supply sources
11 identified in the relevant RWSP.
12
13 39. DEP, the WMDs, DCA, local governments, and others should increase
14 communication and provide early technical assistance--and financial
15 assistance where possible--to ensure that local comprehensive plans and
16 local government actions are coordinated with WMD needs and sources
17 assessments and regional water supply plans.
18
19 40. Data for local water supply planning should come from the WMDs, unless
20 better data is available. The WMD should be the primary source of data, but
21 this would not preclude a local government from using more accurate data.
22
23 41. In its review of local government comprehensive plans, DCA should rely, at
24 a minimum, on the WMDs for evaluation of identified water supply sources.
25
26
27 Development
28
29
30 42. We recommend the Legislature establish by statute that the proper local role
31 (including local governments, regional water supply authorities, and private
32 utilities) in water supply is primarily water supply development, but that this
33 does not preclude local assistance in water resource development.
34
35 43. Water supply development should be conducted in coordination with WMD
36 regional water supply planning and water resource development.
37
38


Y#49726.3 021097 10:13 am









DRAFT


1 Regulation
2
3
4 44. Wellhead protection should be encouraged, in order to protect existing and
5 future water supplies and public health.
6
7 Funding
8
9
10 45. Generally, direct beneficiaries of water supply development projects should
11 pay the costs of the projects from which they benefit.
12
13 46. Local governments and water utilities should take the lead in implementing
14 water supply development projects. Regionally significant water supply
15 development projects should continue to be paid for through local water
16 users and other local funding sources.
17
18 47. The unmet funding needs for water supply development projects have
19 largely been identified in local comprehensive plans and water utility plans.
20 While we made no attempt to quantify the total unmet funding needs,
21 consideration should be given to providing local governments and water
22 utilities additional revenue-raising options to meet planned needs which are
23 not inconsistent with the RWSPs.
24
25 48. We recommend that either of the two local-option funding sources identified
26 in the table below be further considered by the legislature to fund water
27 supply development requirements in local government comprehensive plans
28 and water utility plans, as may be requested by local government.
29
30 49. While we recommend that local referenda requirements not be attached to
31 any additional authority provided to local governments, we do recommend
32 that the Legislature establish the following policies to provide accountability
33 and equity:
34
35 a. Local governments should expressly articulate the public policy
36 considerations for selecting the new funding source, how the money
37 will be spent, and the relationship to other existing sources of funding
38 for water supply.
39
40 b. Local governments may use the new money on projects of primarily
41 local benefit, but if the project will have inter-jurisdictional impacts, it


Y#49726.3 021097 10:13 am


_~










DRAFT


1 must serve a regional purpose and be a joint project of the affected
2 public and private jurisdictions.
3
4 c. Where customers of private utilities and government-owned utilities
5 contribute to local option funding sources designated for water supply
6 development, the utilities serving these customers shall be entitled to
7 share equitably in the proceeds of the funds.
8
9 d. These new funds must not be used to replace, supplant, or support
10 the diversion of existing funding for water projects for use on projects
11 or activities unrelated to water supply development, treatment,
12 retreatment or distribution.
13
14 50. We identified several potential new dedicated and recurring local sources of
15 funding for water supply development. The following table sets forth
16 funding options for future consideration, to be used primarily for water
17 supply development:

POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FUNDING OPTIONS (TABLE 2)

Option Who Collects Who Pays? Who Spends? Estimated Amount Requirements
Water Utilities with Utility customer Local govt./ Could be designed Legislative authority
conversation state utilities to generate any to PSC for Investor
Rate Structure oversight targeted $$ amount owned utilities.
needed Local ordinance by
governing body for
implementation
Statewide State (DOR) Public (end WMDs Not yet determined Legislative
removal of sales consumers and authorization
tax exemption water users)
on bottled water
Local option State (DOR) Public (end Local govt./ $270 M/yr (est.) At Legislative repeal
removal of sales consumer) utilities 6% (statewide. exemption from 6%
tax exemption local amounts sales tax on water,
on wells and would vary based bottled water and
utilities water on local utility provided water
sales. implementation)
Local option State (DOR) Utility is passed Local govt & Depends on rate. If Legislative
gross receipts on to customers utilities 2.5% is used, could authorization
tax on water be 110M/yr
Private Investor Private investors IOUs and unlimited
investment owner utilities or private/public partners
partners
Special Local govt. Property owners Local govt. To be determined Local
Assessments in affected area ordinance/referendum


Y#49726.3 021097 10:13 am









DRAFT


1 51. When implementing a water resource development project would be more
2 economically or environmentally sound than implementing one or more water
3 supply development projects, the local government or water utility may elect
4 to provide local-option funds for support of water resource development.
5
6 52. If a water supply development project is not considered under a RWSP to
7 be of "greater public good," the local government or water utility may elect
8 to use local-option funding to cover the project costs.
9
10 OTHER
11
12 53. There should be accelerated research by WMDs, Universities, and others
13 (cooperative efforts where possible) to remove technical obstacles to the
14 development of alternative sources.
15
16 54. There should be early scientific peer review for water supply-related research
17 and development, water supply planning, establishment of MFLs, and other
18 technical processes.
19
20
21
22 IV. CONTINUING ISSUES
23
24
25
26
27
28 V. APPENDICES
29
30
31
32


Y#49726.3 021097 10:14 am




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