TO: Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group
Core Committee Members
FROM: Estus Whitfield and Dan Stengle
RE: Draft Consolidated Recommendations
DATE: February 4, 1997
Attached is the draft of the consolidated recommendations from the two core
committees. It contains some editing of language and some rearrangement of
recommendations. Please review it for consistency with the committees' intent
and with what you think would be most universally acceptable.
At the committees' direction, no statutory language is included in this draft. Where
a recommendation was identified to be legislative by consensus, the language
indicates specific legislative action, rather than just denoting an L. This will give
you a chance to consider what you really want to see in statute. The remaining
recommendations are intended for administrative and voluntary action.
Please prepare amendments using the attached form. You may want to copy it so
that you can prepare multiple amendments. The deadline for amendments is 12:00
noon on Monday, February 10. Please fax your amendments to Paula Allen at
As we requested for the previous meeting, suggest amendments that you believe
will make the recommendations acceptable to the most people. The core group
members will receive the complete packet of amendments no later than 10:00 a.m.
on Wednesday, February 12.
This draft does not include the introduction to the report or the section on
continuing issues, but these sections will be available on the 14th, or perhaps
sooner. An outline of the introduction is included in the draft recommendations.
After reviewing the list of potential "findings" with staff, there really seemed to be
only four which would be considered findings. The statements that fell
somewhere in between findings and recommendations were left as
Please contact Paula Allen at (904)488-5551 if you have questions or comments.
AMENDMENT FORM: WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING
Sponsor: Recommendation #:
, line strike
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING WORK GROUP
Pursuant to Executive Order 96-297
February 4, 1997 DRAFT
Executive Order Charges
Formation of Committees
Problem statement/guiding principles
1 II. FINDINGS
3 The Work Group made two fundamental, related findings:
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.
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.
16 Two additional findings address complications in specific regions of the state:
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.
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.
7 II. RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
15 The State Role
17 1. There is a need for simplification and clarification of the statutory water
18 planning framework. We recommend that the Legislature update Chapter
19 373, F.S., at a minimum to provide for one water plan at the state level
20 (rather than two). The following statutory framework is proposed:
22 Revise section 373.036, F.S., to remove reference to the state water use
23 plan and to provide for:
25 a. Florida Water Plan--This would be the one state-level water
26 resources plan, addressing four areas of responsibility (water
27 quality, water supply, flood protection, and natural systems).
28 The Florida Water Plan would contain both Department of
29 Environmental Protection and Water Management District
30 objectives and strategies. The District Water Management
31 Plans would play a big role in the development of the FWP.
32 The FWP would include, among other things:
34 1) The State Water Policy rule (which should be renamed
35 the "Water Resources rule")
37 2) State water quality standards
39 3) Report on the status of water supply planning (From Ex.
40 Order 96-297)
1 b. District Water Management Plans--These are detailed regional
2 water resources plans covering the four areas of responsibility.
3 DWMPs would include, among other things:
5 1) Needs and sources assessments and other technical data
7 2) Established minimum flows and levels
9 3) Regional water supply plans
11 2. There should be more guidance with regard to water supply
12 development and water resource development in state-level planning
13 than currently exists; not hands-on involvement, but adequate
14 guidance, based on statutory water policy. Specifically, water supply
15 development and water resource development should be addressed
16 more adequately in the Florida Water Plan and the State Water Policy
19 Regional Water Supply Planning
21 3. The WMDs should conduct regional water supply planning in an open
22 public process, in coordination and cooperation with local
23 governments, private suppliers, self suppliers, and other affected and
24 interested parties. We recommend that the Legislature direct the
25 WMDs by statute to develop regional water supply plans, through a
26 public process, and require RWSPs to include, among other things:
28 a. Water supply development needs and water sources for local
29 government and water supply decision makers; a menu of
30 options for water supply development from which to choose.
32 b. Needs of self suppliers, including projected future uses.
34 c. Identification of water resource development projects, action-
35 oriented steps for their implementation, and means of
36 implementing nonregulatory parts of plans. This includes who
37 will implement various projects, how they will be implemented,
38 and implementation schedules.
1 d. A financial section which includes an estimate of funding
2 needs, potential sources of funding, and the identification of
3 funding shortfalls for water supply development and water
4 resource development. When this involves multiple water
5 supply development options for local government and water
6 utilities, the WMD need only identify an estimated range of
7 funding needs, potential sources of funding, and funding
10 e. Consideration of how the option or options presented will save
11 costs overall through avoiding the loss of natural resources or
12 avoiding greater future expenditures for higher-cost water
13 resource development or water supply development projects.
15 4. We recommend that the Legislature require the WMDs to adopt
16 portions of RWSPs by rule or order or develop or amend rules, if
17 necessary to implement the plan, to the extent of the WMDs'
18 statutory authorities. It should be made clear that a RWSP does not
19 confer authority, but reflects strategies to be implemented under
20 existing authorities.
22 5. We recommend that the Legislature establish a linkage between
23 regional water supply planning and water regulation. For instance, a
24 proposed consumptive use would have to be consistent (or not
25 inconsistent) with the rule-adopted portions of the plan in order to be
28 6. With allowance for regional variations, there should be some
29 consistency in process and format among the water management
30 districts in developing their regional water supply plans and needs and
31 sources assessments. DEP and the WMDs should form a working
32 group, to reach consensus on how to achieve this consistency where
33 practicable. DEP, through its general supervisory authority, should also
34 oversee this process, with guidance from the Governor's office (See
35 Executive Order 96-297; this process is being initiated by DEP).
1 Local Government Planning
3 7. The LGCP infrastructure element (general sanitary sewer, solid waste,
4 drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge
5 element) should indicate sources of water, based on the relevant
6 RWSP or other best available data.
8 8. Local governments should be encouraged to use water supply sources
9 identified in the relevant RWSP.
11 9. DEP, the WMDs, DCA, local governments, and others should increase
12 communication and provide early technical assistance--and financial
13 assistance where possible--to ensure that local comprehensive plans
14 and local government actions are coordinated with WMD needs and
15 sources assessments and regional water supply plans.
17 10. Data for local water supply planning should come from the WMDs,
18 unless better data is available. The WMD should be the primary
19 source of data, but this would not preclude a local government from
20 using more accurate data.
22 11. In its review of local government comprehensive plans, DCA should
23 rely, at a minimum, on the WMDs for evaluation of identified water
24 supply sources.
28 12. For purposes of this report we define and recommend that the
29 Legislature define, "water resource development" and "water supply
30 development" as follows:
32 "Water resource development" means the formulation and
33 implementation of regional water resource management strategies,
34 including the collection and evaluation of surface water and
35 groundwater data; non-structural programs to protect and manage
36 water resources; the development of regional water resource
37 implementation programs; the construction, operation, and
38 maintenance of major public works facilities to provide for flood
39 control, surface and underground water storage, and groundwater
40 recharge augmentation; and related technical assistance to local
41 governments and water utilities.
1 "Water supply development" means the planning, design,
2 construction, operation, and maintenance of public or private facilities
3 for water collection, treatment, transmission, and distribution for sale,
4 resale or end use.
6 13. Water resource development should support water supply
7 development and should be conducted in a manner to help ensure the
8 sustainability of water resources and of all existing and projected
9 reasonable-beneficial uses of water.
11 14. Water resource development should be based on aquifers and
12 watershed basins, whenever practicable.
14 15. Water supply development should be conducted in coordination with
15 WMD regional water supply planning and water resource
18 The State Role
19 (See also recommendations 1 and 2)
21 16. We recommend that the Legislature amend s. 373.016, F.S., to
22 include a policy that the state assure protection of water resources on
23 state lands.
25 17. The state could enhance the acquisition of lands for recharge.
27 18. Florida should promote reuse to replace the use of limited supplies.
29 The Water Management District Role
31 19. Water management districts are not primarily in the water supply
32 development business. We recommend the Legislature establish by
33 statute that the proper WMD role in water supply is primarily planning
34 and water resource development, but that this does not preclude them
35 from providing assistance with water supply development.
37 20. We recommend that the Legislature direct the water management
38 districts by statute to account for cumulative impacts on water
39 resources and manage those resources in a manner to ensure their
1 21. The water management districts should consider making district lands
2 available for water supply, where not inconsistent with the purposes
3 for which the land was acquired.
4 The Local Role
6 22. We recommend the Legislature establish by statute that the proper
7 local role (including local governments, regional water supply
8 authorities, and private utilities) in water supply is primarily water
9 supply development, but that this does not preclude local assistance
10 in water resource development.
12 Minimum Flows and Levels
14 23. In addition to the considerations for priority establishment of MFLs set
15 out in Executive Order 96-297, establishment of MFLs should be
16 directed to areas where water is being or will be developed.
18 24. MFLS should be made a part of District Water Management Plans.
19 They should be accompanied by plans for their implementation and
20 should be implemented in coordination with water resource
21 development and water supply development. (See also
22 recommendation 1)
24 25. One function of MFLs should be to help us understand what is
25 happening to the resource in sufficient time to develop water supplies
26 which will provide adequate water for all reasonable-beneficial uses
27 and prevent harm to water resources.
29 26. We recommend the Legislature direct by statute that:
31 a. If an existing flow or level in a water body is below, or is
32 projected to fall below, an established minimum flow or level,
33 DEP or the WMD shall immediately implement a recovery or
34 prevention strategy, that includes water resource development
35 and other actions consistent with their existing authorities,
36 which will: achieve recovery to the established minimum flow
37 or level as soon as practicable; or prevent the existing flow or
38 level from falling below the established minimum flow or level.
1 b. The recovery or prevention strategy shall include phasing or a
2 timetable that will allow for water resource development and
3 water supply development, including new traditional or
4 alternative water supplies, and implementation of conservation
5 and other efficiency measures, in coordination with, and to the
6 extent practicable concurrent with, any reductions in permitted
7 allocations or withdrawals. (This is not intended to prohibit or
8 require reductions in permitted allocations or withdrawals.)
10 c. When establishing minimum flows and levels, DEP or the
11 WMDs shall consider alterations to surface waters which were
12 authorized by a permit issued under parts I or IV of Chapter
13 373, F.S., which are exempt from permitting under those
14 provisions, or which existed prior to those provisions, and any
15 effects such alterations have had, including any constraints
16 they have placed, on the hydrology of water courses, surface
17 water bodies, or groundwaters. This provision does not limit or
18 require water resource restoration.
24 27. We recommend that the Legislature establish by statute a
25 presumption of correctness or prudence by the Public Service
26 Commission if DEP "approves" an improvement by a utility.
28 28. DEP and the PSC should consider developing a list of qualified reuse
29 and other equipment.
31 29. We recommend that the Legislature direct the PSC, DEP, and the
32 WMDs by statute to coordinate their timeframes for cost recovery and
33 compliance with regulatory rules (especially for reuse); and direct the
34 PSC to allow a reasonable time for cost recovery (length of planning
35 period on which to base a calculation of prudent costs).
37 30. DEP and the WMDs must eliminate inconsistencies in their feasibility
38 requirements and criteria for reuse. (The Reuse Coordinating Council
39 meets regularly to address such issues.)
1 31. DEP, the WMDs, and the Department of Health must eliminate
2 inconsistencies in their reuse criteria and coordinate their efforts. We
3 recommend that the Governor's Office direct these agencies to do so
4 through executive order or other appropriate means.
6 32. We recommend that the Legislature authorize the WMDs to designate
7 through interagency agreement, with the concurrence of the affected
8 local government, a single affected WMD to implement under its rules
9 all or part of the applicable regulatory responsibilities under Chapter
10 373, in local governments which cross water management district
11 boundaries. We recommend the Legislature also confer this authority,
12 without requiring additional consent, where a WMD project crosses
13 WMD boundaries. We recommend the Legislature provide reasonable
14 exceptions to sections 70.001 and 373.2295, F.S., for the
15 application of this authority.
18 Technical Considerations
20 33. DEP and the WMDs should explore the use of the new Administrative
21 Procedures Act waiver and variance provisions to keep up with
22 changes in technology.
24 34. DEP and the WMDs should work with the Environmental Protection
25 Agency and others to solve technical and related legal obstacles to
26 aquifer storage and recovery, etc.
28 35. There should be accelerated research by WMDs, Universities, and
29 others (cooperative efforts where possible) to remove technical
30 obstacles to the development of alternative sources.
32 36. There should be early scientific peer review for water supply-related
33 research and development, water supply planning, establishment of
34 MFLs, and other technical processes.
1 Long-term Consumptive Use Permits
3 37. We recommend the Legislature provide by statute that, when reliable
4 data exists ensuring water supplies are sufficient for a 20-year period,
5 a permit shall be issued for that duration; that permits with a duration
6 of 10 years or more are subject to a recurring five-year review which
7 gives the public the opportunity to seek limited review to address
8 unanticipated adverse impacts on existing legal users or water
9 resources; and that permit modifications to 20-year permits are not
10 subject to competing applications if there is no increase in the
11 permitted allocation or permit duration.
13 Alternative Language for Consideration: We recommend the
14 Legislature direct by statute that 20-year consumptive use permits
15 shall be issued when there is sufficient data to provide reasonable
16 assurance that the conditions for permit issuance will be met for the
17 duration of the permit. We recommend also that the Legislature
18 provide for reasonable review and any needed modification of these
19 long-term permits to ensure that permit conditions are being met, and
20 provide that modifications to these permits are not subject to
21 competing applications if there is no increase in the permitted
22 allocation or permit duration.
25 Wellhead Protection
27 38. Wellhead protection should be encouraged, in order to protect existing
28 and future water supplies and public health.
32 General principles
34 39. Generally, direct beneficiaries of water supply development projects
35 should pay the costs of the projects from which they benefit.
37 40. Water management districts should take the lead in identifying and
38 implementing water resource development projects; they should be
39 responsible for securing necessary funding for regionally significant
40 water resource development projects.
1 41. Local governments and water utilities should take the lead in
2 implementing water supply development projects. Regionally
3 significant water supply development projects should continue to be
4 paid for through local water users and other local funding sources.
6 42. Regionally significant water supply projects serving a greater public
7 good may be funded from sources in addition to local water users and
8 other local funding sources.
10 43. The water resource problems and water supply development needs
11 vary so widely across the state that a mandatory set aside from
12 existing funding sources is not recommended.
14 Funding Sources
16 44. It is in the long-term best interest of Florida for the Legislature to
17 adopt enabling legislation and to appropriate the required 20%
18 matching funds to allow the use of a revolving loan fund through
19 access to new moneys available under the 1996 amendments to the
20 federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The following is the total amount of
21 funding under this program that is available to Florida:
23 a. State appropriation of $8.8 million for federal fiscal year 1997
24 generates a total of $57 million.
26 b. State appropriation of $6.9 million for federal fiscal year 1998
27 generates a total of $41 million.
29 c. Future allocations for each state will be based on a needs
30 assessment, which will likely increase the available funding for
33 45. There should be additional funding to allow the districts or state to
34 assist in funding projects which contribute to the greater public good.
35 To be of "greater public good", a project must be of regional or
36 statewide significance, must be found to be consistent with the
37 relevant regional water supply plan and must:
39 a. Support establishment of a dependable, sustainable supply of
40 water which is not otherwise financially feasible;
1 b. Be environmentally superior to other available alternatives in
2 preventing or limiting adverse water resource impacts, but
3 requires funding assistance to make the alternative
4 economically competitive to other options; or
6 c. Significantly implement reuse, storage or conservation of water
7 in a manner which contributes to the sustainability of regional
8 water sources.
10 46. We have preliminarily identified several potential dedicated and
11 recurring sources of funding for water resource development which
12 are candidates for future consideration. These potential funding
13 sources require analysis and assessment in conjunction with the
14 RWSPs. The unmet funding needs for water resource development
15 projects should be identified in the RWSPs pursuant to
16 recommendation 3. When the nature and scope of these unmet needs
17 have been determined, additional funding alternatives should be
18 considered based on justification presented by the requesting entity.
20 The following table sets forth funding options for future consideration, to be used
21 primarily for water resource development:
POTENTIAL WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FUNDING OPTIONS (TABLE 1)
Option Who Who Pays? Who Spends? Estimated Amount Requirements
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
Statewide State (DOR) Public (end WMDs Not yet determined Legislative
removal of consumers and authorization
sales tax water users)
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
$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
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
$266.9M/yr for public
Option Who Who Pays? Who Spends? Estimated Amount Requirements
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
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
Franchise fees State or Franchise passed State or local To be determined Legislative
local govt. to customer govt. authorization
New taxes DOR Citizens Legislature To be determined Legislative
general revenue, authorization and
Congressional IRS Citizens of the State / WMD To be determined Congressional
appropriation U.S. could be substantial authorization and
1 47. The unmet funding needs for water supply development projects have largely been
2 identified in local comprehensive plans and water utility plans. While we made no
3 attempt to quantify the total unmet funding needs, consideration should be given
4 to providing local governments and water utilities additional revenue-raising options
5 to meet planned needs which are not inconsistent with the RWSPs.
7 48. We recognize that local governments already have authority for setting
8 conservation rates. We recommend that the Legislature give the PSC clear
9 authority to set conservation rates for investor-owned utilities. In addition, the
10 DEP, WMDs, and PSC should work in conjunction with investor-owned utilities to
11 implement conservation rate structures which provide incentives to customers to
12 use less water and which do not work as a disincentive to the utility to promote
15 49. We recommend that either of the two local-option funding sources identified in the
16 table below be further considered by the legislature to fund water supply
17 development requirements in local government comprehensive plans and water
18 utility plans, as may be requested by local government.
20 50. While we recommend that local referenda requirements not be attached to any
21 additional authority provided to local governments, we do recommend that the
22 Legislature establish the following policies to provide accountability and equity:
24 a. Local governments should expressly articulate the public policy
25 considerations for selecting the new funding source, how the money will be
26 spent, and the relationship to other existing sources of funding for water
29 b. Local governments may use the new money on projects of primarily local
30 benefit, but if the project will have inter-jurisdictional impacts, it must serve
31 a regional purpose and be a joint project of the affected public and private
34 c. Where customers of private utilities and government-owned utilities
35 contribute to local option funding sources designated for water supply
36 development, the utilities serving these customers shall be entitled to share
37 equitably in the proceeds of the funds.
1 d. These new funds must not be used to replace, supplant, or support the
2 diversion of existing funding for water projects for use on projects or
3 activities unrelated to water supply development, treatment, retreatment or
6 51. We identified several potential new dedicated and recurring local sources of
7 funding for water supply development. The following table sets forth funding
8 options for future consideration, to be used primarily for water supply
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
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
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
Special Local govt. Property owners Local govt. To be determined Local
Assessments in affected area ordinance/referendum
1 52. The RWSPs could affect the existing water supply development projects of local
2 governments and private utilities. The RWSP should quantify these impacts and
3 identify unmet funding needs. These impacts which are determined to be for the
4 "greater public good" should be eligible for district or state assistance either from
5 existing funding sources or from the potential Water Resource Development Funding
6 sources listed in Recommendation 46. Staff suggests that this recommendation be
9 53. If a water supply development project is not considered under a RWSP to be of
10 "greater public good," the local government or water utility may elect to use local-
11 option funding to cover the project costs.
13 54. When implementing a water resource development project would be more
14 economically or environmentally sound than implementing one or more water supply
15 development projects, the local government or water utility may elect to provide local-
16 option funds for support of water resource development.
22 IV. CONTINUING ISSUES
28 V. APPENDICES