Title: Water Supply Development Committee, December 18, 1996, Detailed Summary of Dec. 6, 1997
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004825/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Supply Development Committee, December 18, 1996, Detailed Summary of Dec. 6, 1997
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Water Supply Development Committee, December 18, Detailed Summary of Dec. 6, 1997 1996 (JDV Box 39)
General Note: Box 29, Folder 4 ( Water Supply Issues Group (File 2 of 3) - 1996 ), Item 25
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004825
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

0:23 P.01/19


ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ? :904-922-53


FAX TRANSMISSION
No. of Pages: 19 (including cover)


DATE: Dec. 16,1996




RE: Dec. 18 Meeting

TO: Water Supply Development Committee (q
Mr. Joseph W. Adcock, AICP, Camp Dresser & McKi
Mr. Chuck Aller, DACS, FAX: 488-7585
Ms. Eva Armstrong, Florida Audubon Society, FAX:
Mr. Butch Calhoun, FL Fruit & Vegetable Asssoc., FA
Mr. Bram Canter, WCRWSA, FAX: 222-2126
Ms. JoAnn Chase, Public Service Commission, FAX:
Ms. Sherry Coven, FL Regional Councils Assoc., FA
Mr. David Guest, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, F
Mr. Wade Hopping, Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith
Mr. Philip Leary, AICP, FL Farm Bureau, FAX: 352/
Mr. Dexter Lehtinen, Lehtinen, O'Donnell, Fargas &
Mr. Chuck Littlejohn, FL Chamber. FES, FAX: 681-8
Ms. Janet LLewellyn, Office of Water Policy, FDEP,
Mr. John McCue,, FAX: 926-2071
Mr. Charles Pattison, Dept. of Community Affairs, FA
Mr. Fred Rapach, Palm Beach Cty Water Dept., FA
Mr. Jack Shreve, Ofc. of Public Counsel, FAX: 488
Mr. Mike Slayton, SFWMD, FAX: 561/687-6200
Mr. Jackson Sullivan, Withlacoochee Regional Wtr.
Mr. Jake Vam, Carlton, Fields, FAX: 222-0398
Mr. Oel Wingo, FAX: 352/629-8391


ee list below)
e, Inc., FAX: 941/355-5311

4-6056
: 877-0981

413-7004
C 488-1616
: 681-0020
FAX: 224-8551
4-1501
einer, FAX: 305/279-1365
96
AX: 922-5380

(: 488-3309
407/641-3472
491

supply Authority, FAX: 222-0398


If any pages are not clearly received, please call Yvone or Leila at 904/488-0784.


Dec 16 'AS




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Vb:904-922-53


TO: Water Supply Development Committee

FROM: Jake Varn and David Guest

RE: December 18 Meeting

DATE: December 16


Attached please find a detailed summary of our Decembe 6 meeting, a revised list of issues and
consensus recommendations, and an agenda for our Dece nber 18 meeting. We have made good
progress and should be able after the next meeting to star drafting more specific language for
recommendations. At the December 6 meeting, we assign ed tasks to four groups as follows:

1. Definitions of"water resource development" and 'water supply development" (see
attached proposal)
Chuck Littlejohn
Fred Rapach

2. Statement of objectives for water supply planning
Chuck Littlejohn
Chuck Aller

3. Simplification of the water planning process
Bill Hyde
Jake Varn
Janet Llewellyn
Wade Hopping
Chuck Aller

4. Long-term consumptive use permits (see attache< statement)
David Guest
Butch Calhoun
Eva Armstrong
Bram Canter
Diane Salz
Janet Llewellyn (added by later request)

We look forward to another productive meeting.


JV/DG/tp


Dec 16 '9, 0:24 -. 2/19
N




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT F'-904-922-53


WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

December 18, 1996

AGENDA


Review Committee Plan for the Procc
Committee Agenda

Complete Discussion of Regulatoiy Is

Review List of Perceived Problems an

Discuss Subcommittee Proposals


Lunch


Continue Discussion of Subcommitte

Refine Recommendations, Discuss A

Assign Tasks


s and the Day; Review and Agree on


sues

d Consensus Recommendations








Proposals

ditional Issues


9:15


9:30

10:30

11:30


12:00


12:45

1:30

2:45


3:00 Adjourn


Dec 16 '9r- 0:24


,-. 3/19




ECOSYSTEM MARNRGEMENT P0 904-922-53


Dec 16 'Ss, 0:24


WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT MEETING
December 6, 1997
Detailed Summary


CONMTTEE AGENDA DISCUSSION
* Page 23 of handout has summary of those consensus/n

PLANNNG DISCUSSION (beginning with the issue of
VARN: Do we get public and private suppliers into the I
SLAYTON: In the water supply plan advisory groups, th
suppliers
ALLER: You need to have some entity that represents se
VARN: We seem to be talking about 2 issues agricultui
local comprehensive plan, what does a local gove
what happens when WMD says this is good site I
plan says that next door is good site for landfill;
CHASE: local comp plans often do not take into consider
public suppliers this is a problem
STOWERS Part of the problem is the way that DCA all
at infrastructure rather than a true LOS (on a true
VARN: You're making the argument; the issue is whether
Plans & the answer is "no"; the WMD role in rev
HYDE: Have problem with underlying premise we hav4
having all these plans with a consistency link is a
with water supply development or top-down plan
VARN: But this is making the argument that there are to(
and consistency with that one plan is the key
SALZ: We have nothing wrong with planning, but the ov
WEHLE: When we comment on LGCP, we make a 2-poi
permitting responsibility and then we comment oi
consider; all the planning sounds great, but there
planning for the future and the fact that it doesn't
LITTLEJOHN: The point of integration for water supply
this is a much more straightforward way than loo
WMD reviewing LGCP for information, let the p
at needs and sources; the WMDs should plug in
VARN: What's the process for doing this?
RAPACH: Seems you're trying to separate the water supl
development
ALLER: We never addressed the self-suppliers issue that
addressed by WMDs and taken into account in thi


o -consensus areas from last meeting

planning for self suppliers)
Sinning process?
e are broad-based efforts including self

l -suppliers
I type and other self-suppliers; at the
nment do about these self-suppliers?;
,r wellfield and local government comp

rtion private utilities often focusing on

ws this issue to be addressed; look more
er capital basis);
LGCP have to be consistent with WMD
wing LGCP is not strong enough
a myriad of plans that are required and
formula for failure do we want to deal
ing
many plans maybe we need one plan

right bogs us down
t comment here's the area that we have
Other issues as things you may wish to
s a disconnect between the land use
happen
should be between WMD and utilities;
ing at it on a LGCP basis; instead of
ivate & public utilities do this they look
) make sure the sources are available.

ly development and water resource

we started with; self-suppliers should be
,ir planning biggest problem is with


-.> /19




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT V :904-922-53


agricultural demand projections (SLAYTON)
VARN: Suggestions for any changes in LGCPs
ALLER: Include self-supplier information from utility ii
LITTLEJOHN: The utilities should be adjusting their oi
projections;
VARN: Are you saying that WMD should:not have the a
CANTER: Utility is where you need to go for the future
LITTLEJOHN: The utility should be integrating their pl
VARN: I'm trying to understand Littlejoha's proposal; s
to LGCP
HOPPING: Absolutely not!
McCUE: Disagree. That information needs to be readil:
plan for growth
VARN: Can we agree that the self-supplier information i
supply plans; Hopping says no for this information
is not doing their job and not holding local govei
local governments identify their sources
HOPPING: I'm not sure that DCA is where that should h
WMDs do this
SALZ: You want to avoid duplication
WEHLE: You're on a right track; in the past, local gover
to go for their sources; this information is only n<
we will be working this into EARs process in th
identification
VARN: Are we happy current law YES, WE'RE HAPP
IMPLEMENTED
HYDE: Disagree. The handout is a reflection of scarcity
address and provide additional supply WMD ne
development the planning process is flawed
LLEWELLYN: The planning process is not the problem,
addressing water supply development
ALLER: In the implementation of planning between LG
water element need to be identified in the LGCPs
actually implemented without pointing fingers,



PLANNING ISSUES & POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AT
(See Summary of Issues/Solutions)


Dec 16 'PS 0:25 ?. 5/19






formation
Plans without WMDs doing their own

ility to do per capital restrictions
r eed information, not the LGCP
a s with the LGCP.
Should there be a linkage of self-suppliers


available to local government to help

n ds to be available for regional water
m in LGCPs; part of the issue is that DCA
muents responsible- DCA has not made

ppen; the statute should read that the


ments weren't required to identify where
available in needs and sources studies;
Past this has been more a facility

WITH LAW BUT NOT HOW BEING

nd nothing in 163 and 9J-5 helps us
ds to have more authority to do

I think we should just move on to

.P and WMD plans, resources for potable
this is in existing law, but needs to be
needs to be done



LOCAL & PRIVATE LEVELS:


REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF PERCEIVED PROBLEMS- PLANNING:

CHECK FOR CONSENSUS ON CONCLUSIONS & SOLUTIONS:
2 i




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ?4:904-922-53


** CONSENSUS ON WRITTEN PAGE 23
C-1, C-2,
C-3 "PLANS" WMD PLANS
D-5a "CONSISTENCY = FORMAT+"
D-5b
C-4a, b, c "ONCE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PL
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO USE THOSE
C-5 & C-6
D-6 concern about private property right implying w
D-7 "consistent = general context and not legal 163 m
D-8
C-7 "Primarily come from WMD other sources poss


SELF -SUPPLIERS & OTHER ISSUES
** New C-8: WMD should take into account the use o
projections to the WMD
** New C-9: At a minimum, DCA should be relying oa
identification of future water supply sources
** New C-9 Statute on planning is not the problem (it
problem. The potable water supply element of the comp
water using the regional water supply plan or other best a'

** CONSENSUS ON PAGE 30:
The planning process should be simplified. DISCUSSION ITEMS assignments:
Littlejohn/Rapach: definitional differences
water resource development
Littlejohn: Developing objectives for wat
sustainability
Varn/Canter/Aller/Hyde/Llewellyn: Simpl


NS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PLANS

ter is property right
meaning"

ible if BEST AVAILABLE DATA"



water by self-suppliers and make

WMDs when it comes to the

ay be obstacle), implementation is the
lan needs to indicate the sources of the
railable data.


EED>

between water supply development and

.r supply in the planning effort: certainty,

fiction of the planning process


IDENTIFY INFORMATION & ACTION NEEDED WH-RE THERE IS NOT CONSENSUS:


DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION


STATE LEAVE
VARN: Issue is there a role for the actual development o water supply by the state.
ALLER: When you have major policy questions like moving water around the state, then maybe it
so; there is a state relationship.
VARN: The only role I can see is making state lands available for water supply development, such
3


Dec 16 '9 0:25 ?. 6/19




ECOSYSTEM MANflGEMENT Pr: 904-922-53


.-/19


as in a State Forest funding is another issue ISSUE FOR FUNDING GROUP: Who pays
and who gets it what is the role of the state in local development
GUEST: A concern about land transfers
BIBLER: The other role may be for those parks that don't have enough water the protection of
water for these resources on state lands
VARN: This would have to be a call by the managers of the land, with any caveats you want on
them (no adverse impacts, etc.)
LLEWELLYN: We're not making an affirmative recomn endation that state lands should be used,
only that they may be used
VARN This is only a possibility
GUEST: Maybe the state should have more emphasis (hi her priority) on protecting aquifer
recharge areas/lands although this is already beinL done as part of P-2000
McCUE; What about HRS in terms of local development
VARN: Has some existing authority


REGIONAL LEVEL
VARN: It's one thing for the WMDs identifying and devil
supplies, it's another for actual building the infran
regional water supply authority task; the WMDs s
enhancement of water supply sources; anything c
SLAYTON: Is funding part of this?
VARN: Subject for the other committee, and regional
of the local level
CANTER: WMDs have substantial lands that could be
development and includes alternative water supp
VARN: But this could get the WMDs into the wastewat
product (reuse) that would involve development
RAPACH: What about inter-district transfers of waters (d
CALHOUN: They already have this authority in 373.196
VARN: Controversial. ANYTHING ELSE?
BOLES: But they are not precluded under the "enhancer
involved in the development of water supply


LOCAL LEVEL
CANTER: One issue is local sources first
RAPACH: Some regulations are so strict that it works a1
philosophies on reuse; DEP and WMD have differing fe
VARN: There are different versions of reuse, as to wheti
etc.; shouldn't DEP & WMD be coming from th!
ALLER: There is an ongoing committee meeting every (
the issue often revolve around cost recovery
RAPACH: HRS raises perception problems, without doc

4


loping the enhancement of water
structure that's a local government and
should focus on augmentation and
se at the regional level

ter supply authorities considered as part

ade available for water supply
y development
Business because this produces a

development)
I

ent" concept, but they are not primarily




inst reuse conflicting WMD/DEP
sibility requirements
-r it will be used for human consumption,
same place on reuse criteria
her month to deal with this issue; doesn't

Lmented cases.


Dec 16 '916 0:26


a



t
I

.




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT r :904-922-53


. C3/19


VARN: Can't we agree to maximize reuse and have common approach among DEP, WMD, HRS
ASSOC. OF CO.: Duration of permits may create a bonding problem
VARN: Give me an example
STOWERS: Probably never, but then we've never had WMD revoke permits
VARN: We can probably get consensus when you're in an area where available water is in excess
of long term permit use predictions in those area;, can probably get a long term permit;
however, we need to be careful on long-term pern its not to build in a dis-incentive for
conservation, etc. How can changes over time be addressed for conservation and
incentives
STOWERS: I do think there are incentives built-in to kee wholesale waste from happening
VARN: Fundamental question do you have to get a CUP permit for reverse osmosis and ASR,
desalination (Yes)
ARMSTRONG: But Jake's statement causes me some pr blems there has to be middle ground as
we can't anticipate what may happen to the resource during the next 20 years
LLEWELLYN: At a minimum, shouldn't the long-term p rmit only be issued for water resources
that have minimum flow and level established
VARN: Couldn't this be done after water supply plans do e, if funded?
STOWERS: You could have mid-term check (trigger) on 20-year permit; the issue is where
you're going to get the money to do the develop nt; the regional plan shouldn't cost
anyone anything except the WMD but local gov rnments should be required to pay the
bill if they want to develop the resource we're p obably not going to get it from the state,
given the financial problems they've been having; I think money should be allocated for
WMD resource identification and establishment minimum flow and levels, and regional
water supply plan ASAP
ALLER: I think we have some consensus on long-term p emits with appropriate protections
MENNELLA: SJRWMD permits are now coming in wit 10 and 15 years; we have 11 factors that
can work to lengthen or shorten the durations with 5 year permit checks; we don't need new
statutory authority.
**ASSIGNMENT: GUEST, CALHOUN, DIANE SALZ, CANTERto work on long-term permit
issue
HEBRANK: Another issue: Time delays with emerging technologies permitting
HOPPING. Why not use new APA waiver and variance p visions;
LLEWELLYN: It's a federal EPA issue (ASR)
SALZ: Many more cities and counties need to look at R and desalination, but it is difficult to do
because of disposal problem the problem seems to be a state problem and not a federal
one, around the definition of"disposal" since brir e is classified as a hazardous waste
VARN: Can we agree that we ought to be encouraging R desalination and alternative
technologies
GUEST: There are environmental concerns about waste isposal; there is a DEP and other groups
working on these issues
ALLER: ASR is a federal problem John Hankinson has agreed to look at this, but the same type
of problems are true of RO and desalination; many of these are being worked on;
GUEST: We're not sure on some of these

5


Dec 16 '9,o


0:26




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT P":904-922-53


P. C9/19


LITTLEJOHN: Can't we agree that this needs to be a major point of emphasis these regulatory
and research obstacles we need to say something about a concentrated effort to address
these
LLEWELLYN: It's not just that there is a regulation to be changed, there has to be research in
order to change the regulations in an accelerated manner
RAPACH: Another obstacle is the inability for utilities to itigate water withdrawal impacts
GUEST: "IMPLIED SCREAM"
VARN: DISCUSSION ISSUE: Allowing mitigation for in pacts of major water withdrawals
KATHY FRY: Research should mainly fall on universities or WMDs for responsibility; they
(utilities) shouldn't be forced to do the needed r ch
HEBRANK: May want to have independent scientific pee review
VARN: I have bias on this, but all that seems to do is del action
ST. PETE ATTORNEY: St. Petersburg has lowest per ca ita rates and yet permit was denied, ev,
though a pre-existing user;
STOWERS: Back on the independent peer review for res arch and development -this should be
open, broad-based scientific process
VARN: The folly is having someone do it and then be reviewed again they should all be part of
the process to start with
HUNTER' Another issue: There are disincentives betwe n public and private suppliers thru the
PSC;
VARN: The other committee is working on this I'm told


PAGE 31 CONSENSUS DISCUSSION: no additional iss ies identified


REGULATION


STATE LEVEL
HOPPING: In the other committee, had discussion on the mismatch between cost capture by PSC
"18 months + growth" and DEP 5-10 year permit; PSC reserves right as to whether
something is prudent even ifDEP requires it as a permit condition
JOANN CHASE: If DEP permits it then PSC considers i "prudent"; the question only comes up
when you're addressing today's + tomorrow's gr wth and there is a mismatch between the
timeframes and this is currently being looked at i PSC rule-making
HOPPING: There is environmental oversizing where PS will not let you recover the costs and
PSC reserve the right to address economic recovy for reuse projects we need to match
up environmental & water supply with the econo ic recovery policies of the PSC
CHASE: If you're doing something that benefits current isers, PSC looks at this, but when you're
increasing capacity then costs shifted to future us s
HOPPING: Except for reuse projects
GUEST: Shouldn't environmental agencies be taking th lead
CHASE: Yes, except PSC is setting the rates
HOPPING: Hidden agenda here; PSC believes that curre t rates need to be kept as low as possible
for current users; to do this, PSC second-guesses DEP

6
i


Dec 16 '9


0:27


en

in




f-luooA h I'-nUrl-r-kll I : .U4-<'-a-> -Dec 16 '< 0:27 -. 0/19



VARN: There should be a presumption of correctness when DEP requires an improvement can
we agree on this?
CHASE: The cost recovery over time does happen, but it can happen over long periods of time-
it's a definite disincentive
VARN: Is the problem that the PSC only lets you recovercosts over long period of time
GUEST: Another issue is that some utilities have themsel es involved in areas that they don't need
to
LITTLEJOHN: how do you get to economy of scale?
VARN: Maybe this flows from when DEPicertifies that t is is needed/recognized of reuse
qualifying projects (and other equipment require
LITTLEJOHN: How does this apply for alternative water supplies
VARN: Another; more regulatory guidance from DEP to WMDs for MF&Ls, etc.
CANTER: I'll agree there are WMD policies developed tat they do in a vacuum because no state
guidance, like MF&Ls,
LITTLEJOHN: We think more guidance is needed for i. plementation and establishment; I'd like
to continue last year's efforts; we were close last ear; what you look at (urbanized vs.
Rural area) and how that relates to Restoration go"ls, and then once established what
happens when you apply it in regulatory program and what happens when exceeded -
these need to be thought through
GUEST: Part of our discussion here is a fundamental di agreement on what the statute means
SALZ: How do we recognize technological advances in gulation
VARN: Examples, where no questions remain about the technology?
BIBLER: Issue also of when finding of consistency of WD rules and plans with State Water
Policy is made
MENNELLA: Under the statute it is true that finding of consistency cannot be made until State
Water Policy is adopted, but this is done informa ly by seeking DEP comments
LITTLEJOHN: There are issues on State Water Policy ard whether the Legislature needs to ratify
this, but this is controversial subject

REGIONAL LEVEL REGULATION
**

QUESTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR WAT R SUPPLY FUNDING COMMITTEE

1. What is the state role in funding local development of water supplies?

2. What is the money to be used for?

3. Need funding for research to remove obstacles to water supply development (e.g., Reverse
Osmosis, Desalination)

4. Need to remove PSC-related obstacles to develop ment of water supplies (e,g., policies
which prevent reasonable recovery of prudent investments)
7


CrnC1V<2 M17_ r1_ 11hl CI




ECOSYSTEM MflNPGEMENT FI":904-922-53


Water Supply Development Core Group
Issue Identification and Potential Solutions
December 12, 1996 praft


Planning TIssues. Potent al Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations: Discussion:


Need for more direction at the state level with
regard to water sunlyv.
C-1. More focus on water supply at the state level.


C-2. Address water supply development more
adequately in Florida Water Plan (FWP) and Slate
Water Policy (SWP) rule.

C-3. Integrate minimum flows and levels into
District Water Management Plans-direct MFLs to
areas where water is being or will be developed,
(Already being done. See Ex. Order 96-297)




Need for consistency in regional water supply
planning. needs and sources assessments. with
regard for regional variations.

C-4a. 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.

b. Achieve also through DEP general supervisory
authority and guidance of Governor's Office-See
Ex. Order 96-297.


D-1. Either
by DEP wit
D-2. Include,
with regard
development

D-3. Incluc
rule adequa
appeals.

D-4. Identi
statewide d






















1


a new entity or better implementation
i more resources.
e timeframes in the Florida Water Plan
to water supply planning and
i.

e policy guidance in the FWP and SWP
.e for FLWAC to deal with related


y needs and sources in a single,
>cument.


Dec 16 '9' 0:28 .. 1/19





ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT F^:904-922-53


Planning Issues.
Consensus Recommendations:


The Function and Effect ofRWSPs


C-Sa. 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 possiblefor users.

c. Local governments should be encouraged to
use sources identified in regional water supply
plans









C-6. (Consistent with D-6) Portions ofplans 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-7. 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. There should be a linkage between water
planning and water regulation (e.g.,
A consumptive use project would have to be
consistent with the rule-adopted of the plan in
portions order to be permittable.).


Potential Recommendations for Further
Discussion:


D-5. Consider language similar to that in s.
187.101, F.S., such as:
i


A regional v
regulatory a
rules, criteria;
bylaw. The
reasonably a
economically
specific goa
or applied ir
policies in t
be to meet
and future I
manner whi
natural syst
D-6. State
planning (DI


water supply plan does not create
authority or authorize the adoption of
or standards not otherwise authorized
provisions of the plan shall be
plied where they are environmentally,
,and technically feasible and no
or policy in the plan shall be construed
isolation from the other goals and
ie plan. The objective of the plan shall
ie water supply needs of all existing
gal uses within the planning region in a
:h sustains water resources and related
ms.
lent of objectives for water supply
scuss subcommittee proposal).


2


Dec 16 '9k, 0:28


,-. 2/19





Dec 16 'oc 0:29 -. 13/19


Planning Issues.
Consensus Recommendations:


The Function and Effect of RWSPs (continued)


C-9. The RWSP should identify means of
implementing nonregulatory parts ofplans (e.g.,
actual development of supplies)--a forcing-action
type of planning.

Need for clear relationship between Local
Government Comprehensive Plans (LGCPs)
and RWSPs.

C-10. LGCP potable water supply element* needs
to indicate sources of water, based on regional
water supply plan or other best available data.

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


Need for coordination among local governments
in water supply planning.


Need for adequate data on which to base local
water supply planning.

C-11. 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-12. At a minimum, DCA should rely on the
WMDsfor identification of sources.


Potential Recommendations for Further
Discussion:


D-7. Requie a water supply element in LGCPs.

D-8. Requi e that LGCPs be consistent with
RWSPs (rul -adopted portions, data?)

(Is there re ly a need for a statutory linkage
between LCPs and RWSPs? Or is it more
effective to ocus on increased communication and
technical as istance--and financial assistance where
possible--b ween local governments and WMDs?)
























3


__


F :904-922-53


ECOSYSTEM MRNRGEMENT




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT F^'':904-922-53


Dec 16 '94. 0:29


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


Self suppliers need to be better considered in
water sunply planning.


C-13. Needs of selfsuppliers, including projected
future uses, should be taken into account in WMD
regional water supply plans. It should be made
clear that it is a role of the WMDs to do this.


Need for Simplification of the Water Planning
Process.


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


D-9. Disc s Subcommittee Proposal for
simplificat on of water planning.



D-10. Pro sed Definitions:

"Water re urces development" means the
implementation of integrated water resources
manageme t using aquifers and watershed basins as
the planning units and including the following:
surface wa r and groundwater data collection and
evaluation; he preparation of strategic plans;
construction maintenance and operation of major
public wor s facilities to provide for flood control,
surface an underground storage, groundwater
recharge a gmentation, and sustainability of all
reasonable nd beneficial water uses to support
private and public water users and water suppliers.


"Water su
construct
and private
watershed
transmission


apply development" means the planning,
n, maintenance, and operation of public
facilities for extraction of water from
and aquifers for local treatment,
n, and distribution for resale or end use.


4


Lack of water supnly planning is not the
problem. lack of plan implementation is the
problem,


,-.:,/19





ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT


Dec 16 ',. 0:29 -.13/19


Development Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion
State Role in Water Supply Development

C-14a. The state should assure protection of water
resources on state lands.

b. The state could enhance the acquisition of landrfor
recharge.


WMD Role in Water Supply Development
C-15. The proper WMD role in water supply is planning
and water resource development. WMDs are not
primarily in the water supply development business.
(See consensus definitions--when finalized)


C-16. WMDs could make WMD lands available for
water supply, with appropriate safeguards.


Reuse
C-17. We need to maximize reuse in Florida. DEP,
WMDs, and HRS need to coordinate reuse criteria and
efforts.


Local Role in Water Supply Development

Note; The discussion on this issue involved identification
of regulatory constraints (see regulatory issue chart for
results). The group never got to the question of what the
local role is in water supply development.










5


F':904-922-53




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT F':904-922-53


Regulatory Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

Regulatory constraints on the development of
sustainable water supplies
C-18a. 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 Need to Coordinate Timeframes for
Compliance and Cost Recovery (especially for reuse).


C-19. Explore the use of the new APA waiver and
variance provisions to expedite changes in rules to keep
up with changes in technology.

C-20. Work with EPA to solve technical and related
legal obstacles for ASR, etc.


DEP and WMDs Need to Coordinate Feasibility
Requirements and Criteria for Reuse. (The Reuse
Coordinating Council meets regularly to address such
issues.)


Technical constraints on the development of
sustainable water supplies.
C-21. There should be accelerated research by WMDs
Universities, and others (cooperative efforts where
possible) to remove technical obstacles to the
development of alternative sources,




6


Dec 16 '9l4 0:30




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT


r^ :904-922-53


7


Regulatory Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

Scientific peer review

C-22. There should be scientific peer review at the front
endfor research and development (and for other
processes, e.g,. technical aspects of planning, MFLs?)

Consumptive use permit tennis
C-23. Long-term consumptive use permits are D-I 1. Discuss subcommittee proposal for
acceptable where: (a) long-term sources are available or long- rm CUPs.
being developed, (b) changes over time can be
addressed


Dec 16 'Q. 0:30


.-.17/19




1, *


* 0 '


Definition of


- Florida


Water Resource Development:
The implementation of integrated water resource s management using aquifers and
watershed basins as the planning units and incl ding the following: surface water and
groundwater data collection and evaluation; tih preparation of strategic plans:
construction, maintenance and operation of maj r public works facilities to provide for
flood control, surface and underground storage groundwater recharge augmentation
and sustainability of all reasonable and beneficial water uses to support private and
public water users and water suppliers.

Water Supply Development:
The planning, construction, maintenance and o ration of public and private facilities
for extraction of water from watersheds and aq ifers forieea9reatment, transmission
and distribution for resale or end use.










Dale Twachtmann, November 20, 1996

."


ECOSYSTEM MANFGEMENT :904-922-53 Dec 16 0:30
903Dec 16 o:30 8/19

they have full authority in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes to do so. Recharge works are
the new frontier of practical groundwater sustainability, fit well with the WMD's
responsibilities and knowledge and will bring a proactive and positive activity to
balance the regulatory role they have been emphasizing in recent years.




ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT P":904-922-53


Dec 16 '91


TO: BUTCH CALHOUN III
EVA ARMSTRONG
CHUCK CALLER
BRAN CANTER
DIZANXE ALTS
JANET LL

]rOM. DAVID CnUST

DATZ: December 12 1996

RZ PERZIT DURATION STATEMENT


The following are our statements ab t permit duration:

CONSENSUS: In areas where no water hortage is forecast by the
Water Management District in the net twenty years, long term
consumptive use permits should be i sued subject to a mandatory
review process every five years, wherein the permit would be
subject to modification in order to eliminate or prevent a)
significant harm to water resources or the ecology and b)
interference with existing users.

For municipalities and public water suppliers, long term
permits should be subject to the fi e year review process
described above.

UNRESOLVED ISSUE: Long term permit and their effects on the
Districts' ability to assess the c ulative impacts of water
withdrawals.


0:31




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