Title: Water Supply Development Meeting, Dec 6, 1997 Detailed Summary
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004833/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Supply Development Meeting, Dec 6, 1997 Detailed Summary
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Water Supply Development Meeting, Dec 6, 1997 Detailed Summary (JDV Box 39)
General Note: Box 29, Folder 4 ( Water Supply Issues Group (File 2 of 3) - 1996 ), Item 33
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004833
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text





WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT MEETING
December 6, 1997
Detailed Summary



COMMITTEE AGENDA DISCUSSION
Page 23 of handout has summary of those consensus/non-consensus areas from last meeting

PLANNING DISCUSSION (beginning with the issue of planning for self suppliers)
VARN: Do we get public and private suppliers into the planning process?
SLAYTON: In the water supply plan advisory groups, these are broad-based efforts including self
suppliers
ALLER: You need to have some entity that represents self-suppliers
VARN: We seem to be talking about 2 issues agricultural type and other self-suppliers; at the
local comprehensive plan, what does a local government do about these self-suppliers?;
what happens when WMD says this is good site for wellfield and local government comp
plan says that next door is good site for landfill;
CHASE: local comp plans often do not take into consideration private utilities often focusing on
public suppliers this is a problem
STOWERS Part of the problem is the way that DCA allows this issue to be addressed; look more
at infrastructure rather than a true LOS (on a true per capital basis);
VARN: You're making the argument; the issue is whether LGCP have to be consistent with WMD
Plans & the answer is "no"; the WMD role in reviewing LGCP is not strong enough
HYDE: Have'problem with underlying premise we have a myriad of plans that are required and
having all these plans with a consistency link is a formula for failure do we want to deal
with water supply development or top-down planning
VARN: But this is making the argument that there are too many plans maybe we need one plan
and consistency with that one plan is the key
SALZ: We have nothing wrong with planning, but the oversight bogs us down
WEHLE: When we comment on LGCP, we make a 2-point comment here's the area that we have
permitting responsibility and then we comment on other issues as things you may wish to
consider; all the planning sounds great, but there is a disconnect between the land use
planning for the future and the fact that it doesn't happen
LITTLEJOHN: The point of integration for water supply should be between WMD and utilities;
this is a much more straightforward way than looking at it on a LGCP basis; instead of
WMD reviewing LGCP for information, let the private & public utilities do this they look
at needs and sources; the WMDs should plug in to make sure the sources are available.
VARN: What's the process for doing this?
RAPACH: Seems you're trying to separate the water supply development and water resource
development
ALLER: We never addressed the self-suppliers issue that we started with; self-suppliers should be
addressed by WMDs and taken into account in their planning biggest problem is with









agricultural demand projections (SLAYTON)
VARN: Suggestions for any changes in LGCPs
ALLER: Include self-supplier information from utility information
LITTLEJOHN: The utilities should be adjusting their own plans without WMDs doing their own
projections;
VARN: Are you saying that WMD should not have the ability to do per capital restrictions
CANTER: Utility is where you need to go for the future need information, not the LGCP
LITTLEJOHN: The utility should be integrating their plans with the LGCP.
VARN: I'm trying to understand Littlejohn's proposal; should there be a linkage of self-suppliers
to LGCP
HOPPING: Absolutely not!
McCUE: Disagree. That information needs to be readily available to local government to help
plan for growth
VARN: Can we agree that the self-supplier information needs to be available for regional water
supply plans; Hopping says no for this information in LGCPs; part of the issue is that DCA
is not doing their job and not holding local governments responsible- DCA has not made
local governments identify their sources
HOPPING: I'm not sure that DCA is where that should happen; the statute should read that the
WMDs do this
SALZ: You want to avoid duplication
WEHLE: You're on a right track; in the past, local governments weren't required to identify where
to go for their sources; this information is only now available in needs and sources studies;
we will be working this into EARs process in the past this has been more a facility
identification
VARN: Are we happy current law YES, WE'RE HAPPY WITH LAW BUT NOT HOW BEING
IMPLEMENTED
HYDE: Disagree. The handout is a reflection of scarcity and nothing in 163 and 9J-5 helps us
address and provide additional supply WMD needs to have more authority to do
development the planning process is flawed
LLEWELLYN: The planning process is not the problem, I think we should just move on to
addressing water supply development
ALLER: In the implementation of planning between LGCP and WMD plans, resources for potable
water element need to be identified in the LGCPs this is in existing law, but needs to be
actually implemented without pointing fingers, it needs to be done



PLANNING ISSUES & POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AT LOCAL & PRIVATE LEVELS:
(See Summary of Issues/Solutions)

REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF PERCEIVED PROBLEMS- PLANNING:

CHECK FOR CONSENSUS ON CONCLUSIONS & SOLUTIONS:









** 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 PLANS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO USE THOSE PLANS"
C-5 & C-6
D-6 concern about private property right implying water is property right
D-7 "consistent = general context and not legal 163 meaning"
D-8
C-7 "Primarily come from WMD othc sources possible if BEST AVAILABLE DATA"


SELF -SUPPLIERS & OTHER ISSUES
** New C-8: WMD should take into account the use of water by self-suppliers and make
projections to the WMD
** New C-9: At a minimum, DCA should be relying on WMDs when it comes to the
identification of future water supply sources
** New C-9 Statute on planning is not the problem (it may be obstacle), implementation is the
problem. The potable water supply element of the comp plan needs to indicate the sources of the
water using the regional water supply plan or other best available data.

** CONSENSUS ON PAGE 30:
The planning process should be simplified.
DISCUSSION ITEMS assignments:
Littlejohn/Rapach: definitional differences between water supply development and
water resource development
Littlejohn: Developing objectives for water supply in the planning effort: certainty,
sustainability
Varn/Canter/Aller/Hyde/Llewellyn: Simplification of the planning process


IDENTIFY INFORMATION & ACTION NEEDED WHERE THERE IS NOT CONSENSUS:


DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION

STATE LEVEL
VARN: Issue is there a role for the actual development of 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 1 can see is making state lands available for water supply development, such









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 recommendation 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 (higher priority) on protecting aquifer
recharge areas/lands although this is already being 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 developing the enhancement of water
supplies, it's another for actual building the infrastructure that's a local government and
regional water supply authority task; the WMDs should focus on augmentation and
enhancement of water supply sources; anything else at the regional level
SLAYTON: Is funding part of this?
VARN: Subject for the other committee, and regional water supply authorities considered as part
of the local level
CANTER: WMDs have substantial lands that could be made available for water supply
development and includes alternative water supply development
VARN: But this could get the WMDs into the wastewater business because this produces a
product (reuse) that would involve development
RAPACH: What about inter-district transfers of waters (development)
CALHOUN: They already have this authority in 373.1961
VARN: Controversial, ANYTHING ELSE?
BOLES: But they are not precluded under the "enhancement" concept, but they are not primarily
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 against reuse conflicting WMD/DEP
philosophies on reuse; DEP and WMD have differing feasibility requirements
VARN: There are different versions of reuse, as to whether it will be used for human consumption,
etc.; shouldn't DEP & WMD be coming from the same place on reuse criteria
ALLER: There is an ongoing committee meeting every other month to deal with this issue; doesn't
the issue often revolve around cost recovery
RAPACH: HRS raises perception problems, without documented cases.









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 areas, can probably get a long term permit;
however, we need to be careful on long-term permits 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 keep 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 problems 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 permit only be issued for water resources
that have minimum flow and level established
VARN: Couldn't this be done after water supply plans done, if funded?
STOWERS: You could have mid-term check (trigger) on a 20-year permit; the issue is where
you're going to get the money to do the development; the regional plan shouldn't cost
anyone anything except the WMD but local governments should be required to pay the
bill if they want to develop the resource we're probably 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 of minimum flow and levels, and regional
water supply plan ASAP
ALLER: I think we have some consensus on long-term permits with appropriate protections
MENNELLA: SJRWMD permits are now coming in with 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 provisions;
LLEWELLYN: It's a federal EPA issue (ASR)
SALZ: Many more cities and counties need to look at RO 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 brine is classified as a hazardous waste
VARN: Can we agree that we ought to be encouraging RO, desalination and alternative
technologies
GUEST: There are environmental concerns about waste disposal; 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









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 mitigate water withdrawal impacts
GUEST: "IMPLIED SCREAM"
VARN: DISCUSSION ISSUE: Allowing mitigation for impacts 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 research
HEBRANK: May want to have independent scientific peer review
VARN: I have bias on this, but all that seems to do is delay action
ST. PETE ATTORNEY: St. Petersburg has lowest per capital rates and yet permit was denied, even
though a pre-existing user;
STOWERS: Back on the independent peer review for research and development -this should be an
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 between public and private suppliers thru the
PSC;
VARN: The other committee is working on this I'm told

PAGE 31 CONSENSUS DISCUSSION: no additional issues 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 permits; PSC reserves right as to whether
something is prudent even if DEP requires it as a permit condition
JOANN CHASE: If DEP permits it then PSC considers it "prudent"; the question only c6mes up
when you're addressing today's + tomorrow's growth and there is a mismatch between the
timeframes and this is currently being looked at in PSC rule-making
HOPPING: There is environmental oversizing where PSC will not let you recover the costs and
PSC reserve the right to address economic recovery for reuse projects we need to match
up environmental & water supply with the economic recovery policies of the PSC
CHASE: If you're doing something that benefits current users, PSC looks at this, but when you're
increasing capacity then costs shifted to future users
HOPPING: Except for reuse projects
GUEST: Shouldn't environmental agencies be taking the lead
CHASE: Yes, except PSC is setting the rates
HOPPING: Hidden agenda here; PSC believes that current rates need to be kept as low as possible
for current users; to do this, PSC second-guesses DEP









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 recover costs over long period of time
GUEST: Another issue is that some utilities have themselves involved in areas that they don't need
to
LITTLEJOHN: how do you get to economy of scale?
VARN: Maybe this flows from when DEP certifies that this is needed/recognized of reuse
qualifying projects (and other equipment required)
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 that they do in a vacuum because no state
guidance, like MF&Ls,
LITTLEJOHN: We think more guidance is needed for implementation and establishment; I'd like
to continue last year's efforts; we were close last year; what you look at (urbanized vs.
Rural area) and how that relates to Restoration goals, and then once established what
happens when you apply it in regulatory programs and what happens when exceeded -
these need to be thought through
GUEST: Part of our discussion here is a fundamental disagreement on what the statute means
SALZ: How do we recognize technological advances in regulation
VARN: Examples, where no questions remain about the technology?
BIBLER: Issue also of when finding of consistency of WMD 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 informally by seeking DEP comments
LITTLEJOHN: There are issues on State Water Policy and whether the Legislature needs to ratify
this, but this is controversial subject

REGIONAL LEVEL REGULATION
**

QUESTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR WATER 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 development of water supplies (e.g., policies
which prevent reasonable recovery of prudent investments)










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


Planning Issues,
Consensus Recommendations:


Need for more direction at the state level with
regard to water supply.


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 State
Water Policy (SWP) rule.

C-3. Integrate minimum flows and levels into
district t Water Management Plans--direct MFLs to
ireas where water is being or will be developed.
'Already being done. See Ex. Order 96-297)





ieed for consistency in regional water supply
planning, needs and sources assessments, with
egard for regional variations.

'-4a. Use conventions committee approach for
achievingg consistent process/format among WMDs
I developing regional water supply plans
rI WSPs), similar to conventions process for
district Water Management Plans.

Achieve also through DEP general supervisory
ithority and guidance of Governor 's Office--See
x. Order 96-297.


Potential Recommendations for Further
Discussion:


D-1. Either a new entity or better implementation
by DEP with more resources.

D-2. Include timeframes in the Florida Water Plan
with regard to water supply planning and
development.

D-3. Include policy guidance in the FWP and SWP
rule adequate for FLWAC to deal with related
appeals.

D-4. Identify needs and sources in a single,
statewide document.


I









Planning Issues,
Consensus Recommendations:


The Function and Effect of RWSPs


C-5a. To identify a menu of optionsfor water
supply developmentfrom which to choose.

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

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






C-6. (Consistent with D-6) Portions of plans 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:

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


I









Planning Issues,
Consensus Recommendations:


The Function and Effect of RWSPs (continued)


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


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

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

""general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage,
-otable water, and natural groundwater aquifer
charge element"


Jeed for coordination among local governments
n water supply planning.


Jeed for adequate data on which to base local
vater supply planning.

'-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
-overnment from using more accurate data.

'-12. At a minimum, DCA should rely on the
r'MDsfor identification of sources.


Potential Recommendations for Further
Discussion:


D-6. Require a water supply element in LGCPs.

D-7. Require that LGCPs be consistent with
RWSPs (rule-adopted portions, data?)

(Is there really a need for a statutory linkage
between LGCPs and RWSPs? Or is it more
effective to focus on increased communication and
technical assistance--and financial assistance where
possible--between local governments and WMDs?)









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


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


C-13 Needs of self suppliers 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.









Development Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion









Regulatory Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

PSC/DEP/WMDs Need to Coordinate
Timeframes for Compliance and Cost
Recovery (especially for reuse.
PSC policies on cost recovery: There should
be a presumption of correctness (prudence?)
by the PSC if DEP requires an improvement
(clarify what is done voluntarily or is
required--DEP could "certify" required
improvements); There should be a reasonable
time for cost recovery; have a DEP/PSC list
of qualified reuse and other equipment.


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









Consensus Statements from Flip Charts


1. WMD should take into account use by self suppliers, including projected future uses.
(??The point of integration for water supply planning should be between WMD and utilities.
Utilities already assess demand, WMDs shouldn't duplicate this through review of LGCPs)

2. The water planning process needs simplification. (Discuss subcommittee proposal)

3. Water resources development and water supply development should be separated (for
purposes of definition and discussion). (Discuss proposed definitions)

4. Statutes on planning are not the problem (may be an obstacle, though), implementation is the
problem.

5. Need for a statement of objectives for water supply planning (where are we trying to get to?)
(Discuss subcommittee proposal)

5. The potable water supply element of the LGCP needs to indicate the sources of water, based
on the RWSP or other best available data.

6. DCA should rely on WMD for identification of sources.

7. State-level role in water supply development:

Water supply development on state lands--(a) may allow state lands use for well fields,
pipelines, etc., if compatible with purposes for which the land was purchased, (b) Identify
categories of state land not available for development, include possible use in agency management
plans, assure protection, no adverse impact on water resources on state lands, higher priority
on acquiring lands for recharge. (Staff note: This is essentially status quo, except that
management plans are not required to consider water supply development or to identify lands that
on which water supply would be prohibited)

8. Proper WMD role in water supply development is to enhance and augment water supply
sources; WMDs are not primarily in the water supply development business. (Should this be
matched by a statement that local government is primarily responsible for water supply
development--and funding???)

9. WMDs could also make WMD lands available for water supply, with appropriate safeguards.

10. We need to maximize reuse in Florida. DEP/WMD/HRS need to coordinate criteria and
efforts.

11. Long-term consumptive use permits are acceptable where: (a) long-term resources are









available or being developed, (b) changes over time can be addressed. (Discuss subcommittee
proposal)

12. Regulatory obstacles: (a) Explore use of new APA waiver and variance provisions to address
slow changes in rules to keep up with changes in technology, (b) Work with EPA to remove
unreasonable obstacles for ASR, etc.
13. Need accelerated research (by WMD, Universities, others) to remove technical obstacles to
alternative sources.

14. Use scientific peer review, at the front end, for research and development.

15. PSC policies on cost recovery: There should be a presumption of correctness (prudence?) by
the PSC ifDEP requires an improvement (clarify what is done voluntarily or is required--DEP
could "certify" required improvements); There should be a reasonable time for cost recovery;
have a DEP/PSC list of qualified reuse and other equipment.



Issues raised but not discussed:

1. Minimum Flows and Levels
2. Interdistrict Transfers of Water
3. Consumptive Use Mitigation
4. Legislative Ratification of State Water Policy Rule
5. Scientific Peer Review







Governor's Task Force
Water Supply Development and Funding
December 6, 1996


Name

" iA ,fA^. I AI---









'FI A ) L/
./ &/







-oh.j vr'> -( ,2X4-5






iVi ao.j/
^fi.A^ A-A^


Affiliation




5~P oy p 9


Ye(t .S A

-/a//((/s7ac
RF-J









a 5S VI
~.a/if,,a. 6mwar--


^LA Ei\ SeX(P-t


c/T ce\ Ac s I1
v1J/i e4Ri
/^ ^WMS


Phone






<7f Z -3o 0
V 7- d7c





/Qi_/3- 6 ,- -
Z/ / 2 L-








L/3 4 -3 -r



9_ 9-(4 1 ft 1Y-5
Y / 3(/-/3 (







Governor's Task Force
Water Supply Development and Funding
December 6, 1996


Name





T1 I0-0IJTI
L461 I ErI L-

a<3 'ifS6 /


2A- /II OL4A)


7/e-s ForyJ
TJO AAIeS


Affiliation
G/'ry of J, -A .rj/f,4
c5., A/. e


UFcE


" C J
Drvc/ S






oP ,_ _


Phone
W/L>^a'..


7>C 73


f7 7- 3/' E- /
g-7-7^ 7



(920 ?7*-

S(oi (~~t\)


Vi' .iFr
Co~ K~ LL*~v-


~T~ il-~ .c71-t u


--- I


7 o\ -


Ci S__- e-


(ru')C7YI


.---------a-------*'-* *------------------*-----*-**--------\


tla C(^ 5-k^< <5^
(7bi bWlM
-^ 6


/crp~


-:1- iz )<0\ry


ci z zz C-


9 c -- 3 e5 -






Governor's Task Force
Water Supply Development and Funding
December 6, 1996

Name i A Affiliation Phone
/ ~-- 0 k /'Y 'p7, p L 2 ) 77 72 //
_ckm ____ IIccin AA __uc___ __,
^L \+TVV 1S LS o q^ ^^S o
?# S1c S c ) D sbl -_ __ 2_- 6 __o
o0\Ivv\ e L ea "Y") vVo" \
\.e Ca E / /Pt1 I 'P A n // A^s) .7 -//6
I3 BIi3aC F.?A9cPLn1r;W 1( 38 4a 272(
2\5'> NV-1cza M I. Lm L K -orase C t 904 (C -a S0
7H L.L _-ft \ 9I- -_ 0_7 1-0

rn -/7W 7 55AZrI -04 -"3 40i/




A bZ\-OLAP J /%r-i /M[ .___7-


(l xc L___f__i__-____ (^9^. L ;) )2->t-.?







Governor's Task Force
Water Supply Development and Funding
December 6, 1996


Affiliation












14 i RA/~ t^If-cLq&)


n ap
" -----\


JZs e0


Phone




Z?5 y/ -O/7
ZZZ- 7,-,c.


9 13 ao1-9 f 7 %t.

- \- 0 -( 1708C

905 1/3 7_ 7


Name
/^*. /a-c


U'->' H' ^


' ^-^ 7
ll^ (^ ^/[QC.^T.l t CP^ t^
^YP^ ^.rs^r
^]jW/J^ ^^^sSi
\'^L.v^| V1^-^_______


,, UIC-n


--


Vill f?/w^


-/11 .






Floi ..ia De)partiment of

Memorandum Environmental Protection


TO: Jake Varn
David Guest
Chuck Littlejohn
Bill Hyde
Janet Llewellyn
Wade Hopping
Chuck Aller
David Guest
Eva Armstrong
Butch Calhoun
Bram Canter
Diane Salz

FROM: Terry Pride, DEP

RE: Subcommittees of Water Supply Development Committee

DATE: December 10, 1996


My notes on the December 6 meeting of the Water Supply Development Core Committee,
indicate that you volunteered to work on the following tasks:

1. Definitions of "water resource development" and "water supply development."
(already done, but might be modified?)

Chuck Littlejohn, Lead
Others ??

2. Statement of objectives for water supply planning.

Chuck Littlejohn, Lead
Chuck Aller
Others ??

3. Simplification of the planning process.

Bill Hyde, Lead
Jake Varn
Janet Llewellyn
Wade Hopping
Chuck Aller









4. Long-term consumptive use permits.


David Guest, Lead
Butch Calhoun
Eva Armstrong
Bram Canter
Diane Salz
Janet Llewellyn (added by later request)


If I have missed anyone, let me know and I will fax this memo to them.

The subcommittees are to prepare draft recommendations for discussion at the December 18
meeting of the core committee, which is only eight days from today. I presume that the lead
person on each subcommittee will contact the others to set up meetings or conference calls.

Tom Taylor has suggested that the subcommittees try to get their drafts to me for a mailout
prior to the meeting on the 18th. My target for the mailout is 5:00 p.m., Friday, December
13. However, if you can get something to me by noon on Monday, the 16th, I can send it out
separately. If I don't hear from you on Monday, please bring copies (at least 60) of your draft
recommendations to the meeting.


cc: Estus Whitfield
Tom Taylor




Uale I wacnimannf- Mome Ullce


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.









Definition of Terms Florida

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

Water Supply Development:
The planning, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities
for extraction of water from watersheds and aquifers foFreefHreatment, transmission
and distribution for resale or end use.










Dale Twachtmann, November 20, 1996


"U ; ": 3 r, C c, IJ




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