Title: Revised Grant Selection Criteria, Sept. 11, 1996
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004838/00001
 Material Information
Title: Revised Grant Selection Criteria, Sept. 11, 1996
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Revised Grant Selection Criteria, Sept. 11, 1996(JDV Box 39)
General Note: Box 29, Folder 5 ( Water Supply Issues Group (File 3 of 3) - 1996 ), Item 3
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004838
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

Sep. 11. 1996


4:34PM LEWIS LONGMAN&WALKER 4076400820


No. 2911 P. 1/9


LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A.


ATTO RN EYS


A T L A W


ROBERT P. DIFFENDERFER
KENNETH W. OO0OC
ROD A. FEINfR
JOHN W. FOREHAND
KEVIN HENNESSY
R STEVEN LEWIS
TERRY E. LEWIS


Date: 1 /1


215 SOUTH MONROE STREtT SUITE 702 POST OFFICE BOX 107081
TALLAHASSEE, FLnRIDA 32302
(904) 222-5702 FAX (9041 224-9242
2000 PAM BEACH LAKES BOULEVARD SUITE 900
WEST ILM REACH. FIORIOA 33409
(407) 64010020 FAX (407) 6404-02

TELECOPY COVER SHEET


Time: yJ0


To: TIrera.e. Guuircep


-3

J?;

lu-~cie


JAMES W LINN
ANNE LONCMAN
LIZABETH G. LOWREY
CARI L. ROTH
STEPHEN A. WALKER
MICHELLl WILLIAMS


REPLY TO:
WEST PALM BEACH

Client/Matter No.:( 5 L Pages: <

Telecoov Number: f/ q 1 -01 5 a- .


Telecopy Number: 9 Q'/ 3-3-_ c

Telecopy Number: O qC-1 I Ss I

Telecopy Number: aq / a aa--a)"


Contact Person: Bernice


Subject:



Message:


THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TELECOPY MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY/ CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS
MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR
COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,
PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS
VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
If problems with trnanmi-ion occur, please call
(4071 640-0820


From:Steohen Walker


To:






'Sep. 11. 1996 4:34PM LEWIS LONGMAN&WALKER 4076400820 No. 2911 P. 2/9




LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER
MEMORANDUM

TO: Distribution

FROM: Steve Walker

SUBJECTI Revised Grant Selection Criteria

DATES September 11, 1996

As discussed on Tuesday, september 10, 1996, I have revised the previous
draft to reflect the group's comments. The changes are (loosely) shown in
legislative format. Unresolved issues or those needing further discussion are
shown in bold. Please review these revisions and call me with any additions,
deletions, or corrections. As I understand it the primary topic of discussion at
the September 17th meeting will be funding. It would be helpful if we could also
take a few minutes to finalize this document on the 17th as well.


Lr Program Goal To award grants to applicants proposing projects which will
assure an affordable and reliable sunilv of water for all users.

2. General program structure

a. Awards should be in the form of grants, not loans. This aoproach
avoids complications with accounting and pledging credit for the
benefit of private corporations.

b. Grants should require some level of cost sharing. Suggest 50/50,
for each project, but year to year sharing requirements may vary
depending upon the phase the project is in. Some projects, because
of their particular desirability, may qualify for a higher cost
share ratio (up to 100%) if special criteria are met. [we need to
discuss that these special criteria might be.]

c. Other alternatives considered:

i. 50/50 for projects developing traditional sources; 75/25 for
alternative water supply projects.

ii. Sliding scale depending on the size of the project, ie., the
larger the project, the smaller the percentage available for
grant award.

iii. Sliding scale defending upon the financial caoabilitv of the
applicant. Some applicants may have very worthy projects, but
not the financial wherewithal to do a complete match.

3. What types of projects should be eligible for funding?

a. The primary focus of ,the rant program should be to encourage
applicants to develop alternative water supplies. Therefore, *
of available funding should be available for this purpose. The
remaining V should be made available for more traditional water
supply source development. in areas where such development can occur
without environmental harm, or to redevelop traditional sources in
a way which reduces or eliminates past environmental impacts. [This
issue is undecided. I have added this language as an attempt to
give greater weight to funding for the nontraditional sources, while
not eliminating the possibility that a traditional project could be
funded. I've also added a provision which could be used to
remediate traditional source impacts for your consideration.]





Sep. 11. 1996 4:34PM LEWIS LONGMAN&WALKER 4076400820 No. 2911 P. 3/9




b. Ah. t~e-hel.d eonieeatie...L Projects should require a consumptive
use permit to implement, or be a necessary requirement of the
consumptive use permitting of the primary use, or involve research
and development for the purpose of increasing water supplies. [This
threshold would still eliminate most environmental uses and WMD
projects from consideration. I have added some additional language
to reflect Bill Hyde's concern. This language does not address
Frank Mathews' concern that environmental projects should be
considered in order for this idea to pass.]

c- Grants should cover planning, design, ermitting and construction
costs for capital improvements necessary to ensure an adequate and
affordable supply of water for all users. This would include
research and development projects as well as demonstration projects.

d. Categories of projects:

i. Water supply development and storage projects Projects which
increase the supply of water available for use through
developing or remediating traditional water sources, and
increasing storage of water which would otherwise be lost for
use through drainage. Examples include projects such as
wellfields, surface water withdrawals, reservoirs,
impoundments, aquifer storage and retrieval, stormwater
recovery systems.

ii. Resource improvement projects Projects which increase the
supply of water available for use by managing factors which
would otherwise reduce water availability. Examples include
projects such as salinity barriers, seepage barriers, aquifer
freshening, withdrawal impact mitigation. pollution
remediation. and retrofit of water management systems.

iii. Treatment systems Projects which increase the supply of
water available for use by treating sources which would not
otherwise be suitable for use. Examples include projects such
as desalination,' reverse osmosis, treatment technology
upgrades, blending of lower quality water with fresh water.

iv. TPranenemm en System interconnects Projects which increase
the supply of water available for use by increasing the
flexibility and efficiency of systems to move water to where
it is needed with minimum environmental and peliti.e~ impact.
Examples include projects such as --E.r:'-e wae" r ...z. .ant
eyoeem -regionAl utility interconnections, local utility
interconnections.

v. Water conservation facilities e~e4ees Projects which
increase the supply of water available for use by decreasing
demands. Examples. include projects such as urban indoor and
outdoor use retrofits, agricultural irrigation system
retrofits.

4. Which types of applicants are eligible to participate?

a. All entities or persons, public or private, proposing projects which
qualify for funding under the above criteria should be permitted to
participate.

b. Depending on the source of funding chosen for this program, the
committee may want to give some consideration to restricting the
pool of applicants to those entities and persons primarily
contributing to the fund, directly or indirectly.






Sep. 11. 1996 4:34PM LEWIS LONGMAN&WALKER 4076400820 No. 2911 P. 4/9




a-.--Grante awairdol-co-privase applieante sheuid be conditioenedi oueh that
the private e..tity does B. .t.-dirtly-oarn a profit from thgrant.-

d. Examples:
i. Governmental entities such as regional water supply
authorities, governmentally owned utilities, local
governments, including special taxing districts, community
development districts, water management districts.
ii. Private entities such as investor owned and member owned
utilities, industrial users, agricultural users, other
irrigation users, recreational uses.

5. What should be the selection criteria for ranking projects?

a. The primary obectiv eritewri should be to select those the-eetnt
t whih to projects which most further the goal of assuring an
affordable and reliable supply of water for all users. Criteria
should Elmno of this eritria -include the extent to which the
project:

&-r- is compatible With l6giulative water supply Objeetivoo.

ii. fulfills a demonstrated water supply need.
iiij will reduce the freauencv and severity of future water
shortages.

iv. is located in a- water resource caution area. [Since the.
Districts have designated virtually the entire state as water
resource caution areas, this criteria may not be terribly
useful. Perhaps there are some specific resource concerns
that would provide more useful screening. Any suggestions?]

v_. is located in an area that is subject to a decrease in water
uppDly due to revised rules or policies of the water
management district, such as a change to resource evaluation
criteria, operational decisions or minimum flows and levels.
[This is Irene's proposal to address the changing rules
scenario. I've attached her memo to me which has an
explanation of the concern.]

vi. has environmental benefits/detriments

vii. advances the technology of water supply development and
treatment beyond current levels.

viii. has applicability beyond the project scope. Is. demonstrates
techniques which can be used in other areas of the state.

b. The project should be financially and technically feasible.
Criteria should include 'the extent to which the project:
i. has a positive benefit/cost. The selected projects) should
result in the most water produced for the dollar spent.
ii. compares favorably with other alternatives. Is it the least
cost alternative?
iii. is cost effective.

iv. is eligible for cost sharing under other programs.





SSep. 11. 1996 4:35PM


LEWIS LONGMAN&WALKER 4076400820


No. 2911 P. 5/9


v. is ready to proceed to the next stage of planning. design,
permitting, or construction.



vii. can be supported given the financial capability/accountability
of the applicant.

c. The projects should be geographically distributed throughout the
state.


CC:
Keith Hetrick
Chuck Littlejohn
Doug Mann
Phil Parsons
Irene Quincey
A:\CRTERGXA.DR2


(904) 224-1359
(904) 681-8796
(904) 681-8796
(904) 224-5595
(561) 471-0522


Bill Hunter
Wade Hopping
Jake Varn
Gene Adams
Bill Hyde


(904) 222-5098
(904) 224-6551
(904) 222-0398
(904) 224-0702
(904) 222-1002




Sep. 11. 19966 4:35PMM LEWIS LONGMAN&WALKER 4076400820


PAVESE, GARNER, HAVERFIELD, DALTON, HARRISON & JENSEN
ATTORNEYS AMD COUNSaLORS AT LAW
SUFTr 203
4,l, OUN CU, ROAD
WEST FALH BfACB, fLORIDA I331
(d0ll 71-126
FAX (4011 491.0Q22
MEMORANDUM



TO: Stev Walker

FROM: Jrene Kennedy Quincey
-T
DATE: September 10, 1996

SUBJECT: Post Conference Call Questions

Some thoughts on your proposal. Please call me when you receive
these notes. Thanks.

Please refer to Section 373.1961(2)(f) F.S. Will this be a replacement
program for that program? Or is it the intent to expand the projects eligible under
that program for other projects? Will this criteria expand the guidelines adopted by
the Governing Board under that section? I realize I missed a meeting and may be
behind the curve on some of the discussion of the committee and subcommittee.

REVISED DISTRICT CRITERIA CREATING NEED FOR REVISED WATER SOURCES

The key issues for me fall within the discussion of selection criteria.
My suggestion is that for projects where the water management district changes
the rules for technical evaluation of the resource or changes the public interest test,
the District (or public at large) should assist in the "retrofitting" of the consumptive
use projects to meet the new criteria. This retrofitting can be phased in over time
and paid for in part by the matching grants.

See the attached DRAFT from the SFWMD's proposed Lower West
Coast rulemaking package. My point is that when the District changes either the
RB path or the PI path, thus creating competition, the users should have some
financial assistance with resource because, but for the changed criteria, these users
would not require new permits and new sources of water supply. This is further
emphasized with the next chart "optimization evaluation" where the District has
some responsibility for the decrease in water supply. As a matter of public policy,
these users should be entitled to their fair share first.


}No. 2911 FP. 6/9




LEWIS LONGMAN&WALKER 4076400820


Memorandum
September 10, 1996
Mr. Steve Walker Water User Group
Page 2



Suggested Revisions to 4.

Is located in an area that is subject to a decrease in water supply due
to the revised rules or policies of the water management district, such as change in
resource criteria, operational decisions or minimum flows and levels.

RELATIONSHIP WITH DISTRICT WATER PLANS

This is a separate issue, which may be the forefront to the
discussions. What, if any relationship, will be proposed to establish policy to guide
the District's planning efforts so that the correct decisions are made based on
sound science? Has there been any discussion to require the SWFWMD approach
to be applied statewide? Will there be a requirement that the District complete its
planning efforts such that water is available to all reasonable-beneficial uses or will
the grant program be used as an excuse by the District to replace good science
since now money will be available to pay for water? I would propose that the "pink
bill" process is still needed before the District completes the major plans.

IKQ/cc

cc: Mr. James F. Garner
Mr. Steve Lamb


Sep. 11. 19966 4:35PMM


S No. 2911 P,. 7/9





LEWIS LONGMAN&WALKER 4076400820


R-B


PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS (3 PRONG TEST)


PI


U I


change in resource
cteria or anticpaid
impacts to resource
occurring


Competition Ests


Oprniation Evaluation
(see anacea chart)


Compe titon not
' resolved
'II


I ---


.Sep. 11. 199616 4:35PMM
r


INo. 2911 IP. 8/9





LEWIS LONGMAN&WALKER 4076400820


-- PIMIZATION---
EVALUATION


What


1. Capital construction, ASR, RO.
reservoirs

2. Operational changes
stage & routing protoWl

3. Local Government Interaction
(land use, water conservation
ordinances)

4. Land managementacquisimion
(SOR, CARL etc.)


Optimzation Ranking
(see attached chart)


1. Change in withdrawal location
2. Change in source

3. Operation schedule

4. Optimize effciendcy of use


Othem


Who


Decrease in water sWiply due
to social benefit decreasee in
regional siprge because of
min flows / reservation)
(Plaring)


---


1No. 2911 IP. 9/9


4:36PM


Sep. 11. 19.96


When


District




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