Page 1 of 7
November 8 Core Committee Meeting
11/01/96 11:30 AM
7, including cover page
Judy C Dove
The Capitol, Room 1501
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Lotus Fax Server Cover Page
Page 2 of 7
TO: Water Supply Development Core Committee
FROM: Jake Vam, Chair and David Guest, Vice-Chair
RKl: November X, 1996 Meeting of the Core Committee
1)ATI:I November 1, 1996
AtHached please find the following items;
1. Summary of the October 17 water supply development (WSD) commnitte meeting
2. A consolidated summary of the perceived problems with water supply development. This is
our best shot at taking your responses and distilling the issues common to them. I hope this
will make the discussion more mnauitgabl. ITuifything significant is not covered under one
of these issues, point it out wnd we will iihludc it. Available at the meeting will be copies of
all the responses we received.
3. A draft agenda for the WSI) committee meeting on November 8. You will receive a more
dcutiled agenda at the meeting.
4. A copy of a matrix put together (and still being expanded upon) by DEP stUd which illustrates
the roles and responsibilities of various entities in water supply development, regulation, and
plauming. This will be a rIefrncei for discussion during our meeting
I think we can proceed with an orderly discussion by categorizing issues according to phuning,
regulation, and development. Within those three categories, we can determine what is happening at
the state, regional, and local lvels and then what needs to happen.
I look forward to seeing you on the 8th. Rest up.
,1/01/9C 110 34 AM
11/01/96 11.34 AM 2f
WATIC SUPPLY DI)CVELO)PM INTI COMMIT' I'TTI
November 8, 1996
10:45 Explanation of Format (Jake Va n)
Ovcradl formal; Determining what is happening in water supply pluming, regulation,
and development at the state, regional, and local levels; and what needs to happen?
T'he objective tor this meeting is to cover planning and as much of regulation as
possible, addressing broad concepts.
11.00 Planning (see matrix auid list of perceived problems as reerences for discussion)
10-15 minute WMD presentdaion on regional water supply planing--What do the
WMDs sce happening with regional water supply pans (what is their legal
significance, what ensures their implementation)?
Discussion of: What is happening in water supply planning at the state, regional and
local levels (and by whom)? Based on perceived problems in phuming, what needs to
happen (and by whom)? I low should these planning efforts he linked?
11:30 I, INCH
1:00 Planning (continued)
2:30 Regulation (see matrix and list of perceived problems as references for discussion)
What is happening in water supply regulation at the state, regional, and loca levels
(and by whom)? Bascd on pcrcived problcims in regulation, what needs to happen
(and by whom)?
--Review of meeting
--Agenda for next meeting
-Discussion of need for additional meCtings
Break--Adjourn to Full Group
Page 3 of 7
211/01/96 2,34 AM ~*4
WATER SUPPLY D)ICVE)ICOPM INT (C MMITIICIC
October 17, 1996--'lallahassee
'Ihis committee elected a chair (Jake Vain) and vice chair (David Guest).
The committee set an immediate task for its core members: A one-page paper, representative of each
interest group on the core committee, which lists the perwcived problems related to water supply
development. Core committee representatives are to submit the paper to Terry Pride by October 28, so
she can consolidate them into a paper for discussion by the comnmitwt at the November 8 meting.
State agencies will collectively prepare a single paper. Other core committee representatives will
present a paper according to the interest rca breakdown (c.g., Qnv./citizen will do one paper,
business/industry/development will do one paper, etc.)
The problem statements should be categorized according to geographic problems and process
The committee identified the following infbonation needs:
-Who is doing it now (I low they're doing it, how well)?
-Impediments to lullilling roles financiall, technical, regulatory, ctc.)
--I historical Roles
--Clarify Philosophical DilUrcnocs (among agcacics, ctc.)
--Regional problems and solutions
-Assess probability of success with existing tools/miccuhnisms
--Future demands by region
Possible tfoinat tor information:
Roles Stitte Rciiond Loald Privatc
The couinittcc also discussed:
OTHER TASKS NEEDING DISCUSSION
* Delivery Systems (Hardware)
* What are th1e existing aud needed roles in water supply development?
Page 4 oE 7
11/01/9C 11J34 AM5
ISSIJES I)ISC(:SSEI) I)DURING 1996 SESSION
Integration of I and/Water planning
Rgional Water Supply Plauuing
Minimum Flows & Levels; scicntliic peer reT iew (Reg)
Ra~t Structure; public vs. private utilities
I ocal Sources first (Reg.)
Permit duration competing permits
Source security (Reg.)
Water to mcct all uneds
Note: Not all of these wcre necessarily reconmmnded for the committiU to address, but as an
illustration of the range of issues that had been opened up, but not resolved, during session.
NEXT WATER SUPPLY l),VLOPMINT Ml*ETING:
* I ook at Planning, Regulation, Implementation
what roles played at state, regional, locdl & private lcvls (matrix)-DEP sldaufare putting
together a background paper on existing roles in water supply development ~ud funding. A draft of
this should be available before the next meeting. An agenda will be sent out by November 1.
SYNOPSIS OF COMMITTEE I' K STEPS:
--Identify critical problems
-Review DEP roles and responsibilities paper
-Each interest group on committee send one-pag paper of perceived problems to Terry Pi- is by noon
on October 28.
-Agenda for next meeting to be sent out by November 1 (faxed)
Page 5 of 7
.&1101//9c 2 A s 2 e AN
Summary of Perceived Problems
Related to Water Supply Development
Committee on Water Supply Ievelopment
November 1, 1996
CO)NSOLII)AT'II) SUMMARY OF1 P1'CRCI IVICI) PR()IIICMS
Statewide vs. regional problems and solutions; Need for flexibility of approach to develop regionud
solutions; lack of regional consensus on source development and funding allocations; parochial view
of resourLc use.
Luck of clarity of roles: Of local governmmnts, regional water supply authorities, WMDs, and state
agencies in water supply planning. Who takes the lead? I low many levels of plans are needed?
Lack of information: Regarding needs and sources, minimum flows and levels, water availability,
projections for water demands, etc., upon which to base water supply planning. (Question: What is
the cause of this and how can it be remedied? Is it due to ifnding, workload, and technical
limitations or poor coordination among governmental entities?); inability of agriculture to predict
its future dcuimnds; hlak of pier review of modeling information.
Absence of linkages between plans and between permitting and planning: At the lotad, regional,
and state levels; confusion regarding the connection between regional water supply plans and
regulatory prognums, mid 1th legal signiliouicu e of the plus; inadequate consideration of the tic
between land use plans and the availability of sustainable water supplies.
Inadequate representation in planning processes: Agriculture is not adequately represented in
water supply planning process due to lack of technica/industry resources and unified position; the
pr.esnt system for making water supply development decisions dcnics the public the opportunity to
participate in a consensus-building process.
Caps in statutory guidance: Inconsistent or inadequate statewide goals regarding development of
adtcrnative supplies; liwk of statutory d&linitions for key tenns such as "sustainable," "minimum flows
and levels," and "water supply development"; liak of defined criteria or level of service for supplying
Page C off 7
11/01/96 112 34 AM Page 7 of 7
Uncertainty, confusion, and inflexibility in regulation, including: (hanging regulatory regimes
and slowness of agency responsiveness, dilferint interpretation ofrrgulatioii, C.g., wetlhuds policies,
permit conditions, groundwater management criteria, reuse; inconsistent criteria at W M ) boundaries;
hlak of coordination betwccn DEP and WMDS, at both stat~ headquarters and regional district levels;
inability to mitigate wetland impacts from welllicld withdrawals like other wetland pcmnitting criteria;
delays in adapting existing regulations to accommodate the utilization of emerging technologies for
alternative water supply developnmnt, such as aquilfr storage aund recovery, desiaination, ind reuse;
SJnclear law and policy regarding how M lFI s are to be established and enforced; PSC rate setting (does
not allow reasonable cost recovery); hk of l'regulatory incentives for altcrnativ technologies and
Inadequate protection for existing legal users: There is a need for short-term source security, e.g.,
stronger "rights" to permit ren;wals for existing legal users and isswuan of maximum duration
consumptive use permits; permit durations generally are insufficient to recover investments or provide
ccrutinty to aricultural users.
Inadequate protection for the environment; Water is not bcing m&uiaged to assure that it will be a
sustainable resource over time.
Interdistrict transfers of water: Concerms regarding both inappropriate water transfers and
unreasonable prohibition of water transfers.
Iack of independent scientific peer review: To verify data, which would foster confidence in and
acceptability for the scicntilic basis for regulations.
Luck of clarity of roles of state, regional, and local entities in water supply development: L;wk
of consensus on what entity should have primary responsibility (e.g., local government, water
management districts, others); problems with structure and function ol'r;gionad waler supply
Resistance to development of alternative sources,to conservation, and reuse (because oflack of
funding, regulatory obstacles, inadequate incentives, perception?).
Funding constraints: Iack of adequate, equitable,long-term funding, resulting in delays in
development and lawk of infrastructure; utility r:evenues re-dirc;ted to non-water supply uses, diverting
a substantial source of funding for water supply development.