PENNI'- IN.CULPEPPER AND MOORE 4 700tl11278t '5380
PENNINGTON, CULPEPPER, MOORE, WILKINSON, DUNBAR & DUNLAP, P.A.
ATTxomRYS AT LAw
0. MARW IYRNE t
ABM 0.E. CANTIR
CHAI.ES L. CO J.
"p Ct CLO~AuIrPa
DA"BSO F. OuM0, JAl.
M4(WA IJ aCEamLrLD
DOuSuAs LYO mS. PA
mDGA It WOORE
E MURRAY MOOE. J.
JOHN C. P MAM
CAR R. PVREPNtm4W R.. .A,
C. EOWM RUJ JR.
CYNYTA S. TUNICUR
WLUAM E WITNEY
BZ.N H. WILKdSON
CATHI C. WLKSON
t A Ani in Temers *i
HURM11 F. CLAW
ft. 5TURT MfPPjFA
(AowW TV-i a M
DAVID LS i m
*Nor A Mumber oi1) Flixja e
a u, rap-a uonem rru
P.O. X Bnaox
MLAN PASSES, FL M .it
TALLAHASUee, pFL 9SO2b029
DATE: IT l9 q qc
FROM: Cim Coln
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES:
If you do not receive this transmittal in its entirety, ple 'call (904) 222-3533.
THIS INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS LEGALLY
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 COPY OF THIS TELECOPY IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR,
PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE
ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE VIA THE UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
PENN I 'N, CULPEPPER AND MOORE 4 700 11278t' '5380
PENNINGTON, CULPEPPER, MOORE, WILKNMS6, DUNBAR & DUNLAP, P.A.
BAWRBI O, AUGER
WILLuAM W. ELU
SAM. ew rnmie t
BRAM 2 E. C.mATR
ROeRT CITRON. Jt
RTM & COHEN
0CHXS L COCPER. JR
PEfRl M. OUNOAR
A$5Wi F. NLAP, JR.
MARTHA J. X ENeC
JOHN T. LEADEATER
eDa KU MO. re
e. MURPAY MOORE, JR.
JOHN S. rPF.AM
CARL A. rENNn'TN JN.., PA
C. EDWIN RUDE. JR.
JEtlAY M. ScotT
CYNTHIA I. TJJNICu I
WlUJAM E. AlTWY
CATI C. WLKINSON
t MAl Adiasd in 7gnmse
(A~MfdbUKMw q. NmWYa& flhscoslwOi4)
SCOTtMAO= .0 ,
AY10 L .imFi e
nrot Au Mwof n .iRcuna aer
ass sour MOVs staRT
TALLAUIU FLOUM S01
TALM.UASUB, FL 323040M0
October 29, 1990
Office of Water Policy
Department of Environmental Protection
Please find enclosed three documents which I present the
perceived water supply development problems of Pasco County, the
City of St. Petersburg, and West CoaSc Regional Water Supply
yra;p. E. Canter
: : '. "
PENNIh "9N,CULPEPPER AND MOORE 4 700 11278rC'5380
Water Sup ly Dovetop'4nt Problems
west Coast Regional Wateri.j;ply Authority
1. Water use permits are not 5 $ iqfficiently long duration
to provide reasonable assurance that large capital investments in
water supply development projects willi;bb amortized.
2. Water supply development projects will continue to be
opposed until there is a resolutionrz'o~. the conflict over water
transport rights and limitations.
3. Because the law and policytA rearding how minimum flows
and levels are to be established atiliiepforced remains unclear,
water supply development projects wil1 continue to generate
objections related to MFLs.
4. Consensus support for wate3 'iupply development projects
will be difficult or impossible without; a concurrent proposal for
equitable allocation of development diand deliveryy costs.
5. Water supply deeelopmet 0o6tcts will be opposed if
existing water users are forced t' "be rminate preferred water
: 1' :
4 .. :
S:. t ,.
i t '; :
,, *, .,. ,
I I .
18/29/96 11:50 PENNIhV'NCULPEPPER AND MOORE 4 700#11278W9 5380
PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA
DADE CITY (352) 521-4274 UTILITIES SERVICES BRANCH
LAND 0' LAKES (813) 996-7341 PUB. WKS./UTILITIES BLDG., S-213
NEW PORT RICHEY (813) 847-8145 7530 IrlTIL ROAD
FAX (813) 847-8064 NEW PORT RICHES, FL 34654
October 24, 1996
Kr. Bram D. B. Canter
Pennington, Culpepper, Moore,
Wilkinson, Dunbar & Dunlap, P.A.
Post Office Box 10095
Tallahassee, FL 32302-2095
RE: Request for List of Perceived
Problems Water Supply Development
Dear Mr. Carter:
The "perceived" or "real" problems for Pasco Co6iSty in development of a sustainable
water supply in West Central Florida are cople but so simple. Since Pinellas
County has blocked all alternative sources to date, except for their insistence of
more overpumping of groundwater, this has been'the single and most devastating
problem over the past 20 years.
The following is my list of real problems for Pai County:
1. Pinellas County refusal to fund alternative sources.
2. Lack of adequate and enforceable minftaM flows and levels by the
Southwest Florida Water Management District.
3. The lack of strong legislation and' lea6ilihip in Tallahassee to make
needed, substantial changes to Chapter 373.
4. The current administration of West Ciaft Regional Water Supply
Authority clearly favors requests from Pinellas County and discounts
the needs of smaller member governments. These actions, in fact,
support the Pinellas County control of the General Manager.
5. Water Supply Authority district boundaries cause severe "turf"
battles, which eliminates the ability to develop substantial surface
water and groundwater sources.
6. If the decision is made to place the development of water supplies
directly under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the
Page 1 oK2
10/29/96 11:50 PENNIV'N, CULPEPPER AND MOORE 4 70tt11278t-N530 ND.573 P005
threat of doing so will probably create ah 'initiative to solve these
problem quicker than any other proposed alternatives!
7. Funding problems are primarily caused ~.*aM'ii Mts that refuse to
accept the fact that "cheap" water is a thing of the pastI
8. Funding of new sustainable water resourcea I-'West Central Florida has
been delayed because of the Pinellas Cqunty refusal to fund alterna-
tive sources. Resolve this problem and you have fixed the major
stumbling block for Pasco County.
9. Finally, please review the attached 'report,: whichh clearly shows that a
"drought" or lack of rainfall has not caused the severe environmental
damage on and adjacent to regional vel a4lds. in Pasco County.
I wish you well in these endeavors and can onl, hope that someone will step forward
and make decisive, substantial changes during the 1997 Legislative Session.
Assistant County Admin trator
cc: Doo Conn, West Coast Regional Water Suply" Authority, 2535
Clearvater, FL 34621
The Honorable Ed Collins, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
John J. Gallagher, County Administrator
Page 2 o^2
PENNING -,CULPEPPER AND MOORE + 700 11278#99-380
OC f 8L Petenbwrg
Oftic o( thO City Atorney
TO a Bram tanter, Esquire .p yAX .1NO., 904-222-2126
(PROM in Streeter. Assistant City Attornea
DATR v Qgaober 2. 1,219 No. or PA Q4g eludingig Cover Page): 1
COPY : (Will follow by nail)
x2. (Will not follow by mail)
MU8AG13 Rei Governor's Comittee.I LWater .sunnlvDevelo-ment
The City vm.A4 like to see Che ,4lolwina .isues addrseed
by the above refereneed qaoup-
In addressing the develoMent ;t owf!te amslv. wll there e
an .mauamttia that eaxintin,. rmi4tt.d water. minpp li will
continue? ..t not. how will axisti~ l al uses be treated
L6 1ill xitiaation be permitted to offset affects and/or ilnacts
to the enviroazMmt and sutrra feature oeauriny ..ftrm
Qoundwat r and/or surface water withdrawals?
I belleve these concon ns are not uniage to Ste. Pete sburE9.
Pleae_ contact me at 892-5401 if. :vi need anv additional
cc: Bill Johnson
SENDBR'S VAX NO.: (813) 892-5253
SIDW*'8 TBLUPHOHe NUMBlRt (813) 893-7403
BSUD3R'*B &NIM FRANCES R. SCOTT
rTs UrOIW*?o1 o0 5ara rAtanm = = nag3tmsU e %a 3s vas nvarOU1e AzmL )
coQXrTzora& zunroIrsTIOw sZW raQs I Or a 3w o wa- v ou fo w2s nemaaYaL OR mwZsaw
mWa na 3B M Y Tam 3oXD Or 318o =u4=M XZ NOw MWM ZsiW m CItWZWyT, YOU
aB m aAr NOTwsM sa w awr DxsmsaM .Ao, B WWOI WZ0 On COw of1 Tzi
cocsamcaTZxoNr l aTn1 cCrt PRaOHIBaXz Zi YOU 8V0 UatSZYv fa1o COMC1aWTb6onM
zs 3330o, U M# xa wZOT=f va lISIoWzLSX BY TasLUWONI.
Cty WD St P
TO'd ITOON IZ:4I 96.982 130 Z.Z69!8 1 "1a Ia 18931/31gd 'IS
OCALA CITY MGR.
10/29/96 10:46 FAX 9046",391
"We're User Friendly"
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
R O N
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
FAX NUMBER: Cka -5
Q___ ^ ^ '-- V >~ ^__________
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 9-
CITY HALL PO. BOX 1270 4 OCALA, FL 34478 FAX (904) 629-8391
I~ amII r!
OCALA CITY MGR.
10/29/96 10:46 FAX 9046,-191
Municipal Water Supplies Planning. Implementation and Regulatory Issues
The uncertainty of land development as to what extent, where and when it will take place has always been a key
factor when either doing or updating Master Plans for water supply. Growth projections used are usually based
on an average of recent growth trends but do not project comprehensive plan revisions, changes, or
modifications. A good example would be the problems the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority is
facing regarding adequacy of its own water supplies to keep up with area growth demands. Another example is
our own experience regarding the uncertainty about who was going to provide water and sewer services outside
the Ocala's city limits. Our concern came to a critical focus because the system's 20-year master plan was at the
point where we needed to identify what was expected of us in the future regarding system expansions as well as
costs and funding sources to support those functions. Intergovernmental coordination is critical but too often
one government agency can actually cause a problem for another because it does not perceive the urgency of the
matter from the other government's perspective. This creates an animosity and hinders good planning and
efficient utilization of all available resources.
Suitable lands are needed for both water and wastewater treatment facilities as well as what infrastructure
upgrades will be needed to meet those plans. Growth in a water system dictates the necessity to plan for
wastewater treatment and reuse of both water and solid residuals from that treatment process. You cannot plan
for one without the other unless you know another entity is willing to take over the responsibility of providing
the other services. Another critical factor regarding water supplies is not knowing where there are sustainable
quantities of quality water supplies within a given area and how those supplies will be impacted by growth in,
on or around them. This is especially true when the area in question is not directly within your jurisdictional
boundaries. An excellent location for a new well field may be in the middle of a proposed commercial,
industrial or residential development Unless all potential water supply locations are identified and cataloged
with associated quality and quantity data, there is no way to protect them for future use, nor can they be
effectively or efficiently utilized and still protect surrounding ecosystems. To mark or dedicate a proposed site
by itself for future water supply is not the solution by itself. Surrounding land uses could dramatically impact
the proposed water supply location. A good example would be allowing a heavy industrial plant or a mining
facility to be located on adjacent property. A similar case can be made for siting of wastewater related facilities
which as previously stated are a necessary bi-product of water supply facilities.
With respect to regulatory aspects, too often regulations are instituted without much input from the utilities as to
the effect on their operations, costs, or impact on the customers. Unanticipated new environmental regulations
cause major impacts on the utilities' ability to plan adequately for implementation of those rules or modify
existing master plans to include the new rules. There is more effort now by all agencies to elicit input from the
utilities prior to promulgating new rules, but to often even this input is not taken seriously by the regulatory
agency because it does not meet their preconceived goals or anticipated outcome. A regulatory agency looks at
unaccounted for water within a system as unnecessarily wasting water which needs to be stopped because it is
not promoting water conservation. However, the utility looks at it from a potential lost revenue perspective and
that if the costs of fixing the problem greatly outweigh the revenues gained, then why do it. The Utility would
also question the conservation issue because if the water is leaking back into the ground, the groundwater is
being replenished with a higher quality water and thus not wasted. In addition, there is significant disparity
between rules of the different agencies as well as who has the ultimate say on those issues. While this is most
visible between the water management districts, there have been cases where DEP regional offices disagree on
interpretation of its own rules. This has a significant impact on the water supplier planning and implementation
when they may be split between multiple water management districts' and/or DEP regions. The expected
approach being proposed by the EPA, on requiring the specified rules to be followed only when the rule is
applicable to the respective location, appears to be a step in the right direction. Why should a supplier be
expected to test for a chemical or agent that is not found or used in that area? This type of perspective could be
used in the case of split regional or district boundaries here.
Problems Geographic Process Institutional
Ma iinyg Approved local government Ability of agriculture to 0 RWSA anl tities need to perfonn
comprehensive plans provide predict future demands Img term planning
for growth beyond available Regional scale of planning Local Comprehensive Plan needs
traditional supplies in areas makes it difficult for consistency with water supply plans,
listed below individual pemaittees to District rules and needs & sources
It is observed that 80% of the evatlate how plans affect document
growth will be within 20 then
miles of the coast Agriculture not adequately
represented in WSP process
due to lack of technical/
industy resources ani unified
p la Additional modeling tools an Coordination between CUP i Rese standards, brine disposal and
data needed to implement the renewal dates and changes in ASR standards not flexible enough
Plan for CUP plans/rules/data for water spply development process
Inconsisteat criteria at Technical informnaio
boenaries in problem areas constantly improve
resulting in mandated'
criteria and testing pernits
that need review
Permit nation may be
insufficient to recover
S* lem te tiotn Lack of delivery/storage Need for long tena phased Existig old capital infastru re
infrstrtre ad lack of implementation of plans due PSC rae setting
traditional supplies for aras to need for extensive funding Parochial view of resource use
listed below of iafrstncture and Cost feaibility of certain opoos and
Resource impact from altcmative sources; causes user groups' ability to pay
expansion of traditional delays in Plan benefits Utility revenues rediected to aon-
sources or new souTCes Lack of regional consensus water spply uses
Lack ofinfeasibility of on souce development and
alternative water supplies in funding allocation
certain areas Long tem funding needs
versus shor ter budget
Traditional Sources Existing
Pasco to Polk and South Dade, Browad,. Palm Beach,
ivailabW ity Santa Rosa, Walon. Hendry, Lee, Glades, Late,
Okaloosa, Gadsden Co., Volusia, Orange, Seminole,
South Broward Co. Coastal Flagler/St. Johns/N.
Brevard, Gulf, Franklin
ASSOCIAFTIR JU P.O. Bor 549/ rallahassee, Florida 32302
f COUNTI Phow 04/224.314 FAX: 90422..5s
DATE: OCAc..be R 19lL TIME; _12,:0P
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) TO;
NAME: T-cr rJ ,J
OFFICE: befA Vn4or r r eI,
FAX NUMBER: 7 922 -'54 Y
TOTAL PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE): Z.
SENDER'S NAME: r-ar' 4._L _k
SENDER'S FAX #i 904/561-0871 or 904/222-5839
Mark these dates
on your calendar:
Nov. 20- 22, 1996
March 26, 1997
June 25-27, 1997
.............I- ......... --------
VIVIAN ZARICAI I C4ROL ROSERTS OMHN MANNING
idcu4tr Dcrcw 'VeSIENrT PRESIDENr ELECT
PALM BEACH LEE
RUD MAtOY EDOWARD I. OIXON IJON P HART
IST ICEPRLESIDOET 2ND VICE PRESIDE NT IMMEDIATE
LIOV eADOsEN PAST PREStENT
--- ~--- ------ ----
10/28/96 12:52 NO.571 P002/002
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING, REGULATORY AND IMPLEMENTATION IMPEDIMENTS
TO WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT
L PLANNING (Note: These issues are not listed in priority order.)
A A. Changing regulatory regimes and slowness of agency responsiveness.
B. Uncertainty of all regulations-wetlands policies, permit conditions, groundwater management criteria,
Sc. Lack of information from the water management districts, such as groundwater basin inventories, needs
and sources, minimum flows and levels, and growth projections for water demands.
D. Lack of intergovernmental coordination between the local governments, public utilities and water
management districts. For example, public utilities prepare Master Plans that identify future funding
needs and sources, yet the water management districts do not adequately provide the growth projections
so they can adequately plan for future needs.
SE. Lack of clarity of the role of local governments, water management districts and state agencies in water
supply planning, development and implementation.
F. Lack of statutory definitions for key terms such as "sustainable," "minimum flows and levels," and "water
G. Unknown needs and sources for all users and lack of defined criteria or level of service for
supplying source water.
H. Lack of integration of permitting and planning at the local, regional and state level.
I. Lack of recognition of regional water issues & solutions--"one size does not fit all."
J. Deficiencies in planning to ensure suitable lands for water and wastewater facilities.
IL REGULATORY (Note: These issues are not listed in priority order.)
A. Role of"players" in water supply development--e.g., conflict with water suppliers being regulators.
B. Lack of coordination between DEP and water management districts, at both state headquarters and
regional district levels. Additionally, problems arise when multiple districts are involved--e.g., different
alignment of the regulatory agencies on reuse policies.
C. Permit duration--local governments must plan, design and construct facilities based on long-term
economic factors as well as water and natural resource protection. Longer permit duration would
provide higher bond ratings, more certainty for finance purposes, and coincide with the planning horizons
in the local comprehensive plans. However, this issue gets caught up in the water allocation issue and
does not move forward.
D. Regulations are developed without adequate input from public utilities.
E. Lack of independent scientific peer review to verify data which would foster confidence in and
acceptability for the scientific basis for regulations,
F. Inability to mitigate wetland impacts from wellfield withdrawals like other wetland permitting criteria.
G. Excessive time delays to adapt existing regulations to accommodate the utilization of
emerging technologies for alternative water supply development, such as aquifer storage & recovery,
desalination and reuse.
H. Lack of regulatory incentives (allocation rewards, longer permit duration) for alternative technologies and
sources, such as reuse for effluent disposal.
II. IMPLEMENTATION (Note: These issues are not listed in priority order.)
A All of the issues identified under Planning and Regulatory are impediments to
implementation for water supply development.
B. High capital costs are a deterrent to implementing emerging technologies.
Charles Littlejohn &Associates
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Agricultural Water Supplies
October 28, 1996
Attached please find statement on water supply drafted on behalf of members of Florida's
cc: Estus Whitfield
310 WEST COLLEGE AVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
(904) 222-7535 (904) 681-8796 FAX
WATER SUPPLY POSITION STATEMENT
FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL COALITION
All Floridians are affected by how the State deals with water supply development, but
none are more impacted than those who work in the State's second largest industry agriculture.
Agriculture's major water concern is source security. Without available, high quality water,
agriculture cannot survive. In order to provide a stable environment for the State's economy, it is
important to provide some protection for existing legal water users while providing enough water
to meet the future needs of all our citizens. Over the short-term, source security can be enhanced
strengthening existing legal user's rights to permit renewals and by the issuance of maximum
duration consumptive use permits
Over the long-term however, agriculture's water concerns are inextricably tied to the
water needs of other users. If water becomes a scarce commodity agriculture stands to lose
source security regardless of existing legal protections because of the political imbalance between
urban and rural users of water.
The Florida Agricultural Coalition is on record in support of alear delineation of
responsibility for water supply. This includes the research, development, facilitation, promotion,
and permitting of water supply The Coalition is also on record in seeking legislative clarification
that the primary responsibility of Florida water management districts is water supply and that the
districts be charged with an affirmative obligation to seek and find sources for the continued use
of water for all of Florida's water needs.
C0?-28-96 MON 12:52 PM Ever, Jes CampaignS EvG
via fax: 904/922-5380
2 pages total
TO. TERRY PRIDE
FROM: EVA ARMSTRONG/
ENVIRONMENT/CI NS GROUP
DATE: OCTOBER 28,1996
SUBJECT: WATER SUPPLY SUBCOMMITTEE'S HOMEWORK--
LIST OF WATER PROBLEMS
Attached is our group's list of problems with water supply development.
I'm working out of our Miami Office today. If you have any questions you can reach me at
FAX KO. 30L 16398
0"-28-96 MON 12:52 PM Everg es ;ampaignS EvG FAX NO. 305 16398 F. 2
Environment & Citizens Sub-Group
Water Supply Development
1. In many areas of the state, water resources are already drastically over-permitted.
Most of this problem is due to the fact that the Water Management Districts only recently
began to establish minimum flows and levels. Meanwhile, the absence of minimums has
S resulted in excessive groundwater withdrawals that have caused major adverse impacts to
water resources. In West Florida, excessive groundwater pumping has damaged or
destroyed scores of lakes and over ten thousand acres of wetlands. And saltwater intrusion
advances at the rate of five inches per day on the sixty mile front south of Tampa Bay.
2. Over-withdrawals are also occurring, however, where minimum flows and levels
have been established but are not being enforced. The Southwest Florida Water
Management District, for example, has had minimum flows and levels on some lakes for
Close to twenty years, but has continued to issue groundwater withdrawal permits despite
the fact that those lakes are several feet below their minimums. These problems will only
multiply unless accurate water resource capacities are reflected in local land planning efforts
statewide, and minimum flows and levels are enforced.
3. Existing users compound the water supply problem by resisting conservation and
reuse measures. They have continued unsustainable groundwater pumping rates and are
now trying to shift Florida toward the "prior appropriation" system of the western United
States. This "use it or lose it" system provides a powerful incentive to avoid conservation
and to waste water. Predictably, the result in western states has been the steady depletion
of underground aquifers and chronic water shortages. In addition, this approach ignores
the needs of new users in a growing state and increases the potential for water wars instead
of facing the need for equitable, sustainable uses.
4. The development of water supply has been done without adequate consideration of
the tie between land use plans and the availability of sustainable water supplies. Clearly,
plans for increased density and intensity of land use will create need for additional water,
( yet we plan new development without adequately considering the availability and cost of
new water. Local land use decisions and permitting of development is based on capacity of
the utility plants rather than on the capacity of the aquifer or well field.
5. The core problem is that water is not being managed to assure that it will be a
sustainable resource over time. It has been easier to move well-fields inland as saltwater
intrudes, to look farther and farther afield for sources for water, to look to lands currently
1- set aside for conservation and to avoid implementing options for conservation and reuse.
5 All these "solutions" ignore environmental impacts of over-withdrawal, negative impacts
on property values in overdrawn areas and the ability to assure long-term sustainable water
supply in a growing state. They also ignore the desire of the low population areas, from
which long-distance water is to be taken, to experience their own growth and a subsequent
need for their own increased water supply.
6. Finally, the present system for making water supply development decisions denies
the public the opportunity to participate in a consensus building process. Litigation is used
as the primary means to resolve the debates over allocation of resources. This prevents
timely resolution and implementation of water supply development projects and results in
piecemeal allocation of water resources.