James S. Alves
Brian H. Bibeau
Kathleen L. Blizzard
Elizabeth C. Bowman
Richard S. Brightman
Peter C. Cunningham
Ralph A. DoMoo
Thomas M, DeRose
William H. Green
Wade L. Hopping
Frank E. Matthews
Richard D. Malaon
David L. Powell
William D. Preston
Carolyn S. Raapple
Douglas S. Roberts
Gary P. Same
Robert P. Smith
Cheryl G. Stuart
Hopping Green Sams & Smith
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
123 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 0526
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32314
FAX (904) 224-8561
FAX (9041 425-3415
October 29, 1996
James C. Goodlett
Gary K. Hunter, Jr.
Jonathan T. Johnson
Robert A. Manning
Angela R. Morrison
Gary V. Parko
Karen M. Peterson
Mlohael P. Petrovloh
Lisa K. Rushton
R. Sooti Ruth
Julil R. Stolnmeyer
T. Kent Wetherell. II
W. Robert Fakes
Please deliver the following pages to:
Name: Jake Varn
Fax No.: Code (4292) 222-0398
Verification No.: Code (4292) 224-1585
From: Wade Hopping
Message: Attached are the comments I have received. Please fax me the ones you have.
We are transmitting 14 pages (including this cover sheet). If you do not receive all of the
pages, please call Debbie R. Smith.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY 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 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.
HOPPI- GREEN SAMS SMITH PA -* 904 681 1379
NO. 375 )01
10:15 HOPPI>iGREEN SAMS SMITH PA -- 904 681 1079
FROM FOWLER&WHITE 813-229-8313-3
(TUE) 10. 22' 96 14:21/,i'. 14:16/NO. 3560527284
FOWLER, WHITE, GILLCN, BOOoS, VILLAREAL AND BANKER, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TAMPA ST. PETERSDURG CLEARWATeR
FT. MYeaS TALLANA55ss
HOPPING GREEN SAMS & SMITH
RHEA F. LAW
NAIOP OF FLORIDA, INC.
WATER SUPPLY QUESTIONS
OCTOBER 22, 1996
The problems we have been having with planning for water supply and with water supply
implementation is that no one knows what will, or should, be required, therefore, we are at the
whim and caprice.of anyone who has a [seemingly] good idea. Further, each of the regulatory
authorities seem to have different ideas about how water supplies should be developed and/or
enhanced. With so many different choices, there is no clear direction and, as s usually the case,
no one is willing to go out on a limb and make a decision. Much of this has to do with the
jurisdictions of the various agencies and local governments.
During 1996, the Florida Legislatue established additional planning and management
requirements to promote development of water supplies and protect water resources in the state.
The Tampa Bay area and Southeast Florida was designated as the first to be required to establish
minimum flows and levels for priority water bodies. As you know, we have always supported
water supply planning, however, these plans and studies should not be used to deprive local
governments of control over the growth and development within their communities. Further. this
effort should not result in greater bureaucracy and regulatory burdens which will adversely
impact the economic well-being of our communities.
I hope these comments are helpful. If you want any other conversation, call me.
o601 rAT .e'vNCOY 8VO
POT orVICC 9OX 143
TAMPAW, LOAMOA 33)01
(< >) ,fI9a3l
HOPPIb. GREEN SAMS SMITH PR 904 681 1079
DAMES & MOORE
A DAMES & MOORE GROUP COMPMiy
122 South Calhoun Street
Tallhassee, FL 32301
Telephone (904) 222-9600
Fax (904) 222-9692
Wade Hopping Terry Bengtsson, DM, TPA
DATE October 25, 1996
SUBJECT Water Supply Development
Thank you for your request for comments on the water supply planning issues.
In our opinion, the biggest regulatory hurdle facing the water supply planning is the
C) duration of the permit Both public and private utility companies have to undertake
extensive studies on demographics, land use, hydrology, and develop plans to create
well fields. They need to make a projection on the available capacity and the needs of
the public. In some cases the projections on demands are mathematical projections
(some cases educated guesses) while the water management districts require specific
concrete numbers for permitting purposes.
In addition, the utilities have to decide on what to build and the hurdles to cross before
getting the permits renewed. For example, most of the water supply permits are valid
only for six years. Given the time it takes for the preparation of back-up documents and
processing of permits for renewal, invariably a utility company (private or public) has to
start preparing for renewalsoon after the Drevious permit is issued. The process can
be simplified by long term permit This will give the utility ample time to come out with
realistic projections based on actual usage. The water management districts
traditionally have been uncomfortable with long term duration permits. If the permitting
duration stays the same as now, the projections are not likely to be based on realistic
numbers. The utilities feel comfortable in accepting long term permits with more
conditions than short term permits with potentially less conditions.
CS/CS/HB 2385/2399 has the provision for an independent scientific peer review if
there is a factual dispute regarding the minimum flows and levels. Since setting up of
NO. 375 803
HOPPI 3 GREEN SAMS SMITH PA -. 904 681 i329
Memo To Wade Hopping
October 25, 1996
this number is going to determine the availability of water for purposes other than the
environment, it is essential that the peer review be mandatory, and that the peer review
should be expanded to include evaluation of needs of the environment and balance the
same with other needs from the same source.
It looks as if the water management districts would like to look at strictly local sources
of water to be developed including desalination and reverse osmosis. They do not
support interstate transfer of water (or this is a wrong issue to raise). If the peer review
Determines that there is some economic impact due an established minimum flow and
level, it may show thanterstate transfer of water ay be an issue to be looked at
without impacting the environment As you have, most likely, heard from other people,
there is not a lack of water in the state. There is a problem of distribution of water
Which is a policy issue and highly political one. It may also be necessary to promote
ASR and compare its cost effectivenesswith those of pipe line diversions before setting
the minimum Tlows, which fixes the amount of water available for other uses.
Hope this helps. Please let us know if you need addition information. We will be
interested in participating in the future committee meetings.
10/29/96 10:16 HOPPIN3 GREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1079 NO.375
FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
LState Legislative Office
315 S. Calhoun Street Tallahassea, FL 32301 Telephone (904) 222-2557
TO: WADE HOPPING
FROM: BEN PARKS
RE: WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1996
Responses to Your Memo
Ran Hamel. Executive Vice President, Gulf Citrus Growers Association
1. Today's water planning is just water reallocation.
2. Water planning goal should be enhancement of water supplies. At a recent SFWMD meeting,
the Board asked water planning officials about how much water we have and how much will we
need in the future? The officials could not give any concrete answers.
Phil Lear. Director of Local Governmental Affairs, Florida Farm Bureau
1. Must protect existing agricultural use of water.
2. Need to seek cost-effective alternative resources (i.e., reuse).
3. Strongly oppose a consumptive water use fee (tax) on ag water use.
Daug Bournique. Executive Director, Indian River Citrus League
Reply follows on next page.
Chuck Littleohn, Florida Land Council
Call him for Ag's consensus on water planning (222-7535).
Please call me if you have any questions.
03f CTM *'ON N33a9-9NIddQH *3JO SI33-1 31IJS n03an8 W80Jd "I :;S 96/-1A
__~___ _^ __ __
1 0/29/96 10:20 HOPPINJ GREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1079 NO.376 I01
Water Preserve Areas (Regional Attenuation Facilities)
The Water Preserve Area (WPA) concept, referred to in the
reconnaissance report as Regional Attenuation Facilities (RAFs), would provide
for the diversion of surplus rainfall runoff from the C-23, 24, and 25 drainage
basins to storage areas where the water could be treated prior to discharge for
environmental base flow for the estuary and other water supply purposes. The
reconnaissance phase of the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study
investigated concepts to capture and store excess surface waters by
backpumping stormwater that is normally released directly to tide through the
C&SF Project canal system into Water Preserve Areas along the eastern edge
of the Water Conservation Areas. Although the Water Preserve Area concept
for the upper east coast area has not been fully formulated or designed, the
concept is analogous to the proposed Water Preserve Areas for the lower east
coast which are very important components of the Comprehensive Study. These
WPAs are expected to serve a number of objectives to include improved water
supply for environmental base flow to the estuary, improved water supply for
urban and agricultural use, increased short hydroperiod wetlands, reduced
sediment loading to the estuary and improved flood control in the region.
As discussed previously, the Water Preserve Area Task Force jointly
established by Martin and St. Lucie County Commissions has completed a
preliminary study of potential locations for WPAs to address the much needed
upland retention of stormwater runoff to prevent further degradation of the
Indian River Lagoon and St. Lucie River. The WPA Task Force effort resulted
in the identification of 16 potential sites totaling approximately 51,000 acres
and the classification of tho3e itemss according to basic environmental and
engineering design characteristics. The WPA Task Force completed a draft
report summarizing their findings on August 31. 1995. The findings contained
in the Task Force's report will be investigated during this feasibility study.
Alternative WPA sites will be studied to determine other potential sites
that reduce costs, ensure existing wetlands are not impacted or provide for
additional water uses. In addition, individual upland storage areas for
attenuating the needed volumes of freshwater runoff could be divided among
the sub-basins of the study area, with interconnection between the facilities
provided by the existing canal networks to enable the transfer of water
between sub-basins. Various combinations of facilities and operation scenarios
of this concept will be evaluated during this feasibility study.
Z0 M*T'ON N3389-9NIddOH o- *30 SI 931 3i.U1S lbB3l8 Waj nj Ps::? 96/S:/0I
*1029/96 10:21 HOPPI GREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 10 NO.376 102
REPORT TO TriE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DATE OF BOARD MEETING: October 31, 1996
SUBJECT: State Water Policy
Water supply.and use4n.Florida are of critical importance to business and industry. The state
receives over 50 inches of rain per year yet we hear repeatedly that there are water shortages
in the state. The real issue to be addressed by state policy is the wise use of both surface and
groundwater in the state, The legislature has a key role in this effort and has had special task
forces and committees examining the issue for several years. There several important points
that should be addressed in order for the state to move forward with a business-friendly water
policy, including: refocusing the water management districts into regional water supply
responsibility with an obligation to assure adequate water supplies for all users at reseaonable
costs; remove regulatory authority from the water management districts and give it over to the
Department of Environmental Protection at the district level; and finally, increase the role of
local governments' management of water management districts as they move into the water
supply functions. The Chamber's positions on water issues support accomplishing this aim.
WATER PROTECTION AND USE: The Florida Chamber of Commerce supports the following
positions regarding the use and protection of Florida water resources:
1. Legislative enactment of a state.water policy which provides for a balance
between human needs and those of the natural environment and which
applies statewide to all levels ofgovernment. The Chamber opposes the
adoption of state water policy by executive agency rule unless ratified by
the Florida Legislature.
2. Florida has an ample supply of water to meet the projected needs of
citizens, industry, agriculture, and the natural environment. Water
shortages are often the result of lack of adequate water supply
management as opposed to a change in natural conditions. It is imperative
to Florida's future that the responsibility for
water supply be clearly delineated and assigned just as Florida has assigned
responsibility for transportation, education, and elder affairs. The districts' availability
of water for all uses should beetnphasized. It should be clarified that the districts have
an affirmative obligation to se0k, find, and augment sources
.i' h i
FLORIDA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
10/29/96 10:22 HOPP I LGREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1079 NO. 376 903
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
for the continued use of water for all of Florida's water needs. The districts should also
return to flood protection as a primary mission.
3. Subcommittes-should-be established within the House Appropriations
and Senate Ways and Means Committees to annually review Water
Management District budgets.
4. The current process of gubernatorial appointments with Senate
confirmation should be maintained With the following modifications:
(A) The terms of appointment should be "staggered" such that the
terms of no more than three members of a governing board expire
in one year.
(B) The Governor should strive to appoint governing board
members with extensive experience in water management issues
and the current practice of limiting length of service to only two
terms should be discontinued.
5. An applicant should be entitled to a permit of up to 20 years dura';on
unless-to do so would cause irreparable harm to water resources or the
applicant requests a permit of shorter duration. Districts should exercise
authority to issue permits for more than 20 years where necessary to
provide for reasonable return on capital investment and where based on
source of supply or type of use.
That the Chamber Board affirms its support of this policy as a Florida Chamber legislative
July 18, 1996 -
Stan Posey, Chair
George Johnson, Staff
FLORIDA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PostIt" brand fax transmiltal memo 767
/29/96 10:22 HOPPIGQ GREEN SAMS SMITH PFA 904 681 1079 NO.:
PAVESE, GARNER, HAVERFIELD, DALTON, HARRISON & JENSEN
ATTORtPVS AND COUSLLORU AT LAW
4U4 UU CiUB lOAD
WEST PAL M EACH, FLaWIDA I8
fAX bIMll 471-0522
TO: Ben Parks, Ag Coalition
FROM: ,rene Kennedy Quincey
DATE: October 25, 1996
SUBJECT: Request tor Information Response
We have been working with the water supply development and funding
process and there are significant Islues facing those in South Florida who are subject
to the ongoing Lower East Coast Planning process. I have attempted to summarize
these issues in a concise bullet format. I would be pleased to provide more information
10/29/96 10:22 HOPPIFN GREEN SFMS SMITH PR 904 681 1079
10/28/96 13:41 FL FARM BUREAU STATE LEGIS OFC. HOPPING-GREEN NO. 1:0 i02
Oct. 25 1996 4:12PM No. 4505 P. 3/3
PLANNING FOR WATER SUPPLY PROBLEMS
S Lack of definition of the existing problems
S Lack of definition and consensus on environmental restoration
S Lack of definition of needs and sources
S Lack of clear responsibility for water management district to facilitate water
supply (as opposed to regulate water supply)
S Lack of completed modeling information..
p Lack of scientific data and peer review of modeling information.
b Short term permits
Lack of specific regional Information which can be used in the regulatory
process, thus causing the applicant to evaluate more regional data base;.
Inconsistent basin expiration dates dependent upon the use and not source
WATER SUPPLY IMPLEMENTATION
S Lack of funding
S Inconsistent statewide goals with alternative programs.
Delay in permitting, state and federal.
S Poential inconsistency with federal and state regulations.
Attempts to use water to control growth and/or to require more expensive water
Lack of focus on receiving water being wasted to tide.
Facilitation of the increased availability of potable and process water for all
Last year the "pink bill" process provided a good start for the substantive steps
which would need to be addressed to answer and define some of the above issues.
What was lacking was funding. One recommendation is to utilize that bill as a starting
point and expand the provlons of the SWFWMD on peer review for all districts. Funding
then could be addressed.
NO. 376 1?05
*8/i 5 10:23 HOPPIZGREEN SAMS SMITH PA -+ 984 681 1079 NO.376 E?86
F R O M I S 0 4,g -77. g 0 3 1 T O S 0 4 + 2 2 4 e s j l S 1 0 21,
10/24/96 TBU 10:42 PAZl 41 486 0625 D:AN GRAVEL 1-4164 4370 P.0sx..
WArnR 3SQVRCNU ONADTX COX*WTEg
OCTOsEu 28, 1996
i5 0XK MOORE. I am Pw.ZurDuWr 0 Or P vTLZzTY Ccom"Ye W=IICv za
:.'Arao A amYa As PU1va= 0r TwI LoRIDA WATxsWoRKS AsOsczTzow. WaxICa To Tx
740PAA QPTRR Or TEES M=="XQXILZ OROAEIZATIQE Or ThVWUTOR OWNg DJXLXTXgS.
QOi XATMOMl ORG &TIONW XO mlR UP OF OvER
J15 =fXCOI'AVXX8. TER FLORIDA CXAPTKR CONBUSTS 0F IS OF TEN RZIJGEfT
SWR-OMM'f38?QP~o D 1TXLZTIXB B S7VIM Q0=R ST6TE.
ToOwOasZD UTILITIES FROVID2 A GRIMXCANT PORTION 0 THE POTABLE WATER
h XOflYT zI x LIVA.
2: zM OTW TOEN wa A RAPlZOAUT9 A CCO2nMXTY SERVED By OUR 3maRL.9R!P.
*~-PL KOE M10T TXAXT MANYr u6xE vOCWMIITXr.8 ARN SERVED bY OVEM 170 VERY EALXg
W. itr CWKPA&XEs WNED ARX NOT XEIRKE WED tl RE TDAY TOGETHER WE SBRVE WnIJA
-~OVER 10000,000 CUBTONURS.
> .I3ZLE DO NOT HAVE ZnDTJBTRY TOTAIb WITH ma TOA.r THE )lXTm E1 ALLOCATION
'FoR TEEi TmI LARGEST PRIVATE ViILZTZNS A7ONE XI
1 WWTTI1S AME CMWPA1,MBL1S TO LAE LARGEST MINMCIPAL -XLXTTUN XV
'POUT OW ALL =r sI na Simti TO uOZUsT : TEZ T "MWiuMTOR-OWiN=V UTmXTIga
VP A WZWZVXCIXOa 1ORTZOO O TxEE WATER 1DV T PROVIDERS TV TRE STATS Or
p AM AS #VC= A*1 2XGXZFXCMN CQWU)UR OF ILORID*=A' WATER REWSOUCu1.
A RE QON=ED AT 2=E Xh1* 80 TO XPEZAR WITH ALL WATER 9SE2= ASD 4UPPLZHRX Iw
sobiPnDX lOLVOIs. TO Tax WATER 8=vrLr CEAL!J3MON5E FACED 13T Am 0o rS uslw
~'Eiqsva, aFOR XNV3BTOR-OlemD UMTIITIES TO AN PAR* Or TEE SOLUTION AMD NOT FART
OF TIM PRO W'W, ADEQUATE COST RCOVZRY ON TRZ VBZTNEZ4= IN ZCEBAAR 08
'l)wwa~ FACIlIT9ES ZS EI XATUL.
WITH MI IV MIND, IX WOULD LIE SBVER"AL FLO=&PA WATIIRWORKI ASSOC ATIOx
TO lEA&" W=TE YOU TVEIR *XtZRIMEMS WXXt ZZOARD, TO COST RECOVERY Ow
WEWIR ZNVNSTMXXT IN CARTAIX FACI&XTZDS AJ= RrLATZ NOW TAT CAW8 InPACT TUE
SWATERPOLICY OOAL OF OUR OWEL.
10/29/96 10:24 HOPPIWk GREEN SR1S SMITH PR -9 504 681 leQ NO. 376 I07
illriakn 1204-877-9031 O 7 B
Pfo~ a--g? TO 942 .g 1
sm~~,~r 196.'~" 14199 #370 P-es/08
OQT-24-96 THU 9:54
QgXQM 2L1 1296
pwd&ia Ciri. wetw Compaw (CWC) is a wotl ad uiftowacr utility opwratung in Collier,
Lvc ftwou, Wsb~orvio wd Sm CotmcL Poancda= XY'~isg Inc. (Poincianm) is an Af1 lated
watwr m womtewiw utility opeating in Osceol and Po;1 Countis. Thos Cocpma sczvc a
conth~ed populson of vpjproatKy 161,000, A hhe bwei ouw poty to comuply with flt
ikemmaz tofagsrrtay aged*r wch a the U S. rtioflluatal Protsction Agncy, (EPA), the
Vs~rnw agakcmtgPrOecIoNC Q14DE), adthe Wate Managernen Dwsucta, thus
;c p~bi~ policy. Compfiamo.hus teVqid (aid ooimtimic to require) subtanu iavwrneant
untis rToeady, tow PSC bus rucogniw d the necssity of plWnt iWmeament, required for
Sogdatcry complinca WbWA1iSg the raws ofrecdlumcd water wad allowed YWoveay tbroM4Ai rAtes
Mwsv, based on a reocea rate. a ern ainin to tw Compan'a x"N&h Ft, Myers Divsoz. ,L Ps
S hbS daqd is positic In this regd, at least on a selective baul In tbib instace toh Company
$1.6 mi nl I pyan fkIties incldin S414.0O in MW ARoglitift undo the lnardoas Of
ai ms. PDIP, Sauth Pbida Waaoageincnt Pistct ad Wee County. Thore was no disLutW
tho tcautt wus requird by thse govunnutmI gs~edas. NotwifthtlsndinM, the PSC
that thuas plat addltionr otw noOSsIy and my 4 dwo d recoftwy.
,~i." i _.: SIly sWe4d, we do am bave the raouca to continue p tWe bx 8 vlArzu required to
1publw Folicy unls e ntd asuw by thoss setft our rat that wille be aliwed
1:~cl~ ;I* .'
S 10:24 HOPPIbQ GREEN S;MS SMITH PA 94 681 1 NO.
--- NO. 376
H 8:56r 4 obl37a w te
_ _ _T'~S 14 16 # 70 b.e
Those malng pAblic policy must recogni that there Is a cost attached to most itiatives
hbldd to watrwouaces mvd ltdy the o ot be pised to the onmr Notwithstandng
tpubl outrage epressed in response to hhiger costs, in this stance, higher utility rates, policy
mker hve an oblition to allow those whose burden t i t to comply to recover their costa.
. .. .,- OOa i 10--'
a" '.4-8r7-gs31 TO NO. 376
904+22498651 199,10-25 1415 #370 P,
OCT-3B-96 PgI eIsIs PM PALM COAST UTILITY CORP 9*4 q* *. 370
STATEMENT BY 3AMES A. PB- RY
PALM COAST UTILITY CORPORATION
SPalm Coast Utility Corporation (PCUC) is an investor owned utility with water and wastewate
.' thll&ties serving Palm Coast and a4sacent dev opmntas in Plaglcr County. Since establishment in
t: h e early 1970f PCUC has consistently met the growth needs ofthe fstest growing County in the
: ': nation and has been recognized by PDI P with numerous awards fbr continuing quality service.
PCUC has been under Florida Publc Servico Commission (FPSC) regulation since 1980 and has had
-:.. s .,ix rate case before the commission including the current case.
SI agree with the prior speakers and would like to share two pecfic examples, although there are
'i.: tany, nu more which our utility and others Ice when attempting to recover the cost of our investments.
S:..,. The Brm mexmple is the PSC non nle policy ofused/seful concepts for wastewater treatment plates ,
PSC methodology is based on annual average flows Instead of the three months rolling maximum as
required by FDBP. This PSC practice disrgards real world operation in dealing witl maximum
:. flow and seasonal usage and in oefft pentllzes utilities for DEP compliance. For Palm Coast
Utility, by using annual flows rather than the 'real world" three month's maximum flows, we were
S not allowed to recover $1.S million of ou investments in our wastewater planL
S My second example deals with PSC's inconsistent application of previously approve ;d d affirmed
o.r ron rate eltting methodologies. Previously, the PSC oloulated the used/usefi l percentage of
: ,aweiw tran6miOlso distdbution system or watewaer gravity lines based on a formula which at last
atempted to rlect actual hydraulic usag of the lineL Now, the Commission has decided to
ca ate t usedueils percentage of these lines based on the number of lots that are occupied by
esiadaensial customers only. For PCUC no consideration was given for commercial automers. For
*. : other utilities commercial or condominium customers are considered as one lot, The effect of this
^ ^ deoeision was to disallow cost recovery of $5.4 million of our investment which we were previously
S ;^:i allowed to recover
T: summary these adjustments and other "used/useful" adjustments result in a reduction of our
Investments by 340 mifion. These acclitis which have already been constocted and in place are
S needed to comply with DEP, EPA, and Water Management environmental regulations today..
NOT TOMORROW, BUT TODAY
Without such facilities growth of the community and service to current and future customers would
not be possible.
. i ..' "
V-- Il--l ----- ----11