Title: Governor's Water Resource Commission, Appendices
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004997/00001
 Material Information
Title: Governor's Water Resource Commission, Appendices
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Governor's Water Resource Commission
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Governor's Water Resource Commission, Appendices (JDV Box 40)
General Note: Box 30, Folder 7 ( Governor's Water Resource Commission - 1989 ), Item 2
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004997
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





























GOVERNOR'S WATER RESOURCE
COMMISSION
APPENDICES
SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR BOB MARTINEZ
DECEMBER 1, 1989












Table of Contents


List of Tables

List of Figures

Appendix


A. Executive Order Number 89-74


B. Florida's Current Surface and Ground Hater Resources

1. Inventory of Florida's Surface Hater Resources
2. Inventory of Florida's Ground Hater Resources

C. Future Outlook for Florida's Water Resources -
Projected Hater Needs


D. Existing Statutory Authority to Protect Florida's
Surface and Ground Water Resources

E. Threats to Florida's Surface and Ground Hater Resources

F. Staff for the Governor's Water Resource Commission


iie

iii





















List of Tables


Table Page

81 Surface Hater Facts for Florida B2

B2 Selected Streamflow Characteristics of Principal River 88
Basins in Florida

B3 Ground Hater Facts for Florida 814

84 Aquifer and Hell Characteristics in Florida B16

C1 Projected Public Supply Water Demand in Florida for the C2
Years 2000, 2010 and 2020 by County.
C2 Projected Domestic Self-Supplied Hater Demand in Florida C8
for the Years 2000, 2010 and 2020 by County.








List of Figures


Fiaure EaS
B1 Surface Hater Quality of North Florida River Basins B4

B2 Surface Hater Quality of East Florida River Basins B5

B3 Surface Water Quality of Southwest Florida River Basins B6

B4 Surface Hater Quality of South Florida River Basins 87

B5 Approximate Areal Extent Over Which Principal Aquifers are B15
the Primary Source of Supply

B6 Approximate Areal Extent Over Hhich Principal Aquifers 817
Occur at Land Surface or Are Overlain by Less Than 10 Feet
of Fine-Grained Sands

B7 Selected Water Quality Constituents and Properties 819

B8 Population Distribution 1985: Each Dot Represents 1,000 B21
People

B9 Graphs of Annual Greatest Depth to Water In Selected Wells B26
Affected by Ground Hater Withdrawals

BIO Generalized Relative Vulnerability of the Floridan Aquifer B28
B11 Generalized Relative Vulnerability of the Surfical Aquifers B29

812 Potential Hazardous Haste Sites, by County 830

B13 Reported Incidences of Human Induced Contamination, by B31
County

814 Areas of Special Concern within the Northwest Florida B33
Water Management District

B15 Areas of Special Concern within the Southwest Florida B34
Water Management District

816 Areas of Special Concern within the South Florida Hater B35
Management District

C1 Past and Projected Population in Florida C3

C2 Public Supply Water Withdrawals/Use in Florida C4

C3 Trends in Public Supply Population Served for Florida C6

C4 Trends in Public Supply and Domestic Self-Supplied Per C7
Capita for Florida

C5 Trends and Projections of Freshwater Withdrawals in Florida C10

iii





























Appendix A

Executive Order 89-74






ftate of Aloriba


OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 89-74

WHEREAS, Article II, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution
provides that it is the public policy of this State to preserve

and protect Florida's natural resources and scenic beauty,
and
WHEREAS, the.public water of this State is a part of

those natural resources and scenic beauty while providing
public water supplies, an environment for the propagation
of wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, and water for agricultural,
industrial, recreational, and other uses, and
WHEREAS, the quantity and quality of available aquatic
resources must be safeguarded to ensure that future generations
of Floridians enjoy an abundant water supply and the benefits
it can provide, and
WHEREAS, consistent with my duties as the Chief Planning

Officer of Florida, it is determined that a study is necessary
and appropriate to analyze the status and quantity of our
current aquatic resources and recommend measures needed to
ensure that Floridians continue to enjoy safe, clean water.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BOB MARTINEZ, as Governor of the

State of Florida, by virtue of the authority vested in me
by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida, do
hereby promulgate the following Executive Order, effective
immediately:
Section 1.
The Governor's Water Resource Commission is hereby
created.
Section 2.
The Commission shall consist of two members from each

of the water management districts. The Governor shall appoint
the chairman from among the membership of the Commission.
The Commission shall meet at the call of the chairman.
AF








Section 3.

The Water Resource Commission is hereby directed to

analyze the current state of Florida's water resources, including

the quantity of available water, its continued viability

as a source of drinking water, and steps necessary to ensure

that Floridians may continue to enjoy these resources. As

an integral part of this study, the Commission shall determined

whether current statutory environmental safeguards can protect

the state aquifers.

The Commission shall report its findings to the Governor,

no later than December 1, 1989. Included in the report shall

be any proposed legislative initiatives which may be necessary

to adequately protect Florida's aquatic resources.

Section 4.

Member of the Commission shall not receive remuneration

for these services, but shall receive reimbursement for travel

and per diem expenses in accordance with Section 112.061,

Florida Statutes.

Section 5.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission

is authorized to call upon any department, office, division,

or agency of the State to support such data, reports, or

other information it deems necessary. Each department, office,

division or agency of the state under the control of the

Governor is directed, and all other agencies are requested,

to cooperate with the Commission and furnish it with such

information and assistance as necessary to accomplish the

purposes of this Executive Order.

Section 6.

The Department of Environmental Regulation shall serve

as staff to the Commission.







Section 7.

This Executive Order shall remain in effect until December 31,

1990, unless otherwise extended or amended.

IN TESTIMONY, WHEREOF, I
have hereunto set me hand
and caused the Great Seal
of the State of Florida
to be affixed at Tallahassee,
this 4*h day of April, 1989.






ATTEST:




RETARY OF STATE


A3.































Appendix B


Florida's Current Surface and Ground Hater Resources









Inventory of Florida's Surface Hater Resources


The State of Florida has extensive surface water resources. Rainfall,
averaging 53 inches a year statewide, infiltrates into the soil or runs
off the land surface into more than 1,700 streams, over 7,700 freshwater
lakes and reservoirs, or collects in abundant wetland systems. Rainfall
varies geographically, seasonally and annually, and runoff varies in
response to rainfall, topographic relief, permeability of the soil and
subsurface, and in response to evapotranspiration. A large amount of
this rainfall, between 60-88 percent,- is lost to evapotranspiration.
Runoff averages 14 inches a year, with larger average flows in the
northern areas of the state. In some areas, ground water returns through
baseflow to surface water systems.

Stream systems are typically dendritic, or branching, with a main stream
and numerous small tributaries. There are 13 major coastal rivers and
seven major tributary rivers each with an average discharge of more than
1,000 cfs (cubic feet per second). Other drainage systems, especially in
central and south Florida, are disjoined and not connected on the land
surface. These systems have no defined channels and result in marsh or
swamp systems, or are characterized by karst drainage, where the surface
is underlain by easily soluble limestone. In karst areas, runoff
collects in sinkholes or sinkhole lakes and drains into the subsurface.
These waters often emerge elsewhere as springs or seeps.
In 1985, freshwater withdrawals from surface waters totaled 2,230 Mgal/d
(million gallons a day) equal to one-third of the total freshwater usage
in the state. Self-supplied industrial use, including evaporative losses
due to hydroelectric-power generation, accounts for 33 percent, or 710
Mgal/d of the withdrawals and irrigation accounts for 59 percent of the
withdrawals, or 1,320 Mgal/d. Public water supplies account for 185
Mgal/d, or 8 percent of the withdrawals in 15 systems, serving about
11 percent of the 1985 population. (Table BI)

Florida's surface waters support a variety of fish and wildlife dependent
or adapted to the long and short term natural fluctuations in flow.
Pollution and habitat alteration closely follows population trends in the
state. Stormwater runoff from urban and rural areas, including streets,
roads, parking lots, construction sites, agricultural fields and lawns is
the single largest source of pollution statewide. Coupled with the loss
of filtering wetlands, excessive amounts of heavy metals, pesticides and
nutrients are discharged to surface waters through storm sewers, ditches
and canals. Changes in the pre-development hydrographs induce erosion
and flooding as well as upsetting biological cycles. Hydrologic
alterations to reduce flooding or impound water for' public and
agricultural supply also disrupt the natural systems.

Localized influences can be attributed to industrial, domestic and
agricultural facilities, such as pulp and paper plants, phosphate
processing plants and mines, food processing plants, and feedlots.
Upgraded wastewater treatment facilities are responsible for most of the
improvements in surface water quality in the recent past. 'Rural areas
still have some inadequate facilities and large numbers of septic tanks
continue to contribute to degraded water quality.

Bl









Table B1 SURFACE HATER FACTS FOR FLORIDA
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1004, 1988)


Population served by surface water. 1985
Number (thousands) -------------- ---------- 1,060
Percentage of total population --------- -- --- 9
From public water-supply systems:
Number (thousands) --------------------------------- 1,060
Percentage of total population ---- ---------- 9
From self-supplied systems:
Number (thousands) ------------------------------ 0
Percentage of total population ------------------------- 0

OFFSTREAM USE, 1985
Freshwater Withdrawals
Surface water and ground water, total (Mgal/d) ------ 6,280
Surface water only (Mgal/d) -------------- ----- 2,230
Percentage of total ---------------- --------------- 36
Percentage of total excluding withdrawals for
thermoelectric power -------------- -------------- 24

Category of Use


Public-supply withdrawals:
Surface water (Mgal/d) --------
Percentage of total surface water
Percentage of total public supply
Per capital (gal/d) ------------
Self-supplied domestic withdrawals:
Surface water (Mgal/d) --------
Percentage of total surface water
Percentage of total self-supplied
Per capital (gal/d) ------------
Livestock:


domestic ------
-----------------


Surface water (Mgal/d)-------- -------------
Percentage of total surface water ----------------
Percentage of total livestock ----------------
Industrial, commercial, mining, thermoelectric
self-supplied withdrawals:
Surface water (Mgal/d)---------- -------------
Percentage of total surface water -------------------
Percentage of total industrial self supplied:
Including withdrawals for thermoelectric power ---
Excluding withdrawals for thermoelectric power ---
Irrigation withdrawals:
Surface water (Mgal/d)------- ----------------
Percentage of total surface water -------------------
Percentage of total irrigation----------------


0
0
0
0

8.1
.4
12


710
33

52
11

1,320
59
45


8,040


INSTREAM USE, 1985

Hydroelectric power (Mgal/d) ----------------------


-----------------


- - - - - - - - - - - -








Hater quality trends are assessed every two years in a document prepared
by the Department of Environmental Regulation including data supplied by
the water management districts. Impairment of designated use, based on
classifications and criteria adopted in the state water quality
standards, is assessed using all the water quality data collected by
public agencies in the state. Information on known causes and cleanup
activities is included. Figures B1 through B4 Illustrate the status of
surface water impairment as of 1988. The vast majority of Florida's
surface waters meet their designated use, including 89 percent of the
river miles and 90 percent of the lake area. Most areas show no
statistically significant trends, which is significant in itself
considering Florida's tremendous population growth. Improvements in the
parametric coverage, quantity of data and assessment techniques continue
to be needed to assess emerging environmental issues, such as
bioaccumulation of pollutants in fish.
Descriptions of the major drainage basins in the state follow with a
brief summary of the water quality status. Additional information can be
obtained from the Department of Environmental Regulation. Table B2 is a
list of major streamflows in the state.

Northwest Region
The Northwest Region, covering all of the panhandle of Florida, includes
8 major coastal rivers and 2 major tributaries. All of the rivers except
the St. Marks originate in Alabama or Georgia. They exhibit the
dendritic drainage pattern with high density (total length of channel per
unit area). There are only 5 lakes or impoundments over 5,000 acres in
the region.
Ochlocknee Subregion

The Ochlocknee River, with its headwaters in southwestern Georgia, drains
2,250 square miles, 1,170 square miles of which are in Florida.
Streamflowis variable and primarily the result of direct runoff. The
Jackson Bluff Dam, constructed in 1929, forms Lake Talquin and is used
for hydroelectric power generation. Upstream flow averages 1,600 cfs.
Land use in the drainage basin in Georgia is primarily agricultural,
resulting in increased sediment loading to the river. Land use in
Florida is primarily forestry. There are several point source discharges
including a fullers earth mine, several wastewater treatment facilities
and a pickling plant. Some reaches of the system exhibit nutrient,
dissolved oxygen (DO), bacteriological and reduced biological diversity
problems as a result of these sources. Lake Jackson is also in this
basin and has been adversely impacted by stormwater runoff from the urban
area of Tallahassee. The Sopchoppy River has excellent water quality.

Apalachicola Subregion

The Flint and Chattahoochee rivers merge at the Jim Woodruff Dam,
constructed in 1951, to form the 107 mile long Apalachicola River. The
system drains a 20,000 square mile basin extending to a point north of
Atlanta. Streamflow varies between 15,000 cfs to 40,000 cfs. Water
quality is excellent, but conflicting demands for water supply,














ALABAMA


MARIANNA


GEORGIA


TALLAHASSEE


-101I
-C^


NORTH FLORIDA

RIVER BASINS


APAUCAOL AW


),
; )


WMXDASASA
aM


Figure B1 Surface Water Quality of North Florida River Basins (Source: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
1988 Florida Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Technical Appendix).


-GOOD (MEETS USE)

- FAIR (PARTIALLY MEETS USE)

-POOR (DOES NOT MEET USE)

-UNKNOWN (NO DATA)





















GAINESVILLE


f
I ,

C
4' t


EAST FLORIDA


RIVER BASINS


GOOD (MEETS USE)
FAIR (PARTIALLY MEETS USE)

-POOR (DOES NOT MEET USE)
-UNKNOWN (NO DATA)


Si

Figure B2 Surface Water Quality
of East Florida River
Basins (Source: Florida
Department of Environ-
mental Regulation 1988
Florida Water Quality
Assessment 305(b)
Technical Appendix).


RWER


PIERCE







I-


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA


/


RIVER BASINS


ITCHEPACKASASSA
CREEK ) LAKELAND

E-REE LAKE LENA RUN
S/ L---- LAKE HANCOCK


NORTH PRONG
-ALAFIA RIVER


RIVER


HARBOR


FT.MYERS


Figure B8 -


Surface Water Quality of Southwest Florida River Basins (Source:
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 1988 Florida
Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Technical Appendix).


NEW


- GOOD (MEETS USE)
FAIR (PARTIALLY MEETS USE)

- POOR (DOES NOT MEET USE)

UNKNOWN (NO DATA)


BOCA
CIEGA B
ST






TAYLOR


CHANDLER
POPASH


ST LUCIE
-RIVER


'UART


soUND


W PALM BEACH
*LAKE WORTH

BOYNTON BEACH


RATON


STATION CANAL
LAUDERDALE


SOUND


FLORIDA
KEYS )
MARATHON




KEY WEST


Figure B4 Surface Water Quality of South
Florida River Basins (Source:
Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation 1988 Florida
Water Quality Assessment
305(b) Technical Appendix).


SOUTH FLORIDA


RIVER BASINS

GOOD (MEETS USE)

FAIR (PARTIALLY MEETS USE)
POOR (DOES NOT MEET USE)
UNKNOWN (NO DATA)


_"
','


1


SUNNILAND
9


LARGO



















Table B2 Selected Streamflow Characteristics of Principal River Basins in
Florida (Source: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2300).
- IGain station: Periodof analysis is for the water years ued to orompue averg diacharg and may diffr from that usd to compute other stmfow characteristics.
treemflow characuristics: The 7-day, 10-ye low flow is dcharge statistic; the lowest mean discharge during 7 consecutive days of a yea will be equal
to or es tha this value, on the average, once evy 10 years. The average charge is the arithmetic average of annual average discharges dunng t period
of analis. The 100-year flood is that flow that has a 1-percet chance of being equaed or exceeded in a given year. Abbreviations: Do. ditto; mirmsquare
miles; tI/s-cubic feet per second; .... -insufficint data or not applicable. Source: Reports of the U.S. Geological Survey]

sM. m smaaaw m..
no. 7-r,
(see 0Mam Priod twar hkMa 1001-r 0gr
fi Name d m of low Aw dlicwg1 floo of
USGSM Inol oft of lyfm IR lt gson Itma

SOUTH ATLANTIC-GULF REGION
ALTmama-ST. MaMI SuameMa

1. St. Mr Rir 700 1827-3 1i 672 40500 No Upemm alhcUd by hgh
Na MUinemy abiy aBd color Irom
10223101. VAN" Inege.
ST. JOHNs Sueamo

2 SL Jlm kr 153 1934-83 24 1310 1800 Non
r"nM
t02232M1
3. SL Jels R. 3.06 1934-63 0 3.120 21,00 do ...
nr Deand

4. 01dMileh m a 2.747 1944-6 70 2.020 12,900 Modate
Rodnw Dam ar 1MB9-3 . 1.550 .... Pror to 1969 at e 1 ma
Oangp Snp do rem.
10224318BO.

Souream FRoMnA SuaMMcaM

b F n mi Crk 311 1932-63 0 257 21,400 Nek MuamI mem0 flew we in
a Paldl mmya
10225500)
6. Kimnm Rin a 2.I 6 1929-62 0 2190 29,00 Apprcmble High mnsnm le
5-6iE n 1964-3 36 1,390 hlaem.
OkeMec1bMe
102273001.

PEACE-TAMPA BAY SUMMGIO

7. P ARis a 1,367 1932-83 57 1.150 34400 Nme Uprum qpuy llad by
Aaae sImegetraMm pla mand
2267501. (phophat as
8. Hibme Riar 220 19483 53 259 10,300 ... do... Muea waw uply.
1023030001.
9. Wiaxeali R 1.825 1932-43 158 1,090 9,750 ... do... iOh avdKy nd color fr
-ar Helder heMWMs ip drnV g
1103130001.

SuwAMME SuEaMeo

10. Swmnamw Rle a 7,910 1932-83 1,790 6940 68,00 None
Brntofrd
102320101.
11. Sa Fe Re ma 1,017 1929-29, 730 1,610 16,40 ... do ..
Fn Whle 1933-83
1232201.
12. Suame Rr ar 9.640 1931. 4.020 10,400 66.400 .. do ...
Win 10232350. 1942-83


















Table B2 (Cont.) Selected Streamflow Characteristics of Principal River Basins
in Florida (Source: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2300).

Gaging staton: Period of anays is for the water years used to compute average discharge and may differ from that used to compute other streamflow characteristics.
Stremnflow characteristics: The 7-day, 10-year low flow s a discharge statasc; the lowet man discharge during 7 consecutive days of a year will be equal
to or les than this value, on the avege, once ery 10 yas. The average dicharge i the arithmetic average of annual average dcharges during the period
of analysis. The 100yer flood that flow that has a 1-pa t chance of eing equaled or exceeded in a given year. Abbreviation: Do. -ditto; mr square
mils: ft~/scubrc feet per second; .... -meuffiient dat or not applicabe. Sources: Reports of the U.S. Geological Survewy

no. 7-w.
(ls Onra Pri lor hdoe 100n r DOs
fig. Nd ad of low 1 ew dce foo of
2> USGS mi. Aii nn* oft'l lt1 ("ftt11 Man in' Rus

OcmocKOem SuamU N

13. Ocdodie Rise 1,140 1827-3 30 1030 41200 None HyWr ncr
1023290001.
APALIACCOL Sum eaoM

14. Aplicole Ram 17200 1929-3 7,00 22,400 264,000 Modera Hlroelcmc-per
at ClaMoodi geomin.
102350001.
acHCTAWMATCHE-EsCaUNIA SuMseMioN

1L Chamctahl Rw 4.364 1931-83 1,30 7.140 12.000 NO
ar Bruc

16. Ylw Rar at 624 193983 14 1,170 45.900 ...
mom.
102360000.
17. Shol RiW ea 474 1939-83 291 1,100 33,60 d ...
umm.
023660001.
18. Ebaembis P 3,817 1935-83 777 6.360 179,000 ...do ...
new CMim
1023755001.
19. PnlidRo Rr at 394 1942-83 221 766 34200 ... do ..
Barirm Park
1023765001.









recreation, navigation and hydroelectric power generation threaten the
quantity and timing of water released to the Apalachicola Bay system.
Stormwater runoff, marina operations, fishery product processing and
development around the Bay are also stresses on the system.

Choctawhatchee-Escambia Subregion

The northwestern part of Florida contains the area of greatest runoff in
the state, ranging from 20 inches to more than 40 inches annually.
Annual rainfall averages 64 inches and there are ground water discharges
to the tributary streams from the sand and gravel aquifer. The principal
rivers are the Choctawhatchee, with annual flows of 7,000 cfs, the Yellow
and Shoal, with 1500 cfs annual flow, the Escambia, with annual flows of
6500 cfs, and the Perdido, which forms the Alabama-Florida border.
Deerpoint Lake is formed by the impoundment of Econfina Creek and serves
as the drinking water source for Panama City. Water quality in the area
is generally very good, with localized areas impacted by wastewater
treatment plants, pulp and paper mills, hydroelectric-power generation
and agricultural and forestry practices. Stormwater runoff in the
urbanized areas along the coast is a problem.


Suwannee River Region
The Suwannee region is characterized by low stream density and low lake
density. Rainfall is rapidly infiltrated because of porous limestone
being at or near the land surface. Numerous springs reduce the
variability of tributary streamflows. There are extensive wetlands in
the region, two major coastal rivers, and three major tributaries.

Altamaha-St. Marys Subregion

The St. Marys River forms the boundary between Georgia and Florida in the
northeastern corner of the State. The headwaters are in the Okeefenokee
Swamp and the majority of the 1,200 cfs streamflow is from ground water.
The river is tidally influenced for 60 of its 175 miles. Water quality
is generally good, with localized influences due to wastewater treatment
facilities and pulp and paper plants.

Suwannee Subregion

The Suwannee River also originates in the Okeefenokee Swamp and drains
9,950 square miles. Major tributaries are the Santa Fe, the Alapaha and
the Withlacoochee Rivers. There are 7 springs with discharges of more
than 100 cfs and 25 with discharges between 10 and 100 cfs. Water
quality is generally excellent except in the area impacted by a phosphate
mine, a pulp and paper plant, and a Georgia poultry processor. Alligator
Lake, in the upper part of the basin, is impacted by stormwater and
wastewater from Lake City.

St. Johns Subregion
The St. Johns River originates in a vast marsh in Indian River County and
flows northward for almost 300 miles over very flat terrain. The river
is characterized by large shallow lakes, extensive floodplain marsh and
tidal influences for 160 miles from its mouth at Jacksonville.








The headwaters area has been extensively altered with dikes and drainage
canals to provide rangeland and agricultural fields. Hater quality still
remains reasonably good, though dissolved oxygen levels have decreased
and nutrient impacts are observed in the lakes, especially Lake
Washington, a public drinking water supply. Diversion of freshwater to
the east has altered the salinity regimes in the embayments along the
coast. Between Puzzle Lake and Lake Monroe, .the river is impacted by
urban development around Orlando. Many of the wastewater treatment
facilities that historically discharged to the system have been upgraded
or consolidated in recent years, and water quality improvements are
evident. Stormwater and hydroperiod alterations continue to impact the
system.
The lower basin is characterized by a broad channel and extensive
floodplain, with reversing flows for up to several days at a time due to
tides, wind and the flat gradient. The average streamflow is 7,000 cfs.
Many of the tributaries have water quality problems due to agricultural,
industrial and stormwater discharges. The tributaries in the
Jacksonville area are severely impacted by leaching septic tanks,
wastewater and industrial treatment plant discharges and untreated
stormwater. Resulting water quality in the St. Johns is fair to poor.

The Oklawaha River is the largest tributary to the St. Johns. The upper
reaches, including Lake Apopka, are severely degraded by agricultural
discharges and historical drainage activities, but water quality improves
considerably downstream.

Peace-Tampa Bay Subregion
The three major rivers in this subregion originate in a broad swampy area
known as the Green Swamp. The Withlachoochee River drains an area of
about 2,090 square miles and flows north and west for 157 miles over a
very flat gradient. For much of its course, it is in hydraulic contact
with the Floridian aquifer, which contributes water to its 1,800 cfs
average flow. Its many lakes and marshes provide extensive storage of
flood waters. Most of the basin is undeveloped, and there is an
impoundment at Inglis constructed as part of the Cross Florida Barge
Canal.

The Hillsborough River is impounded in Tampa for a drinking water supply
reservoir. It drains about 650 square miles and discharges about 400 cfs
into Hillsborough Bay. Stormwater runoff from urban and agricultural
areas, as well as food processing and wastewater discharges have
adversely impacted water quality.

The upper Peace River area is altered and affected by discharges from
phosphate mining and fertilizer manufacturing activities. The northern
lakes also exhibit some of the worst water quality in the state, due to
wastewater and stormwater discharges. The river flows southwesterly for
105 miles, draining 2,300 square miles and discharging into Charlotte
Harbor. Hater quality improves somewhat downstream, but continues to be
impacted by domestic and industrial wastewater discharges and stormwater
runoff from urban and agricultural activities.








Southern Florida Subregion


The Kissimmee River is the main tributary to Lake Okeechobee and is controlled
at numerous locations as it passes through a series of shallow lakes and into
a 50 mile channel. It drains a 2,900 square mile basin beginning in the
urbanizing area south of Orlando and passing through agricultural and
rangeland till it reaches the Lake. Other tributaries to Lake Okeechobee,
especially the Taylor Creek watershed, exhibit some of the poorest water
quality in the state, primarily due to feedlot and intense pasture land uses.
Lake Okeechobee exhibits fair water quality with-declining trends. Extensive
alterations were made to the system in the early part of the century,
including construction of levees around the lake and channelization of the St.
Lucie and Caloosahatchee Rivers. Lake Okeechobee now serves as the hub of a
flood control system that involves five major canals that run from the east
and southeast of the Lake through the water conservation areas and the
Everglades. The canals are characterized by high nutrient levels, and low
dissolved oxygen with poor flushing rates. Intensive agricultural operations
depend upon the system for water supply, wastewater disposal and flood
protection. The system also provides for recharge of the groundwater to
offset saltwater intrusion due to heavy pumpage to supply water to the
developed east coast.
Development of this system has had three primary impacts on the Lake
Okeechobee region: First, drainage of the surface water systems of lakes,
marshes and wetlands and lowering of ground water levels has caused saltwater
intrusion in coastal areas, irreversible changes to vegetation patterns and
loss of soils through soil oxidation and burning (soil subsidence). Second,
interconnections of surface water systems has occurred so that water quality
conditions that otherwise might remain as localized problems become matters of
regional concern as nutrients and pollutants are transported to other areas.
Third, land that might have been unsuitable has been opened to development,
resulting in loss of natural habitats and degradation of surrounding areas
(South Florida Hater Management District Lake Okeechobee Surface Hater
Improvement and Management Plan).
The west coastal areas, including the Big Cypress Swamp and the Caloosahatchee
River generally exhibit good water quality. The area has very little
topographic relief and is characterized by extensive wetlands. There is
increasing development pressure along the coastal area and more intensive
agricultural activity moving into the area. The Caloosahatchee serves as a
public drinking water supply for Lee County and helps to recharge the aquifer
utilized by the City of Fort Myers. The Caloosahatchee is also used
extensively for agriculture. Lake Istokpoga and Indian Prarie Canals are also
used heavily by agriculture.
REFERENCE

Dow, Roxane, 1989, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of
Surface Water Management.








Inventory of Florida's Ground Water Resources


INTRODUCTION

Florida contains abundant ground water resources. Large quantities of
water are obtainable from each of the principal aquifers in most areas of
the State. The State also contains 27 of the 78 first-magnitude springs
in the United States. Because of its abundance and availability, ground
water is the principal source of freshwater for public supply, rural
domestic, industrial/commercial, and irrigation use. Approximately
one-half of the nearly 6,300 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) of
freshwater used in Florida for all purposes comes from ground water
sources, and about 90 percent of Florida's population depends on ground
water for its drinking water (Table B3). Nationally, Florida ranks sixth
among States in total fresh ground water withdrawals for all uses, second
for public supply, first for rural domestic and industrial/commercial
uses, and seventh for irrigation withdrawals. In addition to its direct
use, ground water is the source of water for the State's spring flow and
the base flow of streams; ground water flow also maintains the water
level in most of the State's lakes. Ground water is one of Florida's
most valuable natural resources.
Four principal aquifers underlie the State. The area extent over which
each aquifer is the primary source of supply is shown in Figure B5 and
the ability of these aquifers to furnish water to wells is summarized in
Table B4. The areas where these aquifers occur at land surface or are
overlain by less than 10 feet of fine-grained sediments are shown in
Figure B6.
Florida is mantled nearly everywhere by surficial sands that overlie a
thick sequence of bedded limestone and dolomite. Together, the surficial
sands and the limestone and dolomite form an enormous ground water
reservoir that provides proportionally larger quantities of ground water
in Florida than in any other state. Nearly all of Florida's ground water
originates from precipitation. Relatively small but important amounts
also are supplied by subsurface Inflow from adjacent areas of Alabama and
Georgia and by leakage from streams that enter Florida.
Average annual precipitation (1951-80) exceeds 50 inches over most of the
State. Part of this precipitation percolates to the water table and
recharges the ground water reservoir. Annual recharge rates range from
zero in perennially wet, lowland areas to as much as 20 inches or more in
well drained upland areas. In much of the State, most of this recharge
moves through the surficial aquifers and discharges to nearby streams;
only a small fraction, ranging from 0 to 5 inches, percolates downward to
recharge deeper aquifers. In some areas of the state there is no
recharge to the aquifer.

GROUND HATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK
In 1983 the Department of Environmental Regulation began the establishment
of a ground water quality monitoring network designed to detect and











Table 83 Ground Hater Facts for Florida
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1004, 1988 and
U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation
Report 88-4103, 1988)

Population served by ground water 1985

Number (thousands) --- ------- --------------- 10,273
Percentage of total population ------ ----- 91
From public water-supply systems:
Number (thousands) ------------------------------- 8,680
Percentage of total population ---------------- 77
From self-supplied systems:
Number (thousands) -------------- --------------- 1,593
Percentage of total population ------------------ 14
Freshwater withdrawals. 1985

Surface water and ground water, total (Mgal/d) ------- 6,280*
Ground water only (Mgail/d) ------------ ------------ 4,050*
Percentage of total ------------------------------64
Percentage of total excluding withdrawals for
thermoelectric power ------------------------ 72

Cateaorv of use
Public-supply withdrawals:
Ground water (Mgal/d) ------------- --------- 1,490*
Percentage of total ground water ------------- 37
Percentage of total public supply ------------- 89
Per capital (gal/d) ------------------------- 172
Self-supplied domestic withdrawals:
Ground water (Mgal/d) ---------------------- 260
Percentage of total ground water ------------- 6
Percentage of total self-supplied domestic --- 100
Industrial, commercial, mining, thermoelectric
self-supplied withdrawals:
Ground water (Mgal/d) ----------------------- 650
Percentage of total ground water -------------- 16
Percentage of total industrial self supplied:
Including withdrawals for thermoelectric
power -------------- ------------------ 46
Excluding withdrawals for thermoelectric
power -------------------------------- 89
Irrigation and Livestock withdrawals:
Ground water (Mgal/d) ---------------------- 1,650
Percentage of total ground water ------------- 41
Percentage of total irrigation -------------- 55

*Includes 17 Mgal/d of saline water, about half of which is
desalinated for public supply.


B14



















30. 'N ^ U "^ i &"r! i 1 ^
.29" ,







28"
EXPLANATION

BISCAYNE AQUIFER 'i
27* SAND-AND-GRAVEL AQUIFER L .I
\ UNNAMED SURFICIAL AQUIFERS AND
INTERMEDIATE AQUIFERS,
UNDIFFERENTIATED .'
26 FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM

M;

256

0 50 100 MILES S
I I I i I I I I
0 50 100 KILOMETERS



Figure B5 Approximate Areal Extent Over Which Principal Aquifers Are the
Primary Source of Supply (Source: U.S. Geological Survey).


B15










Table 84
(Sources:


Aquifer and Well Characteristics in Florida
Reports of the U.S. Geological Survey and
Florida State agencies)


Aquifer name and description

Biscayne aquifer: Limestone,
sandstone, and sand.
Unconfined.

Sand-and-gravel aquifer:
Sand, and gravel interbedded
with discontinuous clay layers.
Unconfined in upper part to
locally confined in deeper part.


Well characteristics
Depth (ft.) Yield (gal/min)
Common Common
range range


40 150


- 300


500 1,000


500 1,000


Unnamed surficial aquifers: 50 400
Sand, shell, and clayey sand;
locally contains thin
discontinuous limestone layers.
Unconfined to locally confined.

Intermediate aquifer(s): 100 600
Limestone and shell beds with
discontinuous clay layers and
some interbedded sand. Confined.


Floridan aquifer system:
Limestone and dolomite.
Unconfined in outcrop areas,
confined where deeply buried.


100 1,800


500 1,000


<100




<200













I I I I I I I I



31*


3 .-


30* I





I29*





280











26 | PRINCIPAL AQUFERS--occur at land surface
or are overlain by less than 10 feet
of fine-grained sediments



25# -

I I, I I
0 50o 100 MILES "

0 50 100 KILOMETERS





Figure B6 Approximate Areal Extent Over Which Principal Aquifers Occur at
Land Surface or Are Overlain by Less Thab 10 Feet of Fine-Grained
Sands. (Source: U..S. Geological Survery).


B17


82* 810 80*


87* 88*


Bb M 83








predict contamination of Florida's ground water resources. The network
consists of two large subnetworks: (1) the Background Network and (2)
the Very Intense Study Area (VISA) Network.
The Background Network consists of approximately 1,800 wells and has been
operational since 1986. Data generated from this network is currently
being evaluated in order to determine background water quality within
each of Florida's aquifer systems. The first evaluations are scheduled
for completion in January 1990.

Areas of the State which are considered high risk with regard to ground
water contamination (VISAs) have been delineated by combining information
derived from both land use and aquifer vulnerability maps. Subnetworks
within each of these VISAs are currently being established. The 500 well
VISA Network is scheduled for completion in December 1989.
Data from the first sample run of the VISA Network will be used in
conjunction with data from the Background Network to quantify the
cumulative effects of land use on ground water quality. After several
sample runs, statistical analyses will be conducted on data generated
from both networks in order to determine if ground water quality is
changing over time. The detection of changing land use will be the first
step in predicting future changes in ground water quality. For this
reason, an inspection of land use patterns will be performed after each
sample run of both networks.
Information generated from the networks will be made available to
agencies involved in ground water quality issues and also to local
programs. This information will assist them in their regulatory,
planning and zoning activities. All data and information generated by
both networks will also be made available to the general public.

The program has produced useful water quality data which should be used
in any water use planning effort. Ongoing efforts to optimize the
network design and data collection should continue and be expanded, where
necessary, to account for regional variations. The installation and
sampling of monitor wells within public supply wellfield protection areas
to warn against impending contamination should be considered.
Consideration should also be given to increasing the efficiency of the
data collection process by integrating sampling efforts with the United
States Geological Survey and other governmental agencies.
A graphic summary of selected water-quality variables compiled from the
Department of Environmental Regulation's Ground Hater Quality Monitoring
Network is presented in Figure 87. The summary is based on
dissolved-solids, hardness, nitrate (as nitrogen), sodium, and iron
analyses of water samples collected from the principal aquifers in
Florida. Percentiles of these variables are compared to national
standards that specify the maximum concentration or level of a
contaminant in drinking water as established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The primary maximum contaminant level standards are
health related and are legally enforceable. The secondary maximum
contaminant level standards apply to esthetic qualities but can be
enforced as ground water standards under certain circumstances. -The
primary drinking water standards include a maximum concentration of










S0 CO 0
0'- Co d o
cO 10 O


700



600


500


400


300


200


100


0


100,000




10,000




1,000




100




10




1


NUMBER OF ANALYSES
so S. #. 0
2,000
I000 188SOLVED SOLIDS


1,600




1.200




800




400




0


0D '-0
000 P- ~
00,0 Cd0


IRON NITRATE,
as nitrogen
C- 4

2

S0
S< 0.8
I 0.6
0 0.4

I- 0- '
z 0.2


0.0
P- <
0.05 C

LIMIT OF W I
ANALYTICAL ) w

S0.01
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
AQUIFER NUMBER


CI 0


1 2 3 4 5
AQUIFER NUMBER

EXPLANATION
PERCENTILE--percentage
of analysis equal to
or less than values

--90th
-75th
-50th
-25th
- 10th
STATE DRINKING-WATER
STANDARDS
...... maximum contaminant
level (primary)
_-. maximum contaminant
level (secondary)

1 BISCAYNE AQUIFER
2 SAND-AND-GRAVEL
AQUIFER
3 UNNAMED SURFICIAL
AQUIFERS
4 INTERMEDIATE
AQUIFER SYSTEM
5 FLORIDAN AQUIFER
SYSTEM


Figure B7 Selected Water Quality Constituents and Properties
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey).


10 N.
0 0








10 mg/l nitrate (as nitrogen), and the secondary drinking water standards
include maximum concentrations of 500 mg/L dissolved solids and 300 ug/L
(micrograms per liter) iron. For these variables, State drinking water
standards are the same as the national standards.
Except for water in the sand-and-gravel aquifer in northwest Florida,
ground water in Florida is classified as hard to very hard.
Concentrations of nitrate and fluoride in Florida's ground water are
considerably smaller than the maximum prescribed by State drinking water
standards. Iron, however, is common in undesirable concentrations
throughout Florida, particularly in water from the Biscayne and surficial
aquifers.
In addition to the Department's Ground Hater Quality Monitoring Network,
the water management districts maintain salt water intrusion and water
level monitoring networks.
HATER SUPPLY

Florida's population in 1988 was about 12.4 million and is increasing at
a rate of about 6,000 persons per week or 300,000 per year. Most major
population centers are in south and central Florida (Figure B88).
Comparison of the distribution of population (Figure B8) and aquifers
(Figure B5) reveals that much of the population is located in areas where
the principal aquifer is the surficial and intermediate aquifer, the
least plentiful source of ground water in the State (Table B4). Areas
underlain by this aquifer, particularly along the Gulf Coast south of
Tampa and much of the Atlantic Coast are among the State's fastest
growing areas. Thus, much of the current and future water demand for
drinking water will be in the areas of the State least favorable for
development of large ground water supplies. Also, many population
centers overlying the other aquifers are located in coastal areas where
potable supplies are vulnerable to contamination from nearby saline
water, in areas where ground water is unconfined and vulnerable to
contamination from surface sources, or both. Despite the abundance of
ground water resources, the disparity between population and. available
water supply, and the vulnerability of large parts of all aquifers to
contamination, are causes for concern.
Irrigation and livestock withdrawals exceed the withdrawals for public
supply (Table B3). Among agricultural uses of water, irrigation of
citrus is the largest single ground water withdrawal, accounting for
about 1/3 of the total. Citrus groves, which were once centered in
central Florida, have been relocating to the southwest portion of the
State, primarily to DeSoto, Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, Lee and Collier
Counties. Much of the ground water withdrawals for new citrus irrigation
will come primarily from the surficial and intermediate aquifers, and may
conflict with the demands for future public water supplies and protection
of the ground water resources in the rapidly growing southwest part of
the State.


820


















wO ,w -- r-
Uf~I IU r-- j


30*-


1985 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION--
each dot represents 1,000 people


0 50 100 MILES
I i'l I l 1I I I
0 50 100 KILOMETERS


I I i.


Figure B8 Population Distribution 1985: Each
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey).


Dot Represents 1,000 Peop*


29*-


28* 1


260


II


82* 81e


rrr lu 83


27* ,








PRINCIPAL AQUIFERS


Biscayne Aquifer
The Biscayne aquifer is the most intensively developed of all the Florida
aquifers. It supplies the densely populated Miami-Palm Beach coastal
area with virtually all of its water needs. The Biscayne aquifer
underlies all of Dade and Broward Counties and adjoining parts of Palm
Beach and Monroe Counties. It is primarily highly permeable limestone in
south and west Dade County but becomes increasingly sandy and less
permeable to the north and east. The high permeability is caused largely
by extensive carbonate dissolution. Large diameter public supply wells
in Dade County produce as much as 7,000 gallons per minute (gal/min),
with little water level drawdown. Water in the Biscayne aquifer is
unconfined and in hydraulic connection with the many canals that cross
the area. Induced recharge from the canals occurs where the water table
is depressed below canal stage near well fields. Saltwater control
structures have been built near the mouth of coastal rivers/canals to
prevent the movement of saltwater upstream and contaminating well fields
in adjacent aquifers.
The Biscayne aquifer is very permeable, very vulnerable to contamination,
and is the sole source of drinking water for more than 3 million people
in southeast Florida. In 1979 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
designated it as a "sole source aquifer" under provision of Public Law
93-523. Pumpage from the Biscayne aquifer in 1985 totaled 785 Mgal/d.
Water in the Biscayne aquifer is primarily a calcium bicarbonate type and
is acceptable for most uses. Concentrations of dissolved solids are less
than 600 mg/L in about 90 percent of the samples analyzed, although most
water is classified as very hard (greater than 180 mg/L of hardness).
Concentrations of nitrate and fluoride are considerably less than
drinking water standards, with respective median values of 0.01 and 0.30
mg/L. Iron concentrations in untreated ground water are commonly greater
than the secondary drinking water standard of 300 ug/L. Iron is commonly
associated with the large natural organic content of the region's ground
water resource. This large natural organic content has contributed to
the formation of trihalomethanes during chlorination of public water
supplies. Locally, the Biscayne aquifer has been contaminated by
industrial discharges, landfill leachate, and fuel spills.
Sand and Gravel Aquifer

The sand-and-gravel aquifer is the major source of water supply in the
western part of the Florida Panhandle. The aquifer consists of surficial
sediments that exceed 700 feet (ft.) in thickness in northwestern
Escambia County. The aquifer thins to the south and east and pinches out
in central Halton County. Hater in the sand-and-gravel aquifer is under
both unconfined and confined conditions, depending on the presence of
discontinuous clay lenses of low permeability that are interbedded with
the more permeable sand-and-gravel layers. The deep production zone of
the aquifer, which is tapped by most large capacity wells, is generally
semiconfined. Hells capable of producing several hundred gallons per
minute are common.








The major inorganic chemical constituent in water from this aquifer is
sodium chloride, with concentrations of dissolved solids less than 130
mg/L in about 75 percent of the aquifer. The water is considered to be
soft (less than 60 mg/L of hardness) and suitable for most uses, although
safeguards against corrosion may be needed in some instances.
Concentrations of sodium, nitrate, and fluoride generally do not exceed
the drinking water standards. Near the coast, saltwater intrusion can
occur. Industrial operations in and around Pensacola have caused local
contamination of the aquifer's water. Total pumpage from the
sand-and-gravel aquifer in 1985 was 100 Mgal/d.
Unnamed Surficial and Intermediate AquTfer

Unnamed surficial aquifers are present over much of the remainder of the
state but they are less likely to be used where more plentiful supplies
are obtained from deeper aquifers that contain potable water. Where the
deeper aquifers contain nonpotable water, these surficial aquifers are
important sources of supply. The surficial deposits consist of sand and
shell with minor limestone beds. These aquifers are used most
intensively for public supply in the area southwest of Lake Okeechobee
and in scattered towns along the east coast from Palm Beach County
northward. Elsewhere, these aqulfers are used mainly for rural
supplies. With irrigation use increasing, low hydraulic conductivity
creates the potential for significant drawdowns in these aquifers. In
general, the major inorganic chemical composition of water from the
surficial aquifers is calcium bicarbonate. Concentrations of dissolved
solids generally are less than about 900 mg/L in 90 percent of the
samples analyzed; however, concentrations of several thousand milligrams
per liter are not uncommon in some areas. The water is hard to very
hard. On the average, concentrations of nitrate, fluoride, chloride, and
dissolved solids do not exceed drinking water standards. Iron
concentrations exceed the standards in more than half of the samples
analyzed. The aquifers have been contaminated locally with saline water
from uncontrolled flowing artesian wells that tap deeper aquifers.

In south Florida and along the western part of peninsular Florida, one or
more aquifers are present between the local surficial aquifer system and
the underlying Floridan aquifer system; these are informally referred to
as intermediate aquifers. The rocks that contain the intermediate
aquifers are mainly limestone and shell beds interbedded with sand and
clay. Intermediate aquifers are an important source of water for public
supply and irrigation in coastal southwestern Florida from Sarasota
County to Collier County where the underlying Floridan aquifer system
contains nonpotable water. Well yields differ widely depending on the
amount of permeable limestone available; however, yields are generally
less than 200 gal/min. Elsewhere, these aquifers generally are used for
agriculture and rural or small community supplies. Use of these aquifers
for irrigation is increasing. Hater in the intermediate aquifers is
confined. The intermediate aquifers contain water too saline for human
consumption in most of the area south of Lake Okeechobee. The major
inorganic chemical composition of water from the intermediate aquifers
generally is a mixed calcium-magnesium bicarbonate, with concentrations








of dissolved solids of about 410 mg/L or larger in about 50 percent of
the samples analyzed. The water from these aquifers is considered to be
hard to very hard. Nitrate and fluoride concentrations generally do not
exceed drinking water standards, but sodium, chloride, iron, and
dissolved solids commonly do. Because of the chemical composition of the
rocks comprising the aquifers in and around Sarasota County, some ground
water may contain concentrations of naturally occurring radium 226 that
exceed national drinking water standards. Saltwater Intrusion and upward
movement of saline water from the deeper aquifer commonly result in
unsuitable water quality for most uses in many areas.

Floridan Aquifer System
The Floridan aquifer system, one of the most productive sources of ground
water in the United States, extends across the entire State of Florida,
southern Georgia, and adjoining small parts of Alabama and South
Carolina. The Floridan is the lowermost part of the ground water
reservoir in Florida. It consists of as much as 3,500 ft. of limestone
and dolomite beds that are hydraulically interconnected to varying
degrees. The Floridan is at or near land surface in the western part of
the peninsula that extends from Wakulla to Pasco County and in most of
Holmes and Jackson Counties and a small part of Halton County in the
panhandle area bordering Alabama. Elsewhere, it is buried to depths as
much as 1,100 ft. below sea level in southern Florida and 1,500 ft. below
sea level in the western most part of the Florida Panhandle. Water in
the Floridan is unconfined in about one-quarter of the State, where the
aquifer system is at or near land surface, and is confined elsewhere.

Many public supply systems tap the Floridan aquifer system including
those serving Jacksonville, Orlando, Clearwater, St. Petersburg and
Tallahassee. The Floridan also is a major source of water for
industrial, irrigation, and rural uses. Total pumpage from the aquifer
system in Florida exceeds 2 billion gallons per day. Yields vary
considerably, but yields of several hundred to several thousand gallons
per minute commonly are attainable by large diameter wells, and yields of
as much as 20,000 gal/min have been reported. Flowing artesian wells
that tap the Floridan are common over much of the lower lying areas of
the state. Other areas of the state also use the Floridan aquifer for
public water supply.
The major inorganic chemical constituent in the water from the Floridan
aquifer system is calcium bicarbonate, with a concentration of dissolved
solids less than 500 mg/L In almost 90 percent of the samples analyzed.
Although the water tends to be hard and iron commonly exceeds the
drinking water standard, it generally does not exceed the standards for
nitrate, fluoride, sodium, and chloride in at least 75 percent of the
samples analyzed. The entire aquifer system contains nonpotable water in
the southern one-third of the peninsula. Contamination by aldicarb and
ethylene dibromide from agricultural activities has been noted recently
in parts of the state. Where the aquifer is at or near land surface, it
is susceptible to contamination by leachate from landfills and other
waste disposal facilities.








Besides its wide use as a water supply source, the Floridan aquifer
system also is used as a repository for wastewaters. Two types of wells
return water to the Floridan aquifer. First, stormwaters enter the upper
part of the aquifer system through hundreds of shallow drainage wells,
mostly in central peninsular Florida. Second, industrial and municipal
wastewaters are injected into deeper, well confined saline parts of the
aquifer system mainly in the Pensacola area, in Pinellas County, and
along the southeastern coast from Miami to Brevard County.
Effects of Withdrawals on Hater Levels
Fresh ground water withdrawals from all aquifers in 1985 exceeded
1 Mgal/d in every county. Withdrawals were greatest in Dade and Polk
Counties (486 and 320 Mgal/d, respectively). The hydrographs in
Figure B9 show the response of the principal aquifers to pumping at
selected withdrawal centers. Hater levels in the Biscayne aquifer
respond to the large amount of pumpage in the Dade County area for public
supply, but, because the Biscayne is unconfined and readily recharged by
infiltration of canal water and precipitation, the response is seasonal
and small in magnitude. However, these small declines are of concern
because of the potential for saltwater intrusion into the coastal well
fields.

Withdrawals in the Pensacola area (Escambia County) from the
sand-and-gravel aquifer have caused water levels to decline somewhat, but
the trend has stabilized over the last decade.
Water levels in the Floridan aquifer system in Polk County have declined
since the early 1950's in response to large withdrawals, primarily for
the phosphate mining industry and secondarily for irrigation. Water
levels have recovered somewhat since the mid-1970's because of artificial
recharge practices implemented by the phosphate industry, a reduction in
pumpage due to water recycling, and a decline in mining activity. In the
Orlando area of Orange County, water levels in the Floridan also have
declined in response to large withdrawals for irrigation and public
supply. The magnitude of these water level declines has been reduced by
the recharge of stormwater through more than 400 drainage wells. Where
unconfined, water levels in the Floridan have been little affected by
withdrawals on a long term basis. Overall, only four areas in Florida
have experienced water level declines of more than 10 ft. in the Fl.oridan
aquifer system; in addition to the Polk and Orange County areas, Nassau
and Duval (Jacksonville) and Okaloosa (Fort Walton Beach) counties have
also been affected. In all these areas, the Floridan aquifer system is
confined and water occurs under artesian conditions. Although withdrawal
from artesian storage has occurred, there has been no dewatering of the
aquifer. Most of the water withdrawn in these areas has been derived
from increased recharge to the aquifer induced by the lower water levels.

Effects of Land Use on Hater Quality
Florida's unique hydrogeologic features of a thin soil layer, high water
table, porous limestone, and large amounts of rainfall, coupled with its
rapid population growth, result in a ground water resource vulnerable to


B25















10 --

1 Bisca
0 -
w
010
L 10 -
o
1 20


-J 30 -

0
- 40-




O POLK COI
c o I I
2 Floric
. 10 -

U.
20 -

LU 30 -
-J
40-

50 -

S I60I
1935 1945


80
60


80

90


100


10


0

10


20

30

40


I I l l I I I I


15 1965 197 198 193 194
1955 1965 1975 1986 1935 1945


ESCAM BIA COUNTY
..


ORANGE COUNTY
I I I I I I I I
5 Floridan Aquifer (confined)
- I


1965 1965 1975 1985


Figure B9 Graphs of Annual Greatest Depth to Water in Selected Wells Affected
by Ground Water Withdrawals (Source: U.S. Geological Survey).


B26


I I I I I I I I I
17 Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer (confined)













I I I I I I I I I i
- -v
-A '


I I I I I I I









contamination. Figures 810 and 811 show the generalized relative
vulnerability of the Floridan aquifer and surficial aquifers to
pollution. These two figures are based on data developed by the water
management districts under contract with the Department of Environmental
Regulation. The vulnerability rating is based on a relative ranking
system called DRASTIC. This ranking system incorporates the major
hydrogeologic factors which affect and control ground water movement
including depth to water table, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media,
topography, impact of the vadose zone, and hydraulic conductivity. These
factors, which form the acronym DRASTIC, are used to determine the
relative potential for contaminants to pollute ground water.

Numerous human activities throughout Florida have the potential to
contribute to ground water contamination. There are tens of thousands of
potential point sources such as surface water impoundments, drainage
wells, underground storage tanks, flowing saline artesian wells,
hazardous waste sites, power plants, landfills, and cattle and dairy
feedlots. Similarly, there are numerous septic tanks and urban
industrial-commercial areas that may recharge water of undesirable
quality. Nonpoint sources, which have vast potential for ground water
contamination, include coastal saltwater bodies, agricultural and
silvicultural practices, and mining. Figure 812 shows the number of
potential hazardous waste sites in each county identified by the
Department of Environmental Regulation. Reported cases of recent ground
water contamination summarized by county are shown in Figure 813. In
many cases included in this summary, the principal aquifer was not
directly affected; further, not all cases posed a significant threat to
human health and welfare. The reported cases mainly represent recent
information gathered from special State and Federal studies on drinking
water supplies, hazardous and nonhazardous waste site monitoring, and
underground storage tanks. Figure B13 is a very general portrayal and
does not represent all recent contamination cases of ground water or
supply wells. In particular, Figure B13 does not include bacteriological
data collected by the numerous county and local health agencies.
Currently, Florida is only moderately industrialized, but it has one of
the fastest growing populations. Future population growth is projected
to be most intensive in coastal urban areas, although central and
northern urban areas will also be affected (Figure B8). Increased
development in coastal areas may result in saltwater intrusion problems,
and agricultural stresses of today likely will give way to future water
quality effects associated with increased urban, commercial, and
industrial development.

In many areas of Florida, the present degradation of water has occurred
only in surficial deposits and not in the deeper principal aquifer,
however, downward movement of contamination is a possible threat. In
other hydrogeologic settings such as in southeastern Florida, however,
the principal aquifer has been directly contaminated.
















Low ( <120 )

Medium ( 120 179)

High ( 180+ )


Figure B10 Generalized Relative Vulnerability
of the Floridan Aquifer



















LI


Low ( <140 )
Medium ( 140 179)

High ( 180+ )

Floridan Aquifer at or near
Land Surface


j


Figure 811 Generalized Relative Vulnerability
of the Surficlal Aquifers














870 as*' 650 840 83*8 18


I I I I I I T







; e~ -










EXPLANATION
WASTE SITE -
Potential hazardous-waste
sites by county

S0

1-10

11-25

S26-50







0 50 100 MILES
S1111 I I I I II I I I
0 50 100 KILOMETERS

I I I I II I




Figure B12 Potential Hazardous Waste Sites, by County (Source: U.S.
Geological Survey).


B30


29*


28*


266


87a 88e


85 8* 89


820 ale 809


30*


270


25*














1 I I I I I I






30* -









EXPLANATION
280
2 GROUND-WATER QUALITY

Reported contamination
cases by county
Bacteriological data
270 not included



1-10

268* 11-50

rn1 51-400



25 0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS O '
I I I I 1



Figure B13 Reported Incidences of Human-Induced Contamination, by County
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey).


850 840 8309


870 so*


820 ale Soo








Water Shortage Areas
Hater management district efforts to identify potential water supply
limitations have been ongoing for a number of years based on the needs of
the particular district. Formal designation of long term water shortage
areas have been accomplished to varying degrees by each district.
Figures B14 816 show such areas which have been identified by three of
the five water management districts. All districts have evaluated and
adopted water shortage,plans to address short term limitations. State
water policy requires each district to designate water shortage areas by
November 1, 1991.
REFERENCES
Modified from U.S. Geological Survey Hater-Supply Papers 2275 and 2325


B32
















A L A B A M A
. -.. . . . ,- --- -- . .
I--------------------------
,--+---- -----------------------~
---------,------------------
I ---------------------- -- --

L--- ------- ----------------
--------------
Sf' .....----- ------------
,- -- -_ .. -- -. . ..- -

-,- --- -1-Il -f --
----- -- -----


G u) 1- F


S SOLE SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER
/ SAND & GRAVEL AQUIFER
PRIMARY RECHARGE AREA / FLORIDAN AOUIFER I

IIIl AREA OF CONCERN / LIMITED GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY

Tmm"w ISOCHLOR LINE / POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED SALTWATER INTRUSION



Figure B14 Areas of Special Concern Within the Northwest Florida Water Management District.
(Source: Northwest Florida Water Management District).


OO I O I A




i:-.-.-- -._ -----"-.. --
-I -- ----- ----- -

----- ---- -



,-----------------

--- --- --------































Tamn Bay


Eastern
Tampa Bay


Figure B15 Areas of Special Concern Within the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (Source: Southwest Florida Water
Management District).


-909ards
ftedg
















A TLANT IC


OCEAN


PIERCE


JUPITER


DEERFIELD
BEACH



HALLANDALE


aAF
or
MEXC


R-UCED ALL1CATIN AEA

AWAS EXPERENCING
SALT VATER INTRUSION

iDUC THRESHOLD ACA

AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO
SINilLE FRMATIOM


OfAf


O 1 20 30
mUSX


Figure B16 Areas of Special Concern Within the South Florida Water
Management District (Source: South Florida Water Management
District).
B35


D






























Appendix C


Future Outlook for Florida's Hater Resources Projected Hater Needs








Future Outlook for Florida's Water Resources Projected Hater Needs
Public supply refers to a municipal water supplier or a privately owned
water utility that serves the public or sells water to the public.
According to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, any
water supplier that serves 25 people or more, or has 15 service
connections or more, is considered a "Public Supply". Public supply
systems sell or provide water to multiple users, including residential
households, commercial facilities, irrigators, industries, recreation
facilities, power plants and various others. Public supplied water
delivered to residential households include water used for indoor
domestic uses and outdoor uses. Indoor uses include bathing, cooking,
drinking, washing, and carrying waste away, while outdoor uses include
lawn and garden watering, car washing and possibly livestock uses.
Many approaches can be used to predict future water demands for public
supply use. These approaches include complex multiple coefficient or
disaggregated models and simpler single coefficient or time extrapolation
methods. The approach taken for arriving at these projections was to use
a single coefficient (public supply per capital) and multiply it by the
projected population of Florida for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020
(Table Cl). This method was used primarily because the data required for
large scale projections, such as on a state or county level, are minimal,
and good historical public supply data existed on a county level. The
public supply per capital coefficient is derived on a county level by
dividing the total public supply water use by the public supply
population. This value represents the water used or accounted for by
each person served by public supply and is reported in gallons per day.
The future public supply projections in this report were compiled for the
years 2000, 2010, and 2020 by using the following steps:
(1) determine the projected population of each county,
(2) determine the percentage of projected population of each county
that will be served by a public supply,
(3) determine the projected public supply per capital in gallons per
day for each county.
Listed below are the data sources and assumptions made for each step:

(1) Projected population of each county: The population projections
were supplied by the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, Population Stqdies, Bulletin No. 88. The
projections in this report used the medium population projection
for each county (Figure Cl). Water use projections were also
compiled for both the low and high population projections so that
a range of potential demands could be established (Figure C2).
(2) Percentage of projected population of each county that will be
served by a public supply water system: Population served by
public supply was determined by using past trends in each county.
The percentage of population served by public supply was observed
for the years of existing historical data (1960, 1965, 1970, 1975,
1980, 1985 and 1987). For each county, the predicted percentage






Table C1 Projected Public Supply Water Demand in Florida for the Years
2000, 2010, and 2020 by County (Source: U.S. Geological Survey).


2000

Per Population Water
capital Total Public demand


2010
----------------------------------
Par Population Water
capital Total Public demand


2020
----------------*** --------
Per Population Water
capital Total Public demand


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay
Collier
Colabia
Dade
De Soto
Dixie
Duval
Escabia
rFasler
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Bamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Bernando
Highlands
Billsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefftterson
Lafayette
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Honroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucia
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

Totals


169 221,00 72Z
135 23,000 30S
186 177,800 802
173 27,400 352
139 533,800 902
180 1,474,200 972
134 12,400 302
108 142,500 802
161 131,100 602
126 147,600 702
229 201,300 80Z
193 50,200 302
200 2,083,000 952
104 28,300 352
135 13,000 40Z
158 827,900 80
158 334,100 85Z
133 37,000 90
181 9,400 852
131 51,500 502
262 9,200 21Z
136 9,200 30Z
155 13,800 602
146 10,800 602
156 25,700 402
157 33,000 752
144 146,400 902
177 90,400 702
154 1,046,000 90Z
182 20,100 302
215 124,600 60Z
157 49,300 40Z
175 13,900 252
155 6,000 202
192 187,300 652
159 451,700 802
156 220,300 802
151 30,400 35Z
118 5,300 30Z
189 16,600 40Z
144 236,300 95Z
157 264,600 502
212 129,300 602
132 91,400 1002
188 62,000 45Z
157 206,400 802
146 39,700 552
192 621,500 95Z
149 157,000 602
227 1,184,000 952
111 371,800 752
143 962,600 97Z
195 497,000 75Z
167 72,400 32Z
127 120,300 75Z
158 198,000 652
133 79,200 952
124 332,000 85Z
164 395,000 90
154 38,300 352
152 32,300 33Z
159 21,400 552
130 11,500 40Z
131 463,400 87Z
107 18,800 452
129 37,700 852
150 17,900 42Z


27.0
0.9
26.5
1.7
66.8
257.4
0.5
12.3
12.7
13.0
36.9
2.9
395.8
1.0
0.7
104.6
44.9
4.4
1.4
3.4
0.5
0.4
1.3
0.9
1.6
3.9
19.0
11.2
145.0
1.1
16.1
3.1
0.6
0.2
23.4
57.5
27.5
1.6
0.2
1.3
32.3
20.8
16.4
12.1
5.2
25.9
3.2
149.8
14.0
255.3
31.0
133.5
72.7
3.9
11.5
20.3
10.0
35.0
58.3
2.1
1.6
1.9
0.6
52.8
0.9
4.1
1.1


169 242,400 722
136 25,200 302
186 200,500 802
173 29,600 352
139 628,200 90Z
180 1,634,400 972
134 13,100 302
108 175,200 80X
161 161,500 602
126 179,000 702
229 246,500 802
193 55,200 302
200 2,239,400 952
104 30,700 35Z
135 14,800 402
158 898,900 802
158 354,500 852
133 46,500 902
181 9,800 852
131 54,100 502
262 10,500 212
136 10,200 30Z
155 14,200 60Z
146 11,200 602
156 27,300 40Z
157 37,200 752
144 183,500 902
177 105,700 70Z
154 1,157,700 902
182 21,600 302
215 150,100 60Z
157 51,900 402
175 14,900 25Z
155 6,300 202
192 216,200 65Z
159 550,000 802
156 238,700 80Z
151 33,900 35Z
118 5,600 30Z
189 17,100 402
144 260,000 95Z
157 322,200 50Z
212 153,800 602
132 97,200 100
188 70,200 452
157 234,300 802
146 46,300 55Z
192 919,800 95Z
149 195,400 60S
227 1,426,900 95Z
111 439,500 75Z
143 1,040.900 972
195 540,400 752
167 79,200 32Z
127 147,100 752
158 240,500 652
133 85,300 952
124 379,100 852
164 481,000 902
154 43,100 352
152 35,500 332
159 23,000 552
130 12,000 40Z
131 539,500 872
107 21,200 45Z
129 42,500 852
150 19,100 422


29.5
1.0
29.8
1.8
78.6
285.4
0.5
15.1
15.6
15.8
45.2
3.2
425.5
1.1
0.8
113.6
47.6
5.6
1.5
3.5
0.6
0.4
1.3
1.0
1.7
4.4
23.8
13.1
160.5
1.2
19.4
3.3
0.7
0.2
27.0
70.0
29.8
1.8
0.2
1.3
35.6
25.3
19.6
12.8
5.9
29.4
3.7
167.8
17.5
.307.7
36.6
144.4
79.0
4.2
14.0
24.7
10.8
40.0
71.0
2.3
1.8
2.0
0.6
61.5
1.0
4.7
1.2


174 15,899,200 852 2,307.4 17,998,300 852 2,607.2 19,942,400 852 2,886.8


County


169 268,600 722
136 27,900 302
186 222,200 80Z
173 32,700 352
139 696,100 902
180 1,811,000 972
134 14,500 30Z
108 194,100 802
161 179,000 602
126 198,300 702
229 273,100 802
193 61,200 302
200 2,481,300 952
104 34,000 352
135 16,400 '402
158 996,000 802
158 392,800 85Z
133 51,500 902
181 10,800 852
131 60,000 50Z
262 11,700 212
136 11,300 302
155 15,800 602
146 12,500 60Z
156 30.200 402
157 41,200 752
144 203,300 90
177 117,100 702
154 1,282,700 90Z
182 24,000 302
215 166,300 602
157 57,500 402
175 16,500 252
155 7,000 202
192 239,500 652
159 609,500 802
156 264,500 802
151 37,500 352
118 6,200 30%
189 18,900 40Z
144 288,100 952
157 357,000 502
212 170,400 60Z
132 107,700 1002
188 77,800 452
157 259,600 802
146 51,300 55Z
192 1,019,100 952
149 216,500 60%
227 1,581,100 95Z
111 487,000 752
143 1.153,400 972
195 598,700 752
167 87,800 322
127 162.900 752
158 266,500 652
133 94,500 952
124 420,000 853
164 532,900 902
154 47,700 35%
152 39,400 332
159 25,500 55Z
130 13,300 402
131 597,800 87Z
107 23,500 452
129 47,100 852
150 21,100 42Z


32.7
1.1
33.1
2.0
87.1
316.2
0.6
18.8
17.3
17.5
50.0
3.5
471.4
1.2
0.9
125.9
52.8
6.2
1.7
3.9
0.6
0.5
1.5
1.1
1.9
4.9
26.3
14.5
177.8
1.3
21.5
3.6
0.7
0.2
29.9
77.5
33.0
2.0
0.2
1.4
39.4
28.0
21.7
14.2
6.6
32.6
4.1
185.9
19.4
341.0
40.5
160.0
87.6
4.7
15.5
27.4
11.9
44.3
78.7
2.6
2.0
2.2
0.7-
68.1
1.1
5.2
1.3


2,607.2


19.942,400 85Z


2,888.8


174 15,899,200 85Z


2,307.4


17,998,300 852


















18 HISTORICAL /' 'f













S-















;e 1 1 11 I0
0/
//I


1J
































Figure C1 Past and Projected Population in Florida (Source: University
of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research and
Population Studies, Bulletin No. 88).
Population Studies, Bulletin No. 88).



























3.0












2.0












1.0












0
1950


1970 1980 1990 2000


Figure C2 Public Supply Water Withdrawals / Use
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey).


2010



in Florida


1960


2020










of public supply population was determined by either using the
average percentage over the seven years of data, or by determining a
more recent trend that occurred during the 1980's. The latter was
used more often because the recent data (1980, 1985, 1987) better
portray the trend in public supply populations (Figure C3). The
trends in the data shown in Figure C3 indicate that population
served by public supply will remain at or near its current rate for
most counties through the year 2020.

(3) Projected public supply per capital in gallons per day for each
county: The per capital values were derived also using historical
trend data. The public supply per capital values were observed for
the years of existing historical data (1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970,
1975, 1980, 1985 and 1987).. For each county, the predicted public
supply per capital was determined by either using the average value
over the 37 years of data, or by determining a more recent trend
that occurred during the 1980's. The latter was used more often
because the recent data (1980, 1985, 1987) was more reliable and
also these values better portray the trend in public supply per
capital (Figure C4). The trends in the data shown in Figure C3
indicate that public supply per capital will remain at or near its
current rate for each county through the year 2020.

The projections for domestic self-supplied (defined as those not served
by public supply) were made by using the projected public supply per
capital and multiplying it by the projected population of each county not
served by public supply (Table C2). The same three data sources and
assumptions were used in calculating projected domestic self supplied
water demands as were used for the projected public supply demands.

In 1985, water use data in Florida were collected and compiled for the
following categories of use: public supply, domestic self supplied,
commercial/industrial self supplied, agricultural irrigation, and self
supplied thermoelectric power generation. Water use data for these
categories were acquired through a variety of methods. Listed below are
the category of use, data acquisition method, total fresh water use and
percent of the State's total for 1985.

1985 State Totals
water
Category of use Data Acquisition method use* percent
--------------------------------------------------
Public supply Actual pumpage records 1,677 26.7
Domestic self supplied Estimated (population & use) 259 4.1
Commercial/industrial
self supply Actual pumpage records 709 11.3
Agricultural irrigation Estimated (acres & use) 2,979 47.5
Thermoelectric self
supplied Actual pumpage records 652 10.4
--------------------------------------------------
Hater use Data, in millions per day ------------ 6,276

Percent of Total
Data acquisition method summary: Actual pumpage ------ 48.4
Estimated ---------- 51.6


























I I I I I I I I I I I I


80 -




70

-PROJECTED
HISTORIC
60




50so I I I I I I I I I I I I
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020


Figure C3 Trends in Public Supply Population Served for Florida
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey).




























4 160 -
O
W
Q.

O 140



W 120

z
0
-J
< 100 PROJECTED PER CAPITAL TREND _
HISTORICAL PER CAPITAL TREND


o 80
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020


Figure C4 Trends in Public Supply and Domestic Self-Supplied
Per Capita for Florida (Source: U.S. Geological Survey).








Table C2 Projected Domestic Self-Supplied Water Demand in Florida for the
Years 2000, 2010, and 2020 by County (Source: U.S. Geological Survey).


2000

Per Population Water
capital Total Domestic demnd


2010


Per Population Water
capital Total Domestic demand


Per Population Water
capital Total Domestic demand


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay
Collier
Columbia
Dade
Do Soto
Dixie
Duval
Escmbia
Flagler
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Bamilton
Bardee
Bendry
Bernando
Highlands
Billaborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Lake
Lee
Leon
Laow
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Hanatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okalooaa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellaa
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton
Washington


169 221.900 28Z
136 23.000 702
186 177,800 202
173 27,400 652
139 533,800 102
180 1,474,200 32
134 12,400 702
108 142,500 202
161 131,100 402
126 147,600 302
229 201,300 202
193 50,200 702
200 2,083,000 5z
104 28,300 652
135 13,000 02
158 827,900 202
158 334.100 152
133 37,000 102
181 9,400 152
131 51,500 502
262 9.200 792
138 9.200 702
155 13,800 402
146 10,800 402
155 25,700 602
157 33,000 .252
144 146,400 102
177 90,400 302
154 1,046,000 102
182 20,100 702
215 124,600 402
157 49,300 602
175 13,900 752
155 6,000 602
192 187,300 352
159 451,700 202
156 220,300 202
151 30,400 65Z
118 5,300 702
189 16,600 602
144 236,300 53
157 264,600 502
212 129,300 402
132 91,400 02
188 62,000 552
157 206,400 202
146 39,700 452
192 821,500 5z
149 157,000 402
227 1,184,000 52
111 371,800 252
143 962,800 32
195 497,000 252
167 72,400 682
127 120,300 252
158 198.000 352
133 79,200 5z
124 332,000 152
164 395,000 102
154 38,300 65Z
152 32,300 672
159 21,400 452
130 11,500 602
131 463,400 132
107 18,800 552
129 37,700 152
150 17.900 582


10.5
2.2
6.6
3.1
7.4
8.0
1.2
3.1
8.4
5.6
9.2
6.8
20.8
1.9
1.1
26.2
7.0
0.5
0.3
3.4
1.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
2.4
1.3
2.1
4.8
16.1
2.6
10.7
4.6
1.8
0.7
12.6
14.4
6.9
3.0
0.4
1.9
1.7
20.8
11.0
0.0
6.4
6.5
2.6
7.9
9.4
13.4
10.3
4.1
24.2
8.2
3.8
10.9
0.5
6.2
6.5
3.8
3.3
1.5
0.9
7.9
1.1
0.7
1.6


169 242,400 282
136 25,200 702
186 200,500 202
173 29,600 652
139 628,200 102
180 1,634,400 32
134 13,100 702
108 175,200 202
161 161,500 402
126 179,000 302
229 246,500 202
193 55,200 702
200 2,239,400 52
104 30,700 652
135 14,800 602
158 898,900 202
158 354,500 152
133 46,500 102
181 9,800 152
131 54,100 502
262 10,500 792
136 10,200 702
155 14,200 402
146 11,200 40Z
156 27,300 602
157 37,200 252
144 183,500 102
177 105,700 302
154 1,157,700 102
182 21,600 702
215 150,100 402
157 51,900 602
175 14,900 752
155 6,300 80z
192 216,200 352
159 550,000 202
156 238,700 202
151 33,900 652
118 5,600 702
189 17,100 602
144 260,000 52
157 322,200 502
212 153,800 402
132 97,200 02
188 70,200 552
157 234,300 202
146 46,300 45Z
192 919,800 52
149 195,400 402
227 1,426,900 52
111 439,500 252
143 1,040,900 32
195 540,400 252
167 79,200 682
127 147,100 252
158 240,500 352
133 85,300 52
124 379,100 152
164 481,000 102
154 43,100 65Z
152 35,500 672
159 23,000 452
130 12,000 602
131 539,500 132
107 21.200 552
129 42,500 152
150 19,100 582


11.5
2.4
7.5
3.3
8.7
8.8
1.2
3.8
10.4
6.8
11.3
7.5
22.4
2.1
1.2
28.4
8.4
0.6
0.3
3.5
2.2
1.0
0.9
0.7
2.6
1.5
2.6
5.6
17.8
2.8
12.9
4.9
2.0
0.8
14.5
17.5
7.4
3.3
0.5
1.9
1.9
25.3
13.0
0.0
7.3
7.4
3.0
8.8
11.6
16.2
12.2
4.5
26.3
9.0
4.7
13.3
0.6
7.1
7.9
4.3
3.6
1.6
0.9
9.2
1.2
0.8
1.7


Totals 174 15,699,200 152 399.9 17,998,300 152 456.7 19,942,400 152 506.1


County


169 268,600 282
136 27,900 702
186 222,200 202
173 32,700 652
139 896,100 102
180 1,811,000 32
134 14,500 702
108 194,100 202
161 179,000 402
126 198,300 30Z
229 273.100 20Z
193 61,200 70Z
200 2,481,300 52
104 34,000 652
135 16,400 602
158 996,000 202
158 392,800 152
133 51,500 10o
181 10,800 152
131 60,000 502
262 11,700 792
136 11,300 702
155 15,800 402
146 12.500 402
156 30,200 602
157 41,200 252
144 203,300 102
177 117,100 30Z
154 1,282,700 102
182 24,000 702
215 166,300 402
157 57,500 602
175 16,500 752
155 7,000 802
192 239,500 352
159 609.500 202
156 264,500 202
151 37,500 652
118 6,200 702
189 18,900 602
144 288.100 51
157 357,000 502
212 170,400 402
132 107.700 02
188 77,800 552
157 259,600 202
146 51,300 452
192 1,019,100 52
149 216,500 40Z
227 1,581.100 52
111 487,000 252
143 1,153,400 32
195 598,700 252
167 87,800 682
127 162,900 252
158 266,500 35Z
133 94,500 52
124 420,000 152
164 532,900 102
154 47,700 652
152 39,400 672
159 25,500 452
130 13,300 602
131 597,800 132
107 23,500 55%
129 47,100 152
150 21,100 582


12.7
2.7
8.3
3.7
9.7
9.8
1.4
4.2
11.5
7.5
12.5
8.3
24.8
2.3
1.3
31.5
9.3
0.7
0.3
3.9
2.4
1.1
1.0
0.7
2.8
1.6
2.9
6.2
19.8
3.1
14:3
5.4
2.2
0.9
16.1
19.4
8.3
3.7
0.5
2.1
2.1
28.0
14.4
0.0
8.0
8.2
3.4
9.8
12.9
17.9
13.5
4.9
29.2
10.0
5.2
14.7
0.6
7.8
8.7
4.8
4.0
1.8
1.0
10.2
1.4
0.9
1.8


Totals


174 15,899,200 152


399.9


17,998,300 153


456.7


19,942,400 153


506.1








This table shows that more than 51 percent of the State's total water use
in 1985 was estimated, whereas the remaining was tallied from actual
pumpage records. Agricultural irrigation was the largest water use
category in 1985, however, the water use values for this category were
estimated. -This estimate of agricultural irrigation water use was
necessary primarily because of two factors: first, it is not feasible to
obtain accurate figures from the vast number of agricultural water users
and second, the majority of users do not keep pumpage records because
they are not required to. The estimate of more than 50 percent of
Florida's current water use renders actual use values somewhat uncertain
and, therefore, projections based on current use data are also of
questionable accuracy. Figure C5 shows water use projections for public
supply and domestic self supplied and historical water use trends for
commercial/industrial self supplied and agricultural irrigation as well
as public supply and domestic self supplied.
The distinction between "water use" and "consumptive use" should be
noted. Water use denotes water withdrawn or diverted from a ground or
surface source for public water supply, industry, irrigation, livestock,
thermoelectric power generation and other uses. Consumptive use denotes
that part of water withdrawn that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated
into products, or crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise
removed from the immediate water environment. In 1985, total freshwater
use in Florida totaled 6,276 million gallons per day, and an estimated
43.5 percent (2,730 million gallons per day) was consumed.
REFERENCE

U.S. Geological Survey























*---*- MIS I UMIUAL
3.0 -




.s
2.5 /



2.0 -/
c / /
0om ADJUSTED





-J
o3 1.5 I

S-J

1.0
I ~ Commercial Industrial
Self-Suppled


DoWes -o- -



1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020


Figure C5 Trends and Projections of Freshwater Withdrawals in
Florida (Source: U.S. Geological Survey).































Appendix D

Existing Statutory Authority to Protect Florida's Surface and
Ground Water Resources









Statutes Concerning Hater Resources:
Summaries

Chapter 163 F.S., Intergovernmental Programs
This a broad chapter dealing with a wide range of programs and activities
affecting interlocal cooperation, community development and
revitalization programs, local planning and regional transportation. The
interest of the Commission should be focused on Part II County and
Municipal Planning and Land Development Regulation. Contained within
this part are the requirements and procedures associated with the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, a
potentially powerful tool for ensuring that local governments prepare and
implement effective comprehensive plans. The implications for water use
and water protection are enormous.

Chapter 186, F.S., State and Regional Planning
This chapter is the primary authorizing statute for implementing the
State Comprehensive Plan at the state and regional level. Of specific
interest are the authorizations and procedural sections dealing with the
development and management of the State Hater Use Plan (186.021) and the
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plans (186.508), both of which are
important components of the water planning process currently operating in
Florida.

Chapter 187, F.S., State Comprehensive Plan
This chapter provides the legislative intent, limitations and
applications of the State Comprehensive Plan and adopts and describes the
Plan itself. It adopts 26 goals and 365 specific operating policies
dealing with major policy areas of key importance to Florida. Of the 26
goal areas, 15 are related to water and 62 operating policies have
important water implications. The State Comprehensive Plan is the most
important source of policy direction and has major bearing on any
state/regional/local water planning activities.

Chapter 373, F.S., Hater Resources

Chapter 373, F.S. establishes the Florida Hater Resources Act. It is the
primary statute dealing with all water resource issues including water
supply, flood control and protection, water quality protection and
environmental consideration. Contained within this statute are the
authorizations relating to water planning, regulation, operation and
maintenance, and the creation and operation of the water management
districts, governing boards, basin boards and water supply authorities.
Included are regulatory programs for permitting of consumptive water use,
stormwater and surface water management, construction of wells, licensing
of water well contractors, operation and maintenance programs for the use
of the district works and the Surface Hater Improvement and Management
and Save Our Rivers programs.









Chapter 376, F.S., Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal

This statute deals broadly with the prevention of pollution discharges
and the cleanup and restoration of water resources damaged by such
discharges. Created here are the Hater Quality Assurance Trust Fund and
the Inland Protection Trust Fund, funding sources for the restoration and
cleanup of resources contaminated by hazardous wastes, hazardous
substances, pollutants and petroleum products.

Chapter 381, F.S., Public Health; General Provisions

This general public health statute is the source of authorization for the
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to regulate septic tanks
and private water systems

Chapter 403, F.S., Environmental Control

Chapter 403 provides authority to the Department of Environmental
Regulation to carry out a range of important programs and activities
regarding water and water related activities. Haters of the state are
identified and defined; authority is provided the Department to "Develop
a comprehensive program for the prevention, control, and abatement of
pollution of the waters of the state," and authority is provided to
develop water quality standards. Specifically, the statute authorizes
ground water quality monitoring; authorizes the Department's regulatory
program; creates the Department's wastewater treatment loan and grant
programs; establishes the Department's solid and hazardous waste
programs; creates the organizational structure of the Department;
authorizes the State drinking water program; and establishes the wetland
permitting program.









CHAPTERS 163 AND 186: HATER PLANNING


The management of water in Florida is a difficult, complex and
increasingly political process. Federal, state, regional and local
governments, an array of industrial, commercial, and agricultural
interests and a variety of public interest groups all are intensely
concerned with the use, distribution and quality of the state's water
resources.

Fresh water, once viewed as a near inexhaustible resource, is now being
stressed in many parts of the state. The ability of the water supply
system to deliver the demanded quantities of inexpensive, good quality
water is becoming difficult. Population and economic growth will amplify
the difficulties for currently stressed areas and will create additional
water supply problems in other areas. The management of water will
become one of the great issues of the next several decades in Florida.
How Florida manages its water within the context of rapid growth is
critical to the future of the state and will establish patterns of growth
and styles of living that will define the face of Florida well into the
next century.

Tough policy decisions regarding the use of the state's water await.
Whatever those decisions are, the key to successful implementation is
planning. Without a strong, integrated planning process, water supply
needs cannot be met and the water resource cannot be protected.
Current Hater Planning Processes

Florida is not wanting for water planning; Florida is wanting for
coordinated, integrated water planning. State agencies, water management
districts, local and regional water supply organizations and local
governments all engage in a diffuse and bewildering array of planning
activities and processes affecting the quality and quantity of water
resources. For current purposes, however, there are two statutory
processes designed to provide for statewide water planning that bear
examination.

State Hater Use Plan (373.036 F.S.). In 1972, when the "Florida
Water Resources Act" (Chapter 373, F.S.) was passed, extensive
provisions for a planning process involving the Department and the
water management districts were included (373.036 F.S.). The
Department and the water management districts initiated a process to
develop a State Water Use Plan as outlined in the Act and after
several years of unfruitful conflict could not prepare a plan
agreeable to all involved. In place of the Water Use Plan a State
Water Policy was developed and adopted as a DER rule. This rule has
served as the policy foundation for both DER and the water
management districts in their joint and separate activities. The
requirements for a State Water Plan integrated with a State Land
Development Plan, as outlined in the Act, have never been met. A
functional agency plan does not well reflect current needs for water
planning and would need significant revision.









Local Comprehensive Planning. In 1985, the Florida Legislature made
a bold step toward managing the state's growth with the passage of
the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act" (Chapter 163, Part II, F.S.). This landmark
legislation establishes the third tier of a three level integrated
state/regional/local planning process. Local governments,
responding to Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J-5 are required
to develop detailed plans that project their development over the
next 5 to 10 years. These plans must be consistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan and the relevant comprehensive regional policy
plan (developed by Regional Planning Councils) and are reviewed by
state agencies, water management districts and regional planning
councils. The review of plans is just entering the second year of a
three-year cycle and the program is progressing as originally
designed.

The process, however, from the perspective of water planning, is
flawed. Hater management districts, the preeminent water planning
organizations in the state, charged statutorily with a wide range of
water management responsibilities that have tremendous implications
for the current and future use of water, are excluded from any
direct role in the local comprehensive planning process and are
relegated to review and comment, and technical assistance roles. As
a result, the water management districts, the chief planners and
managers of water resources in Florida are effectively
nonparticipants in the most powerful growth management process
currently functioning. Their omission weakens the planning process
and may invalidate the planning that some local governments
accomplish.

Issues for Further Investigation

The above discussion would suggest two potential areas of further
Commission investigation with regard to planning. First, the planning
authority in 373.036 F.S. could be reviewed and redrafted to construct an
effective, consensual planning process for water that integrates state
and regional policy, programs and activities.

Second, an analysis of the local government comprehensive planning
process could be conducted and recommendations made for an appropriate
role for the water management districts.

CHAPTER 369: CONSERVATION
Chapter 369 vests the Department of Natural Resources, through the
Florida Aquatic Weed Control Act, the authority to regulate aquatic weeds.

Florida Aquatic Weed Control Act (369.22-25)

The Florida Aquatic Weed Control Act gives the Department of Natural
Resources the authority to direct the control, eradication, and
regulation of noxious aquatic weeds and to direct the research and
planning related to these activities. Rule 16C-20, outlines permitting
requirements for application of aquatic herbicides and other methods of









aquatic plant control in natural and artificially created water bodies.
Rule 16C-20 also implements the Department of Environmental Regulation's
delegation of authority pursuant to Chapter 403.088 to the Department of
Natural Resources to issue permits for aquatic plant control activities
as they may effect water quality.

CHAPTER 373: HATER RESOURCES

Chapter 373, F.S., when enacted as the Florida Hater Resources Act of
1972 established a unique system of water rights in Florida. The act
established five water management districts, with the general supervision
by the Department of Environmental Regulation, as the regional agencies
designated to protect Florida's water resources through planning,
regulation, land acquisition, construction, operation, education and
funding.

Florida's system of water rights provides that water is held in trust by
the people of Florida as administered by the water management districts.
[See Village of Tequesta vs. Jupiter Inlet Corporation 371 So.2d663 (Fla.
1979)].

The major programs established under Chapter 373, F.S., are briefly
described. This summary does not include all sections of Chapter 373.
Specifically excluded are those relating to the administration of the
District.

I. Planning

A. State Hater Use Plan (373.036)

The Department of Environmental Regulation in cooperation with
the water management districts was charged with developing a
state water use plan for the use and development of the waters
of the state. This is for existing and proposed uses for fish
and wildlife, irrigation, mining, power development, domestic,
municipal, and other uses.

The water management districts are authorized to develop such
regional water plans as needed.

B. State Hater Policy (373.026)

The Department of Environmental Regulation is to establish a
state water use policy designed to set forth the goals,
objectives and guidance for the development and review of
programs, rules and plans relating to Water Resources. The
Department of Environmental Regulation has done this through
Chapter 17-40, F.A.C.

C. Technical Assistance to Local Government (373.0391)

The water management districts are to assist local governments
with water resource information. By 1991 each district is to
submit:








(1) All information and data required in a public facilities
report.

(2) A description of regulations, programs, and schedules
implemented by the district.

(3) Identification of regulations, programs, and schedules
undertaken or proposed by the district to further the
State Comprehensive Plan.

(4) A description of surface water basins, including
regulatory jurisdictions, flood-prone areas, existing and
projected water quality in water management district
operated facilities, as well as surface water runoff
characteristics and topography regarding flood plains,
wetlands, and recharge areas.

(5) A description of ground water characteristics, including
existing and planned wellfield sites, existing and
anticipated cones of influence, aquifer recharge areas,
deep well injection zones, contaminated areas, regional
water resource needs and sources, and water quality.

(6) The identification of existing and potential water
management district land acquisitions.

(7) Information reflecting the minimum flows for surface
watercourses to avoid harm to water resources or the
ecosystem and information reflecting the minimum water
levels for aquifers to avoid harm to water resources or
the ecosystem
D. Florida Hater Plan (373.039)

The State Hater Use Plan and State Hater Quality Standards and
Classifications are the Florida Water Use Plan.
E. Groundwater Basin Resource Inventory (373.0395)

Each water management district is to develop groundwater basin
resource availability inventories for areas designated by the
Governing Board. The inventory is to include hydrogeologic
information for the aquifers and areas prone to
contamination. These inventories are being transmitted to
local governments as completed.
F. Minimum Flows and Levels (373.042)

The Department of Environmental Regulation or Governing Board
is to establish minimum flows and levels for all surface water
courses and aquifers to establish the limit at which further
withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the resources or
ecology.









G. Water Shortage Plans (373.175. Part II)


The water management districts are authorized to declare water
shortages in times of stress. All five water management
districts have adopted water shortage plans which specify the
restrictions which will be imposed during times of shortage.
Local governments may be requested to assist in the
enforcement of water shortage.

H. Hater Conservation and Hater Production (373.196. 373.1961)

The water management districts, Department of Environmental
Regulation and local governments are encouraged to cooperate
to meet the demands of supplying water, for water conservation
programs, recycling water and other efforts.

Hater management districts shall assist counties, cities, and
regional water supply authorities in encouraging water
conservation and reducing the effects of improper water
withdrawals and adverse environmental impacts.

I. Abandoned Artesian Hell Program (Part II)

The water management district or the Department of
Environmental Regulation may require any uncontrolled flowing
well to be plugged.

Each water management district is to develop a work plan
depicting abandoned artesian wells so as to ensure they are
all plugged by January 1, 1992. Hater management district
artesian well plugging programs may be done in cooperation
with local governments.

II. Surface Hater Improvement Management Act

The water management districts in cooperation with the Department
of Environmental Regulation, state agencies, and local governments
have developed priority lists of water bodies of statewide or
regional significance. The districts are then to develop Surface
Hater Improvement Management Plans for the priority water bodies.
The plans are to include restoration schedules, preventative
measures and necessary descriptive information about the water
body and surrounding land uses for the implementation of the
Surface Water Improvement Management plan.

III. Regulation

A. Works of the District (373.085-373.087)

The Governing Board is authorized to declare areas, rivers,
lakes, streams., tributaries, structures, etc.,. as works of the
District. The Governing Board is authorized to determine the
manner and method for use of these works. The water
management districts have adopted Works of the District
programs.









B. Consumptive Hater Use (Part II of Chapter 373)


The Governing Board is authorized to issue consumptive use
permits for all uses of water except for domestic use. In
order to obtain a permit for the right to use water, the use
must be reasonable-beneficial, not interfere with presently
existing legal use of water and be consistent with the public
interest. The five water management districts have adopted
rules regulating consumptive water use permits based upon the
needs of the region, including targeting certain water sources
for additional review.

C. Hater Hell Construction Permits (Part 111. Chapter 373)

Wells require a permit for construction from the water
management districts to ensure the well is properly
constructed. Additional requirements for public water supply
wells have been adopted by the Department of Environmental
Regulation. All water management districts have adopted well
construction criteria. Certain local governments implement
these permits for the water management districts.
D. Potable Hell Contamination Permits (Part III. Chapter 373)

In 1988, the Legislature' required an additional permitting
program be developed by the Department of Environmental
Regulation to be implemented by the water management districts
or departments of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for
issuance of permits for use by individual water users in known
areas of contamination. Implementation of this program is
under review by the Department of Environmental Regulation,
water management districts, HRS and other interested parties.
E. Licensing of Hater Hell Contractors

All persons engaging in the business of a water well
contractor must be licensed as such by the water management
district.
F. Surface Hater Manaaement/Stormwater Permits

All construction, alteration, operation or maintenance of any
stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir,
appurtenant work or works must be permitted by the water
management district or Department of Environmental
Regulation. The permit includes a review of the impacts on
water quantity (flooding), water quality and the environment,
including isolated wetlands.








G. Construction Involving Underground Formations (Artificial
Recharge) (373.106)

Projects Involving artificial recharge require permits from
the water management districts or Department of Environmental
Regulation. The agencies work cooperatively in reviewing this
permit with others required by the Department of Environmental
Regulation.

IV. Land Acquisition

A. Hater Manaaement District Lands (373.056. 373.139)

The water management districts are authorized to acquire lands
for flood control, water storage, water management and
preservation of wetlands, streams and lakes. South Florida
Hater Management District, Southwest Florida Hater Management
District and St. Johns River Hater Management District are the
three districts which have relied upon this section for
projects to protect against floods and droughts. However, all
five districts utilize this section.

B. Save Our Rivers (373.59)

A trust fund has been established in the Department of
Environmental Regulation and implemented by the water
management districts for water management, water supply and
the conservation and protection of water resources.

The Save Our Rivers program is funded by documentary stamps
for purchase of these lands which must be appropriately
managed. All five water management districts have adopted the
required 5 year plans.

V. Construction and Operation

Works of the District (373.084-.087. 373.0695)

The water management districts are authorized to construct,
operate and maintain structural and non-structural waterways
for the purposes of flood and drought control, water supply
and related purposes.

VI. Regional Hater Supply Authority

A. Regional Hater Supply Authorities (373.196-.1962)

(1) Municipalities and Counties

Municipalities and counties are encouraged to create and
maintain regional water supply authorities under
Chapter 373.









(2) Hater Management Districts


Hater management districts may also establish, design,
construct, operate and maintain water production
facilities for raw water supply and become regional water
supply authorities.

B. Establishment of Regional Hater Supply Authorities

Chapter 373 provides for the establishment by agreement of
local governments for regional water supply authorities.
These authorities are authorized to supply raw water and are
given certain powers for such responsibilities. Only one of
the State's regional water supply authorities located in
Northwest Florida Hater Management District was created under
this section.

C. Below are listed the Regional Hater Supply Authorities:

(1) West Coast Regional Hater Supply, includes:
Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas, St. Petersburg, and
Tampa. Created by 373.1963, F.S.

(2) Hithlacoochee Regional Hater Supply, includes: Citrus,
Hernando, Marion, and Sumter (Levy is no longer within
it). Created by 373.1962, F.S.

(3) Peace River/Manasota Regional Hater Supply, includes:
Charlotte, DeSoto, Manatee, and Sarasota (Hardy
withdrew). Created by 373.1962, F.S.

(4) Halton/Okaloosa/Santa Rosa Regional Utility Authority,
includes: Destin, Ft. Walton Beach, Freeport, and Gulf
Breeze. It is also a wastewater and solid waste utility.

(5) South Brevard Water Authority is not a Regional Hater
Supply Authority created pursuant to 373.1962, F.S.; it
was created by Chapter 83-375.

(6) Halifax Regional Hater Supply Authority is not an
official water supply authority. It's a developing
authority. It includes: Daytona Beach, Port Orange,
Ormond Beach and Holly Hill. It is not mandated, not
official, and is operating by agreement between the
parties.

VII. Education/Public Awareness
Chapter 373 often refers for the need for water management
districts to involve other agencies, units of local government and
the public. Part VI refers to assistance in enforcement. The
Surface Hater Improvement Management Act encourages water


D10








management districts to work with state and local governments.
The water management districts are also to supply technical
information to local governments.

The water management districts are involved with environmental
education programs and with water conservation, xeriscape,
hurricane protection and other related programs.

VIII. Funding
The water management districts have several funding sources
available.
A. Ad Valorem Tax (373.503)

The primary funding source is the ad valorem tax. The
constitution allows for the levy of up to one mill in all
water management districts but the Northwest Florida Hater
Management District. That district is constitutionally
limited to 1/20th of a mil.

B. Hater Management Lands Trust Fund
The Save Our Rivers program is funded by a stable funding
source; the documentary stamp tax.
C. Surface Hater Improvement Manaaement Trust Fund (373.457)

The Surface Water Improvement Management Program is funded
through a matching state trust fund of 80 percent state
contribution and 20. percent district. This trust fund is
allocated annually by the State Legislature.
D. Permit Fees (373.109)
The water management district permitting programs can
establish fees for the recovery of the cost of permitting and
compliance monitoring except for permits for wells in areas of
groundwater contamination. These are limited to $100 or $500.

E. Civil Penalties (373.129)
The water management districts are authorized to recover civil
penalties and costs for enforcement activities. These monies
are deposited in the Hater Management Lands Trust Fund account.
F. Legislative Appropriation

Certain water management district projects receive specific
legislative appropriations. Programs in the past have
included limited funds for well plugging, special land
purchases outside of Surface Hater Improvement Management or









Save Our Rivers, and certain subsidies for Northwest Florida
and Suwannee River water management districts due to the lack
of an adequate tax base. In the past, state funds were also
available for project development.

IX. Interdistrict Transfer of Water

Sections 373.1961 and 373.2295, F.S., relate to the interdistrict
transfer of water and addresses two separate issues. These are:
the permitting process for the use of groundwater across district
lines; and the production and transmission of raw water by water
management districts.
A. Permitting Process for Interdistrict Transfer

This procedure is a "single, efficient, simplified,
coordinated permitting process for the interdistrict transfer
and use of ground water" through one stop permitting with the
water management district. When the water management district
is the applicant, the permit decision is made by the
Department of Environmental Regulation.
B. Test for Interdistrict Transfer of Ground Hater
The water management districts and the Department of
Environmental Regulation are specifically prohibited from
adopting special rules which prohibit or restrict the use of
ground water. Thus, the test for consideration will be that
already established by statute for all uses of water.
In order to obtain a permit, the applicant must establish that
the proposed use of water is a reasonable-beneficial use, will
not interfere with any presently existing legal use and is
consistent with the public interest. In determining whether
the application is consistent with the public interest, the
water management district is to consider the future land use
elements of the local government's comprehensive plans. If
the proposed use otherwise satisfies the requirements of
Chapter 373 and if the needs of the area where the use will
occur and the specific area from where the ground water will
be withdrawn can be satisfied, then the permit for the
interdistrict transfer and use of water is to be issued.

C. Local Government Activities
After a consumptive use permit has been issued for an
interdistrict use of ground water, local government activities
must be reviewed for consistency.
D. Hater Production by Hater Management Districts

Water management districts may assist counties, municipalities
or regional water supply authorities with planning,
conservation of water and reducing the adverse environmental








effects of excessive water withdrawals based upon the resource
and not limited to district boundaries. Hater management
districts may, in addition to establishing water production
and transmission facilities, design, construct, operate and
maintain those facilities with or without the request of the
local government or regional water supply authority.


D13








SURFACE MATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLANS
(APPROVED OR UNDER DEVELOPMENT)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
(Overview of Surface Hater Improvement Management Plans)

NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Apalachicola River
Apalachicola Bay/St. George Sound
Lake Jackson
Deerpoint
Pensacola Bay Area

SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Upper Suwannee River/Withlacoochee River and Tributaries
Santa Fe River
Lower Suwannee River
Steinhatchee River
Alligator Lake
Falling Creek

ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Lower St. Johns Basin
Indian River Lagoon Basin
Lake Apopka Basin
Upper Oklawaha River Basin
Lake George Basin

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Tampa Bay
Blue Run (Rainbow River)
Banana Lake
Crystal River/Kings Bay
Lake Panasoffkee
Charlotte/Placida Harbor
Lake Tarpon
Lake Thonotosassa
Winter Haven Chain of Lakes

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Lake Okeechobee/Kissimmee River
Biscayne Bay
Indian River Lagoon
Everglades National Park/Florida Bay
Everglades Water Conservation Areas
Lake Tohopekaliga


D14








CHAPTER 376: POLLUTANT DISCHARGE PREVENTION AND REMOVAL


Chapter 376, F.S. outlines the provisions of the Water Quality Assurance
Act of 1983 and the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response
(SUPER) Act of 1986 to provide for cleanup and restoration of contaminated
sites. Both acts provide for the replacement of contaminated drinking
water. Chapter 376, F.S., also extends the responsibility of the
Department of Environmental Regulation to regulate underground pollution
storage facilities.

Hater Oualitv Assurance Act (376.307)

The Hater Quality Assurance Act addresses site cleanup for hazardous
waste, hazardous substances, and other non-petroleum product
contaminants. The Act's philosophy is that the polluter pays for the
cleanup of contamination. If enforcement efforts do not achieve a timely
or adequate cleanup, the Department will take on the cleanup of a site
using resources from the Hater Quality Assurance Trust Fund (HQATF).
Cost recovery from the responsible party is required once the cleanup has
been completed.

The Department, by policy, has established procedures for assessing
contamination and conducting remedial actions at contaminated sites.
A process has also been developed for determining site rehabilitation
levels to which contamination shall be remediated.

State Underground Petroleum Response Act (376.3071)

The SUPER act created the Inland Protection Trust Fund which finances the
cleanup of sites contaminated by petroleum products. The philosophy of
this program is that the government pays for the cleanup, either by
cleaning up the site itself of by reimbursing the owner or operator of a
contaminated facility for the cleanup through the Early Detection
Incentive (EDI) program. Under the EDI program, any owner or operator of
a petroleum storage system reporting to the Department by October 1, 1988
is entitled to reimbursement for site rehabilitation.

Rule 17-70 establishes a cleanup process which must be undertaken at all
petroleum contamination sites. This rule applies to any cleanup of a
site contaminated with petroleum or petroleum product whether conducted
by an owner, operator, response action contractor, local government or
the Department.

Hater Supply Restoration (376.30)

The Department's water supply restoration program provides for the
restoration or replacement of potable water systems or potable private
wells of affected persons where health hazards exist due to contamination
from pollutants. This may include bottled water on a temporary basis,
after which a more stable and convenient source of potable water shall be
provided.









Stationary Tanks (376.303)


The Department's regulatory program for above and below ground storage
tanks was created under the Hater Quality Assurance Act of 1983. Rule
17-61 implements the act's ground water protection provisions. It
includes requirements for tank registration, construction, operation,
monitoring, and repair standards and inspection provisions. The rule
requires that new tanks be constructed to prevent leaks, and requires
phased retrofitting of older tanks. By 1999 every storage tank in
Florida must be leak proof.
CHAPTERS 378 AND 211, PART II: LAND RECLAMATION AND
TAX ON SEVERANCE OF SOLID MINERALS

Land Reclamation of mined lands is established by Chapter 211, Part II,
Tax on Severance of Solid Minerals, and Chapter 378, Land Reclamation.
The administering agency empowered to implement this program is the
Department of Natural Resources. The purpose of this program is to
provide a mechanism for the reclamation and restoration of lands
disturbed by mining. It accomplishes this by taxing the mine owners to
create a land reclamation trust fund, which can then be used to reimburse
producers for the costs incurred in reclaming mined-out lands.
Mandatory Land Reclamation Program

Lands mined after June 1, 1975 are subject to mandatory reclamation under
Chapter 211, Part II, and Chapter 378. Rule 16C-16, Mandatory Phosphate
Mine Reclamation, sets forth the regulatory procedures and standards for
implementing this program.

Nonmandatorv Land Reclamation Program

Land mined prior to July 1, 1975 are not subject to mandatory reclamation
under Chapter 211. Rule 16C-17, Master Reclamation Plan for Lands
Disturbed by the Severance of Phosphate Prior to July 1, 1975, identifies
and provides the guideline for the reclamation, donation, and purchase of
mined lands not subject to mandatory reclamation. Rule 16C-17 also
provides for grants of funds from the Nonmandatory Land Reclamation Trust
Fund to encourage the reclamation of eligible land.
CHAPTER 381: PUBLIC HEALTH

Chapter 381, F.S., gives the Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services the authority to formulate and enforce rules affecting the
public health of the state. Included under this statute is the authority
to regulate septic tanks, private drinking water wells, small public
water systems and control arthropods (mosquitoes) of public health
importance.

Rule 10D-6 establishes conditions for the installation of septic tanks
including setback distances from potable wells and surface waters.
Septic tanks are limited to a maximum of four per acre when potable water
is obtained from a central water system, and two per acre when private
wells are used.


D16









Private drinking water wells are regulated under Rule 10D-4. This rule
addresses testing requirements and regulates the use of above ground
equipment such as pumps and pressure tanks. Proposed revisions to 10D-4
include testing for 4 additional metals and 11 organic after
construction of the well. For small public water systems, the same
analysis will be required every 3 years.

CHAPTER 403: ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Chapter 403, F.S., is the general implementing legislation for the
Department of Environmental Regulation. This statute defines the powers
and responsibilities of the Department to control and prohibit pollution
to air and water and provides permitting authority over sources of
pollution.
The following is a brief overview of the major programs implemented by
the Department under Chapter 403, F.S.

Surface Hater Program (403.061)
The Department, by rule, has established five classifications of surface
water based on designated uses. Water quality criteria have been
established for these classifications to assure the suitability of water
for the designated use. Dischargers may not reduce the quality of the
receiving waters below the established classification except within an
approved mixing zone.
The Department is in charge of assessing the water quality in Florida's
streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries. Two types of networks exists, a
Permanent Network where stations are sampled bimonthly, and comprehensive
Basin Assessments done on a periodic basis. Rules regulating surface
water are 17-3 and 17-4.

Outstanding Florida Haters (403.061)
Outstanding Florida Haters is a designation given to water bodies in
Florida that deserve an added degree of protection waters for which the
department feels there should be no lowering of existing water quality.
The Department may not issue permits for a direct discharge into an
Outstanding Florida Waters if the discharge would lower ambient water
quality. Nor may the Department issue a permit for an indirect discharge
if it would "significantly degrade" water quality. Under the new wetland
act, a dredge-and-fill permit may only be issued in an Outstanding
Florida Haters if the Department determines that the permit is clearly in
the public interest.

Underground Injection Control Program

The purpose of the Underground Injection Control program is to protect
the quality of underground sources of drinking water and to prevent
degradation of the quality of other adjacent aquifers. Rule 17-28
regulates the construction, operation and monitoring of injection wells
to ensure that the injected fluid remains in the injection zone,









and that unapproved interchange of water between aquifers does not
occur. Injection wells are divided into five classes based on depth of
the underground source of drinking water with respect to the injection
zone and the nature of fluid being injected. Drainage wells (Class V)
are also regulated under Rule 17-28.

Ground Hater Program (403.061)

The Department, by rule, has established four classifications of ground
water based on total dissolved solids content which determines potable
and .non-potable water use, and geologic confinement. Minimum water
quality criteria have been established for each classification. All
dischargers to ground water, including domestic, industrial and solid
waste, must meet these criteria except within a permitted zone of
discharge. The zone of discharge (mixing zone) allows dilution and
treatment of the effluent within the receiving waters. Zones of
discharge usually do not extend beyond property boundaries. Dischargers
are required to establish a ground water monitoring program to ensure
that water quality criteria are being met. Rules regulating ground water
are 17-3 and 17-28.

Ground Hater Ouality Monitoring Network (403.063)

In 1983 the Department began establishing a ground water quality
monitoring network designed to detect or predict contamination of the
ground water resources of the state. The network consists of two large
sub-networks: (1) the Background Network and 2) the Very Intense Study
Area (VISA) Network.

The Background Network consists of approximately 1800 wells. Data
generated from this network will establish background water quality
within each of Florida's aquifer systems. The 500 well VISA Network is
being established in areas considered to have a high risk of ground water
contamination. High risk areas were delineated using land use and
aquifer vulnerability maps. Data from the Background and VISA Networks
will be used to quantify the cumulative effects of land use activities on
ground water.

Drinking Hater Program (403.850 403.864)
The Department of Environmental Regulation's drinking water program
implements the "Florida Safe Drinking Water Act" by regulating public
water systems. The ultimate concern of the program is the quality of
water for human consumption. Maximum contaminant levels have been
established for these systems in Rule 17-550. Included are the national
primary and secondary drinking water standards. The Envrionmental
Protection Agency has proposed to modify 14 existing primary drinking
water standards and add 26 new primary and secondary drinking water
standards. Monitoring requirements for regulated (having specified
maximum contaminant levels) and non-regulated contaminants are
specified. There are also requirements for monitoring frequency and
methods of analyses.

The quality of drinking water when it ultimately reaches the consumer
depends on the construction, operation, and maintenance of a public water
system. Additional regulations in Rule 17-555 establish requirements for


D18









construction, operation and maintenance of -a public water system and
cover all aspects from collection through treatment, storage, and
distribution. Buffer zones from potential sanitary hazards and
additional construction standards are specified for public drinking water
supply wells.
Solid Haste Program (403.701 403.715)

Solid waste facilities and the disposal of solid waste are regulated
under Rule 17-701. The permitting program outlined in this rule requires
a permit for the operation, maintenance, construction, expansion,
modification or closure of a solid waste facility.
Landfills are classified into 3 different classes based on the amount and
type of wastes received. Permitting requirements vary depending upon the
class. Liners are required for all landfills except those receiving
trash or yard trash. Liners must meet specific performance and design
criteria to prevent waste liquids and rainwater contaminated by the waste
from migrating into the ground water. Ground water monitoring is also
required at each landfill. Upon closure of a landfill, the owner or
operator must provide monitoring and maintenance of that facility for 20
years.
Hazardous Haste Management Program (403.72 403.7721)

The hazardous waste management program, under Rule 17-730, identifies
hazardous waste to be regulated, sets standards for small quantity and
large. quantity generators and transporters of hazardous waste, and
notification and reporting procedures. A manifest system for tracking
the movement of hazardous waste is required.

Standards are also established for owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Any person who intends
to construct, modify, operate, or close a hazardous waste disposal
facility must obtain a construction, operation, or closure permit from
the Department. The owner or operator must guarantee financial
responsibility for any liability which may be incurred. New hazardous
waste landfills and injection of hazardous waste are banned in Florida.

Domestic Hastewater Facilities and Reuse of Reclaimed Water

The Department has promulgated rules to meet statutory requirements
addressing the treatment and reuse or disposal of domestic wastewater.
Rule 17-6, Wastewater Facilities, establishes permit criteria for the
construction, modification and operation of a domestic wastewater
treatment facility. Design and performance standards, including
discharge effluent limitations and wetlands application of reclaimed
water, are outlined in the rule along with operation, maintenance and
compliance requirements.

Rule 17-610, Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application, provides
design, operation and maintenance criteria for land application systems
that discharge reclaimed water or domestic wastewater effluent to potable
ground water.


D19









Requirements for operator certification and monitoring of domestic
wastewater treatment facilities are addressed in Rule 17-602 and Rule
17-19, respectively.

Stormwater Management Program

Florida's stormwater management program is administered by the water
management districts. Permitting authority has been delegated to 4. of
the 5 water management districts. After passage of Senate Bill 484, the
Department will retain permitting of stormwater within the Northwest
Florida Water Management District under Chapter 373 and Rule 17-25.

New stormwater discharge facilities (excluding exempt facilities such as
single-family dwellings) are required to obtain a stormwater permit,
usually in the form of a general permit. Specific design and performance
standards have been established for these facilities. Depending on the
size of the project, permits require that the runoff from the first inch
of rainfall or the first half-inch of runoff be treated. Discharges to
Outstanding Florida Waters require more treatment.

Dredae and Fill Program (403.90-403.938)

The dredge and fill program, implemented under- Rule 17-312, regulates
dredge and fill and construction activities within surface waters of the
state and contiguous wetlands. Permits are required for dredging and
filling conducted in, on, or over surface waters of the state and
wetlands unless specifically exempted. Criteria for determining dredge
and fill jurisdiction in wetlands are defined in the rule. Isolated
wetlands are not within the dredge and fill jurisdiction; however, they
are within the jurisdiction of the water management districts.
Agricultural water management systems are also under the authority of the
water management districts. Hater management districts may also regulate
incidental dredge and fill as part of the Surface Water Improvement
Management Program.

A permit may not be issued unless reasonable assurance is provided that
the proposed project will not violate water quality standards and that
the project is clearly in the public interest. The "public interest
balancing test" considers public health; safety and welfare; effects on
fish and wildlife; marine productivity; navigation and shoaling; and
archeological resources.

If an applicant cannot meet permitting criteria, the Department will
consider proposals to mitigate damages or losses from their project.
Mitigation is intended to offset or compensate for losses from the
project, and may include enhancement of an existing but damaged wetland,
or creating a wetland in a suitable area where wetlands do not exist.


D20






























Appendix E

Threats to Florida's Surface and Ground Hater Resources








Threats to Florida's Surface and Ground Hater Resources


Threats to the Ouality of Florida's Water Resources

Stormwater Runoff Stormwater causes more than half the surface water
pollution in Florida; in some watersheds it may be the entire load. Like
other sources of pollution, there often is a correlation between
stormwater and population, but stormwater runoff is a problem in both
urban and in rural settings. In the cities, runoff from construction,
paved streets and parking lots, and residential lawns adds silt, oils
greases, heavy metals, pesticides and fertilizers to Florida's surface
waters. Rural runoff--from farm fields, feedlots, and pastures--also
adds silt, pesticides and fertilizers.
Threats to Florida's water resources from stormwater runoff are currently
being addressed by the Department of Environmental Regulation through
Rule 17-25 and by the water management districts. Legislation in 1989
(SB484) made it clear that the water management districts will regulate
stormwater under current authority contained in Chapter 373, Part IV.

Leakina Underaround Storage Tanks There are over 9,000 sites of known
or suspected ground water contamination by petroleum products in
Florida--the vast majority of them a result of leaking underground
tanks. Of the estimated 60,000 underground storage tanks in Florida
40,000 are estimated to be in service stations.

The installation, registration, and maintenance of underground petroleum
storage tanks and the incentive program for reporting leaks and clean up
requirements are contained in Department of Environmental Regulation
Rules 17-61, 17-70, 17-73 and 17-771.

Domestic Hastewater Inadequately treated domestic wastewater is still a
major polluter of Florida's surface and ground waters. Approximately one
billion gallons of domestic wastewater are generated in Florida each
day. Added to surface waters, inadequately treated domestic wastewater
can cause algal blooms that deplete the oxygen required by aquatic life.
Inappropriate wastewater disposal can also lead to ground water
contamination. Approximately 1.4 million Florida households (40 percent
of the total) rely on individual on-site systems, as compared to the
national average of 27 percent. On-site septic tanks rely heavily on
appropriate soils for biological treatment. Soils that are too porous or
sites where the water table is too high can allow nitrate, bacterial, and
viral contamination of ground water. Collection systems with wastewater
treatment facilities are also used throughout Florida. Wastewater
effluent land application such as spray irrigation or infiltration
basins, if improperly constructed, can also introduce contaminants into
the ground water.

Treatment and disposal of domestic wastewater is covered by Department of
Environmental Regulation Rules 17-6, 17-19, 17-602 and 17-610.









Septic Tanks The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
estimates that 60,000 septic tanks and other on-site sewage treatment
systems are permitted each year. Septic tanks often are linked with
water quality problems. Tanks frequently have been installed or
maintained improperly, or. they have been used in areas where dense
development with individual treatment systems has overloaded the ability
of the soil to treat the wastes before they reach the ground water.

Requirements and restrictions covering the installation of septic tanks
are contained in the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
Rule 10D-6.

Landfills There are 106 active landfills in Florida that receive
household and other degradable waste, and another 50 that receive only
trash and yard trash. There are more than 500 inactive landfill sites.
Only 66 of the active landfills are lined and the Department does not
know how well liners protect ground water. Of the active and inactive
sites, 309 have monitoring wells to detect possible ground water
pollution. Ground water contamination is known or suspected at 76 sites.

The operation of, and monitoring of ground water at solid waste
facilities (landfills) is addressed by Department of Environmental
Regulation Rules 17-701, 17-3 and 17-28.
Industrial Chemicals and Hastes Although Florida is not heavily
industrialized, wastes from industries still contribute to poor water
quality in many areas. More than 1,900 permitted facilities discharge
treated industrial wastes into our waterways. In addition to organic
pollutants, industrial discharges can contain toxic materials, heavy
metals and nutrients.
The requirements for industrial wastewater treatment are contained in
Department of Environmental Regulation Rule 17-6.
Agricultural Chemicals and Hastes Runoff from row farming can carry
chemicals used in fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides as well as silt
from disturbed soils. Runoff from pastured livestock, feedlots and
dairies contains animal wastes that can increase bacteria counts and
nutrients in the receiving bodies of water. Agricultural nonpoint source
pollution contributes to major water quality problems in several areas
such as Lake Apopka, Taylor Creek-Kissimmee River watershed and the Upper
St. Johns River Basin. Pesticides may contaminate ground water as a
result of normal application, improper storage and handling practices,
and disposal activities. Ground water contamination from most pesticides
is localized or regionalized. One pesticide, EDB, has caused widespread
ground water contamination in Florida. Stormwater runoff and
infiltration into ground water from lawn care chemicals (pesticides and
fertilizers) is also a threat to the State's water resources.

The proper use of pesticides registered for use in Florida is specified
by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS)
through label restrictions. Requirements for pesticide registration,
labeling, and proper use, storage, and disposal are contained in DACS
Rules 5E-2 and 5E-9.








Hazardous Hastes Hazardous wastes are a major threat to Florida's
waters, and while Florida is not thought of as an industrialized state,
it generates a large amount of hazardous waste. Overall, including small
generators and large generators such as electrical power plants and other
major industries, more than 3 million tons of hazardous wastes are
generated in Florida every year.

Department of Environmental Regulation Rule 17-730 includes requirements
for hazardous waste Identification, generator notification, standards for
generators and transporters, and standards for owners and operators of
hazardous waste handling facilities. This rule closely parallels the
federal hazardous waste rule (RCRA) regulating large and small quantity
generators of hazardous waste.
Mining Hastes Only three states have had more land disturbed by surface
mining than Florida. Water quality can be significantly degraded by
mining. Of the materials mined in Florida, phosphate is by far the most
important. Waste clays from phosphate mining are near-colloidal in size
and can remain suspended in water for many years thus tying up large
quantities of water. Some 50,000 to 60,000 acres (equivalent to about
one-eighth the area of Lake Okeechobee) are now clay settling areas.
Gypsum, another waste product of phosphate mining, is piled in large
mounds up to 170 feet in height and in 1983 covered almost 4,000 acres of
land. Radiation levels in the gypsum mounds pose potential threats to
ground water as rain water and process water wash over the mounded gypsum
and then soak into the ground. Sand and rock mining have made major
impacts in localized areas.
Threats to Florida's water resources from mining waste are regulated by
the Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental
Regulation Rules 17-3 and 17-28.
Domestic Sludge Wastewater treatment can generate large volumes of
sludge which is often disposed of via land application, improving the
soil's fertility. Improper land application of sludge, however, can
result in nutrient-laden stormwater runoff, or ground water contamination.

The use of domestic sludge is closely regulated by the Department of
Environmental Regulation under Rule 17-7.

Lake Excavations Dredging and filling can cause water quality problems
as well as destroy fish and wildlife habitat. Suspended sediments and,
on occasion, resuspension of toxics and heavy metals that have been
trapped in sediments are among the water quality problems associated with
dredging and filling. In many cases, water quality problems from
dredging and filling are temporary. Effects on habitat, however, are
often permanent.

Dredge and fill activities are permitted by the Department of
Environmental Regulation using Rule 17-312.

Drainage Hells Drainage wells are primarily gravity flow wells designed
to receive non-hazardous fluids and dispose of them into or above
underground sources of drinking water. Florida has about 9,600 of these









drainage wells (Underground Injection Control Class V Hells). They are
primarily recharge wells, stormwater disposal, lake level control, and
"bore holes" in the Florida Keys.
Drainage wells are controlled under the Department of Environmental
Regulation Underground Injection Control program contained in Rule 17-28.
Discharge to Sinkholes Sinkholes provide a direct conduit to the
underlying aquifer and are thus points of extreme aquifer vulnerability
to contamination. Many areas of Florida are prone to sinkhole
development due to a combination of a shallow ground water table and a
thin overburden.

Direct discharge to sinkholes is prohibited by Department of
Environmental Regulation Rule 17-28. Discharge to sinkholes is also
regulated under Chapter 373, F.S., Water Resources.
Underground Injection Hells There are 106 underground injection wells
used for sewage and industrial waste disposal in Florida. Another 80
wells are associated with the oil and gas industry for brine disposal and
other uses. These wells are designed to inject, under pressure, waste
fluids into zones below underground sources or drinking water.
The use of injection wells to dispose of liquid waste is tightly
controlled by Rule 17-28 of the Department of Environmental Regulation
which has primacy in Florida for this Federal program. Chapter 373,
F.S., also addresses the use of injection wells in Florida.








II. Threats to the Quantity of Florida's Hater Resources


Diversions and Impoundments Diversion of river waters by upstream users
for agricultural irrigation, industrial use, drinking water, and other
uses reduces the volume of fresh water necessary to maintain the fresh
water/salt water balance on which estuarine ecosystems depend.
Inadequate fresh water river flow during drought periods can endanger
commercial fisheries and shellfish harvesting such as the oyster industry
in the Apalachicola Bay. In addition, impoundments of river systems such
as dams and locks increases the loss of water due to evaporation.
The State's policy of preservation of natural resources, fish, and
wildlife is contained in Chapter 373.016(2)(e), F.S.
Interstate Ouality and Ouantity Hater quality in the Florida section of
the Apalachicola River and other rivers and streams originating outside
the State depends to a large degree on the upstream water quality.
Discharges outside the State can impair the water quality of these
Florida rivers and streams. Upstream water supply demands can decrease
the volume and change the timing of water flowing into Florida, stressing
existing natural systems.

Chapter 403.60, F.S., authorizes the Governor to enter into an interstate
environmental control compact with other states for the purpose of
controlling interstate pollution.
Abandoned Artesian Hells Abandoned wells which flow unchecked from the
pressure of deeper aquifers allow deeper saline waters to contaminate
shallower potable aquifers and surface water bodies. Currently, St.
Johns River, South Florida, and Southwest Florida water management
districts have active abandoned artesian well plugging programs. As a
result of these programs, over 2,000 wells have been properly abandoned
resulting in the conservation of more than 385 million gallons of water
per day. It is estimated that approximately 9,000 abandoned artestian
wells are still in existence within the state.
The Hater Quality Assurance Act of 1983 calls for all known abandoned
artesian wells to be plugged by January 1, 1992 (Chapter 373.207, F.S.).
The majority of funding for abandoning artesian wells is derived from ad
valorem taxes since the Legislature has not, to date, appropriated funds
for well plugging.
Interaquifer Transfer Movement of ground water between aquifers
normally separated by confining units occurs when wells are improperly
constructed and maintained or, when wells are specifically designed to
allow movement of ground water from one aquifer to another (connector
wells). Additionally, reduction in head by pumping one aquifer may
induce movement of ground water from another aquifer across a partially
confining or "leaky" confining unit. Interaquifer transfer may result in
the movement of low quality ground water (i.e., saline) from one aquifer
into an aquifer of higher quality.
Interaquifer transfer of ground water is addressed in Chapter 373, F.S.









Development in Wetlands Development in wetlands increases the intensity
of downstream flooding by destroying wetlands' natural ability to retain
rainfall and release it slowly over a sustained period. The increased
runoff is channeled to streams and carried away.
Development in wetlands is addressed by Chapter 403, F.S., and by the
Department of Environmental Regulation Rule 17-312 (formerly 17-12).
Development in High Recharge Areas Development in high recharge areas
reduces the total surface area available for infiltration of rainwater
and thus reduces local recharge to the aquifer. The increased runoff is
channeled to streams and carried away.

Areas of prime ground water recharge are to be designated by each water
management district as part of a ground water basin resource availability
Inventory (Chapter 373.0395(3), F.S.). It is unclear what restrictions
may be imposed in designated prime recharge areas.
Increased Ground Hater Withdrawal Ground water pumping generally causes
a decline in ground water levels which may result in lowered lake levels
and drying of associated wetlands in unconfined systems. Decreased
ground water discharge means diminished stream and river flow and
reduction or cessation of spring flow. Increased ground water
withdrawals can also accelerate the movement of contaminated ground water
toward the point of withdrawal. Increased ground water withdrawals over
a large area can result in sinkhole formation and land subsidance.
Protection of surface water resources from increased ground water
withdrawals is contained in Chapter 373.223, F.S.

Saltwater Intrusion Saltwater intrusion into aquifers from withdrawals
near the coast and from abandoned wells--many of them abandoned
agricultural and oil exploration wells which let saline water from deeper
strata into shallow potable water aquifers--is a major problem throughout
the state.

Authority for the control of saltwater intrusion by the water management
districts is contained in Chapters 373.033 and 373.223, F.S.
Excessive Drainage Drainage of areas for development reduces the
storage of water in shallow ground water systems. This loss of water may
impact the regional availability of ground water supplies through
alteration of recharge and runoff relationships.

The State's policy of protection from overdrainage is contained in
Chapters 373.016(2)(d) and 373.223, F.S.
Failure to Practice Conservation Implementation of available water
conservation techniques and practices can result in long-term water
savings of 10-25 percent. Conservation strategies include use of
efficient irrigation systems and water-using fixtures, landscaping design
and plant use in accordance with xeriscape principles and education
efforts to influence water use habits.









The State's policy on conservation of water resources is contained in
Chapters 373.016(2)(b) and 373.223, F.S. and in the State Water Policy,
Rule 17-40.

REFERENCE

Merchant, Randy, 1989, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
Bureau of Drinking Water and Ground Water Resources, Tallahassee.









Staff for the Governor's Water Resource Commission

Charles Aller, Chief, Bureau of Drinking Hater and Ground Hater
Resources, Department of Environmental Regulation
Gilbert Bergquist, Administrator, Office of Planning and Research,
Department of Environmental Regulation
Robert Christianson, Planning Manager, Southwest Florida Hater Management
District

Roxane Dow, Chief, Bureau of Surface Hater Management, Department of
Environmental Regulation
Richard Harvey, Deputy Director, Division of Hater Facilities, Department
of Environmental Regulation
Hilliam Hennessy, Deputy Executive Director, Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Chris Howell,-Senior Policy Analyst, Northwest Florida Hater Management
District.
Donnie McClaugherty, Bureau of Drinking Hater and Ground Hater Resources,
Department of Environmental Regulation
Randy Merchant, Bureau of Drinking Water and Ground Water Resources,
Department of Environmental Regulation
Donald 0. Morgan, Executive Director, Suwannee River Water Management
District
Irene Kennedy Quincey, Deputy District Counsel, South Florida Hater
Management District
Barbara Vergara, Director, Department of Ground Hater Programs and
Technical Support, St. Johns River Hater Management 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