Water Supply Development Committee Meeting Summary of November 18, 1996

Material Information

Water Supply Development Committee Meeting Summary of November 18, 1996


Subjects / Keywords:
Water supply ( jstor )
Regional planning ( jstor )
Weapons of mass destruction ( jstor )
Spatial Coverage:
North America -- United States of America -- Florida


Jake Varn Collection - Water Supply Development Committee Meeting Summary of November 18, 1996 (JDV Box 70)
General Note:
Box 24, Folder 3 ( Water Supply Development and Funding - 1996-1997 ), Item 10
Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location:
Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text

YAc-t 4 b
Dwv CppS5

-- ..general suiniay ofthe development meeting.
2. A listing of the problems either agreed upon or at
raised. c US)
3. A revised list of perceived problems, based on on
which I had previously omitted.

6 8-oo zo

least identified, and potential solutions

e late submission and a requested item

After you look over these and make changes, I will get t em to the core group for comment. If
you will get back with me by the 20th, I'll get them out the next day and request responses by
Dec. 2. Then if I can meet with you on the morning off e 3rd (I'm out of town on the 2nd) to go
over responses and develop an agenda, I can fax out a p ckage that afternoon. If you want a
different timeframe, let me know.

A couple of folks indicated to me after the last meeting t at they would like to have gone over the
consolidated summary of perceived problems. In looking at it, I think we covered a great deal of
it, but it might be a good idea to refer to it to make sure we haven't left anything out. The
regulatory category is probably the one most in need of review. Think about it.


S Terry

SDo A-t ATr
n-f- fc-Uli OC 1^^iC

AP^. ^cst & 'c^ / T br fU^J&s-LT c Alt S
PWO 6 -a- ~( a-L P, !, & k9,Y

.djSc ,aD,, David,

Attache' are:

Jake ,A;
Working op

i) ahuuiLr

23) ~~A.E

Nov 19 '95

5:57 P. 01/09

ECOS!'ST, MRANGEMENT Fax:904-922-53

November 18, 1 6

In committees, we need to come to conclusions where possible to bring back to full group -
these can be basic principles or specific recomr endations
Committees need to decide what to do between meetings

Several handouts:
"Entities and their Roles";
"Perceived Problems with Water Supply Development"
"Chapters 163 & 373: Water Supply Planning"



[Littlejohn]Florida Water Plan & State Water'Polic don't deal with water supply
development issues very well; not a balanced document with regard to water supply;
the problem is implementation
* [Pattison] LGCPs not based on good data addressing water supply state issue? >; the LGCPs have authorized development beyond that which could be
supplied; come from WMD >
* [Rapach] We need more definitive timeframes at sate level for water supply planning
Policy go into enough detail>; or the identification of specific wellfields, etc. >; and not pictures; there is debate about how detailed state should go; needs to be enough
policy guidance in the FWP and SWP for apple s going to FLAWAC >; < Bram
Canter: FWP is simply a reiteration of existing state laws; may need statutory change
to expand it and become more detailed>; < C uck Littlejohn need for more intent on
providing "adequate water supply" for all users>; Executive order deadlines giving more certainty on the WMD water supply plans >;
; adequate emphasis on water supply implementation >
* [LITTLEJOHN] Need to address integration of minimum flows and level priorities with
water supply planning priorities
* [Audience/Fred] Do we need a statewide entity to deal with water supply planning at the
state level ; this could possibly be done by DEP by
giving them more authority; authority but not being fully exercised, with adequate resources>; < Aller & Janet -

Nov 19 '96


ECOSYST2I vR~NRGEMENT Fax:904-922-53

need to look at the whole picture before we can; decide whether the solution is Zo
expand authority, etc. >
[audience] we have no picture at the state level that outlines needs & sources for the entire
-. ..--, -. ate.; because we have parallel planning processes-t-,atdori't
link together ; we have no state-
wide view; comprehensive land use planning is not tied to water planning < Hopping -
can't try to link Future Land Use Maps with water supply planning; they are irrelevant]
[Littlejohn] Does PSC do planning;


[Mike Slayton] WMD PLANNING: Regional Wate Supply Plans(5 years)<---DWMPs(5
years)--> Needs & Sources(5 years); question is how plans are implemented since only
regulatory rules done, none for plans -- budget process is the means for ensuring that
the regional water supply plans are implemented; < Pattison-are budgets also 5
years>; no, but for acquisition, etc., we do those on 5 year cycles;
WMDs have extensive databases available & iow no longer have to charge for our
computer access;
Plans need to be adaptive, flexible in order to do adaptive management, but users
need longer term surety which must be based oi. most effective use of resources based
upon WMD plans; plans are approved, not ado ted because they are not meant to be
binding, except where portions are later rule promulgated
r- WMDs focusing on water use caution areas Iplnning; focusing planning & funding in
these areas; extensive SOR funds made available for water storage; looking at
ecological, as well as public and business, water supply deliveries
Trying to upgrade water supply facilities, additional structures to enhance recharge
and storage
cost sharing (SFWMD $5.7 million this year) with local governments
doing exploratory drilling based on SW Plan
[Fred Rapach] shouldn't the plans be adopted by rle? used for land planning it isn't regulatory by itself; only those portions would be
adopted as rules would be regulatory; see the chapter 187.101(2), FS, type language>
[Pattison] LGCPs are 20-year plans with 5 year fiscal planning
[Janet] Funding should be consistent with the need. & sources' plans < Wehle if it isn't
in plan, then funding wouldn't be allowed until plan is changed to include the issue>
[Littlejohn] once adopted, then certain actions would have to be done according to the plan
an example is operational schedule how are people assured that this will happen

[Hopping] why are these structures operated flood control, water recharge to aquifer,
etc.? reasons >
[Littlejohn] we're really talking about having service delivery plans meaning something;
the WMD has to commit to do what's in the plan service delivery plans & the WMDs do not think they have that
responsibility >; < Littlejohn-once upon a time that's all they did deliver water; how

No v 19 '96 5 )8 1-

ECOSYST,-- MRNRGEMENT Fax:904-922-53 Nov 19 '96 5:53 4/09

do we make the plans dependable>; should give you that predictability>; < Littlejohn what about future demands when
we're making structural changes >; made to plan.for 5-10 years in the future .& my future needs won't be assured for how -
they operated this past year> future>; ; on SFWMD, they're probably the exception to he rule; the issue is what is the role of
the WMDs in water supply development, rather than planning >; < Littlejohn how do
you make the non-regulatory portions of the pla s meaningful >; < Wehle-through
inter-agency and multi-party agreements like SJ WMD has done with farming
interests>; their other actions; the "sleeping dog" is OPAGA the setting of performance
standards (performance-based. budgeting)>;
[audience] aren't we going to have to get to dividing up water allocations what the plans are attempting to do
[Mark Farrell/audience] needs & sources approaches are very different between the
districts; differing approaches>; standardizations that can be used for the regional water supply plans between the
districts, as we did for the DWMPs >;
[LG rep] when LGCPs are talking about 5 year CM,, we also have to identify the funding
* [audience] we have problem doing agricultural de and planning part of the needs & sources? >; missing from LGCPs? >; greatly for water supply demands depending u pn the type of agr. & industrial users,
especially when they're self-supplied; aren't s-suppliers the issue? However, it's not
clear what use this information would be for land use planning >; could provide this if there was a "no-fault/no foul" system in place to not penalize
them >
* [Littlejohn] action oriented planning vs. passive leel planning problem; we need more
FDOT-type planning in water supply planning a forcing action type of planning is
needed to focus on problem prevention, solution s and options; < Hopping: private
sector has a better ability to redirect itself; we lon't need "a" plan, but plans to give
direction > ;


* [Janet] regional water supply authorities issue; DWMPs and other WMD plans >
* [LG rep] Remove Obstacles: we have a lack of information, uncertainty of changing
regulations; un-coordinated providers and service areas, lack of planning for identifying
future wellfields and wellfield protection; are the best for wellfield locations>; local governments from which to choose>; <]red Rapach which plan is driving this


process >; WMD data>;
[Hopping] inability to rely on long-range regional & state plans;
[LG rep} lack of-integrating planning andtregulati&ns between -W isDrand-local
governments; follow and be consistent with these planning directions a link between planning and
regulations; need to plan to match these two issues up >;
[LG rep] an issue is linking land use & water planning; government has done 20 year water supply planing?; LGCP planning has focused on
hardware, not resource>;
[audience/Gene Bowles] we did 20 year planning from valid permits, but these got taken
back; permits? >; including R.O. plants, one of the most controversial issues in the Pinellas area>
[audience/Gene Bowles] nothing allows you to pr tect a wellfield in advance from
competing uses such as agriculture, develop t, etc. water rights law; a major problem is the split Btetween]
[Wehle] the WMDs are doing 20-year water supply planning; we could reserve certain
types of water for any use those mechanisms are in place, but we can't stop the
accompanying land use decisions that may be n happening in the meantime; we need water supply element in chapter 163, o address the sources for potable water
supply >; ; < Varn: DCA
may not be holding our feet to the fire on this: ; between regional water supply plans and LGCfs LGCPs would have to be consistent
with regional water supply plans>; ;

** We will try to figure out a way to summarize and distribute today's comments to everyone
** We will try to get out a list of comments that we fel are consensus items
** Next meeting is December 6th
** Next we will take up Development, then address Regulation

Nov 19 '96



Fax:904-922-53 Nov 19 '96

i- q/ q 47p
C^/^^ T^L ~MYI~
//~cc -/^

Need for more direction at the.state
i ve! with regard to.water supply. -

Need for consistency in regional water
supply planning, needs and sources
assessments, with regard for regional
variations .

The function and effect of RWSPs.


Potential Salutions (for further discussion):

1. More focus on watr supply at state level; either new entity
or better implementation by DEP with more resources.

2. Address water sup ly development more adequately in
Florida Water Plan (FP) and State Water Policy (SWP) rule;
include timeframes in he Florida Water Plan with regard to
water supply planning and development.

3. Include policy guic
for appeals going to F

4. Identify needs and

5. Integration of mini
direct MFLs to areas
developed. (See Ex.

Use conventions comr
standardizations that 4
plans (RWSPs), as do

lance in the FWP and SWP rule adequate

sources statewide.

mum flows and levels into water plans--
vhere water is being or will be
Drder 96-297)

nittee approach, hierarchical
an be used for regional water supply
ne for District Water Management Plans.

(iTo identify a menu of options for water supply
development from wlhch to choose.

STo provide actionoriented steps, with flexibility but as
much surety as possib e for users.

(3) To empower local


4. To influence.ruler making. Portions of plans could be
adopted by rule, as appropriate, or amendments to existing
rules can be made to plement parts of the plan. There
s-Ere --, should be a planning/legulatory linkage] (Application
consistent with the rule-adopted portions of the plan in order
to be permittable?)

-, S y 5. To prioritize fundi g of water supply projects. Ifa project
is consistent with the plan, it is eligible for funding. Question:
does "consistent" mean contained in the plan, in concert with
the plan, not at cross purposes with the plan .. ?




The function and effect of RSWPs

Need for reliable service delivery

JUclear relationship between Local
Government Comprehensive Plans
(LGCPs) and RWSPs.

Lack of coordination among local
governments in water supply

Inadequate data on which to base
local water supply planning.

Self suppliers need to be better
considered in water supply planning.

Inconsistency of regulations between
state agencies and between

Potential Solu~ons (for further discussion):

6. Identify means of irhplementing-nonreguiatory parus of
plans (e.g., actual development of supplies)--a forcing action
type of planning. WMDs commit to implementing the plan if
not otherwise implemented? N

7. Consider language similar to that in s. 187.101, F.S.:

"The plan does not cr te regulatory authority or authorize the
adoptions rules, criteria or standards not otherwise authorized
by law. .. the goals and policies contained in the [plan] shall
be reasonably applied here they are economically and
environmentally feasible, not contrary to the public interest,
and consistent with the protection of private property rights.
The plan shall be construed and applied as a whole, and no
specific goal or policy m the plan shall be construed or applied
in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plan."

Question: Would this 1
document? Who would

Require a water suppli
LGCPs be consistent ,


Data should come fro
WMD data? How shq
regard to this?)

Add requirements that
supply for self supplier
themselves to planners

be part of the RWSP or a separate
d be responsible for it?

' element in LGCPs. Require that
ith RWSPs (rule-adopted portions,

n the WMDs (Require local govt. to use
uld the EARs process operate with

water supply plans must project water
s; have self suppliers provide data on
with no penalty to self suppliers.


I -~-------------~------

Nov 19 '96 6:00 P. 07/09

ECOSYS .M M fNAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53

Consolidated Summary of Perceived Problerrs
Related to Water Supply Development
*. mmtiree dn''re ler Supplt e 'ment ." --
November 18, 1 96


Statewide vs. regional problems and solutions: Neec
regional solutions; lack of regional consensus on source
parochial view of resource use.

Lack of clarity of roles: Of local governments, region
state agencies in water supply planning. Who takes th<

Lack of information: Regarding needs and sources, rr
availability, projections for water demands, etc., upon
(Question: What is the cause of this and how can i be
workload, and technical limitations or poor coordinate
inability of agriculture to predict its future demands; la

Absence of linkages between plans and between pe
regional, and state levels; confusion regarding the coni
plans and regulatory programs, and the legal significar
consideration of the tie between land use plans and the

I for flexibility of approach to develop
I development and funding allocations;

al water supply authorities, WMDs, and
lead? How many levels of plans are

minimum flows and levels, water
which to base water supply planning.
remedied? Is it due to funding,
n among governmental entities?);
ck of peer review of modeling

hitting and planning: At the local,
section between regional water supply
ce of the plans; inadequate
availability of sustainable water

Inadequate representation in planning processes: Agriculture is not adequately represented
in water supply planning process due to lack of technical/industry resources and unified
position; the present system for making water supply development decisions denies the public
the opportunity to participate in a consensus-building process.

Gaps in statutory guidance: Inconsistent or inadequate statewide goals regarding
development of alternative supplies; lack of statutory definitions for key terms such as
"sustainable," "minimum flows and levels," and "water supply development"; lack of defined
criteria or level of service for supplying source water.


Uncertainty, confusion, and inflexibility in regulation, including: Changing regulatory
regimes and slowness of agency responsiveness; differ nt interpretations of regulations, e.g.,
wetlands policies, permit conditions, groundwater management criteria, reuse; inconsistent
criteria at WMD boundaries; lack of coordination between DEP and WMDS, at both state

Nov 19 '96

6:00 r. 8/J9

S COSYST.M MfNRGEMENT Fax:904-922-53

headquarters and regional district levels; inability to mitigate wetland impacts from wellfield
withdrawals like other wetland permitting criteria; delays in adapting existing regulations to
accommodate the utilization of emerging technologies for alternative water supply
development, such as aquifer storage and recovery, desalination, and reuse; Unclear law and
policy regarding how MFLs are to be established and enforced; PSC rate setting (does not
allow reasonable cost recovery); inconsistency between PSC, DEP, and WMD regulations;
lack of regulatory incentives for alternative technologies and sources; barriers to interconnects
between private and government-owned utilities.

Inadequate protection for existing legal users: There
security, e.g., stronger "rights" to permit renewals for
maximum duration consumptive use permits; permit di
recover investments or provide certainty to agricultural

Inadequate protection for the environment: Water ih
be a sustainable resource over time.

Interdistrict transfers of water: Concerns regarding
unreasonable prohibition of water transfers.

Lack of independent scientific peer review: To verify
and acceptability for the scientific basis for regulations

Lack of clarity of roles of state, regional, and local
Lack of consensus on what entity should have primary
water management districts, others); problems with str
supply authorities.

is a need for short-term source
existing legal users and issuance of
Rations generally are insufficient to

not being managed to assure that it will

both inappropriate water transfers and

y data, which would foster confidence in

entities in water supply development:
responsibility (e.g., local government,
picture and function of regional water

Resistance to development of alternative sources,to conservation, and reuse (because of
lack of funding, regulatory obstacles, inadequate incentives, perception?).

Lack of feasibility of options: For particular user gro ps and areas of the state (e.g., ability
to pay for options or geographic constraints such as for desalination)

Funding constraints: Lack of adequate, equitable,long-term funding, resulting in delays in
development and lack of infrastructure; utility revenues re-directed to non-water supply uses,
diverting a substantial source of funding for water supply development; need for increased
access to public funding sources by private utilities.

Nov 19 '96