| Material Information
||Memo to Memebers of the Water Supply Development Core Group Re; Meeting Summary, etc.
||Florida Department of Environmental Protection
||North America -- United States of America -- Florida
||Jake Varn Collection - Memo to Memebers of the Water Supply Development Core Group Re; Meeting Summary, etc. (JDV Box 70)
||Box 24, Folder 3 ( Water Supply Development and Funding - 1996-1997 ), Item 13
||Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
Florida Department of
Memorandum Environmental Protection
TO: Members of the Water Supply Development Core Group
FROM: Terry Pride, DEP 4(,L0 -
SUBJECT: Meeting Summary, etc.
DATE: November 22, 1996
Attached are a detailed summary of the November 8 core group meeting, a revised consolidated
summary of perceived problems in water supply development, and an issue identification and
potential solutions list. Please review all three, particularly the issue identification list and let me
know, by noon on November 27, if you have comments or corrections. The consolidated
summary of perceived problems will continue to serve as a reference as the core group proceeds
and as a checklist to ensure that all the perceived problems are at least discussed.
I apologize for the short timeframe, but scheduling difficulties have prevented my getting with the
chairman sooner to go over these documents.
The chair and vice chair will send you an agenda and meeting package for the December 6
meeting, which includes these materials as revised, by December 1.
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
November 8, 1996
* In committees, we need to come to conclusions where possible to bring back to full group -
these can be basic principles or specific recommendations
* Committees need to decide what to do between meetings
EXPLANATION OF FORMAT
* Several handouts:
"Entities and their Roles";
"Perceived Problems with Water Supply Development"
"Chapters 163 & 373: Water Supply Planning"
* [Littlejohn]Florida Water Plan & State Water Policy 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
come from WMD >
* [Rapach] We need more definitive timeframes at state 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 appeals going to FLAWAC >;
Canter: FWP is simply a reiteration of existing state laws; may need statutory change
to expand it and become more detailed >; < Chuck 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 < JAKE: a state water board? >; this could possibly be done by DEP by
giving them more authority;
authority but not being fully exercised, with adequate resources > ; < Aller & Janet -
need to look at the whole picture before we can decide whether the solution is to
expand authority, etc. >
* [audience] we have no picture at the state level that outlines needs & sources for the entire
state ; because we have parallel planning processes that don't
link together ; we have no state-
wide view; comprehensive land use planning is not tied to water planning
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 Water 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 & now no longer have to charge for our
Plans need to be adaptive, flexible in order to do adaptive management, but users
need longer term surety which must be based on most effective use of resources based
upon WMD plans; plans are approved, not adopted because they are not meant to be
binding, except where portions are later rule promulgated
WMDs focusing on water use caution areas planning; 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
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 rule?
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 needs & sources' plans
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.? < Slayton all of the above>
[Littlejohn] we're really talking about having service delivery plans meaning something;
the WMD has to commit to do what's in the plan < Janet- the WMD plans are not
service delivery plans & the WMDs do not think they have that
do we make the plans dependable>;
should give you that predictability>;
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 the rule; the issue is what is the role of
the WMDs in water supply development, rather than planning >;
you make the non-regulatory portions of the plans meaningful >; < Wehle-through
inter-agency and multi-party agreements like SJRWMD has done with farming
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
differing approaches >; < Tyler McMillan you can do conventions with hierarchial
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 CIE, we also have to identify the funding
[audience] we have problem doing agricultural demand planning
part of the needs & sources? >; < Hebrank isn't the issue really that agriculture is
missing from LGCPs? >;
greatly for water supply demands depending upon the type of agr. & industrial users,
especially when they're self-supplied; aren't self-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
[Littlejohn] action oriented planning vs. passive level 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, solutions and options; < Hopping: private
sector has a better ability to redirect itself; we don't need "a" plan, but plans to give
* [Janet] regional water supply authorities issue;
DWMPs and other WMD plans >
* [LG rep] Remove Obstacles: we have a lack of WMD 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>;
process >; < Jake-the land use decisions are made by local governments, based on
[Hopping] inability to rely on long-range regional & state plans;
[LG rep} lack of integrating planning and regulations between WMDs and local
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 planning?; LGCP planning has focused on
hardware, not resource >;
[audience/Gene Bowles] we did 20 year planning from valid permits, but these got taken
permits? >; < Pattison the EARs they showed 5 possible sources for supply,
including R.O. plants, one of the most controversial issues in the Pinellas area>
[audience/Gene Bowles] nothing allows you to protect a wellfield in advance from
competing uses such as agriculture, development, etc. < Jake this gets us into western
water rights law; a major problem is the split between]
* [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 happening in the meantime;
we need water supply element in chapter 163, to 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 LGCPs LGCPs would have to be consistent
with regional water supply plans >; < Jake: consistent with a non-adopted plan? >;
JAKE'S CLOSING COMMENTS
** 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 feel are consensus items
** Next meeting is December 6th
** Next we will take up Development, then address Regulation
Water Supply Development Core Group
Issue Identification and Potential Solutions
From November 8, 1996 Meeting
Planning Issue: Potential Solutions (for further discussion):
Need for more direction at the state level
with regard to water supply.
Need for consistency in regional water
supply planning, needs and sources
assessments, with regard for regional
The function and effect of RWSPs.
1. More focus on water supply at state level;
either new entity or better implementation by
DEP with more resources.
2. Address water supply development more
adequately in Florida Water Plan (FWP) and
State Water Policy (SWP) rule; include
timeframes in the Florida Water Plan with
regard to water supply planning and
3. Include policy guidance in the FWP and
SWP rule adequate for appeals going to
4. Identify needs and sources statewide.
5. Integration of minimum flows and levels
into water plans--direct MFLs to areas where
water is being or will be developed. (See Ex.
Use conventions committee approach,
hierarchical standardizations that can be used
for regional water supply plans (RWSPs), as
done for District Water Management Plans.
la. To identify a menu of options for water
supply development from which to choose.
b. To provide action-oriented steps, with
flexibility but as much surety as possible for
c. To empower local government.
2. To Influence rulemaking. Portions of
plans could be adopted by rule, as
appropriate, or amendments to existing rules
can be made to implement parts of the plan.
Potential Solutions (for further discussion):
The function and effect of RSWPs
Need for reliable service delivery plans.
Unclear relationship between Local
Government Comprehensive Plans
(LGCPs) and RWSPs.
3. To guide funding of water supply projects.
For instance, if a 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 .. ?
4. Identify means of implementing
nonregulatory parts of plans (e.g., actual
development of supplies)--a forcing action
type of planning. WMDs commit to
implementing the plan if not otherwise
5. There should be a planning/regulatory
a. Consumptive use project to be consistent
with the rule-adopted portions of the plan in
order to be permittable?
b. Consider language similar to that in s.
"The plan does not create 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 where 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 in the
plan shall be construed or applied in isolation
from the other goals and policies in the plan."
Question: Would this be part of the RWSP or
a separate document? Who would be
responsible for it?
Require a water supply element in LGCPs.
Require that LGCPs be consistent with
RWSPs (rule-adopted portions, data?)
Lack of coordination among local
governments in water supply planning.
Inadequate data on which to base local
water supply planning.
Self suppliers need to be better considered
in water supply planning.
Potential Solutions (for further discussion):
Data should come from the WMDs (Require
local govt. to use WMD data? How should
the EARs process operate with regard to
Add requirements that water supply plans
must project water supply for self suppliers;
have self suppliers provide data on themselves
to planners, with no penalty to self suppliers.
Consolidated Summary of Perceived Problems
Related to Water Supply Development
Committee on Water Supply Development
Statewide vs. regional problems and solutions: Need for flexibility of approach to develop
regional solutions; lack of regional consensus on source development and funding allocations;
parochial view of resource use.
Lack of clarity of roles: Of local governments, regional water supply authorities, WMDs, and
state agencies in water supply planning. Who takes the lead? How many levels of plans are
Lack of information: Regarding needs and sources, minimum flows and levels, water
availability, projections for water demands, etc., upon which to base water supply planning.
(Question: What is the cause of this and how can it be remedied? Is it due to funding,
workload, and technical limitations or poor coordination among governmental entities?);
inability of agriculture to predict its future demands; lack of peer review of modeling
Absence of linkages between plans and between permitting and planning: At the local,
regional, and state levels; confusion regarding the connection between regional water supply
plans and regulatory programs, and the legal significance of the plans; inadequate
consideration of the tie between land use plans and the 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; different 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
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 is a need for short-term source
security, e.g., stronger "rights" to permit renewals for existing legal users and issuance of
maximum duration consumptive use permits; permit durations generally are insufficient to
recover investments or provide certainty to agricultural users.
Inadequate protection for the environment: Water is not being managed to assure that it will
be a sustainable resource over time.
Interdistrict transfers of water: Concerns regarding both inappropriate water transfers and
unreasonable prohibition of water transfers.
Lack of independent scientific peer review: To verify data, which would foster confidence in
and acceptability for the scientific basis for regulations.
Lack of clarity of roles of state, regional, and local entities in water supply development:
Lack of consensus on what entity should have primary responsibility (e.g., local government,
water management districts, others); problems with structure 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 groups 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.