Title: Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Meeting of December 18, 1996
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004616/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Meeting of December 18, 1996
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Meeting of December 18, 1996 (JDV Box 70)
General Note: Box 24, Folder 3 ( Water Supply Development and Funding - 1996-1997 ), Item 18
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004616
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

Water Supply Development
and Funding Work Group Meeting

December 18, 1996

Proposed Objectives
* To test for consensus on development committee
* To make progress on committee work plans
* To agree on needed next steps and responsibilities

Proposed Agenda

9:00 Work Group plan for the process and the day
9:15 Consensus testing of Development Recommendations
10:00 Committees work independently
12:00 Lunch (ordered in)
12:45 Committee Meetings Continued
3:00 Meeting Adjourns

Committee Instructions
1. Review and seek agreement on the draft committee agenda
2. Work through the agenda items and record group products:
Points of agreement
Issues that need more attention
Action assignments for members, staff and others
Requests for the other committee
3. Review and refine the work group products to be presented for
full group consideration before or at the next meeting.
4. Discuss the agenda for the next meeting, the meeting
schedule and decide if there is a need for additional meetings

Water Supply Development
and Funding Work Group
Process Plan

Date Activities
Oct. 17 Seek consensus on a basic problem statement and

Shape a structure for effective work group action
Develop a practical, feasible work plan
Constituency outreach and work on tasks
Review of interim products and committee direction
Committee work
Consensus testing and work plan revision
Constituency outreach and work on tasks
Same as above
Constituency outreach and work on tasks
Same as above
Constituency outreach and work on tasks
Preparation of a draft legislative proposal
Seek consensus on proposed amendments
Assign responsibilities for unresolved issues
Constituency outreach and resolution of issues
Final amendment process
Acceptance of the recommendation report
Develop work plan for the legislative session and beyond
Joint Workshop with Legislators

Nov. 8

Dec. 6
Dec. 18

Jan. 8

Jan. 31


Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Meeting, 12-18-03

Work Group Guidelines

Work GrouD Core Committee Representation

Interest Group


Business, Industry, developers 2
Agriculture 2
Environmentalists/citizens 2
Water suppliers 2
Local governments 2
Water Management Districts 1
Dept. of Environmental Protection 1
Dept. of Community Affairs 1
Dept. of Ag. & Consumer Services 1
Public Service Commission 1
Other participants can choose a committee

or circulate

Ro es_of CoreaGroupM embers
* Be selected by their interest groups
* Be expected to attend all committee meetings
* Select a committee chair and co- or vice-chair
* Share information with constituents
* Solicit input from constituents
* Rank acceptability of recommendations of the committee
* Core group members may designate and give direction to substitutes
* Replacements must be selected by the respective interest groups

Roleas other Participants
* Participate as appropriate with deference to the chair
* Circulate between committees and help coordinate efforts
* Form ad hoc groups on special issues and make reports
* Provide input to core group members and on comment forms

Roles of Committee Chairs
* Recognize speakers and balance participation, as needed
* Invite other participants can contribute to discussions
* Guide agenda formulation and compliance
* Manage committee progress through the process
Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Mooting, 12-18-06


Roles of Facilitators

* Share in structuring agendas and guiding discussions
* Capture key points on flip charts and overheads
* Help prepare reports of the group's work

Roles of Staff
* Provide information as requested by chairs
* Prepare meeting reports and materials for participants
* Lead staff for the funding committee -- Paula Allen
* Lead staff for the water supply committee -- Terry Pride

Everyone will:

* Share in keeping to the agenda
* Be focused and concise, balance participation
* Ask questions and verify assumptions
* Acknowledge differing views -- no personal attacks
* Seek mutually satisfactory solutions
* Make sure recording is accurate
* Use comment forms and the "bin" if time is limited

Brainstorming Guidelines

* Generate as many ideas as possible
* Do not discuss or criticize any ideas
* Suggesting ideas does not imply a commitment to them
* Innovative ideas are encouraged

Decision Making Guidelines Participants will
* Develop a common understanding of the issues
* Evaluate all options
* Consider the best information available
* Seek consensus on recommendations
"consensus," at best, is when everyone is satisfied they have the best
balanced product possible, at worst, everyone feels their concerns have
been considered and they agree to not oppose the package even
though there are concerns about some parts of it.
Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Meeting, 12-18-96

Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group

General Committee Report Process

Consideration of Committee Recommendations

1. Core group review and ranking of committee recommendations

2. Record rankings on the overhead

3. Identification of concerns for committee consideration (if time permits)

4. Committee will reconsider recommendations to address concerns

Rank thA

atcAntahil~tv of reacommendations usina this scale:

*-~. ...*** .,-_ *'- -- -- .. -.. -.. .-- -- -jy. -- ... --- .- .,..

5 = Wholeheartedly support
4 = Good, but could be better
3 = Neutral, there are pros and cons
2 = Serious concerns
1 = Opposed
0 = I don't have enough information to make a judgment

Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Meeting, 12-18-96

Water Supply Development
and Funding Work Group Meeting

Development Committee Agenda

Proposed Agenda

10:00 Review and Agree on Committee Agenda
10:05 Complete Discussion of Regulatory Issues
10:50 Break
11:00 Discuss Subcommittee Proposals
Definitions of "water resource and water supply development"
Statement of objectives for water supply development
Simplification of the water planning process
Long-term consumptive use permits
12:00 Lunch
12:45 Continue Discussion of Subcommittee Proposals
1:45 Break
2:00 Review Consensus Testing and Address Priority Issues
3:00 Meeting Adjourns

Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Meeting, 12-18-96

Water Supply Development
and Funding Work Group Meeting

Funding Committee Agenda


- To continue to discuss information and views on work plan tasks
* To begin developing preliminary recommendations for the work plan
tasks covered to date

Proposed Agenda

10:00 Existing funding options discussion
10:30 New funding options discussion
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Continued discussion of new funding options, factors in
determining equitable cost distribution, roles and responsibilities,
2:45 Committee wrap-up next steps, meeting dates and
3:00 Adjourn

Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Mooting, 12-18-06

Water Supply Development and Funding
Work Group Meeting
December 18, 1996

Comment Form

Your Input is Important!!!
This is the place to put any ideas, comments, concerns, criticisms that you
do not have time to, or want to share with the group. Your input will be kept
as a record of the meeting and incorporated into the final report as
appropriate. Please reference where in the agenda your input applies.

Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Mooting, 12-18-06

Water Supply Development
and Funding Work Group Meeting

December 18, 1996

Your input Is important!

How well were the meeting objectives were achieved:

To test for consensus on development committee recommendations
To make progress on committee work plans
To agree on needed next steps and responsibilities


Rate the following aspects of the meeting

Clarity of meeting purpose and plan
Balance of structure and flexibility
Group productivity


Excel. Poor
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1

What did you like best about the Workshop?

How could it have been improved?

Water Supply Development and Funding Work Group Mooting, 12-18-96

Water Supply Development Committee

FROM: Jake Varn and David Guest

RE: December 18 Meeting

DATE: December 16

Attached please find a detailed summary of our December 6 meeting, a revised list of issues and
consensus recommendations, and an agenda for our December 18 meeting. We have made good
progress and should be able after the next meeting to start drafting more specific language for
recommendations. At the December 6 meeting, we assigned tasks to four groups as follows:

1. Definitions of"water resource development" and "water supply development" (see
attached proposal)
Chuck Littlejohn
Fred Rapach

2. Statement of objectives for water supply planning
Chuck Littlejohn
Chuck Aller

3. Simplification of the water planning process
Bill Hyde
Jake Varn
Janet Llewellyn
Wade Hopping
Chuck Aller

4. Long-term consumptive use permits (see attached statement)
David Guest
Butch Calhoun
Eva Armstrong
Bram Canter
Diane Salz
Janet Llewellyn (added by later request)

We look forward to another productive meeting.



December 6, 1997
Detailed Summary

Page 23 of handout has summary of those consensus/non-consensus areas from last meeting

PLANNING DISCUSSION (beginning with the issue of planning for self suppliers)
VARN: Do we get public and private suppliers into the planning process?
SLAYTON: In the water supply plan advisory groups, these are broad-based efforts including self
ALLER: You need to have some entity that represents self-suppliers
VARN: We seem to be talking about 2 issues agricultural type and other self-suppliers; at the
local comprehensive plan, what does a local government do about these self-suppliers?;
what happens when WMD says this is good site for wellfield and local government comp
plan says that next door is good site for landfill;
CHASE: local comp plans often do not take into consideration private utilities often focusing on
public suppliers this is a problem
STOWERS Part of the problem is the way that DCA allows this issue to be addressed; look more
at infrastructure rather than a true LOS (on a true per capital basis);
VARN: You're making the argument; the issue is whether LGCP have to be consistent with WMD
Plans & the answer is "no"; the WMD role in reviewing LGCP is not strong enough
HYDE: Have problem with underlying premise we have a myriad of plans that are required and
having all these plans with a consistency link is a formula for failure do we want to deal
with water supply development or top-down planning
VARN: But this is making the argument that there are too many plans maybe we need one plan
and consistency with that one plan is the key
SALZ: We have nothing wrong with planning, but the oversight bogs us down
WEHLE: When we comment on LGCP, we make a 2-point comment here's the area that we have
permitting responsibility and then we comment on other issues as things you may wish to
consider; all the planning sounds great, but there is a disconnect between the land use
planning for the future and the fact that it doesn't happen
LITTLEJOHN: The point of integration for water supply should be between WMD and utilities;
this is a much more straightforward way than looking at it on a LGCP basis; instead of
WMD reviewing LGCP for information, let the private & public utilities do this they look
at needs and sources; the WMDs should plug in to make sure the sources are available.
VARN: What's the process for doing this?
RAPACH: Seems you're trying to separate the water supply development and water resource
ALLER: We never addressed the self-suppliers issue that we started with; self-suppliers should be
addressed by WMDs and taken into account in their planning biggest problem is with

agricultural demand projections (SLAYTON)
VARN: Suggestions for any changes in LGCPs
ALLER: Include self-supplier information from utility information
LITTLEJOHN: The utilities should be adjusting their own plans without WMDs doing their own
VARN: Are you saying that WMD should not have the ability to do per capital restrictions
CANTER: Utility is where you need to go for the future need information, not the LGCP
LITTLEJOHN: The utility should be integrating their plans with the LGCP.
VARN: I'm trying to understand Littlejohn's proposal; should there be a linkage of self-suppliers
HOPPING: Absolutely not!
McCUE: Disagree. That information needs to be readily available to local government to help
plan for growth
VARN: Can we agree that the self-supplier information needs to be available for regional water
supply plans; Hopping says no for this information in LGCPs; part of the issue is that DCA
is not doing their job and not holding local governments responsible- DCA has not made
local governments identify their sources
HOPPING: I'm not sure that DCA is where that should happen; the statute should read that the
WMDs do this
SALZ: You want to avoid duplication
WEHLE: You're on a right track; in the past, local governments weren't required to identify where
to go for their sources; this information is only now available in needs and sources studies;
we will be working this into EARs process in the past this has been more a facility
HYDE: Disagree. The handout is a reflection of scarcity and nothing in 163 and 9J-5 helps us
address and provide additional supply WMD needs to have more authority to do
development the planning process is flawed
LLEWELLYN: The planning process is not the problem, I think we should just move on to
addressing water supply development
ALLER: In the implementation of planning between LGCP and WMD plans, resources for potable
water element need to be identified in the LGCPs this is in existing law, but needs to be
actually implemented without pointing fingers, it needs to be done

(See Summary of Issues/Solutions)



C-1, C-2,
C-5 & C-6
D-6 concern about private property right implying water is property right
D-7 "consistent = general context and not legal 163 meaning"
C-7 "Primarily come from WMD other sources possible if BEST AVAILABLE DATA"

** New C-8: WMD should take into account the use of water by self-suppliers and make
projections to the WMD
** New C-9: At a minimum, DCA should be relying on WMDs when it comes to the
identification of future water supply sources
** New C-9 Statute on planning is not the problem (it may be obstacle), implementation is the
problem. The potable water supply element of the comp plan needs to indicate the sources of the
water using the regional water supply plan or other best available data.

The planning process should be simplified.
Littlejohn/Rapach: definitional differences between water supply development and
water resource development
Littlejohn: Developing objectives for water supply in the planning effort: certainty,
Varn/Canter/Aller/Hyde/Llewellyn: Simplification of the planning process



VARN: Issue is there a role for the actual development of water supply by the state.
ALLER: When you have major policy questions like moving water around the state, then maybe it
so; there is a state relationship.
VARN: The only role I can see is making state lands available for water supply development, such

as in a State Forest funding is another issue ISSUE FOR FUNDING GROUP: Who pays
and who gets it what is the role of the state in local development
GUEST: A concern about land transfers
BIBLER: The other role may be for those parks that don't have enough water the protection of
water for these resources on state lands
VARN: This would have to be a call by the managers of the land, with any caveats you want on
them (no adverse impacts, etc.)
LLEWELLYN: We're not making an affirmative recommendation that state lands should be used,
only that they may be used
VARN This is only a possibility
GUEST: Maybe the state should have more emphasis (higher priority) on protecting aquifer
recharge areas/lands although this is already being done as part of P-2000
McCUE: What about HRS in terms of local development?
VARN: Has some existing authority

VARN: It's one thing for the WMDs identifying and developing the enhancement of water
supplies, it's another for actual building the infrastructure that's a local government and
regional water supply authority task; the WMDs should focus on augmentation and
enhancement of water supply sources; anything else at the regional level
SLAYTON: Is funding part of this?
VARN: Subject for the other committee, and regional water supply authorities considered as part
of the local level
CANTER: WMDs have substantial lands that could be made available for water supply
development and includes alternative water supply development
VARN: But this could get the WMDs into the wastewater business because this produces a
product (reuse) that would involve development
RAPACH: What about inter-district transfers of waters (development)
CALHOUN: They already have this authority in 373.1961
VARN: Controversial, ANYTHING ELSE?
BOLES: But they are not precluded under the "enhancement" concept, but they are not primarily
involved in the development of water supply

CANTER: One issue is local sources first.
RAPACH: Some regulations are so strict that it works against reuse conflicting WMD/DEP
philosophies on reuse; DEP and WMD have differing feasibility requirements
VARN: There are different versions of reuse, as to whether it will be used for human consumption,
etc.; shouldn't DEP & WMD be coming from the same place on reuse criteria
ALLER: There is an ongoing committee meeting every other month to deal with this issue; doesn't
the issue often revolve around cost recovery
RAPACH: HRS raises perception problems, without documented cases.

VARN: Can't we agree to maximize reuse and have common approach among DEP, WMD, HRS
ASSOC. OF CO.: Duration of permits may create a bonding problem
VARN: Give me an example
STOWERS: Probably never, but then we've never had WMD revoke permits
VARN: We can probably get consensus when you're in an area where available water is in excess
of long term permit use predictions in those areas, can probably get a long term permit;
however, we need to be careful on long-term permits not to build in a dis-incentive for
conservation, etc. How can changes over time be addressed for conservation and
STOWERS: I do think there are incentives built-in to keep wholesale waste from happening
VARN: Fundamental question do you have to get a CUP permit for reverse osmosis and ASR,
desalination (Yes)
ARMSTRONG: But Jake's statement causes me some problems there has to be middle ground as
we can't anticipate what may happen to the resource during the next 20 years
LLEWELLYN: At a minimum, shouldn't the long-term permit only be issued for water resources
that have minimum flow and level established
VARN: Couldn't this be done after water supply plans done, if funded?
STOWERS: You could have mid-term check (trigger) on a 20-year permit; the issue is where
you're going to get the money to do the development; the regional plan shouldn't cost
anyone anything except the WMD but local governments should be required to pay the
bill if they want to develop the resource we're probably not going to get it from the state,
given the financial problems they've been having; I think money should be allocated for
WMD resource identification and establishment of minimum flow and levels, and regional
water supply plan ASAP
ALLER: I think we have some consensus on long-term permits with appropriate protections
MENNELLA: SJRWMD permits are now coming in with 10 and 15 years; we have 11 factors that
can work to lengthen or shorten the durations with 5 year permit checks; we don't need new
statutory authority.
**ASSIGNMENT: GUEST, CALHOUN, DIANE SALZ, CANTERto work on long-term permit
HEBRANK: Another issue: Time delays with emerging technologies permitting
HOPPING: Why not use new APA waiver and variance provisions;
LLEWELLYN: It's a federal EPA issue (ASR)
SALZ: Many more cities and counties need to look at RO and desalination, but it is difficult to do
because of disposal problem the problem seems to be a state problem and not a federal
one, around the definition of"disposal" since brine is classified as a hazardous waste
VARN: Can we agree that we ought to be encouraging RO, desalination and alternative
GUEST: There are environmental concerns about waste disposal; there is a DEP and other groups
working on these issues
ALLER: ASR is a federal problem John Hankinson has agreed to look at this, but the same type
of problems are true of RO and desalination; many of these are being worked on;
GUEST: We're not sure on some of these

LITTLEJOHN: Can't we agree that this needs to be a major point of emphasis these regulatory
and research obstacles we need to say something about a concentrated effort to address
LLEWELLYN: It's not just that there is a regulation to be changed, there has to be research in
order to change the regulations in an accelerated manner
RAPACH: Another obstacle is the inability for utilities to mitigate water withdrawal impacts
VARN: DISCUSSION ISSUE: Allowing mitigation for impacts of major water withdrawals
KATHY FRY: Research should mainly fall on universities or WMDs for responsibility; they
(utilities) shouldn't be forced to do the needed research
HEBRANK: May want to have independent scientific peer review
VARN: I have bias on this, but all that seems to do is delay action
ST. PETE ATTORNEY: St. Petersburg has lowest per capital rates and yet permit was denied, even
though a pre-existing user;
STOWERS: Back on the independent peer review for research and development -this should be an
open, broad-based scientific process
VARN: The folly is having someone do it and then be reviewed again they should all be part of
the process to start with
HUNTER: Another issue: There are disincentives between public and private suppliers thru the
VARN: The other committee is working on this I'm told

PAGE 31 CONSENSUS DISCUSSION: no additional issues identified


HOPPING: In the other committee, had discussion on the mismatch between cost capture by PSC
"18 months + growth" and DEP 5-10 year permits; PSC reserves right as to whether
something is prudent even ifDEP requires it as a permit condition
JOANN CHASE: If DEP permits it then PSC considers it "prudent"; the question only comes up
when you're addressing today's + tomorrow's growth and there is a mismatch between the
timeframes and this is currently being looked at in PSC rule-making
HOPPING: There is environmental oversizing where PSC will not let you recover the costs and
PSC reserve the right to address economic recovery for reuse projects we need to match
up environmental & water supply with the economic recovery policies of the PSC
CHASE: If you're doing something that benefits current users, PSC looks at this, but when you're
increasing capacity then costs shifted to future users
HOPPING: Except for reuse projects
GUEST: Shouldn't environmental agencies be taking the lead
CHASE: Yes, except PSC is setting the rates
HOPPING: Hidden agenda here; PSC believes that current rates need to be kept as low as possible
for current users; to do this, PSC second-guesses DEP

VARN: There should be a presumption of correctness when DEP requires an improvement can
we agree on this?
CHASE: The cost recovery over time does happen, but it can happen over long periods of time-
it's a definite disincentive
VARN: Is the problem that the PSC only lets you recover costs over long period of time
GUEST: Another issue is that some utilities have themselves involved in areas that they don't need
LITTLEJOHN: how do you get to economy of scale?
VARN: Maybe this flows from when DEP certifies that this is needed/recognized of reuse
qualifying projects (and other equipment required)
LITTLEJOHN: How does this apply for alternative water supplies
VARN: Another: more regulatory guidance from DEP to WMDs for MF&Ls, etc.
CANTER: I'll agree there are WMD policies developed that they do in a vacuum because no state
guidance, like MF&Ls,
LITTLEJOHN: We think more guidance is needed for implementation and establishment; I'd like
to continue last year's efforts; we were close last year; what you look at (urbanized vs.
Rural area) and how that relates to Restoration goals, and then once established what
happens when you apply it in regulatory programs and what happens when exceeded -
these need to be thought through
GUEST: Part of our discussion here is a fundamental disagreement on what the statute means
SALZ: How do we recognize technological advances in regulation
VARN: Examples, where no questions remain about the technology?
BIBLER: Issue also of when finding of consistency of WMD rules and plans with State Water
Policy is made
MENNELLA: Under the statute it is true that finding of consistency cannot be made until State
Water Policy is adopted, but this is done informally by seeking DEP comments
LITTLEJOHN: There are issues on State Water Policy and whether the Legislature needs to ratify
this, but this is controversial subject



1. What is the state role in funding local development of water supplies?

2. What is the money to be used for?

3. Need funding for research to remove obstacles to water supply development (e.g., Reverse
Osmosis, Desalination)

4. Need to remove PSC-related obstacles to development of water supplies (e.g., policies
which prevent reasonable recovery of prudent investments)

Water Supply Development Core Group
Issue Identification and Potential Solutions
December 12, 1996 Draft

Planning Issues,
Consensus Recommendations:

Need for more direction at the state level with
regard to water supply.

C-1. More focus on water supply at the state level.

C-2. Address water supply development more
adequately in Florida Water Plan (FWP) and State
Water Policy (SWP) rule.
C-3. Integrate minimum flows and levels into
District Water Management Plans--direct MFLs to
areas where water is being or will be developed.
(Already being done. See Ex. Order 96-297)
Whet4 o4dcd, UIAL6 ai -o ae. v wcawp VAt
Iti PWtMPR. 61ve pt vihl

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

regxrd for rerinnaJ varkatinne

C-4a. Use conventions committee approach for
achieving consistent process/format among WMDs
on developing regional water supply plans
'RWSPs), similar to conventions process for
District Water Management Plans.

). Achieve also through DEP general supervisory
authority and guidance of Governor's Office--See
?x. Order 96-297.

Potential Recommendations for Further

D-1. Either a new entity or better implementation
by DEP with more resources.

D-2. Include timeframes in the Florida Water Plan
with regard to water supply planning and

D-3. Include policy guidance in the FWP and SWP
rule adequate for FLWAC to deal with related

D-4. Identify needs and sources in a single,
statewide document.

(,)eu, -
SICoiZa CoMiat o. t \ 671j?0
0 I L



reqard for reginnal variations

Planning Issues,
Consensus Recommendations:

The Function and Effect of RWSPs

C-5a. 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 users.

c. Local governments should be encouraged to
use sources identified in regional water supply

C-6. (Consistent with D-6) Portions of plans could
be adopted by rule, as appropriate, or rules could
be developed or amended to implement the plan, to
the extent of the WMDs' statutory authorities.
(The plan would not confer authority but would
reflect strategies that could be implemented under
existing authorities.)
C-7. To guide funding of water supply projects.
For instance, if a project is consistent with the
plan, it is eligible for specified funding.
("Consistent" is not the legal chapter 163 meaning,
but in concert with the plan, not at cross purposes
with the plan, compatible.)

C-8. There should be a linkage between water
planning and water regulation (e.g.,
A consumptive use project would have to be
consistent with the rule-adopted of the plan in
portions order to be permittable.).

Potential Recommendations for Further

D-5. Consider language similar to that in s.
187.101, F.S., such as:

A regional water supply plan does not create
regulatory authority or authorize the adoption of
rules, criteria, or standards not otherwise authorized
by law. The provisions of the plan shall be
reasonably applied where they are environmentally,
economically, and technically feasible 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. The objective of the plan shall
be to meet the water supply needs of all existing
and future legal uses within the planning region in a
manner which sustains water resources and related
natural systems.

D-6. Statement of objectives for water supply
planning (Discuss subcommittee proposal).

Planning Issues,
Consensus Reconunendations:

The Function and Effect of RWSPs (continued)

C-9. The RWSP should identify means of
implementing nonregulatory parts ofplans (e.g.,
actual development of supplies)--a forcing-action
type of planning.

Need for clear relationship between Local
Government Comprehensive Plans (LGCPs)

and RWSPs.

C-10. LGCP potable water supply element* needs
to indicate sources of water, based on regional
water supply plan or other best available data.

*"general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage,
potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer
recharge element"

Need for coordination among local governments

in water snnnlv nlanninP.

Need for adequate data on which to base local
water supply planning.
C- 1. Data should come from the WMDs, unless
better data is available. WMD should be primary
source of data, but this would not preclude a local
governmentt from using more accurate data.

-12. At a minimum, DCA shouldrely on the
tWMDs for identification of sources.

Potential Recommendations for Further

D-7. Require a water supply element in LGCPs.

D-8. Require that LGCPs be consistent with
RWSPs (rule-adopted portions, data?)

(Is there really a need for a statutory linkage
between LGCPs and RWSPs? Or is it more
effective to focus on increased communication and
technical assistance--and financial assistance where
possible--between local governments and WMDs?)



in wate-r -u Manning

Planning Issues, Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations: Discussion:

Self suppliers need to be better considered in

water supply planning.

C-13. Needs of self suppliers, including projected
future uses, should be taken into account in WMD
regional water supply plans. It should be made
clear that it is a role of the WMDs to do this.

Need for Simplification of the Water Planning

"Water resources development" and "water
supply development" should be distinguished
from each other and defined.

D-9. Discuss Subcommittee Proposal for
simplification of water planning.

D-10. Proposed Definitions:

"Water resources development" means the
implementation of integrated water resources
management using aquifers and watershed basins as
the planning units and including the following:
surface water and groundwater data collection and
evaluation; the preparation of strategic plans;
construction, maintenance and operation of major
public works facilities to provide for flood control,
surface and underground storage, groundwater
recharge augmentation, and sustainability of all
reasonable and beneficial water uses to support
private and public water users and water suppliers.

"Water supply development" means the planning,
construction, maintenance, and operation of public
and private facilities for extraction of water from
watersheds and aquifers for local treatment,
transmission, and distribution for resale or end use.

Lack of water supply planning is not the
problem, lack of plan implementation is the

Development Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

State Role in Water Supply Development

C-14a. The state should assure protection of water
resources on state lands.

b. The state could enhance the acquisition of lands for

WMD Role in Water Supply Development

C-15. The proper WMD role in water supply is planning
and water resource development. WMDs are not
primarily in the water supply development business.
(See consensus definitions--when finalized)

C-16. WMDs could make WMD lands available for
water supply, with appropriate safeguards.


C-17. We need to maximize reuse in Florida. DEP,
WMvDs, and HRS need to coordinate reuse criteria and

Local Role in Water Supply Development

Note: The discussion on this issue involved identification
)f regulatory constraints (see regulatory issue chart for
results The group never got to the question of what the
ocal role is in water supply development.

Regulatory Issues Potential Recommendations for Further
Consensus Recommendations Discussion

Regulatory constraints on the development of
sustainable water supplies

C-18a. There should be a presumption of correctness or
prudence by the PSC ifDEP "approves" an
improvement by a utility.

b. The PSC should allow a reasonable time for cost
recovery (length of planning period on which to base a
calculation of prudent costs)

c. Perhaps have a DEP/PSC list of qualified reuse and
other equipment.

d. PSC/DEP/WMDs Need to Coordinate Timeframes for
Compliance and Cost Recovery (especially for reuse).

C-19. Explore the use of the new APA waiver and
variance provisions to expedite changes in rules to keep
up with changes in technology.

C-20. Work with EPA to solve technical and related
legal obstacles for ASR, etc.

DEP and WMDs Need to Coordinate Feasibility
Requirements and Criteria for Reuse. (The Reuse
Coordinating Council meets regularly to address such

Technical constraints on the development of
sustainable water supplies.

C-21. There should be accelerated research by WMDs,
Universities, and others (cooperative efforts where
possible) to remove technical obstacles to the
development of alternative sources.

Regulatory Issues
Consensus Recommendations

Scientific peer review

2-22. There should be scientific peer review at the front
'ndfor research and development (and for other
processes, e.g,. technical aspects of planning, MFLs?)

Consumptive use permit terms

2-23. Long-term consumptive use permits are
acceptable where: (a) long-term sources are available or
beingg developed, (b) changes over time can be

Potential Recommendations for Further

D- 1. Discuss subcommittee proposal for
long-term CUPs.



they have full authority in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes to do so. Recharge works are
the new frontier of practical groundwater sustainability, fit well with the WMD's
responsibilities and knowledge and will bring a proactive and positive activity to
balance the regulatory role they have been emphasizing in recent years.

Definition of Terms Florida

Water Resource Development:
The implementation of integrated water resources management using aquifers and
watershed basins as the planning units and including the following: surface water and
groundwater data collection and evaluation; the preparation of strategic plans;
construction, maintenance and operation of major public works facilities to provide for
flood control, surface and underground storage, groundwater recharge augmentation
and sustainability of all reasonable and beneficial water uses to support private and
public water users and water suppliers.

Water Supply Development:
The planning, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities
for extraction of water from watersheds and aquifers foFreeaHreatment, transmission
and distribution for resale or end use.

Dale Twachtmann, November 20, 1996



DATE: December 12, 1996


The following are our statements about permit duration:

CONSENSUS: In areas where no water shortage is forecast by the
Water Management District in the next twenty years, long term
consumptive use permits should be issued subject to a mandatory
review process every five years, wherein the permit would be
subject to modification in order to eliminate or prevent a)
significant harm to water resources or the ecology and b)
interference with existing users.

For municipalities and public water suppliers, long term
permits should be subject to the five year review process
described above.

UNRESOLVED ISSUE: Long term permits and their effects on the
Districts' ability to assess the cumulative impacts of water


The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001


'O(): Waier Supply Funding Core Conmittee members

FROM: Paula ,. Allen

SlJllIICI'' Decemhner 6, 1996, Water Supply fundingg Commtittee meeting8

DATE'l: D)ecember 9, 1996

Attached for your hifonmation arc the notes from the Dcccmbcr 6 mccting of the
Water Supply "Funding Conmuittee. 1'hese include the assignments made for the
December 18 meeting which are due December 12. You will be receiving an
agenda for the next meeting this Fricdy, December 13. 'lThanks and have a good

December 6, 1996: Water Supply Funding Committee notes

I. Funding Supply Core Committee Charge and Work Plan Tasks

The Committee discussed the charge for the committee and reached consensus on the following

"The Committee will develop recommendations to ensure sufficient funding to construct, operate
and maintain the water supply infrastructure and water resources needed to meet the growinging
demand for water in a safe affordable and environmentally acceptable manner."

A. Process, Product & Audience

1. The Funding Committee develops initial recommendations for consideration by full Work

2. The Work Group reviews and seeks consensus and asks committee to refine before final

3. Work Group will forward consensus recommendations and a report on the deliberations to the

B. Work Plan Tasks

1. Identify overall range of future funding needs
Identify existing sources
Discuss both water supply and water resource needs separately

2. Options and combinations of funding sources
both revenue and loan sources

3. Factors in determining equitable cost distribution

4. Roles and responsibilities in water supply and water resource funding.

5. Options for administration and distribution of new sources of funding.

6. Constraints and impediments to water supply funding.

II. Investor Owned Utilities & Public Service Commission- Presentations and Discussions

A. Investor Owned Utilities

Steve Walker and members of the investor owned utilities industry made presentations.
Of primary concern was the *used and useful provision* employed by the Public Service
Commission in determining rates, which appears to fly in the face of long range planning efforts.

Following the presentations a discussion highlighted the following points:

The possible solutions to the problems identified by the IOUs are presented short hand and
could be the subject of recommendations later fleshed out.

How far do you take water resource policies into the IOU funding/ regulatory context? Would
PSC take into account permit conditions? Yes. Is that enough? Maybe.

Why provide access to public loan funds? Communities take revenue from Water Utilities and
apply to other public services. Benefits of the low cost loans would be passed through to rate

10% by central sewer regulated by PSC. 3/4 of Counties are PSC regulated.

Is it a problem when local government regulates IOUs? Law states that county must regulate
as if it is the PSC. Possible conflict. Committee could address both PSC and county regulated

Water conservation issue. Problem is rate is linked to the amount of water sold. Should make
IOUs whole if they are successful in water conservation.

Environmental requirements regarding quantity and reuse. What about those surrounding
quality? Cost recovery for environmental quality measures. But big problem is 18 month horizon.
Make it consistent with regulatory/ DEP.

Access to public sources- IOUs seek "reasonable" return. E.g. talking about access to state
revolving loan fund.

What about partnering between public utilities and IOUs?

Committee should only consider changes to constraints that are related to water supply
funding-- keep this narrow focus and apply equally to public and private.

B. PSC Presentation and Discussion

John Williams offered a overview presentation on the PSC role in regulating water supply of
IOUs. Following the presentation the discussion highlighted the following points:

18 month projection $$ apply back to existing users. Beyond 18 months- find bonds, impact
fees etc. to pay. PSC re-evaluating policy at December rule workshop.

* PSC may be putting regulated in a fight with environmental regulators and interests by
treatment of environment under "used and useful" standard.Changing the 18 month time
standard may fix some of the problem.

* PSC & DCA- little interaction except on setting utility franchise areas. However both are
dealing with growth driven concerns.

* 18 month rule only applies to IOUs not counties

* Used/useful. Is is gauged 100% today? Allow recovery of costs on average peak days plus the
18 months. What about facilities that rotate demand on wells due to environmental requirements?

* Marginal rates structure is not addressed specifically in statute. PSC has never used this in water
supply and it is questionable it could.

* PSC should clarify if there are any legislative changes or statutory constraints that need to be
addressed in addition to their own rule changes to address the issue.

* Are block rates for conservation allowed? Yes, if demonstrated there is an excessive per capital

* Understanding rates etc. may become important if it is decided that general revenue funds are
not a funding source for water supply.

III. Work Plan Tasks

A. Discussion of Range of Future Funding Needs

The Water Management Districts presented some figures for water resource costs looking
backward at items they have been involved in. The figures didn't incorporate water supply utilities,
regulatory costs etc. As an example, SJRWMD estimated over the next 20 years about $1 billion
in needs in terms of traditional sources and three times that if alternative sources were considered.

Members discussed whether it was possible or appropriate for the Committee to come to
agreement on some number or range. All agreed the number would be considerable (in the
billions) once all costs were considered. However it would require a thorough debate of
assumptions. Some members suggested that the Committee's focus should include both new and
existing alternative sources of water costs.

The members agreed not to spend more time at the point engaging in this debate. The Water
Management Districts agreed to recalculate figures to more accurately reflect water supply
funding costs.

B. Discussion of the Water Supply Funding Options and Combinations.


The members agreed to initially identify existing water supply funding sources and related water
resource funding sources. Included in this would be revenue and loan sources and traditional and

Member assignments were made to set forth the nature of the source (revenue or loan), the
statutory source, the constraints and limitations on its use for water supply funding. At a
minimum, submittals should address the components included in the DEP matrix spreadsheet that
was handed out. Those components are: (1) Option and type of funding; (2) Administered by
whom?; (3) Intended recipients of funding; (3) Amounts available/projected; (4) Uses; (5)
Guiding principles for fund (intended purpose); (6) Impediments/constraints on funding; (7)
Requirements; (8) Actions needed to implement/access; (9) Advantages/ disadvantages
(subjective comments and policy implications)

Assignments were made for all members to identify any future new sources with a rationale for
how and why it should be used.

1. Federal sources (DEP with assist from Local Govt)

a. Safe Drinking Water Act Funds
1. Federal $$ 44.2 to be matched by State $9 million
2. Complicated limitations and qualifications (e.g. not used for growth but to
enhance water quality.
3. Any new funds added to the mix will help

b. USDA Rural Utilities Services
1. Annual appropriation- funneled through state clearinghouse includes both grants
and loans.

2. CDBGs- very competitive

d. Federal Desal bill funds

e. Farm Bill Funds 200 million + to fund Everglades restoration projects.

f. EPA- Watershed program money? Alternative source #$$ (e.g SWFWMD got line
items from Federal Clean Water Act)

2. State Sources (WMDs will work with Sierra etc.)

a. Save our Rivers $

b. P 2000 bond funds.

c. State Resource lands, Chap 16 School Board Lands- may represent a savings for lands
available at reduced costs

d. Pollution recovery funds

e. 373.495 authorizes but never used.

(other potential new sources mentioned include: removing exemption from gross receipts
sales tax)

3. Regional Sources

a. WMDs sources- Ad valorem; permit fees
(WMDs will identify: Bill Segal)

b. Water Supply Authorities sources : Advalorem, Bondss, user fees/sales
(Sonny will ask WCRWSA to set forth)

c. 298 Districts Legis. authorized to raise $ for
(Steve Walker set forth)

d. RPCs/Federal economic development funds (Casey Gluckman will look into)

4. Local Sources

a. Special assessments
b. Impact fees
c. Ad valorem
d. Local P2000 match bonded
e. Local option sales tax
f. sales tax on water exemption (not auth now)
g. Sales tax on water exemptionss-
h. "franchise fees"
i. Chap 153(??????) County special districts
(Local govt. Whitson)

5. Private sources (Steve Walker to provide information)

a. private investments
b. rates
c. CIAC (developer contributions)

6. Joint ventures (public/ private) (Steve Walker/wMDs)

a. partnerships

b. privatizations
c. combinations of previously identified public/private sources.

(League of Cities article- Whitson)
(grant programs, loan programs, water user fees, rate structure fees)

Request for new funding source ideas (to get a head start on our next meeting): All members and
interested parties assigned.

All due by December 12, 1996 to Paula Allen at (Governor*s office) PHONE (904)488-5551,
FAX (904) 922-6200, or E-mail (in body of message) to internet address:
paula.allen@laspbs.state.fl.us E-mail preferred, if possible.


1 k ft

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