Title: Water Supply Development Committee Meeting Summary, Nov. 18, 1996
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004842/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Supply Development Committee Meeting Summary, Nov. 18, 1996
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Water Supply Development Committee Meeting Summary, Nov. 18, 1996 (JDV Box 39)
General Note: Box 29, Folder 5 ( Water Supply Issues Group (File 3 of 3) - 1996 ), Item 7
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004842
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

-A r/W V -2AZ-0 8

Jake and David,

Dwr'D CPcUe5r


Attached are:

." -'A general summary of the development meeting.
2. A listing of the problems either agreed upon or a least identified, and potential solutions
raised. 0t4es5)
3. A revised list of perceived problems, based on one late submission and a requested item

which I had previously omitted.

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 tie next day and request responses by
Dec. 2. Then if I can meet with you on the morning oft 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 tiat 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 ve haven't left anything out. The
regulatory category is probably the one most in need of view. Think about it.



it s .- 's/ rjT:k 954' TZ-r4T
-tdp ^rr1^^~a~h %^CLCT2-:^^^'

Nov 19 '96 5:57 P.01/09


November 18, 1996

* In committees, we need to come to conclusions whe e possible to bring back to full group -
these can be basic principles or specific recomr iendations
Committees need to decide what to do between me tings

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


Sa ita don

[Littlejohn]Florida Water Plan & State WaterPolic don't deal with water supply
development issues very well; not a balanced d ument with regard to water supply;
the problem is implementation
[Pattison] LGCPs not based on good data address g water supply state issue? >; the LGCPs have authorized dev lopment beyond that which could be
supplied; come from WMD >
[Rapach] We need more definitive timeframes at s ate level for water supply planning
Policy go into enough detail>; < Slayton: whit is it that you want is it the verbiage
or the identification of specific wellfields, etc.: ; and not pictures; there is debate about how det ied state should go; needs to be enough
policy guidance in the FWP and SWP for appe ds 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 minim um.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




need to look at the whole picture before we cani 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
-.... .-- ;,,. -t- a.; because wl havy parallelplaniing processes-that-oii'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 Water Supply Plans(5 years)< --DWMPs(5
years)-- > Needs & Sources(5 years); question i 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; years>; no, but for acquisition, etc., we do those on 5 year cycles;
WMDs have extensive databases available & qow no longer have to charge for our
computer access;
Plans need to be adaptive, flexible in oder to do adaptive management, but users
need longer term surety which must be based 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 p mulgated
WMDs focusing on water use caution areas 4 rning; focusing planning & funding in
these areas; extensive SOR funds made availabip 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 1
[Fred Rapach] shouldn't the plans be adopted by ne? used for land planning it isn't regulatory by it elf; only those portions would be
adopted as rules would be regulatory; see the c apter 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 < 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 floo 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

Nov 19 '96 5:58 r.Q6/C9


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 he 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 pla s meaningful >; < Wehle-through
inter-agency and multi-party agreements like S WMD has done with farming
interests>; their other actions; the "sleeping dog" is OPA A 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 region I water supply plans between the
districts, as we did for the DWMPs>; I
* [LG rep] when LGCPs are talking about 5 year Cli, we also have to identify the funding
* [audience] we have problem doing agricultural demand planning part of the needs & sources?>; missing from LGCPs? >; greatly for water supply demands depending upon 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 > ; < Hopping: self-users
could provide this if there was a "no-fault/no flcul" system in place to not penalize
them >
* [Littlejohn] action oriented planning vs. passive level planning problem; we need more
FDOT-type planning in water supply planning i 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
direction >;


* [Janet] regional water supply authorities issue; < ke-where do their plans fit into the
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>; <]red Rapach which plan is driving this

Nov 19 '96

5:58 r>.34/09

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Fax:904-922-53 Nov 19 '96 5:59 r. 55/09

process> ; WMD data>;
[Hopping] inability to rely on long-range regional & state plans;
[LG rep) lack of integrating planning and*fgulatins between~WMDs'and4ecal
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 plan ring; government has done 20 year water supply pla ming?; LGCP planning has focused on
hardware, not resource >;
[audience/Gene Bowles] we did 20 year planning 'rom valid permits, but these got taken
back; permits? > ; including R.O. plants, one of the most control 'esial 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 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, 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 LGC] s 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 f I are consensus items
** Next meeting is December 6th
** Next we will take up Development, then address R gulation


Need for more direction at the state
i~el 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.


Potential Solutions (for futhcr discussion):

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

2. Address water sup ly development more adequately in
Florida Water Plan (F"P) 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

ance in the FWP and SWP rule adequate

4. Identify needs and sources statewide.

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

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

Use conventions committee approach, hierarchical
standardizations that can be used for regional water supply
plans (RWSPs), as do e for District Water Management Plans.

I. To identify a menu of options for water supply
development from w ch to choose.

2. To provide.action-oriented steps, with flexibility but as
much surety as possible for users.

3. To empower local government.

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

5. To prioritize funding of water supply projects. 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 .. ?

r. 6u/09

Fax:904-922-53 Nov 19 '96
wrLg 5q^9w&VIP T -
hc ScRP a~Y J1_ J

---- -- --- ---I




Consensus issue: Potential Solutions (fpr further discussion):

The function and effect of RSWPs

Need for reliable service delivery

Unclear 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

6. Identify means of im
plans (e.g., actual deve
type of planning. WM
not otherwise impleme

iplementing-nonregulatory parts o ,
lopment of supplies)-a forcing action
)s commit to implementing the plan if

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 an 1 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 thd protection of private property rights.
The plan shall be cons rued and applied as a whole, and no
specific goal or policy the plan shall be construed or applied
in isolation from the o her goals and policies in the plan."

Question: Would this e part of the RWSP or a separate
document? Who wou d be responsible for it?

Require a water supply element in LGCPs. Require that
LGCPs be consistent ,ith RWSPs (rule-adopted portions,


Data should come f1ooi H the WMDs (Require local govt. to use
WMD data? How should the EARs process operate with
regard to this?)

Add requirements that water supply plans must project water
supply for self supplies s; have self suppliers provide data on
themselves to planner, with no penalty to self suppliers.

L ________________________________


Nov 19 '96

6:00 P. 07/09


Consolidated Summary of Perceived Problems
Related to Water Supply Development
Committee dnoijber Su ppt Ipme "
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 thi

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

Absence of linkages between plans and between per
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

Inadequate representation in planning processes: A
in water supply planning process due to lack of techni
position; the present system for making water supply
the opportunity to participate in a consensus-building

Gaps in statutory guidance: Inconsistent or inadequa
development of alternative supplies; lack of statutory
"sustainable," "minimum flows and levels," and "wat
criteria or level of service for supplying source water.

for flexibility of approach to develop
development and funding allocations;

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

.mum 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

riculture is not adequately represented
al/industry resources and unified
development decisions denies the public

e statewide goals regarding
definitions for key terms such as
Supply development"; lack of defined


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. 08/09


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 truse;'Unclear law and
policy regarding how MFLs are to be established and enforced; PSC rate setting (does not
allow reasonable cost recovery); inconsistency betwcJ PSC, DEP, and WMD regulations;
lack of regulatory incentives for alternative technology s and sources; barriers to interconnects
between private and government-owned utilities.

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

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

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

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


Lack of clarity of roles of state, regional, and loc1l
Lack of consensus on what entity should have primary
water management districts, others); problems with str
supply authorities.

Resistance to development of alternative sources,to
lack offending, regulatory obstacles, inadequate incel

Lack of feasibility of options: For particular user gro
to pay for options or geographic constraints such as foT

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

V data, which would foster confidence in

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

conservation, and reuse (because of
lives, perception?).

ups and areas of the state (e.g., ability

Funding constraints: Lack of adequate, equitable.lon -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

6:01 e. 39/09

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