JAMES S. ALVES
BRIAN H. Bi6EAU
KATHLEEN L. BLIZZARD
ELIZASETH C. BOWMAN
RICHARD 8. BRIOHTMAN
PETER C. CUNNINOHAM
RALPH A. DaM9O
THOMAS M. DsRonE
WILLIAM H. QRERN
WADE L. HOPPING
FRANK E. MATTMENS
RICHARD D. MELSON
DAVID L. POWELL
WILLIAM D. PRESTON
CAROLYN 8. RAEr"'L
DOUGLAS S. ROBEFTS
GARY P. SAME
ROBERT P. SMITH
CHCRYL G. STUAR:
15 HOPPINkGREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1079
HOPPING GREEN SAMS & SMITH
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
123 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 8628
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32314
FAX (904) 224-8551
FAX (904) 425-3415
NO. 325 301
GARY K.HUNTER, JR.
JONATHAN T. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. MANNING
ANGELA R. MORRISON
GARY V. PERKO
KAREN M. PETERSON
MiCHAL P. PETROVIGH
R. SCOTT RUTH
JULIE R. STEINMvYER
T, r NT WETHERELL, II
W. ROBERT FOKES
October 11, 1996
Please Deliver the Following Page(s) to:
V/ Chuck Littlejohn 681-8796 222-7535
' Keith Hetrick 224-1359 224-4316
Jake V=an 222-0398 ??4-15A'\
Steve Walker (407) 640-8202 (407) 640-0820
Phil Parsons 224-8595 681-0311
Gene Adams 224-0702 274-14 --
Ril Hyr1-_,_ -22-1002_- 222--66 0 ---
Irene Quincy (561) 471-1366 (561) 471-1366
Jim Gavner (941) 332-2243 (941) 334-2195
(Att-y 17=_ 19A_11 471-n77 (56-1) 4271-136"
From: Wade Hopping/Doug Mann
Message: See attached.
We are transmitting pages (including this cover sheet). If you do not receive all of the
pages, please call my secretary, Debbie Brunson (904/425-3461).
TME INFORMATION CONTAINED IN TIMES FACSIILE MBESAGE I ATTORNEY P IVLICD AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED oN? Y P0 TI' E OF
rHE INDwVIUUAL OR NTTIY NAMED AnOV. IP TH READER OF I T MESAOE TiHE IWBNDED RDCruPaIN, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTImIED THAT ANY
DISSEMINATION, I~rmruIVlON, oRcOYOP TIl COMMUNICATION ISrrrCT.YPROHIIE. V WYOU HAVE RBCIEEDVs COMMUNICATION IN IBR O, PIPAS
DOtSIATELY NOTIFY US Y ITLMFtONB AND MTURN THE ORKINAL MWSAGO TO US ATTIL RllOVE! ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POtrAL SWkVICE. THANK YOU.
I ~_ _
A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Office of Governmental Affairs
310 W. College Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Telephone: (904) 681-2794
Fax: (904) 681-8796
TO: Water Supply Development Group
FROMs Doug Mann
SUBJECTi Attached Memo and future meetings
DATE: October 10, 1996
Attached is a copy of a memo that Steve Walker drafted. It
presents the grant selection criteria for the grant program we all
felt we needed to explore.
At the October 8th meeting we agreed the following issues
needed to be discussed:
1. State funding mechanism/state board/planning
2. State funding source;
3. Percentage of WMD ad valorem monies;
4. Development of regional water supply delivery
5. Multiple use of state and WMD .lands.
Please mark your calendar for the following meeting Cates of
our group at Hopping Green Sams & Smith:
October 14, 2:00 P.M. 4:00 P.M.
October 29, 9:30 A.M. 12:00 P.M.
November 6, 1:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M.
November 18, 9:30 A.M. 11:30 A.M.
10:15 HOPPIN fGREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1079
10/11/96 10:16 HOPPIN~GGREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1079 NO.325
Sep. 11. 1996 4:27PM LEWIS L ..GMAN&WALKER 4076400820 No. 2912 P. 2/9
LEWIS, LOWNM N & WALKER
FROM: Steve Walker
SUBJaCTE Revised Grant Selection Criteria
DATM September 11, 1996
As discussed on Tuesday, September 10, 1996, I have revised the previous
draft to reflect the group's comments. The changes are (loosely) shown in
legislative format. Unresolved issues or those needing further discussion are
shown in bold. Please review these revisions and call me with any additions,
deletions, or corrections. As I undecst*hd it the primary topic of discussion at
the september 17th meeting will be funding. It would be helpful if we could also
take a few minutes to finalize this document on the 17th as well.
1. PFogZm Goal To award grants to applicants propoeing nrojeets which will
assure an affordable and reliable supply of water for all users.
2. General program structure
a. Awards should be in the form of grants, not loans. Th pra
avoids complications with accounting and pledging credit for r e
benefit of private corporations.
b Grants should require some level of cost sharing. Sugges- 50/50,
for each project, but year to year sharing requirements may vary
depending upon the phase the project is in. Some projects, because
of their particular desirability, may qualify for a higher cost
share ratio (uP to 100%) it special criteria are met. [We need to
discuss that these special criteria might be.)
c. Other alternatives considered:
1. 50/50 for projects developing traditional sources; 75/25 for
alternative water supply projects.
ii. Sliding scale depending on the size of the project, Le., the
larger the project, the smaller the percentage available for
j.", Sliding seale defending uoan the financial capability of the
-anlicant. sAome .p1icants may have very worthy projects. but
not the in ial wherewithal o a co ete match.
3. What types of projects should be eligible for funding?
L. The primary focus of the arant Droaram should be to encourage 7
2otlicants to develano alternative watSu AUDlies. Therefore. %r
of available funding should be available for this purpose. The
remaining % should be mada available for more traditional water
.Uvlv.source.development, in areas where such development can occur
without environMental harm. or to redevelop traditional sources in
a way which r"edud~e or eliminates oest environmental imoacts. [This
issue is undecided. I have added this language an attempt to
give greater weight to funding for the nontraditional sources, while
not eliminating the possibility that a traditional project could be
funded. I've also added a provision which could be used to
remadiate traditional source impacts for your consideration.]
10/11/96 10:16 HOPPINQcGREEN SAMS SMITH PA 904 681 1079 NO.325 D0.
Sep. 11. 1996 4:28FM LEWIS NGMAN&WALKER 4076400820 No.ZlZ J/s
b. *ut-he d w-i eL aa ati ... a .e- rojecte should require a consumptive
use permit to implement, es be a necessary requirement of the
consumptive use permitting of the primary use. or involve research
and development for the Durnoe of increasing water sublies. (This
threshold would still eliminate most environmental uses and MD
projects from coasideration. I have added sosm additional language
to reflect bil yde's concern. This language doe not address ?
Frank Mathews' congce that enviro2mental projects should be
considered in order for this idea to pass,)
c. Sranta should cover planning, design, erm:ittin and construction
coats for capital improvements necessary to ensure an adequate and
affordable supply of water for all users. This would include
research and deValOpment projects as well as demonstration projects.
d. Categories of projects:
i. Water aupolv development and storaaa yrolsct Projects which
increase the supply of water available for use through
developing or rerAdi4atin traditional water sources, and
increasing storage of water which would otherwise be lost for
use through drainage. Examples include projects such as
wellfields, surface water withdrawals, reservoirs,
impoundments, aquifer storage and retrieval, stormwater
ii. Resgorue iMrove~Mnt roiercts Projects which increase the
supply of water available for use by managing factors which
would otherwise reduce water availability. Examples include
projects such as salinity barriers, seepage barriers, aquifer
freshening, withdrawal impact mitigation. polluiQon
remodiation, and retrofit of water management svaems.
iii. Treatment avtems Projects which increase the supply of
water available for use by creating sources which would not
otherwise b suitable for use. Examples include projects such
as desalination, reverse osmosis, treatment technology
upgrades, blending of lower quality water with fresh w;cer.
iv. nvseeat interconnects Projects which increase
the suly of water available for use by increasing the
flexibility ad eicfljnev of systems to move water to here
it is needed with minimum environmental and4-pVetes4 impact.
Examples include projects such as *.....f C _" ... ae .t
eyeemer-regional utility interconnections, local utility
v. Water consrvation facilities s mS4&e Projects which
increase the supply of water available for use by decreasing
demands. Examples include projects such as urban indoor and
outdoor use.. retrofits, agricultural irrigation system
4. which types of applicants are eligible to participate?
a. All entities or persons, public or private, proposing projects which
qualify for funding under the above criteria should be permitted to
b. Depending on the source of funding chosen for this program, the
committee may want to give some consideration to restricting the
pool of applicants to those entities and persons primarily
teoitkibuting to the fund, directly or indirectly.
S-P -11*1996 163:40 92% P.0
10/11/96 10:17 HOPPIN GREEN SAMS SMITH PA -* 904 681 1079 NO.325 ?0=
Sep. 11. 1996 4:28PM LEWIS .MAN WALKER 4076400820 No. fl r. 0
--. -crafta oaded to prat apjlioto ihould-be eoniond-uh ethet
i. Governmental entities such as regional water supply
authorities, governmentally owned utilities, local
governments, including special taxing districts, community
development districts. water management districts.
ii. Private entities such as investor owned and member owned
utilities, industrial users, agricultural users, other
irrigation users, recreational uses.
5. What should be the selection criteria for ranking projects?
a. The primary ~ bective eriEeeia should be to select those *he- etenb
e-bhi*ht projects which moat further the goal of assuring an
affordable and reliable supply of water for all users. CriEaria
should Bme-rm .fo -" -- ee 9-i include the extent to which the
i-.-- itpiW ^th log claeit s.tiow oupAly- ojocliv*o^
ii. fulfills a demonstrated water supply need.
j, will reduce the frequency and ieaveritv of future water
iv. is located in a water resource caution area. [since the
Districts have designated virtually the entire state as water
resource caution areas, this criteria may not be terribly
useful. Perhaps there are some specific resource concerns
that would provide more useful screening. Any suggestions?]
v. is located in an area tha is subiact to a decrXsae in water
suMnlyv due to revised rules or policies .of -h wa-er
management district. such as a change to resource evaluation
eriteria. onerat ital dectflions or minimum glow and lev5. *
[Thi is rene's proposal to dde to he changing rules
scenario. I've attached her memo to me which has an
explanation of the concern.]
vi. has environmental benefits/detriments
vii. advances the technology of water supply development and
treatment beyond current levels.
viii. has applicability beyond the project scope. IT. demonstrates
techniques which can be used in other areas of the state.
b. the project should be financially and technically feasible.
Criteria should include the extent to which the Droject:
i. has a positive benefit/cost. The elected projects) should
result in the most water produced for the dollar spent.
ii. compares favorable with other alternatives. Is it .he least
Iii. is cost effective.
iy is eligible for cost sharing under other programs.
.Sep. II. Y9b
HOPPIN .GREEN SAMS SMi'H PA 904 681 1079
LtW13 NXAi&ntLRhA (ur uuc.u -----
NO. 325 D01
v_ is ready to proceed to the next stage of planning deienL.
permitting, or construction.
S- __ ^ a_.-- ..i--
vii. can be suported given the financial capability/accountability
of the applicant,
c. The projects should be geographically distributed throughout the
r -- -.