Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FSAWWA Regulatory Trends Workshop “Where is Water Use Regulation Going?”
Hosted by FSAWWA Region III
Agenda: 8:30 am - Welcome & Introduction - George Schlutermann,
P.G., Burns & McDonnell & Tonya Simmons, Simmons Environmental Consulting, LLC 8:40 am - Steven J. Memberg, P.G., Principal Hydrogeologist, Water Use Policy - South Florida Water Management District Discussion: Focuses on water use permitting and the challenges in promoting regulatory certainty and availability of sufficient water for all existing and future reasonable-beneficial uses and natural systems. The discussion will highlight successes in coordination between water management districts, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and stakeholder groups. This will include the status of the Central Florida Water Initiative (formerly Central Florida Coordination Area), FWEA’s Reclaimed Water Workgroup, and consistency initiatives
9:15 am – James Hollingshead, P.G. Supervising Hydrologist, Division of Regulatory Services, St. Johns River Water Management District Discussion: An overview of new CUP streamlining rules proposed to take effect December 1, recent SJRWMD Organizational regulatory changes and the District’s efforts to provide for a better experience for applicants seeking permits while maintaining resource protection.
9:50 am - Brian Starford, P.G., Director, Bartow Service Office, Southwest Florida Water Management District Discussion: From January 3 2010, through January 13, 2010, the Plant City/Dover area in Hillsborough County experienced an unprecedented frost/freeze event. For eleven consecutive days temperatures fell below 34 degrees. Groundwater pumpage was used to help protect strawberry, blueberry, citrus, and nursery crops resulting in a decline in water levels in the Upper Floridian aquifer in excess of 59 feet. This decline in aquifer level caused about 750 “dry wells” and 140 sinkholes. The Southwest Florida Water Management District and local stakeholders worked cooperatively over the following year to develop a recovery strategy that would address the resource concerns while protecting existing legal water users.
10:25 am - 20 minute break 10:45 am – Ann B. Shortelle, Ph.D., Director, Office of Water Policy and Ecosystem Restoration, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Discussion: Emphases on recent changes and what’s ahead for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the state’s five water management districts.
11:20 am - Edward P. de la Parte, Jr. de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. Discussion: "Expected Changes in Water Resource Regulation and Emerging Issues." This topic will focus on how recent personnel changes at DEP and the water management district will likely result in changes in water resource regulations and policies and hot button issues for 2012-2013.
11:55 am - Additional Questions & Answers
Speakers:
Steven Memberg, M.S.
Steven Memberg has over 15 years of experience in water resource investigations and regulation. He began his career as a student intern at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and has worked his way to developing consumptive use policy for the largest water management district in Florida. Along the way, Steven has co-authored two publications for the United States Geological Survey; performed pollution assessment and remediation activities for Broward County and as a consultant; and evaluated consumptive use permit applications for the South Florida Water Management District. Steven has a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from the University of Miami and a Master of Science degree in Geology from Florida International University. As Florida does not provide many opportunities to discuss volcanoes and glaciers, Steven is an adjunct faculty member of Palm Beach State College teaching Earth Science.
James Hollingshead, P.G. James Hollingshead is a Supervising Hydrologist who manages water use regulatory staff in the District’s Maitland Service Center. As a licensed professional geologist in Florida, Hollingshead’s areas of expertise are hydrology, hydrogeology and water use permitting. Prior to joining the District, Hollingshead performed hydrogeologic consulting related to water resources, landfills, environmental contamination and real estate. He was drawn to his line of work for the opportunity to explore and protect the water resources of the State of Florida. Hollingshead received a Bachelor of Science degree in geology from the University of Florida and maintains memberships in the American Institute of Professional Geologists and the Florida Association of Professional Geologists.
Brian Starford, P.G. Brian Starford, P.G., is the Director of the Bartow Regulation Department for the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District). He directs a staff of nearly 40 scientists, engineers and support staff to accomplish the Resource Regulation Division’s mission to effectively manage water and related natural resources. Brian is responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the Environmental Resource, Water Use, and Well Construction Permitting programs within Polk, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. He joined the District in 1987 and has worked with public supply, agricultural, industrial/commercial, and other water users to obtain Water Use Permits and to effectively meet their water needs. He has been in his current position since 1999 and continues to assist local governments and other water users through the water supply challenges facing central Florida. Brian has a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of South Florida and has been a Professional Geologist since 1993.
Anne B. Shortelle, Ph.D. Dr. Shortelle has over 25 years of professional experience in lake, riverine, and reservoir management for water quantity and quality, surface water/wetlands restoration enhancing water quality and source water protection, surface water modeling, permitting and environmental assessments. She holds a Ph.D. in limnology from the University of Notre Dame and a B.S. in biology from Mercer University. Since receiving her Ph.D., Dr. Shortelle has worked in the private sector as a consultant, serving recently as MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.’s (now AMEC E&I, Inc) Chief Scientist in Florida, and national Water Practice Leader. Dr. Shortelle joined DEP in 2011 as the Director of the Office of Water Policy. She coordinates and oversees water management district activities including water supply management and resource protection, to promote statewide consistency while taking into account the differing regional characteristics of Florida’s water resources.
Edward de la Parte, Jr., Esq.
Mr. de la Parte is President and a shareholder in the firm of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. He has more than 32 years of experience in the fields of environmental and water law. He is a Board Certified State and Federal Government and Administrative Practice Lawyer. He obtained is J.D. from the University of Florida College of Law and his B.A. from the University of South Florida. Mr. de la Parte has served as General Counsel of Tampa Bay Water and the Lee County Regional Water Supply Authority and currently serves as General Counsel of the Southeast Florida Utility Council, an unincorporated not-for-profit association of 35 utilities located primarily in the Lower East Coast of Florida, which provide potable water service to more than five million Florida residents. He is currently working on several challenging water resource projects involving water reservations, minimum flows and levels and water quality.
FSAWWA Workshop: Where is Water Use Regulation Going?
Steven J. Memberg, P.G. South Florida Water Management District
January 18, 2012
Water Challenges Highly managed
system Variable
environmental stressors Water timing vs.
water volume
Where is Regulation Going? Not, “Where are we going?” “Where are we already headed?”
Reclaimed Water Workgroup Florida Water Environment Association FDEP Water Management Districts Overarching Goal:
• Optimize the use and continued development of reclaimed water as an alternative supply to the extent environmentally, technically, and economically feasible in order to meet water supply demands.
Reclaimed Water Workgroup Alternative Water Supply
• Regional water supply plans Incentives
• Offsets and credits Expand customer base
• Mandatory reuse zones Consistency in permitting process
• Feasibility studies • Water use permitting
Supplemental Supply Variability in supply does not correlate to
variability in demand Maximize supply to meet demands, enhance
reliability, and reduce disposal
Supplemental Supply
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Reclaimed Water Supply
Supplemental Supply
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Reclaimed Water Supply
Customer Use
Unused Water to Disposal
Supplemental Supply
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Reclaimed Water Supply
Customer Use
Unused Water to Disposal
New Customer Use
Supplemental Supply
Reclaimed Water Incentives Impact Offset
• The use of reclaimed water to reduce or eliminate a harmful impact that has occurred or would otherwise occur as a result of other surface water or groundwater withdrawals.
Substitution Credit • The use of reclaimed water to replace part or all of an
existing permitted use of resource-limited water that allows a different user to withdraw water provided that there is no net adverse impact or a net positive impact if required.
Impact Offsets The allocation made available is based on the
beneficial water resource impact provided. Consider how reclaimed water offsets adverse
impacts otherwise caused by the withdrawal: • saltwater intrusion; • wetland or other surface water impacts; • groundwater impacts; • other water resource impacts.
Impact Offsets
Substitution Credits The benefit of a substitution credit or a portion
thereof generally accrues to the reuse utility providing the reclaimed water.
Substitution credits shall not be granted for
actions taken under existing permits, unless the credits are already authorized in the permit.
Substitution Credits
SFWMD Implementation Reclaimed Water Rulemaking
• Standardize how applicants located within mandatory reuse zones perform a feasibility evaluation
• Remove geographic distinctions for reclaimed water • Require applicants to obtain written documentation
from their local reclaimed water provider addressing the availability of reclaimed water
Legislative Session Reclaimed Water - HB 639 / SB 1086
• Removes reclaimed water from the current statutory definition of “water” and “waters in the state” until the reclaimed water has been discharged back into state “waters”
• FDEP to initiate rulemaking to adopt revisions to the Water Resource Implementation Rule to include criteria for the use of “impact offsets” and “substitution credits”
Central Florida Water Initiative “A collaborative water supply
endeavor to protect, conserve and restore our water resources”
FDEP Water Management Districts Stakeholder interests
Central Florida Water Initiative Technical Collaborative Teams
• Hydrologic Analysis • Environmental Measures • Minimum Flows and Levels /
Reservations • Data, Monitoring, an
Investigations • Groundwater Availability • Recovery and Prevention
Strategies
Environmental Measures Performed hundreds of environmental
assessments of wetlands and surface waters Selected 34 sites with existing data based on
location, ecologic condition, and function
Environmental Measures Options for relationships
to hydrologic conditions
Apply model output to quantitative assessment
Quantify link between ecological condition of selected sites and the historical record of water levels
Hydrologic Assessment Ensure that the most appropriate science is
applied to the modeling and data analysis to support decision making for the CFWI Defensible results developed collaboratively USGS expansion of East Central Florida Transient model Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
Hydrologic Assessment Initiate development
of the post processing tools
Await delivery from USGS
Make updates as necessary
Central Florida Water Initiative Technical & Management
Oversight Steering Group Joint Water Supply Planning Public Input
www.cfwiwater.com
Legislative Session Water Management Districts - HB 157 / SB 560
• WMDs are authorized to designate a single affected district by interagency agreement when the geographic area of a project crosses WMD boundaries
• The governing board of a WMD, shall apply, without adopting by rule, the reservations, minimum flows and levels, and recovery or prevention strategies adopted by the adjoining WMD
Regulatory Efforts Productive cooperative
endeavors Statewide and Regional
approaches already in progress
District implementation
Thank you.
SJRWMD Consumptive Use Permitting Streamlining Initiatives
James Hollingshead, P.G. Supervising Hydrologist Division of Regulatory Services Maitland Service Center
Overview
• CUP Streamlining Rule Amendments • Organizational Changes • Other Regulatory Changes
– 10-year Compliance Reports – Ag Permitting Team – CUP Renewal Prospectus – RAIs
Objectives of Rule Amendments
• Simplify application processing for minor permit modifications;
• Improve District processing efficiencies;
• Reduce regulatory burden for small users;
• Improve data reliability.
Status • Workshops held in September 2010 • Incorporated Feedback • Requested authorization from OFARR
to proceed with rulemaking • Notice of Proposed Rule authorized by
Gov. Board in August, 2011 • Rule adoption hearing opened Oct.
2011 • Rule adoption hearing completed Dec.
2011 • Effective date February 3, 2012
Areas of Streamlining Rule Amendments
• Letter Modifications • Water Use Types • Reporting Requirements • Miscellaneous
Effective Date of Rule Revisions: February 2, 2012
Letter Modifications 40C-2.331 Modification of Permits
• Rule Revisions expand scope of activities that can be authorized by “letter” modification.
• Benefits: reduce cost and burden for applicants and District.
Letter Modifications
Examples of activities currently allowed to request by letter mod:
•Relocating /replacing well less than 200’;
•Adding landscape irrigation of less than 1 acre;
•Change in crop type;
•Reduction in allocation, number of wells, or acreage.
Letter Modifications The following activities will now be allowed by letter modification:
•Relocate/replace well less than 1000’;
•Add well for back up purposes only;
•Increase use of reclaimed water or stormwater;
•Greatly expanded ability to revise permit conditions except cannot increase allocation or duration of CUP
Water Use Types 40C-2.501 Permit Classification
• The new rule reduces the categories of water use types from 23 down to 7
• Benefits:
– Minimize applicant errors in selecting incorrect use type.
– District data management and query retrievals will be simplified.
Water Use Types 40C-2.501 Permit Classification • Agricultural • Commercial/Industrial/ Institutional • Environmental • Landscape/Recreational/Aesthetic • Mining/Dewatering • Public Supply • Other
Reporting Requirements 6.7.1.8.1 A. H. - Recording and Reporting
Water Use
• Eliminate requirement to submit water
use reports for permittees whose allocation is <100,000 gallons per day. – Permitting thresholds:
• Uses >100,000 gallons per day • From facilities capable of withdrawing 1 MGD
or more • From well with diameter 6-inches or greater
• Replace with requirement to submit Annual Statement of Continuing Use
Benefits of Revised Reporting • Reduce regulatory burden for smallest
water users; • Staff resources can be dedicated to a
higher level of enforcement and compliance for the remaining water users that comprise about 96% of the water use
Other Miscellaneous Rule
Changes
•40C-2.381 Limiting Conditions
•A.H. 3.3.3.2 Procedure for
Modification or Renewal of
Permits
•A.H. 3.3.3.1 Letter Modification
•A.H. 6.7.1.2 Uses Initially
Permitted On or After July 23,
1991
•40C-2.900 Forms and
Applications
•12.5.7 Water Conservation Plan
40C-2 Rule Changes
40C-2.381 Limiting Conditions
Limiting Conditions will be imposed at the time a consumptive use permit is issued or granted by rule unless waived or modified by the District upon a determination that the conditions are inapplicable to the activity authorized by the permit:
40C-2 Rule Changes
40C-2.381 Limiting Conditions
1. through 4. - No change. 5. The permittee’s consumptive use of water as authorized by this permit shall not interfere with lLegal uses of water existing at the time of permit application may not be significantly adversely impacted by the consumptive use. If interference unanticipated significant adverse impacts occurs, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the interference adverse impacts, unless the interference associated with the permittee’s consumptive use of water is impacts can be mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District-approved plan.
40C-2 Rule Changes
40C-2.381 Limiting Conditions
6. The permittee’s consumptive use of water as authorized by this permit shall not have significant adverse hydrologic impacts to oOff-site land uses existing at the time of permit application may not be significantly adversely impacted as a result of the consumptive use. If unanticipated significant adverse hydrologic impacts occur, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the adverse impacts, unless the impacts associated with the permittee’s consumptive use of water are can be mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District-approved plan.
40C-2 Rule Changes
40C-2.381 Limiting Conditions
7. through 8. No change. There “new” limiting conditions 9-13
9. The permittee’s consumptive use of water as authorized by this permit shall not significantly and adversely impact wetlands, lakes, rivers, or springs. If significant adverse impacts occur, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the adverse impacts, unless the impacts associated with the permittee’s consumptive use of water are mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District-approved plan.
40C-2 Rule Changes
40C-2.381 Limiting Conditions
10. The permittee’s consumptive use of water as authorized by this permit shall not reduce a flow or level below any minimum flow or level adopted in Chapter 40C-8, F.A.C. If the permittee’s use of water causes or contributes to such a reduction, then the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, unless the permittee implements all provisions applicable to the permittee’s use in a District-approved recovery or prevention strategy.
40C-2 Rule Changes
40C-2.381 Limiting Conditions
11. The permittee’s consumptive use of water as authorized by the permit shall not cause or contribute to significant saline water intrusion. If significant saline water intrusion occurs, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the saline water intrusion, unless the saline water intrusion associated with the permittee’s consumptive use of water is mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District-approved plan..
40C-2 Rule Changes
40C-2.381 Limiting Conditions
12. The permittee’s consumptive use of water as authorized by the permit shall not cause or contribute to flood damage. If the permittee’s consumptive use causes or contributes to flood damage, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the flood damage, unless the flood damage associated with the permittee’s consumptive use of water is mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District-approved plan.
40C-2 Rule Changes
40C-2.381 Limiting Conditions
13. The permittee’s consumptive use of water as authorized by the permit shall not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards (existing at the time of permit issuance) in receiving waters of the state, as set forth in Chapters 62-3, 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, and 62-550, F.A.C., including any anti-degradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C. If violations occur, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the violations, unless the violations associated with the permittee’s consumptive use of water are mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District-approved plan. .
40C-2 Rule Changes
40C-2.900 Forms and Applications
Forms formally adopted into Rule:
(1) Individual and Standard General Consumptive Use
Permit Application (reflecting the Rule changes);
(2) Water Use Record (EN50);
(3) Water Use Reporting Verification (EN51);
(4) Annual Statement of Continuing Use
CUP Applicant’s Handbook Rule Changes
A.H. 3.3.3.1 Letter Modification
(b) Within 30 days after a request for modification submitted by letter is complete, the District staff shall issue the new modification if District staff find that the request meets the applicable criteria in rule 40C-2.301, F.A.C. If District staff find that these criteria are not
met, the permit holder shall be notified within 30 days after
completeness that the request shall be processed as an individual
permit application recommended for denial; however, no
additional fee shall be required.
CUP Applicant’s Handbook Rule Changes
A.H. 3.3.3.2 Procedure for Modification or Renewal
of Permits
If the permit requested to be modified or renewed was processed as a standard general permit application, then the request for modification or renewal shall be processed as a standard general permit application, unless section 5.5.2 is applicable. In such a case, the request shall be reviewed as an individual permit application. For any subsequent modification or renewal of a permit that
was previously reviewed as an individual permit application solely due to
section 5.5.2(c), the request for modification or renewal shall be processed
as a standard general permit application, unless section 5.5.2 is applicable.
CUP Applicant’s Handbook Rule Changes
6.7.1.2 Uses Initially Permitted On or After July 23, 1991
Applicants for proposed uses of water with total allocations less than or equal to 100,000 gallons per day on an average annual basis must
install either in-line totalizing flow meters or alternatives to flow
meters on all withdrawal points prior to beginning the permitted
use.
CUP Applicant’s Handbook Rule Changes
6.7.1.8.1 Recording and Reporting Water Use
For any permittee whose total combined allocation is equal to or less than 100,000 gallons per day on an average annual basis and whose permit was issued after December 1, 2011, the permittee must annually submit, by January 31st, a completed District Form Number 40C-2.900(6) (Annual Statement of Continuing Use). Such a permittee shall maintain records of water quantity used on a monthly basis for the life of the permit and shall provide those records to the District when requested by District staff.
CUP Applicant’s Handbook Rule Changes
6.7.1.8.1 Recording and Reporting Water Use
For any permittee with a permit issued before December 1, 2011 whose total combined allocation is equal to or less than 100,000 gallons per day on an average annual basis, the permittee may submit a completed District Form Number 40C-2.900(6), as an
alternative to submitting EN-50 forms as required by their permit.
CUP Applicant’s Handbook Rule Changes
12.5.7 Water Conservation Plan
12.7 Other Use Types.
All individual permit applicants for use types not specified above must submit a water conservation plan for their proposed use. The plan must contain specific measures designed to conserve water to demonstrate that the proposed use will meet the criterion in section 10.3(e). At a minimum the water conservation plan must include the applicable elements described above in sections 12.2.5, 12.3.2, 12.5.7, and 12.6.1
CUP Applicant’s Handbook Rule Changes
17.0 General Conditions by Type of Use
17.1 Public Supply-Type Uses 17.2 Commercial/Industrial-Type Uses 17.3 Mining Type-Uses 17.4 Agricultural Uses 17.5 Nursery Use 17.6 Aquaculture Use 17.7 Golf Course/Recreation Use
18.0 Special Conditions
g thru q were stricken
Other Regulatory Changes - Compliance Reports
• Modified permits to change from 5-year to 10-year
• Will conduct “prospectus” evaluation prior to compliance report submittal due date
Other Regulatory Changes Ag Permitting Team
• Enhance relationships and information exchange between the District regulatory staff and agricultural community
• Assist growers/producers through permit application process
• Provide needed modeling/analysis • Assist with reporting and permit
compliance requirements
Other Regulatory Changes - CUP Permit Renewal Prospectus • Complete data analysis and evaluation
prior to renewal application – Water use data and projections – Water conservation – Water quality – Environmental impacts – Reuse of reclaimed water – Past compliance
• Recommendations for permit holder upon renewal
• Production mode by mid 2012
RAI’s
• More contact with permittee through early phone calls
• Manager intervention for problem solving to assist the Applicant
• Should be minimized through completion of the “Prospectus”
Questions?
Rulemaking in Support of Freeze Protection Action Plan
FSAWWA Regulatory Trends Workshop January 18, 2012
Presentation Topics
• Introduction – groundwater used for crop protection during freeze events
• Historical data • Data associated with the 2010 freeze
event • Action plan
504 WUPs 707 Wells 891 MGD
Unprecedented 2010 Event
2000 DV-1
2001: ~200 Dry Wells No Sinkholes Reported
2009: ~150 Dry Wells ~6 Sinkholes Reported
2010: ~750 Dry Wells ~140 Sinkholes Reported
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1/2/
10
1/3/
10
1/4/
10
1/5/
10
1/6/
10
1/7/
10
1/8/
10
1/9/
10
1/10
/10
1/11
/10
1/12
/10
1/13
/10
1/14
/10
1/15
/10
1/16
/10
1/17
/10
1/18
/10
1/19
/10
1/20
/10
1/21
/10
1/22
/10
Wat
er L
evel
(NG
VD)
Date
2010 Freeze Event - Well DV-1 Suwannee Water Level
Phase I Phase 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
1201/
3/10
1/4/
101/
5/10
1/6/
101/
7/10
1/8/
101/
9/10
1/10
/10
1/11
/10
1/12
/10
1/13
/10
1/14
/10
1/15
/10
1/16
/10
1/17
/10
1/18
/10
1/19
/10
1/20
/10
1/21
/10
1/22
/10
1/23
/10
1/24
/10
1/25
/10
1/26
/10
1/27
/10
1/28
/10
1/29
/10
1/30
/10
1/31
/10
2/1/
102/
2/10
2/3/
102/
4/10
2/5/
10
Well Complaints
Phase I Phase 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1/3/
2010
1/4/
2010
1/5/
2010
1/6/
2010
1/7/
2010
1/8/
2010
1/9/
2010
1/10
/201
01/
11/2
010
1/12
/201
01/
13/2
010
1/14
/201
01/
15/2
010
1/16
/201
01/
17/2
010
1/18
/201
01/
19/2
010
1/20
/201
01/
21/2
010
1/22
/201
01/
23/2
010
1/24
/201
01/
25/2
010
1/26
/201
01/
27/2
010
1/28
/201
01/
29/2
010
1/30
/201
01/
31/2
010
2/1/
2010
2/2/
2010
2/3/
2010
2/4/
2010
2/5/
2010
Dover Area - FGS Reported Sinkhole Events
Phase I Phase 2
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
601/
3/10
0:0
0
1/4/
10 0
:00
1/5/
10 0
:00
1/6/
10 0
:00
1/7/
10 0
:00
1/8/
10 0
:00
1/9/
10 0
:00
1/10
/10
0:00
1/11
/10
0:00
1/12
/10
0:00
1/13
/10
0:00
1/14
/10
0:00
1/15
/10
0:00
1/16
/10
0:00
1/17
/10
0:00
1/18
/10
0:00
1/19
/10
0:00
1/20
/10
0:00
Wat
er Le
vel
(NGV
D)
Date / Time
Simulated Water Level @ DV-1 with Percentage Reductions
Calibrated DD 10% Reduction 20% Reduction 40% Reduction
Action Plan • Reduce the risk of well problems and sinkhole development • 20% Reduction in withdrawals to keep aquifer levels 10 feet above sea level during freeze events • Utilize FARMS program to reduce groundwater pumping over 10 years
• Implement equitable well mitigation allocation procedure • Enhance data collection networks to monitor progress • Enhance outreach as an event approaches, during and after • Protect existing legal uses and investments
Limiting Additional Groundwater Quantities for Freeze Protection
1. Establish a Water Use Caution Area within which all Water Use Permits are modified to incorporate applicable measures and conditions. – Metering withdrawals – Crop protection calculation and modeling – Investigating well complaints – Self relocation
Limiting Additional Groundwater Quantities for Freeze Protection 2. Establish a minimum aquifer level
associated with freeze protection withdrawals – If actual groundwater levels remain above
this minimum during future freeze events, the potential for sinkholes and well complaints is reduced
Limiting Additional Groundwater Quantities for Freeze Protection 3. Adopt management goals to reduce
freeze protection using groundwater: – 10% in 5 years (~90 MGD reduction) – 20% in 10 years (~180 MGD reduction)
4. Implement an incentive-based, cooperatively funded program to reduce freeze protection quantities
Limiting Additional Groundwater Quantities for Freeze Protection 5. Prohibit new freeze protection
quantities within or outside of the WUCA from impacting levels within the MALPZ
Allocation Procedure for Well Complaints
• Prepared for Each Cold Season • Enhanced Equity Among Permittees
Comparison of Allocation Methodologies • Number of permittees assigned investigation
responsibility 2010: 61 2010 with new method: 460
• Most investigations assigned to a permittee 2010: 120 2010 with new method 16
Expanding Data Collection
• Eleven Additional Monitor Wells at Existing Sites
• Three New Monitor Well Sites, Nine Wells
• Expand Meters to All Permits With Freeze Protection Quantities and Implement AMR
Water Use Metering
SWFWMD to fund
Enhancing Communication • Letter to Permittees at Beginning of Cold
Season • News Media Alert • Automated Telephone Calls to Residents
– Projected 25’ NGVD at DV-1 • How to Report a Dry Well • Timely Communication With
Complainants and Permittees
Florida Automated Weather Network (FAWN)
• Temperature • Humidity • Other Weather Data • Cold Protection Tools • IFAS and WMD Funded
Tailwater Recovery Systems
Up to 75 Percent Funded by SWFWMD And FDACS
Other Cold Protection Methods and BMPs
Insulation Cloth
Foam
Eligible for FARMS Projects
Tunnels
The District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services have contributed to projects that have met an estimated offset of nearly 49 MGD, or almost 27 percent of the District’s 10-year goal.
www.watermatters.org
Rule Amendments to Permit Criteria • Minimum Aquifer Level & Protection Zone • Meters/AMR • Alternative freeze protection • Complaint investigation criteria and
methodology to be used • Freeze quantity and crop establishment
allocation • MFL Impacts
Well Construction Standards
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Water Use & Supply:
Consumptive Use Permitting
Ann B. Shortelle, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Water Policy
Department of Environmental Protection
January 18, 2012
Governor Scott’s Direction
• April Letter to Secretary Vinyard
• Core Missions
• Chapter 373.026(7), FS - general supervisory authority
Regulatory Issues Specifically Called Out
• Meaningful and measurable regulatory streamlining
• Consistency
• Rulemaking
• ERP, CUP, UMAM and MFLs
Fresh Water Demand & Use
Regional Water Supply Planning
Planning Regions in Florida
Consumptive Use Permitting (CUP) Consistency Review
• CUP rules in each WMD are based on same statute, but have developed differently over time
• Confusing for applicants
• Problematic at borders between WMDs
6
CUP Consistency Review Goals
• Make program less confusing for applicants, particularly those who work in more than one District
• Treat applicants equitably statewide
• Consistent protection of the environment
• Streamlining of the process; reduce complaints over process, not outcome
• Incentivize behavior that protects water resources, including conservation
7
CUP Consistency Review Schedule
• October, 2011 – January, 2012
• Conduct stakeholder issue identification process
• Prioritize identified inconsistencies/issues
• February, 2012 – September, 2012
• Develop policies to resolve inconsistencies, codify by rule as needed, develop any legislative concepts for 2013 session.
8
Stakeholder Issue Identification Meetings DATE LOCATION TIME GROUP
November 16 SJRWMD-Maitland 1 - 3 pm Self Supply/Small Commercial
November 17 SJRWMD-Maitland 10am – 12 noon Public Water Supply
November 17 SJRWMD-Maitland 2:00 – 4 pm Agriculture
November 29 DEP Central District – Orlando
10 am – 12 noon Environmental
November 29 DEP Central District – Orlando
1:30 – 3:30 pm Industrial
December 13 Tallahassee – Douglas Bldg.
10 am – 12 noon Public Water Supply
December 13 Tallahassee – Douglas Bldg.
1:30 – 3:30 pm Industrial
December 15 SFWMD - West Palm Beach
10 am - 12 noon Public Water Supply
December 15 SFWMD – WPB 1:30 - 3:30 pm Agriculture
December 16 SFWMD - WPB 9 – 11 am Environmental
9
Hot Topics for CUPCON Stakeholders • Permit duration
• 10-yr compliance reviews/assurance of allocation
• Conservation incentives
• Reuse incentives
• Permit application complexity/models
• Impact analysis and interpretation
• Allocation flexibility
• Consistency in MFL establishment and implementation
• Integration: RWSP – CUP - Compliance
Selected Additional PWS Hot Topics
• Regulation of small private wells
• Equitable implementation of MFL Recovery and Prevention Strategies
• Conjunctive Uses – consolidation of multiple permits
• Requiring all applicants to consider AWS
• Flexibility to accommodate development trends/patterns
• Inconsistent requirements for demonstration of reasonable-beneficial need
• Reuse feasibility requirements and consideration of utilities economic priorities.
CUPCON Game Plan
Tier 1A
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1B
Now/Soon Later After awhile
How to Meet Future Demand?
• Conservation
• Increased water use efficiency • Delays the need for water supply development
• Develop more water supplies
• Reclaimed water
• Surface water supplies
• Increase storage (reservoirs and ASR)
• Treatment of brackish groundwater/sea water
• Respect the water needs of natural systems
Getting the Water Right.....
• Conservation and efficiency
• Reuse
• Increased storage (including ASR), and AWS development
• Innovative approaches
Encourage Water Conservation And Efficiency
• Reward good stewardship
• Eliminate CUP practices that “penalize” conservation and efficiency
• Consider taking best elements of available programs statewide
• Water quality and quantity benefits
Florida’s Conservation Clearinghouse
www.conservefloridawater.org
Aquifer Replenishment and Recharge
• Reuse water and harvested wet flows (RIBs and ASRs)
• Pilots:
• Reuse to surface to natural recharge
• Coastal implementation to prevent salt water intrusion
Partnerships • Work collaboratively:
• Sustainable water resource solutions
• Mutual economic benefit
• Pilot project – Tri-County Agricultural Area
• St. Johns County Utility incentivizing agricultural irrigation efficiency
• Meet long-term water supply needs
• Meet nutrient reduction goals
• Increase productivity and reduce crop loss
18
Dispersed Water Storage
• Public-private partnerships
• 131,500 acre-feet of water storage
• Benefits: • Reduces excess water flowing into Lake Okeechobee during
the wet season
• Reduces the amount of water discharged to the coastal estuaries for flood protection
• Provides valuable groundwater recharge for water supply
• Improves water quality and rehydration of drained systems
• Enhances plant and wildlife habitat
• Helps sustain the local economy
19
Contact
Ann B. Shortelle, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Water Policy
850.245.3143
• Get involved • Work collaboratively
Central Florida Water Initiative: Overview and Issues
What is the CFWI? “A collaborative water supply endeavor to protect,
conserve and restore our water resources”
• Address Water Management Districts’ conclusion that sustainable quantities of groundwater in central Florida are insufficient to meet future public water supply demands
• Need to develop and implement supplemental water
supply projects.
• Collaborative approach to development of coordinated water supply permitting and planning for central Florida by SWFWMD, SJRWMD, and SFWMD
What is the CFWI?
What is the CFWI?
What is the CFWI?
• Late 2006 – The 3 WMDs authorized Exec. Directors to Implement Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA) Action Plan: – Coordination of water use permitting
– Coordination of modeling
– Coordination of water supply planning
Origins of the CFWI
Origins of the CFWI
CFCA Phase I – Interim Rules 2007 – WMDs develop and adopt interim rules
•Applies to public supply and similar applicants •Permit applicants restricted to maximum allocation no greater than projected 2013 demand •Applicants must identify supplemental water supply projects to meet post-2013 demand increases for duration beyond 2013 •Rules sunset on December 31, 2012
Origins of the CFWI
CFCA Phase II Goal – Adopt long-term rules for
water resource management prior to interim rule sunset
2007-2011 • Slow progress on development of coordinated
model for the 3 WMDs • Economic and development slowdown resulted
in lower water demands than projected in 2006 • Not enough time to develop permanent rules
Creation of the CFWI
Goal of greater collaboration between WMDs and stakeholders regarding rule development in the CFCA:
• Steering Committee: •One GB member from each WMD •FDEP representative •DACS representative •Utility representative
• Unanimity of Decisions • Operate in the Sunshine
CFWI Guiding Principles
1. Identify sustainable quantities of groundwater sources which can be used without causing unacceptable environmental harm
2.Develop strategies to meet water demand in excess of sustainable yield of existing groundwater sources
3.Establish consistent rules for the 3 WMDs that meeting the CFWI goals
CFWI Goals
1.One model 2.One uniform definition of harm 3.One reference condition 4.One process for permit reviews 5.One consistent process to set MFLs and
reservations 6.One Coordinated recovery and prevention
strategy
CFWI Organization
CFWI Collaborative Teams 1.Hydrologic Analysis – Ensure most
appropriate science is applied to modeling and data analysis
2.Environmental Measures – Perform environmental assessments of wetlands and surface waters, definitions and methods for evaluating harm
3.MFLs and Reservations – Develop consistent processes for setting and implementing MFLs and reservations
CFWI Collaborative Teams 4.Data, Monitoring and Investigation –
Identification and review of data available in region to support CFWI
5.Groundwater Availability – Ensure a logical and consistent process is established to evaluate modeling results
6.Recovery and Prevention Strategies– Develop recovery and prevention strategies based on work of other groups (Future)
Defining Harm in the CFWI
Harm – Permitting of Consumptive Uses
Section 373.219(1), F.S. “The governing board or the department may require such permits for consumptive use of water and may impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that such use is consistent with the overall objectives of the district or department and is not harmful to the water resources of the area.”
Defining Significant Harm in the CFWI
Significant Harm - MFLs
Section 373.042(1), F.S. “The minimum water level [or flow] shall be the level … at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources of the area.”
SWUCA Case “Preventing any and all measurable impact to the water resources is not the stated legislative goal and some impact is an unavoidable element of achieving beneficial use of the water resources for human activity. Thus, the establishment of MFLs is highly infused with policy considerations and requires a balancing of societal interest in order to decide what impacts are significant.” Charlotte Cty. v. Southwest Florida Water Mgt. Dist., DOAH Case No. 94-5742RP, ¶1268 (March 1997)
Harm and Significant Harm Conclusions
• Definitions are very broad • WMD Governing Boards have wide
discretion in deciding how to define harm and significant harm
• “Harm” is a more restrictive standard than “significant harm”
• Both harm and significant harm are “highly infused with policy considerations”
Harm in SWFWMD No specific definition of “harm” BOR 4.2 – “Must not cause unacceptable adverse impacts
to environmental features” • Identification of environmental features directly related
to water resources of the District • Evaluation of impact of proposed withdrawal, cumulative
withdrawals on identified features • Comparison of existing natural system to post-
withdrawal conditions • Previous physical alterations considered • “Reasonable degree of protection” • Listed exclusions for isolated wetlands, authorized
impacts
Significant Harm in SWFWMD
No rule definition of “significant harm”
Harm in SJRWMD
No specific “harm” definition • “Environmental or economic harm caused
by the consumptive use must be reduced to an acceptable amount” (A.H. 10.3)
• Cannot lower water levels “so that stages or vegetation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant” (A.H. 9.4.1)
Significant Harm in SJRWMD
No rule definition of “significant harm”
Harm in SFWMD “Harm – means the temporary loss of water
resource functions, as defined for consumptive use permitting in Chapter 40E-2, F.A.C., that results from a change in surface or ground water hydrology and takes a period of one to two years of average rainfall conditions to recover.” F.A.C. Rule 40E-8.021(9)
Significant Harm in SFWMD
“Significant Harm – means the temporary loss of water
resource functions, which result from a change in surface or ground water hydrology, that takes more than two years to recover, but which is considered less severe than serious harm. The specific water resource functions addressed by an MFL and the duration of the recovery period associated with significant harm are defined for each priority water body based on the MFL technical support document.” F.A.C. Rule 40E-8.021(31)
Conclusions about Harm/Significant Harm
• 3 WMDs have varied definitions of harm, if
term are defined at all • Not clear harm and significant harm
standards are different among 3 WMDs • Chapter 373 sufficiently flexible to allow
consistent definitions in CFWI
Developing Consistent Definitions
• Is significant harm a higher level of impact
than harm? • Is harm/significant harm hierarchical? • Can MFLs be used to evaluate permitting
requests? • Will MFLs have to be reevaluated?
Conclusion
Any questions?
