Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs for the Dover / Plant City ...

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs for the 

Dover / Plant City Water Use Caution Area Rule 

Hazen and Sawyer for the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District 

January 12, 2011 

44324-000T003.cdr


Mr. Jay Yingling 

Senior Economist 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

2379 Broad Street (U.S. 41 South) 

Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 

Dear Mr. Yingling: 

Statement of Estimated Regulatory 

Costs for the Proposed Dover / Plant 

City Water Use Caution Area Rule 

We are pleased to submit the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) for the Proposed 

Dover / Plant City Water Use Caution Area Rule. As required by Section 120.541, Florida 

Statutes (2010), “A statement of estimated regulatory costs shall include: 

(a) A good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be required to 

comply with the rule, together with a general description of the types of individuals likely 

to be affected by the rule. 

(b) A good faith estimate of the cost to the agency, and to any other state and local government 

entities, of implementing and enforcing the proposed rule, and any anticipated 

effect on state or local revenues. 

(c) 

A good faith estimate of the transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals and 

entities, including local government entities, required to comply with the requirements of 

the rule. As used in this paragraph, "transactional costs" are direct costs that are readily 

ascertainable based upon standard business practices, and include filing fees, the cost 

of obtaining a license, the cost of equipment required to be installed or used or procedures 

required to be employed in complying with the rule, additional operating costs incurred, 

and the cost of monitoring and reporting. 

(d) An analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined by s. 288.703, and an analysis 

of the impact on small counties and small cities as defined by s. 120.52. 

(e) Any additional information that the agency determines may be useful. 

This SERC also follows the relevant requirements of Florida HB 1565 that took effect on November 

17, 2010. These requirements are that a SERC shall include an economic analysis 

showing whether the rule directly or indirectly: 

44324-000R4_DPC SERC transmittal letter Page 1 of 2

Mr. Jay Yingling 


1. Is likely to have an adverse impact on economic growth, private-sector job creation or employment, 

or private sector investment in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years 

after the implementation of the rule; 

2. Is likely to have an adverse impact on business competitiveness, including the ability of persons 

doing business in the state to compete with persons doing business in other states or 

domestic markets, productivity, or innovation in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 

5 years after the implementation of the rule; or 

3. Is likely to increase regulatory costs, including any transactional costs, in excess of $1 million 

in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of the rule. 

This SERC addresses these requirements using the best available information. The project 

team members were Grace Johns, Ph.D. as project manager who was assisted by Chris Meline, 

Caitlin Feikle, Marta Alonzo, P.E., Sikavas NaLampang, Ph.D. and Del Bottcher, Ph.D., P.E., 

President of Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. 

We thank you for your advice and assistance in preparing this SERC and for drafting the background 

and benefits discussions that were incorporated. We thank Yassert Gonzalez, Kevin 

Wills, Martha Butterworth and Deborah Kauffman of the District for providing Hazen and Sawyer 

the water use permit data and assisting in providing costs to the District associated with the 

proposed rule. We thank Karen Lloyd and Ken Weber of the District for their prompt responses 

to our questions regarding the proposed rule. We thank Ron Cohen, District Senior Professional 

Engineer, for his assistance in estimating the costs of installing flow meters and AMR devices, 

the cost of the AMR subscription service, the cost of alternative frost / freeze protection methods 

and the cost of the tailwater recovery system. We thank Robert Peterson of the District for 

providing information regarding public supply permittees. We thank William Orendorff, FARMS 

Program Manager, for assisting Hazen and Sawyer in preparing the costs associated with alternative 

frost / freeze protection methods other than water. 

Very truly yours, 

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. 

Grace M. Johns, Ph.D. 

Senior Associate and Economist 

Enclosure 

c: File No. 44324-000 

44324-000R4_DPC SERC transmittal letter Page 2 of 2

Executive Summary 

This Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) follows the requirements of Section 

120.541, Florida Statutes (2010) regarding the proposed “Dover / Plant City Water 

Use Caution Area” Rule. This SERC also follows the relevant requirements of Florida 

HB 1565 that took effect on November 17, 2010. 

ES.1 

Background and Summary of Proposed Rule 

The background for the proposed rules is summarized in the proposed Recovery Strate- 

gy (Chapter 40D-80, F.A.C.): 

“From January 3 through 13, 2010, for the first time since records have been kept, temperatures 

in eastern Hillsborough County and western Polk County dropped below 34 

degrees for 11 consecutive days. As a result, area farmers pumped large quantities of 

groundwater to protect their crops. This combined pumping dropped the aquifer level 60 

feet, likely contributed to a large number of sinkhole occurrences, and caused more than 

750 neighboring groundwater wells to be damaged or to temporarily go dry.” 

More specifically, at least 132 sinkholes developed in the Dover/Plant City area – far exceeding 

the previous high of 27 sinkholes reported in the January 1985 freeze event. 

The extent of damage ranged from land subsidence in rural fields to destroyed homes 

and major roads. Data on the sinkholes with detailed reports indicate that 16 of the 132 

sinkholes reported to the District possibly involved damage to, or total loss of, structures 

– including an elementary school and the City of Plant City’s water tower. Statewide, the 

average insurance payment per approved sinkhole claim involving damage or total loss 

to structures between 2006 and 2010 ranged from $102,000 to $149,000, depending on 

the type of claim. 1 

Sinkhole coverage is no longer required in Florida homeowner policies 

so those who do not retain such coverage may face high uninsured repair costs. 

Increasing trends in sinkhole formation could significantly increase insurance premiums 

to residents and businesses in the region. 

Significant sinkhole damage to roadways occurred as a result of cold protection ground- 

water pumping during the freeze event. Hillsborough County reported investigating 37 

sinkholes related to the freeze event in roadways over which it had jurisdiction. Twenty- 

44324-000R4.docx 

1 Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, Report on Review of the 2010 Sinkhole Data Call. Novem- 

ber 8, 2010. 


SERC FOR DOVER / PLANT CITY WUCA RULE 

PAGE ES-1 

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYJANUARY 2011 

five of the 37 investigations required repairs totaling over $3 million in cost. The costs of 

the repairs include fixing the sinkholes only and do not include the costs of repaving the 

damaged roads. Portions of Interstate 4 and US Highway 92, both major roadways in the 

area, were also damaged and closed to traffic during repairs. The 3 east-bound lanes of 

Interstate 4 were closed to traffic for four days causing significant traffic and commuting 

delays. The Florida Department of Transportation estimates damages to federally aided 

roadways in the region to be approximately $1.051 million. 

The total cost to repair or replace wells and/or pumps damaged as a result of the cold 

protection ground water pumping was approximately $1.2 million. Well repair costs are 

generally paid by water use permittees. For those residents whose wells were damaged 

outside the area where well damage investigation and repair (mitigation) conditions were 

applied to permits, about 31 percent of the wells were out-of-service for three days or 

less, 48 percent were out-of-service for 4 to 7 days, 17 percent were out-of-service for 8 

to 11 days and 4 percent for more than 11 days. “Days-out-of-service” data for damaged 

wells inside the mitigation area are not available but their out-of-service durations 

are likely to be somewhat shorter because the investigations are assigned to responsible 

permittees as quickly as possible. 

Chapter 373, F.S., and District rules provide that use of water under a water use permit 

must be for a reasonable-beneficial use, not interfere with any presently existing legal 

use of water and be consistent with the public interest. Water use that damages existing 

domestic wells interferes with the existing legal use of water and pumpage that causes 

widespread formation of sinkholes resulting in damage to homes and infrastructure is not 

in the public interest. 

Under Chapter 373, F.S. and current District rules, when the use of permitted groundwater 

for frost/freeze crop protection results in the impacts described above, the permitted 

quantity must be modified to bring the permitted water use into compliance with the law. 

In the case of frost / freeze protection for crops, a permit modification involves reducing 

the amount of groundwater permitted to be withdrawn or reducing the duration of pumpage. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Such a modification is likely to have immediate ramifications on the agricultural industry 

in the Dover/Plant City area. For example, if an existing strawberry permittee’s cold protection 

ground water quantities were reduced or limited in duration without alternative 

cold protection methods in place, the crop could be lost to cold damage. The loss could 

be up to $23,000 per acre of strawberries and there are about 7,700 acres with permitted 

ground water quantities for strawberry production in the Dover/ Plant City area. 

Adoption of the proposed recovery strategy in 40D-80, F.A.C., will instead allow for a 

phased reduction in permitted cold protection water quantities. It will avoid the near term 



Page ES-2 



impacts to the strawberry and other agricultural industries that rely on ground water use 

for cold protection until feasible alternative cold protection methods can be implemented 

by existing permittees. As part of the the proposed recovery strategy, the District will 

provide co-funding to permittees for equipment costs associated with alternative cold 

protection methods. 

Additionally, it is unlikely that any new requests for groundwater withdrawals for 

frost/freeze protection could be permitted under current rule. To address this concern, 

District staff, at the direction of the Governing Board, provided recommendations that will 

result in a reduced need to use groundwater for cold protection and provide a mechanism 

for new permits to be issued. The recommendations also include expanding permit 

and hydrologic data collection. 

The proposed rule will create a Dover / Plant City Water Use Caution Area (DPC WUCA) 

in portions of Hillsborough and Polk counties for the following purpose. 

“By January 2020, to reduce groundwater withdrawals for frost/freeze protection by 20% 

from January 2010 quantities to lessen the potential that drawdown during a future frost / 

freeze event would lower the aquifer level at District Well DV-1 Suwannee below 10 feet 

NGVD.” 

The Minimum Aquifer Level at District well DV-1 is affected by local and regional 

groundwater withdrawals. In order to address the effects of these withdrawals and the 

variable hydrogeologic factors within the region, a Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone is established under the proposed rule. The Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone is defined as the area within the 30’ drawdown contour that resulted from the January 

2010 frost / freeze event. 

The proposed rule provides that new proposed withdrawals that further impact the Minimum 

Aquifer Level Protection Zone would cause unacceptable impacts and will not be 

permitted without a Net Benefit. The proposed rule provides more specific guidance to 

applicants and their agents than the existing rule which would simply dictate that unacceptable 

impacts must not occur. Such language makes it easier for applicants and their 

agents to demonstrate reasonable assurance of compliance with rule criteria. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Another issue highlighted by the January 2010 freeze event is that the current method 

for allocating well failure investigations and mitigations to permittees can cause significant 

financial hardship to newer permittees using cold protection quantities in the region. 

The current allocation methodology assigns well complaints to those with the most recent 

permit action, whether that is the issuance of a new permit or modification of an existing 

permit. Under the existing method, during the January 2010 freeze event, only 61 

of 504 permittees were required to investigate complaints and one permittee was as- 



Page ES-3 



signed over 100 complaints. The proposed methodology relies more on the proportion 

of frost/freeze quantities permitted to the individual permittee. In a freeze event similar 

to the January 2010 event under the proposed methodology, it is estimated that the 

complaints would be spread among 360 permittees and the most complaints assigned to 

an individual would be 16. This represents a significant reduction in potentially catastrophic 

costs for smaller and newer growers and more equitably allocates well mitigation 

among all permittees contributing to the problem. 

The major components of the proposed rule are as follows. 

Water Use Permittees and Applicants. All applications for ground water withdrawals 

for frost / freeze protection inside and outside the DPC WUCA will be evaluated for impacts 

to the proposed Dover / Plant City Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. However, 

the existing impacts of permitted quantities on the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone will not be a basis for permit denial because the DPC WUCA Recovery Strategy 

is intended to achieve recovery to the established minimum level as soon as practicable. 

Existing Water Use Permittees. Applications for permit renewals or modifications with 

no proposed increase in permitted quantities or change in Use Type will be evaluated to 

determine compliance with the conditions for permit issuance set forth in Rule 40D- 

2.301, F.A.C., which is not proposed to be changed, and the Water Use Permit Basis of 

Review in its entirety - as are all permit applications. When evaluating the reasonablebeneficial 

use of the water, emphasis will be given to reasonable water need, water conservation, 

use of alternative water supplies, and use of alternative frost/freeze protection 

methods. As noted above, the existing impacts of permitted quantities on the Minimum 

Aquifer Level Protection Zone will not be a basis for permit denial because the DPC 

WUCA Recovery Strategy is intended to achieve recovery to the established minimum 

level as soon as practicable. 

44324-000R4.docx 

"New Quantities" in the DPC WUCA means groundwater for frost/freeze protection that 

is not currently authorized to be withdrawn by the applicant or not currently authorized to 

be used for the intended use by the applicant. This includes applications to modify existing 

permits to increase quantities, and/or change the Permit Use Type (affecting only the 

modified portion) and applications for an initial permit but does not include a full or partial 

transfer. A modification to change crops or plants grown under an Agricultural Permit 

Use Type Classification or to change withdrawal location or Use Type that is authorized 

by the terms of the permit or site certification at the time of issuance, is not a change in 

Permit Use Type provided that the quantities do not increase. In addition, when land is 

mined and the land will be returned to the Use Type operation authorized under the water 

use permit (WUP) that existed prior to mining, such activity does not constitute a 

change in Use Type or New Quantities. 



Page ES-4 



Applications for New Quantities. For applications where New Quantities for frost / 

freeze protection are requested, the resulting drawdown from withdrawals for frost / 

freeze protection shall not exceed 0.0 ft. at the Dover / Plant City Minimum Aquifer Level 

Protection Zone. Applications for new ground water quantities for frost / freeze protection 

inside and outside the DPC WUCA that impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone cannot be permitted. The proposed use shall only be permitted if: 

1. The proposed groundwater withdrawals do not impact the Minimum Aquifer Level 

Protection Zone; or, 

2. The applicant reduces or redistributes the withdrawals to eliminate any impacts 

so that the withdrawal can be permitted; or, 

3. The applicant demonstrates adequate alternative frost/freeze protection methods 

for the proposed use to eliminate any impacts so that the withdrawal can be permitted; 

or, 

4. The applicant implements a combination of (2) and (3) that does not result in an 

impact. 

Feasibility of Using Frost / Freeze Protection Alternatives to Water. The proposed 

rule includes a new requirement that certain water use permittees investigate the technical, 

economic and environmental feasibility of using alternatives to groundwater for 

frost/freeze crop protection. This feasibility analysis is required of all applicants for permits 

with at least 100,000 gpd average annual daily water quantities for an activity that 

typically uses frost / freeze protection and has or proposes to have a groundwater withdrawal 

with the potential to impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. 

For the purposes of the DPC WUCA rule, the District considers strawberries, blueberries, 

nurseries (container and some field), citrus (ridge and flatwood) and tropical fish 

farms as those activities that typically require frost / freeze protection. 

Water Withdrawal Metering and Reporting. Metering of water withdrawals at all permitted 

water withdrawal points and the use of automated meter reading (AMR) devices 

will be required of permittees in the DPC WUCA with permitted ground water quantities 

that use or could use water for frost / freeze protection. 

44324-000R4.docx 

For all other individuals and entities with a water use permit for annual average daily 

ground water quantities greater than or equal to 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) in the 

DPC WUCA, metering of all water withdrawals, but not the use of AMR devices, will be 

required under the proposed rule. The primary purpose of the additional withdrawal metering 

and reporting provisions is to improve the quality, timeliness and accuracy of av- 



Page ES-5 



erage annual and frost freeze protection water use data to better correlate the relationships 

between pumpage and measured drawdown. 

Flow Meter Purchase and Installation. For permits existing as of the effective date of 

the rule, the District will provide for the flow meters on withdrawal points, inflow lines, 

catchment facilities, tailwater recovery or rainfall capture ponds and storage facilities. 

This provision applies to these structures in existence prior to the effective rule date that 

are not equipped with and not required by other District rules to have a flow meter. 

Automatic Meter Reading Device Purchase, Installation and Data Collection. For 

permits requiring automatic meter reading (AMR) devices under the proposed rule, the 

District will provide, install, replace, maintain and repair these AMR devices for each flow 

meter that is not already so equipped. The District shall include these devices in the District’s 

data collection and reporting service subscription at no cost to the permittee. 

Net Benefit. In the case where an applicant for New Quantities is constrained by impacts 

to the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone, the applicant may choose to provide 

reasonable assurance by implementing one or more of the Net Benefit options in 

order to mitigate the predicted impacts. In order to provide a Net Benefit, the measures 

proposed by the applicant must offset the predicted negative impact of the proposed 

withdrawal and also provide an additional positive effect on the Minimum Aquifer Level 

Protection Zone equal to or exceeding 20% of the predicted negative impact. For example, 

if the predicted drawdown is 1.0 ft., the mitigation must offset the 1.0 ft. drawdown 

and provide another 0.2 ft. (i.e., 20% of 1.0 ft.) of positive effect so that the result is a net 

improvement of 0.2 ft. There are two forms of Net Benefit: Mitigation plus Recovery and 

Groundwater Replacement Credits. 

Assignment of Responsibility - Frost / Freeze Impacts. The method used by the District 

to assign permittees in the DPC WUCA the responsibility to investigate and resolve 

frost / freeze withdrawal-related well complaints is revised under the proposed rule. The 

intent is to improve fairness and more evenly distribute well complaints among permittees. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Well Complaint Mitigation. The mitigation activity required by the permittee and the 

complainant under the proposed rule is, for the most part, the same as under current 

rule. One difference is that, under the proposed rule, if a complainant mitigates the well 

damage before the permittee investigates, then the permittee is required to reimburse 

the complainant for the actual expenditures not to exceed $1,500 unless the permittee 

can demonstrate that it is not responsible for all or part of the cost. 



Page ES-6 



ES.2 

Number of Individuals and Entities Required to Comply with the Proposed 

Rule 

Water Use Permittees and Applicants inside the DPC WUCA 

The Dover and Plant City area, located between the City of Tampa and the City of Lakeland 

in Florida, is a mix of agricultural, residential and industrial land uses. Dover is an 

unincorporated area of Hillsborough County and Plant City is an incorporated city. This 

area is well-known for its valuable strawberry production and hosts the Annual Strawberry 

Festival each year. 

The proposed rule addresses the impacts of ground water withdrawals for frost /freeze 

protection on ground water levels in the DPC WUCA. The individuals and entities required 

to comply with the proposed rule are limited to those who have or who will apply 

for a water use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District and who 

have water uses or requested water quantities that meet specific criteria. 

There are 660 water use permits in the DPC WUCA that are associated with groundwater 

withdrawals. Most of these permits, 88 percent, are for agricultural production including 

crop irrigation, tropical fish farms, and livestock watering. The remaining permits are 

for public supply, recreation / aesthetic, and industrial / commercial water uses. Most of 

the water use permits in the DPC WUCA are located in either the Northern Tampa Bay 

WUCA or the Southern WUCA. 

Water use permittees required to comply are those who have permitted ground water 

quantities for frost / freeze protection or who have uses that typically require frost / 

freeze protection or who have average daily permitted quantities greater than 100,000 

gpd. Activities that typically require frost / freeze protection include strawberries, blueberries, 

nurseries, citrus groves, and tropical fish farms. 

There are 547 existing water use permittees who will be required to comply with the proposed 

rule. Most of these permittees, or 95 percent, use water for agricultural crop irrigation. 

The remaining permittees are tropical fish farms (7 permits), public supply (10 permits), 

industrial / commercial (6 permits) and recreation / aesthetic (4 permits). 

44324-000R4.docx 

There are 113 existing water use permittees who will not be required to comply with the 

proposed rule. However, they will need to comply if they add or change crops or use 

types such that new water quantities for frost/freeze protection are requested. About 50 

percent of these permittees use water for agricultural production. 

Most of the existing permittees who need to comply have permitted ground water withdrawals 

for frost / freeze quantities. Of the 547 existing water use permittees who will 



Page ES-7 



need to comply with the proposed rule, 505 have permitted ground water withdrawals for 

frost / freeze protection. Only 26 permits have no permitted quantities for frost / freeze 

protection but grow crops or fish that typically require frost / freeze protection. 

Most of the permittees required to comply with the proposed rule use ground water for 

irrigating agricultural crops. The most common crops irrigated in the DPC WUCA are 

strawberries and citrus with 34 percent and 24 percent, respectively, of total acreage irrigated. 

Drip and low volume irrigation systems are the most commonly used methods to 

irrigate agricultural crops in the DPC WUCA. Sprinkler irrigation methods are most 

commonly used to irrigate golf courses, lawns, landscapes, cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, 

and sports fields in the DPC WUCA. 

The property acreage associated with agricultural permits in the DPC WUCA ranges 

from 0.7 acres to 1,771 acres per permit. The average property acreage per permit is 48 

and the median is 25. About one-fourth of the permits represent farm sizes from 25 to 50 

acres. Farms up to 10 acres in size comprise about 18 percent of the permits. Only one 

percent of the permits have a property acreage greater than 500 acres. 

The most common permitted non-irrigation water use in the DPC WUCA is for public water 

supply which includes a regional water supply system and personal sanitary use associated 

with residential communities, schools, and a single business or individual dwelling 

associated with the permit. The second most common non-irrigation water use is 

animal watering and cooling. The remaining non-irrigation water uses include fire protection; 

tropical fish farms; augmentation for environmental purposes; and general product 

manufacturing, among others. 

The number of future applicants for new ground water withdrawals for frost / freeze protection 

in the DPC WUCA is not known. Given the number of water use permits issued 

over the past ten years and the amount of undeveloped land that could be developed in 

the future, it is likely that applicants will request new ground water quantities in the DPC 

WUCA. If these applicants request ground water for uses that typically require frost / 

freeze protection, then they will be required to comply with the proposed rule. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Water Use Permittees and Applicants outside the DPC WUCA 

The number and locations of water use permit applicants outside the DPC WUCA whose 

requested ground water withdrawals for frost / freeze protection would impact the DPC 

Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone are not known. The extent to which New Quantities 

would impact the Zone will depend on the size and location of the requested withdrawal. 



Page ES-8 



ES.3 

Cost to the District and to Any Other State and Local Government Entity 

The District will implement and enforce the proposed rule. In addition, the District will 

provide for the flow meters at withdrawal points of existing permittees under certain conditions 

as specified in the proposed rule. The District will also install, maintain, repair 

and replace automatic meter reading (AMR) devices for those permittees required to 

have these devices under the proposed rule. The District will purchase the annual subscription 

service that will collect the water flow and related data from the AMR devices. 

The total estimated cost to the District associated with the DPC WUCA Rule is comprised 

of a one-time cost of $1.8 million and an annual cost of $1.36 million as summarized 

in Table 3.1. Most of this cost is associated with the provision of automatic meter 

reading (AMR) devices and the collection of water flow and related data from these devices. 

Based on previous experience, about 1.00 full-time-equivalent in District staff time during 

the first two years after the rule is adopted will be required to supervise and manage the 

contractors’ installation and maintenance of the meters and the AMR devices. The types 

of staff positions that would provide this service include a project manager, a field technician 

and an administrative assistant. In addition, about 2.22 full-time-equivalents in 

District staff time will be required to manage the AMR data collection and other compliance 

responsibilities each year. The types of staff positions include field and data 

technicians. 

State and local government entities, as water use permit applicants or permittees, may 

incur costs associated with complying with the proposed rule, but will not incur costs to 

implement or enforce the proposed rule. The proposed rule is not expected to have any 

significant effect on State or local government revenues. 

ES.4 

Transactional Costs 

The actual incremental transactional costs to each water use permit applicant and permittee 

will depend on the following factors. 

● 

● 

Whether the water will be withdrawn for a use that typically needs frost / freeze 

protection; 

Whether the average daily permitted water quantity assigned to the permit or application 

request is at least 100,000 gpd; 

44324-000R4.docx 

● 

Whether or not the permit application is for groundwater withdrawals inside or 

outside the DPC WUCA; and, 



Page ES-9 



● 

Whether or not the permitted withdrawal is located in the Northern Tampa Bay 


Chapter 4.0 Transactional Costs describes how the rule will impact water use permittees 

and applicants and provides estimated unit costs and estimated ranges of total costs to 

the permittee or applicant associated with each provision of the proposed rule. Applicants 

and permittees are encouraged to use their own situation and the information and 

unit costs provided in this Chapter to obtain an understanding of how the proposed rule 

will impact their own operations. The costs of alternative frost / freeze protection methods 

other than water and the costs of alternative water sources will be fully or partially 

offset by the avoided costs associated with ground water withdrawals. 

The activities that would incur transactional costs associated with the proposed DPC 

WUCA Rule are listed as follows. Only those individuals and entities who meet specific 

criteria would be expected to incur each cost as described in Chapters 1, 2 and 4 of this 

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Cost to complete new supplemental forms; 

Cost to purchase, install and maintain flow meters; 

Increased water use permit fee and the cost of more frequent permit renewals 

for Small General permittees with uses that typically require frost / freeze protection 

Cost to manually report to the District the amount of water withdrawn for those 

permittees who are not required to have automatic meter reading devices; 

Cost to prepare feasibility analysis of frost/ freeze protection methods other than 

water; 

Cost to use frost /freeze protection methods other than water; and, 

Cost of Alternative Water Sources. 

44324-000R4.docx 

A summary of the estimated costs associated with completing new forms, water flow metering 

and reporting, and conducting a feasibility analysis of alternative frost / freeze protection 

methods is provided in Table ES.1. For each activity, the conditions under which 

compliance is required, the one-time or purchase / installation cost, and the annual O&M 

cost are provided. Additional discussion and detail regarding these costs are provided in 

Chapter 4.0 and Chapter 6.0 of this Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. 



Page ES-10 



Table ES.1 

Summary of Estimated Costs Associated with Forms, Metering, Data Collection and 

Feasibility Analysis of Proposed DPC WUCA Rule 

One-Time Labor or Purchase 

/ Installation Cost 

Activity Associated with Proposed 

Rule 

Increase in permit fee as 

Small General permittees renew 

and become General 

permittees 

Conditions When Compliance 

Required 

Low 

Mid- 

Point 

High 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

Existing Small General Permits 

in DPC WUCA typically using f/f 

protection $115 $115 $115 $0 

Increase in permit fee as new 

Small General applicants apply 

as General permittees 

Complete DPC WUCA Supplemental 

Application Form 

Complete Net Benefit Form 

Complete Water Replacement 

Credit Application 

Flow meter installation and 

maintenance 

Flow meter maintenance 

Manual reporting of flow meter 

data to District 12 times per 

year 

New applications submitted for 

uses typically using f/f protection 

by those who are Small General 

permits under current rule $150 $150 $150 $0 

All permit applications in DPC 

WUCA $700 $1,450 $2,200 $0 

If applicant proposes a net benefit 

$700 $1,450 $2,200 $0 

If applicant proposes water replacement 

credits $700 $1,450 $2,200 $0 

New applications in DPC WUCA 

submitted after rule date typically 

using f/f protection or average 

quanitiy >/= 100,000 gpd $1,700 $2,892 $4,084 $46 

Existing Permits in DPC WUCA 

typically using f/f protection or 

average quanitiy >/= 100,000 

gpd $0 $0 $0 $46 

Permittees inside DPC WUCA 

and outside the NTB WUCA and 

SWUCA with at least 100,000 

gpd permitted quantity and no 

frost / freeze protection quantities $0 $0 $0 $1,056 

44324-000R4.docx 

Feasibility analysis of frost / 

freeze protection methods 

other than water 

(a) MALPZ stands for Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. 

Uses that typically require f/f protection 

inside the DPC WUCA or 

outside if impact to MALPZ (a) $4,320 $4,320 $4,320 $0 



Page ES-11 



A summary of the estimated costs associated with implementing methods to reduce impacts 

of frost / freeze withdrawals to the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone is provided 

in Table ES.2. These methods would be implemented by growers and fish farm 

owners under certain conditions as specified in the proposed rule. For each method, the 

conditions under which compliance is required and the annualized capital and O&M cost 

per farmed acre are provided. Additional discussion and detail regarding these costs are 

provided in Chapter 4.0 of this Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. 

Method 

Table ES.2 

Summary of Estimated Costs Associated with Implementing Methods to 

Reduce Impacts to the DPC Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone 

Annualized Cost per Farmed 

Acre (a) 

Implement alternative frost / freeze protection methods 

High tunnels – crops (b) $3,800 to $8,700 

High tunnels – fish ponds 

$78 per 100 square feet of pond 

Crop cloths $2,200 to $2,700 

Wind machines $366 

Alternative Water Sources 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Tailwater recovery, including net 

income loss $590 to $3,500 

unless otherwise noted 

Conditions When 

Compliance 

Required 

If feasible or if applicant 

chooses option in 

order to reduce requested 

withdrawal 

quantity to avoid 

MALPZ impacts (c) 

Research conducted by the University of Florida found that strawberry yields per acre increased significantly 

when grown under high tunnels. 

MALPZ stands for Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. 

The estimated costs to water users of alternative water sources that might be used for 

frost / freeze protection are summarized in Table ES.3. For each method, the conditions 

under which compliance is required and the capital and O&M cost per 1,000 gallons of 

water produced or purchased are provided. These costs will be fully or partially offset by 

the avoided costs associated with ground water withdrawals. Additional discussion and 

detail regarding these costs are provided in Chapter 4.0 of this Statement of Estimated 

Regulatory Costs. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Existing aquaculture operations that use ground water for cold protection will be required 

to prepare a feasibility study to evaluate the economic, technical and environmental feasibility 

of using alternatives to ground water for frost/freeze protection. The permittee will 

be required to implement feasible alternatives. The cost to implement feasible alternatives 

will vary significantly due to the diverse nature of the aquaculture operations. 



Page ES-12 



Table ES.3 

Summary of Estimated Costs of Alternative Water Sources to Water Users 

Water Source 

Horizontal well - Cost per 1,000 

gallons of water produced 

Reclaimed water - Cost per 

1,000 gallons of water purchased 

Cost per 1,000 gallons 

of water produced or 

purchased 

Low 

High 

Conditions When 

Compliance Required 

$0.11 $0.65 If applicant chooses option in 

order to reduce requested 

$0.05 $2.15 

withdrawal quantity to avoid 

MALPZ impacts (a) 

(a) 

MALPZ stands for Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. 

To provide flexibility to applicants requiring new groundwater quantities in a groundwater 

limited area, the applicant may be able to acquire permitted ground water using the Net 

Benefit provision of the proposed rule. Net Benefit options include obtaining historically 

used groundwater quantities that are retired; aquifer recharge; or obtaining groundwater 

mitigation credits as described in the proposed rule. The proposed rule revisions also 

provide flexibility to existing permittees with impacts on the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone. They may self-relocate their existing permitted quantities to another location 

when it is in their best interest so long as the impacts are not increased, there are no 

changes in ownership, the use type does not change and there is no increase in quantities. 

An example is an agricultural operation that wishes to relocate to another site because 

of changes in surrounding land uses. 

The proposed rule changes the method by which well complaints are assigned to water 

use permittees who are responsible for ground water withdrawals that affect these wells. 

Relative to current rule, the change in the method is expected to result in the same 

number or more permittees being assigned well complaints and either no change or a 

reduction in the average number of well complaints per permittee. Depending on the 

frost / freeze event, some permittees who would not have been assigned a well complaint 

under current rule might be assigned a well complaint under the proposed rule. 

Other permittees who would have been assigned multiple well complaints under current 

rule might be assigned fewer well complaints under the proposed rule. 

44324-000R4.docx 

ES.5 

Impacts to Small Businesses, Small Cities and Small Counties 

In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, there were about 5,941 business 

establishments in or near the DPC WUCA with 200 or fewer employees according 

to data from the U.S. Census. The total number of business establishments was 5,990. 

Thus, as much as 99 percent of business establishments in the DPC WUCA may be 



Page ES-13 



“small businesses” as defined by Florida Statute. There are no small counties or small 

cities in the DPC WUCA. 

The District exempts most small uses of water from water use permitting requirements 

and many entities that are exempt may be small businesses. Small business, cities and 

counties whose intended facility or use does not exceed one or more of the following 

thresholds are exempt from water use permitting and are not affected by the proposed 

rule 2 : 

 

 

 

 

Total withdrawal capacity from any source or combined sources is greater than 

or equal to 1,000,000 gallons per day. 

The average annual daily withdrawal from any source or combined sources is 

greater than or equal to 100,000 gallons per day. 

Withdrawal is from a well having an outside diameter of 6 inches or more at the 

surface. 

Withdrawal is from a surface water body and the outside diameter of the withdrawal 

pipe or the sum of the outside diameters of the withdrawal pipes is 4 

inches or greater (maximum capacity of approximately 216,000 gallons per day 3 ) 

In general, the controlling threshold is the annual average daily water use of 100,000 

gallons per day which is roughly equivalent to the indoor daily water use of approximately 

1,500 persons. 4 In addition, the withdrawal of water for domestic uses from wells 

owned by individual users, such as withdrawals from an individual well to serve a house, 

is exempt from regulation (see rule 40D-2.051, F.A.C. for additional exemptions). It is 

very likely that the water use of many small businesses would be exempt from water use 

permit requirements and the specific restrictions of the proposed rule. 

In accordance with Section 120.54 (3) (b) 2.a., F.S., the District made revisions to the 

proposed rule to reduce adverse impacts to small businesses. First, the proposed rule 

requirement that permittees are responsible for the operation, maintenance and replacement 

of the required automatic reading devices was eliminated. The District will 

44324-000R4.docx 

2 Note that there are special permit thresholds for water withdrawals in the Most Impacted Area of the 

Southern Water Use Caution Area (see rule 40D-2.041 (1)(e), F.A.C.). 

3 Maximum recommended capacity for a schedule 40 pipe is calculated as follows: The 4 inch pipe 

has a 3.5 inch inside diameter. The capacity of the pipe is 150 gpm, so the maximum daily water 

pumpage is 150 gpm x 60 minutes per hour x 24 hours = 216,000 gallons per day. 

4 1,500 persons = 100,000 gpd / 65 gallons per person per day of indoor water use. 



Page ES-14 



now bear those costs. The vast majority of permittees who would have borne those 

costs are small businesses. Second, the proposed rule requirement that permittees with 

permitted ground water quantities for frost/freeze protection be required to conduct feasibility 

analyses of alternative means of frost/freeze protection was modified. This requirement 

now excludes those permittees with less than 100,000 gallons per day annual 

average daily permitted quantity. The vast majority of the permittees that will not have to 

pay for such analyses are small businesses. 

The proposed rule is not expected to incur costs to small businesses, small cities or 

small counties unless it is a water use permittee in the DPC WUCA; or requests a water 

use permit for frost / freeze protection in the DPC WUCA; or is outside the DPC WUCA 

and requests a groundwater quantity for frost / freeze protection that impacts the Protection 

Zone. In the event that a small business, small city or small county must comply 

with the proposed rule, the potential transactional costs are provided in Chapter 4.0 of 

this Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. 

ES.6 

Overall Regulatory Cost and Economic Impact 

The proposed rule is not likely to have an adverse impact on economic growth, privatesector 

job creation or employment, or private sector investment in excess of $1 million in 

the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of the rule. The proposed rule is 

not likely to have an adverse impact on business competitiveness, productivity, or innovation 

in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of 

the rule. Business competitiveness includes the ability of persons doing business in the 

state to compete with persons doing business in other states or domestic markets. The 

proposed rule is not likely to increase regulatory costs, including any transactional costs, 

in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of the 

rule. Additional explanation is provided in Chapter 6.0 of this Statement of Estimated 

Regulatory Costs. 

ES.7 

Additional Information 

The proposed rule and recovery strategy are primarily designed to: 

 

minimize potential negative impacts of the proposed rule on existing permittees 

in the region; 

44324-000R4.docx 

 

 

prevent the worsening of the recent widespread negative impacts from groundwater 

pumpage for frost / freeze protection; 

provide regulatory and non-regulatory incentives to reduce existing frost / freeze 

protection groundwater pumpage and its impacts; and, 



Page ES-15 



 

more equitably distribute well failure investigation and repair responsibilities 

among permittees. 

Some of these benefits may be difficult to quantify, but they are nonetheless significant. 

For example, proposed requirements to implement economically feasible alternative cold 

protection methods and the financial assistance provided to growers to implement them 

are anticipated to facilitate the transition to non-groundwater cold protection. 

Prior to the frost/freeze event of 2010, the District’s percentage cost share of agricultural 

projects to reduce Floridan aquifer withdrawals in the area was limited to 50 percent unless 

the project also improved water quality. Revisions to the “FARMS” rule (Chapter 

40D-26, F.A.C.) which was approved by the District Governing Board will specifically allow 

reductions in frost/freeze groundwater withdrawals to be counted in cost effectiveness 

calculations to increase the likelihood that such projects will qualify for District cost 

sharing. 

In addition, the District’s share of the eligible project costs was increased from 50 percent 

to 75 percent in some cases. The intent is to make frost/freeze protection groundwater 

reduction projects more financially feasible to growers and provide a significant 

reduction in permitted ground water withdrawals in and around the DPC WUCA over 

time. The District anticipates spending approximately $2.2 million per year over the next 

10 years to reduce frost / freeze quantities permitted from the Upper Floridan aquifer. 

Details regarding the qualifications for FARMS cost-sharing programs are addressed in 

Section 7.0 of this Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. 

44324-000R4.docx 



Page ES-16 


Table of Contents 

Transmittal Letter 

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1.0 

Summary of Proposed Rule................................................................ 

...................................1-1 

1.1 Background ...................................................................1-1 

1.2 Regulatory Approach ..................................................... 

1-2 

1.3 Minimum Aquifer Level and Protection Zone.................. 

1-3 

1.4 Submittal of Forms......................................................... 

1-3 

1.5 Responsibility for Sinkholes and Subsidence................. 

1-4 

1.6 Frost / Freeze Protection Allocations ............................. 1-5 

1.7 Metering Requirements.................................................. 

1-5 

1.8 Withdrawals that Affect the DPC WUCA Minimum .........1-7 

Aquifer Level Protection Zone 

1.9 Alternative Frost / Freeze Protection Methods ............. 1-12 

1.10 Investigation of Frost / Freeze and Crop ...................... 1-13 

Establishment Withdrawal – Related Well Complaints 

by Permittees within the Dover / Plant City WUCA 

1.11 Additional Permit Conditions ........................................ 

1-17 

Chapter 2.0 

Number of Individuals and Entities Required to Comply ........................2-1 

44324-000R4.docx 

Chapter 3.0 

2.1 Summary of Proposed Rule Affecting Individuals........... ...........2-1 

and Entities 

2.2 Existing Water Use Permittees in the Dover / Plant........2-4 

City WUCA 

2.3 Future Water Use Permit Applicants in the Dover / ...... 2-11 

Plant City WUCA 

2.4 Existing and Future Water Use Permit Applicants........ 

2-14 

Outside the Dover / Plant City WUCA 

Cost to the District and to Any Other State and Local............................ 

............................3-1 

Government Entities 



TOC-1 


TABLE OF CONTENTS JANUARY 2011 

3.1 Cost to the Southwest Florida Water Management ........3-1 

District 

3.2 Cost to Any Other State and Local Government ............3-9 

Entities of Implementing and Enforcing the Proposed 

Rules 

3.3 Anticipated Effect on State or Local Revenues ..............3-9 

Chapter 4.0 

Transactional Costs...............................................................................4-1 

4.1 Summary of Transactional Costs ...................................4-2 

4.2 Submittal of Forms.........................................................4-2 

4.3 Responsibility for Sinkholes and Subsidence.................4-3 

4.4 Frost / Freeze Protection Permitted Quantities...............4-3 

4.5 Metering Requirements..................................................4-4 

4.6 Frost / Freeze Protection Methods Other Than ..............4-8 

Irrigation Water 

4.7 Cost to Use Alternative Water Sources for .................. 4-19 

Frost / Freeze Protection 

4.8 Alternative Frost / Freeze Protection Methods ............ 4-35 

For Aquaculture 

4.9 Well Complaints and Mitigation.................................... 4-36 

4.10 Hourly Salary, Benefits and Overhead ......................... 4-37 

Chapter 5.0 

Impacts to Small Businesses, Small Cities and Small Counties.............5-1 

Chapter 6.0 Overall Regulatory Cost and Economic Impact .....................................6-1 

6.1 Total Estimated Regulatory Costs..................................6-2 

6.2 Likely Impact of Proposed Rule on Economic ...............6-9 

Growth, Private Sector Employment and Investment 

6.3 Likely Impact of Proposed Rule on Business .............. 6-18 

Competitiveness, Productivity or Innovation 

Chapter 7.0 

Additional Information: Non-Regulatory Approach.................................7-1 

44324-000R4.docx 

7.1 Benefits of the Proposed Rule and Recovery Strategy...7-1 

7.2 Non-Regulatory Approach..............................................7-5 



TOC-2 



Tables 

Table 2.1 Number of Water Use Permits with Ground Water Withdrawals in.........2-5 

the Dover / Plant City WUCA By Water Use Category and Need to 

Comply 

Table 2.2 Number of Water Use Permits With Ground Water Withdrawals in........2-6 

the Dover / Plant City WUCA by Water Use Category, Size of 

Permitted Quantity and the Frost / Freeze Criteria 

Table 2.3 Number of Water Use Permits With Ground Water Withdrawals in........2-6 

the Dover / Plant City WUCA That Are In the NTB WUCA or the 

SWUCA 

Table 2.4 Number of Acres Irrigated in the DPC WUCA by Crop or Landscape....2-7 

Irrigated and Irrigation Method - Water Use Permits with Ground 

Water Quantities 

Table 2.5 Acreage Distribution of Strawberry Production by Water Use................2-8 

Permittees in the DPC WUCA 

Table 2.6 Total Property Acreage of Agricultural Permits in the DPC WUCA ........2-9 

Table 2.7 Total Property Acreage Distribution of Agricultural Water Use...............2-9 

Permits In the Dover / Plant City WUCA 

Table 2.8 Number of Water Use Permits in the DPC WUCA that have................2-10 

Non-Irrigation Water Use Types 

Table 2.9 Dover / Plant City Water Use Caution Area Number of ......................2-11 

New Water Use Permits Approved from 2000 to 2009 

Table 2.10 Dover Plant City Water Use Caution Area Average Annual ................2-12 

Number of Water Use Permits Approved from 2000 to 2009 

Table 2.11 Number of Vacant and Undeveloped Properties and Acreage in .........2-13 

the Dover / Plant City WUCA, Hillsborough County, by Property Use 

Table 2.12 Number of Properties and Acreage Associated with Vacant and.........2-14 

Undeveloped Land Uses in the Polk County Portion of the DPC 

WUCA 

44324-000R4.docx 

Table 3.1 Total Estimated Cost to the District Associated with the DPC................3-2 

WUCA Rule 

Table 3.2 Estimated Total One-Time Cost to Purchase, Install and Administer.....3-2 

Flow Meters 

Table 3.3 Estimated Cost to Purchase Flow Meters..............................................3-3 

Table 3.4 Estimated Cost to Install Flow Meters....................................................3-4 

Table 3.5 Estimated Cost to Purchase, Install, Replace, Maintain and Repair ......3-5 

Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Devices and Data Collection 

Table 3.6 Estimated Cost to Purchase and Install Automatic Meter Reading ........3-6 

(AMR) Devices in the Dover / Plant City WUCA, 2010 Dollars 



TOC-3 



Table 3.7 

Estimated Cost to Collect Water Withdrawal and Related Data from.....3-7 

the AMR Devices in the Dover / Plant City WUCA, 2010 Dollars 

Table 4.1 Estimated Cost to Purchase Water Flow Meters....................................4-5 

Table 4.2 Estimated Cost to Install Water Flow Meters .........................................4-5 

Table 4.3 Estimated Cost to Purchase, Install and Maintain a Water Flow ............4-7 

Meter and an AMR Device at One Water Withdrawal Point 

Table 4.4 Estimated Cost to Protect Crops from Frost / Freeze Events using .....4-12 

High Tunnels 

Table 4.5 Estimated Cost to Protect Fish Ponds from Frost / Freeze Events ......4-14 

Using High Tunnels 


Crop Cloths 


Wind Machines 

Table 4.8 Estimated Cost of a Tailwater Recovery System, Including .................4-23 

Excavation of Below Ground Pond For Three Farm Sizes in the 

DPC WUCA 

Table 4.9 Estimated Cost of a Tailwater Recovery System, Including .................4-25 

Excavation of an Above Ground Pond for Three Farm Sizes in the 

DPC WUCA 

Table 4.10 Estimated Revenue and Costs of Producing Southwest Florida ..........4-27 

Oranges Low and High Net Return Estimates, 2010 $ 

Table 4.11 Estimated Revenue and Costs of Strawberries in Plant City, Florida,..4-28 

2010 Dollars 

Table 4.12 Summary of Estimated Costs per Farm Acre per Year Associated......4-30 

with a Tailwater Recovery System for a 10 Acre Farm 





Table 4.15 Estimated Costs of a Horizontal Well to Obtain Water from the...........4-34 

Surficial Aquifer, 2010 Dollars 

Table 4.16 Hourly Salary and Wage Rates used to Estimate Transactional..........4-38 

Costs 

44324-000R4.docx 

Table 5.1 

Table 5.2 

Number of Establishments In or Near the Dover / Plant City WUCA......5-2 

by Employee Size Class 

Population of Counties that Comprise the DPC WUCA and the Cities...5-2 

and Unincorporated Census Designated Places In the DPC WUCA 



TOC-4 



Table 6.1 Summary of Estimated Costs Associated with Forms, Metering ............6-3 

Data Collection and Feasibility Analysis of Proposed DPC WUCA Rule 

Table 6.2 Summary of Estimated Total Regulatory Costs Associated with the .....6-4 

Proposed DPC WUCA Rule 

Table 6.3 Estimated Net Returns to Land and Risk from One Strawberry ...........6-12 

Crop Using Alternative Frost / Freeze Protection Methods 

Table 6.4 Estimated Net Returns to Land, Trees and Risk .................................6-14 

from Producing Oranges In Southwest Florida 

Table 6.5 Estimated Net Returns to Land and Risk From Blueberry....................6-16 

Production in Florida Using Alternative Frost / Freeze Protection 

Methods 

Table 7.1 Status of Wells and Magnitude of Repairs That Resulted......................7-4 

From the January 2010 Frost / Freeze Event 

Table 7.2 Summary of the District's FARMS Projects in 2008 and 2009 ...............7-6 

Figures 

Figure 1-1 Map of Proposed Dover / Plant City Water Use................... After page 1-2 

Caution Area 

Figures 7-1 

and 7-2 Distribution of Well Complaints Using Existing .................... After page 7-4 

Methodology Versus New Allocation Method 

44324-000R4.docx 



TOC-5 


Chapter 1.0 

Summary of Proposed Rule 

This chapter describes the proposed rule changes associated with the proposed Dover / 

Plant City Water Use Caution Area (DPC WUCA). 

1.1 Background 

The background associated with this proposed rule is provided in the proposed revisions 

to Chapter 40D-80, Recovery and Prevention Strategies for Minimum Flows and Levels, 

F.A.C. as follows: 

“From January 3 through 13, 2010, for the first time since records have been kept, 

temperatures in eastern Hillsborough County and western Polk County dropped below 

34 degrees for 11 consecutive days. As a result, area farmers pumped large 

quantities of groundwater to protect their crops. This combined pumping dropped the 

aquifer level 60 feet, likely contributed to the large number of sinkhole occurrences, 

and caused more than 750 neighboring groundwater wells to be damaged or to temprotection 

of crops is authorized by 

their water use permits, permittees are responsible for fixing impacts to wells in their 

porarily go dry. 

Although pumping groundwater for frost / freeze 

mitigation areas. The District developed a multi-faceted approach to address these 

issues that included a series of work sessions for invited guests and technical experts 

to review public input received and to provide feedback to assist District staff in 

developing recommended solutions. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Additional staff efforts included the coordination of a multi-governmental task force to 

secure state and federal funding for sinkhole and other repairs, and development of 

recommendations for modifications to well construction, pump depth and pressure 

valve cutoff devices criteria and inspections. Staff, after considerable discussions 

and public input, developed a more equitable approach for assigning well mitigation 

responsibility for frost / freeze related events. In doing so the staff made further rec- 

ommendations for limitations on additional groundwater use for frost / freeze protec- 

tion, developing means to significantly increase the percentage of frost / freeze protection 

in the area accomplished by methods other than groundwater, enhancing 

communications with the public and permittees during a frost / freeze event, and ex- 

pansion of permit and hydrologic data collection.” 



PAGE 1-1 


1.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE JANUARY 2011 

A non-regulatory component of the recovery and prevention strategy for the DPC WUCA 

is for the District to provide up to 75 percent of the cost of projects designed to replace 

ground water withdrawals for frost / freeze protection through the District’s Facilitating 

Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) program. 

1.2 Regulatory Approach 

The proposed rule will create a Dover / Plant City Water Use Caution Area (DPC WUCA) 

in portions of Hillsborough and Polk counties for the following purpose (from proposed 

40D-80.075 (2)). 

“By January 2020, to reduce groundwater withdrawals used for frost / freeze protection 

by 20% from January 2010 withdrawal quantities to lessen the potential that drawdown 

during a future frost / freeze event would lower the aquifer level at District Well 

DV-1 Suwannee below 10 feet NGVD.” 

The area to be designated as the DPC WUCA is depicted in Figure 1-1. The legal description 

of the DPC WUCA is provided in Chapter 40D-2.801(3)(d), F.A.C. Valid permits 

legally in effect as of the effective date of this proposed rule are hereafter referred to as 

“existing permits”. Portions of the area of the DPC WUCA are also included within the 

Northern Tampa Bay WUCA and the Southern Water use Caution Areas and rules pertaining 

to those areas remain in force within those areas. 

In establishing the Minimum Aquifer Level under proposed changes to Chapter 40D- 

8.626 Minimum Aquifer Levels, as measured at District Well DV-1 Suwannee, the District 

has determined that the actual water level is below the Minimum Aquifer Level. As a 

result, the District is implementing a Recovery Strategy for the Minimum Aquifer Level 

described in proposed changes to Section 7.4 “Dover / Plant City Water Use Caution 

Area” of Part B of the Basis of Review, Water Use Permit Information Manual (herein 

referred to as BOR or Basis of Review). 

44324-000R4.docx 

The proposed requirements, relative to current rule, of new, renewal and modified water 

use permit applicants in this proposed WUCA or those outside of this WUCA proposing 

quantities that could impact the proposed Minimum Aquifer Level are as follows. These 

requirements are from the proposed changes to Chapter 40D-1.659, Procedural, F.A.C., 

Chapter 40D-2, Water Use Permits, F.A.C., Chapter 40D-8.626 Minimum Aquifer Levels, 

F.A.C. and Part B, Basis of Review, Water Use Permit Information Manual, Sections 

1.4.1, 1.9.9, 1.12, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3, 4.3, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, and 7.4. These requirements address 

withdrawal impacts, the use of alternative water supplies (AWS), the use of alternative 

frost / freeze protection methods, and recovery to the Minimum Aquifer Level. 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Page 1-2 




1.3 Minimum Aquifer Level and Protection Zone 

The aquifer level at District well DV-1 Suwannee is affected by local and regional 

groundwater withdrawals. In order to address the effects of local and regional groundwater 

withdrawals and the variable hydrogeologic factors within the region, a Minimum 

Aquifer Level Protection Zone is established under the proposed rule. The Minimum 

Aquifer Protection Zone is defined as the area within the boundary of the 30 foot drawdown 

contour that resulted from the January, 2010 frost / freeze event as shown in Figure 

1-1. 

The Minimum Aquifer Level is the 10 ft. potentiometric surface elevation at District Well 

DV-1 Suwannee. The Minimum Aquifer Level is the level below which the greatest impact 

occurred in terms of well failures and sinkholes during the 2010 frost/freeze event. 

Overall compliance with the Minimum Aquifer Level is evaluated using a ground water 

flow model simulation of the permitted groundwater frost / freeze withdrawals in the 

Dover / Plant City WUCA. Based on an annual simulation, if the resulting potentiometric 

level is at or above 10 ft NGVD at well DV-1 Suwannee, compliance with the Minimum 

Aquifer Level is achieved. If the resulting level is below 10 ft. NGVD at well DV-1 Suwannee, 

compliance with the Minimum Aquifer Level is not achieved. 

Once the Minimum Aquifer Level is achieved, based on the annual simulation, if the actual 

potentiometric level falls below the Minimum Aquifer Level during a frost / freeze 

event, the District shall investigate the cause, re-evaluate the Minimum Aquifer Level, 

and determine the appropriate recovery strategy. Permittees do not have to demonstrate 

individual compliance with the Minimum Aquifer Level, only the Minimum Aquifer 

Level Protection Zone, as described in Chapter 1.8 of this SERC. The primary purpose 

of the Minimum Aquifer Level is to determine whether a recovery strategy is required. 

1.4 Submittal of Forms 

All water use permit application forms and the agricultural supplemental form and agricultural 

attachment for small generals are edited to notify applicants in the Dover/Plant 

City WUCA of additional restrictions and requirements and to submit additional documentation. 

44324-000R4.docx 

In addition to submitting the appropriate application and supplemental form(s) or Small 

General attachment form(s), water use permit applicants will need to submit one or more 

of the following completed SWUCA / DPC WUCA forms, depending upon their proposed 

water use. Under current rule, applicants in the SWUCA area of the DPC WUCA are 

required to submit one or more of these forms. 





(1) SWUCA / DPC WUCA Supplemental Form - During the water use permit application 

process, all water use permit applicants in the DPC WUCA will need to submit the Supplemental 

Form – Southern Water Use Caution Area and Dover / Plant City Water Use 

Caution Area, incorporated by reference in Subsection 40D-2.101(6), F.A.C. 

(2) Net Benefit Supplemental Form - If a net benefit is to be considered by the District, 

the applicant will need to complete the Net Benefit Supplemental Form similar to that 

used in the Southern Water Use Caution Area and which will be incorporated by reference 

in Subsection 40D-2.101(6), F.A.C. This form is required only if the applicant proposes 

a Mitigation Plus Recovery type of Net Benefit. 

(3) Groundwater Replacement Credit Application - If a water replacement credit is to be 

considered by the District, the applicant will need to complete the Water Replacement 

Credit Application – Southern Water Use Caution Area and Dover / Plant City Water Use 

Caution Area, incorporated by reference in Subsection 40D-2.101(6), F.A.C. This form 

is required only if the applicant proposes a Groundwater Replacement Credit as a Net 

Benefit type. 

1.5 Responsibility for Sinkholes and Subsidence 

Under Standard Permit Conditions, the requirement that a permittee shall mitigate “sinkholes 

or subsidence caused by reduction in water levels” will be deleted under Chapter 

40D-2.381 (3)(m)(2)). 

Under existing rule, permittees are required to mitigate adverse impacts to offsite land 

uses and the rule includes a list of occurrences that are considered adverse impacts, 

including sinkholes or subsidence caused by reductions in water levels. The proposed 

rule changes the list from an all inclusive list to be a list of examples of adverse impacts. 

This list does not include sinkholes or subsidence as examples but does not eliminate 

responsibility for such occurrences where responsibility can be determined. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Experience indicates that in an area of high concentration of large withdrawals by numerous 

permittees (such as in the DPC WUCA) and in areas where sinkholes occur in 

the absence of withdrawals, it is difficult to assign responsibility for a sinkhole to a single 

permittee. Water levels, and their impact on wells of certain depths, are more easily correlated. 

In areas such as the DPC WUCA, the approach will be to not allow increases in 

withdrawals and to reduce them over time. Where it is less difficult to correlate the formation 

of sinkholes to a particular permit, this condition can be applied on a case-bycase 

basis, rather than a standard permit condition. 





1.6 Frost / Freeze Protection Allocations 

The following frost / freeze protection quantities apply to permits within the Dover / Plant 

City WUCA and for any permit with frost / freeze quantities authorized to be used or 

withdrawn from any combination of sources that if withdrawn from groundwater alone 

would have the potential to impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone established 

for the Dover / Plant City WUCA. 

Maximum Daily allocations for frost freeze protection shall be allocated based on a 21 

hour event. Under current rule, the allocations are based on a 24 hour event. Frost / 

Freeze quantity allocations shall be as follows and are not different from current rule. 

● 

● 

● 

Blueberries, Nursery, and Strawberries shall be based on 6,788 gallons per hour 

per acre. This is current rule. 

Citrus shall be based on 3,000 gallons per hour per acre. This is the current rule 

for citrus when low volume irrigation is used. 

Aquaculture shall be based on the type of fish and the volume of water replaced 

in the permittee’s vats, ponds and tanks. This is the current rule for aquaculture 

operations. 

1.7 Metering Requirements 

The proposed changes to the water metering requirements are from the BOR Section 

7.4, paragraphs 4.1 Metering and 4.2 Permit Conditions. 

The proposed metering requirements apply to the following water use permits. 

1. Permits with frost / freeze quantities to be withdrawn from groundwater within the 

Dover / Plant City WUCA; or, 

2. Permits for 100,000 gpd annual average or greater from groundwater within the 


44324-000R4.docx 

3. Permits within the Dover / Plant City WUCA for groundwater quantities to provide 

frost / freeze quantities authorized to be used or withdrawn from any combination of 

sources that if withdrawn from groundwater alone would have the potential to impact 

the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone established for the Dover / Plant City 

WUCA; or, 


supplemental irrigation for a use that typically requires frost / freeze protection and 





where such protection could be achieved through groundwater withdrawals but alternative 

protection methods are proposed. 

For the purposes of the DPC WUCA rule, the District considers strawberries, blueberries, 

nurseries (container and some field), citrus (ridge and flatwood) and tropical fish 


Under the proposed rule, all off-site sources and withdrawal points on the permit, including 

backup and standby withdrawal points, are required to be metered. In addition, all 

alternative water supplies are required to be metered. Upon request of the District, permittees 

required to meter withdrawals shall provide the District an opportunity to perform 

measurements of flow during system operation. Metering requirements under item (2) 

above represents no change from current metering requirements. 

Permittees with water use permits as described under (1), (3) and (4), above, shall meter 

withdrawal quantities from each withdrawal point using automatic meter reading devices 

and provide meter readings to the District as set forth in the BOR, Section 7.4. All withdrawal 

points, including alternative water supplies, shall be metered and reported. All 

meters shall be equipped to automatically collect and report ambient temperature, wet 

bulb temperature, system pressure, pond levels and other system indicators of the time 

withdrawals started and stopped and temperatures. The data shall be collected hourly 

and transmitted to the District or the District’s designated representative on a frequency 

not less than daily and maintained in a time series format that identifies the collection 

site by District site ID, date and value for each reading. Data shall be transferred automatically 

to the District’s designated electronic data collection site, in a fixed file format 

as specified by the District. 

Where automatic reading devices are installed and withdrawal data is provided to the 

District via this device as specified in the WUP Basis of Review Section 7.4 4, the permittee 

shall no longer be required to independently submit withdrawal quantities except 

in the case of device failure. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Under current rule, if the permittee or applicant is not located in a WUCA (such as the 

SWUCA or Northern Tampa Bay WUCA) then metering is only required when the permitted 

quantity is 500,000 gpd or greater regardless of the quantities permitted for frost / 

freeze protection. In addition, all Public Supply permits for average daily quantities 

greater than 100,000 gpd in all areas of the District are required to be metered. If located 

in a WUCA, then metering is required when the permitted quantity is 100,000 gpd 

or greater regardless of the quantities permitted for frost / freeze protection. Automatic 

Meter Reading devices are not required under current rule. 





The proposed rule describes District funding of some metering requirements. For permits 

existing as of the effective date of the rule, the District will provide for the purchase 

and installation flow meters. These flow meters would be installed on withdrawal points, 

inflow lines, catchment facilities, tailwater recovery or rainfall capture ponds and storage 

facilities in existence prior to the effective date of the rule. Funding will be provided 

where the withdrawal point, facility or pond is not equipped with and not required by District 

rule as of the effective date of the rule to have a flow meter. Permittees that submit 

a water use permit application on or after the effective date of the rule shall provide and 

install flow meters at their expense. The cost of operation and maintenance and replacement 

of all meters shall be the responsibility of the permittee. After the effective 

date of this proposed rule, the permittee, at its expense, will provide and install meters at 

any existing withdrawal points that are reactivated after being capped, plugged, or dismantled. 

Upon request of the District, permittees required to meter withdrawals shall provide the 

District an opportunity to perform measurements of flow during system operation. The 

District will ensure that the measurements are made in a manner that does not interfere 

with the permittee’s water use activities. 

The proposed rule describes District funding of the automatic meter reading (AMR) devices. 

For permits where AMR devised are required, the District will provide and install 

automatic meter reading devices on each flow meter that is not already so equipped. 

The District shall include these devices in the District’s data collection and reporting service 

subscription at no cost to the permittee. The maintenance, repair, and replacement 

of all automatic meter reading devices shall be the responsibility of the District. 

For permits issued pursuant to applications submitted on or after the effective date of the 

rule, the permittee shall provide and install automatic meter reading devices at its expense. 

The cost of operation and maintenance of all meters and automatic meter reading 

equipment shall be the responsibility of the permittee. The District shall include the 

data collection and reporting service subscription at no cost to the permittee. 

44324-000R4.docx 

1.8 Withdrawals that Affect the DPC WUCA Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone 

The proposed rule regarding the permitting of water withdrawals in the DPC WUCA is 

described below. The text below is taken directly from the proposed changes to the BOR 

Section 7.4 DPC WUCA. 

General. A Minimum Aquifer Level has been established for District Well DV-1 Suwannee 

in Rule 40D-8.626(3), F.A.C., the location of which is depicted on Figure 1-1. In order 

to address the effects of local and regional groundwater withdrawals and the variable 





hydrogeologic factors within the region, a Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone is defined 

as the area within the boundary of the 30 ft. drawdown contour for the January 

2010 frost / freeze event (See Figure 1-1.). In establishing the Minimum Aquifer Level, 

the District has determined that the actual water level is below the Minimum Aquifer 

Level when certain pumping and climatic conditions occur. As required by law, the District 

is expeditiously implementing a Recovery Strategy for the Minimum Aquifer Level. 

The Dover / Plant City WUCA provisions of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit 

Applications, and Chapters 40D-2, 40D-8 and 40D-80, F.A.C., set forth the regulatory 

portion of the recovery strategy for the Minimum Aquifer Level. Compliance with this 

Section does not, by itself, satisfy the requirements of Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C., for applications 

submitted on or after the effective date of this proposed rule. 

Existing Permits. Applications for the renewal or modification of a permit with no proposed 

increase in permitted frost / freeze protection quantities or change in Use Type 

associated with frost / freeze protection will be evaluated to determine compliance with 

the conditions for issuance of a permit set forth in Rule 40D-2.301, F.A.C., and the Water 

Use Permit Basis of Review in its entirety. When evaluating the reasonable-beneficial 

use of the water, emphasis will be given to reasonable water need, water conservation, 

use of alternative water supplies, and use of alternative frost / freeze protection methods. 

However, the existing impacts of permitted quantities on the Minimum Aquifer 

Level Protection Zone will not be a basis for permit denial because the Dover / Plant City 

WUCA Recovery Strategy taken as a whole is intended to achieve recovery to the established 

minimum level as soon as practicable. 

Self-Relocation. A permittee with existing permitted impacts on the Minimum Aquifer 

Level Protection Zone as of the effective date of the rule may modify its permit to relocate 

to a different property all or a portion of the used and unused reasonable-beneficial 

permitted quantity. When relocated, the withdrawal of the quantities cannot increase impacts 

to the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone and must meet all other applicable 

permitting criteria included in 40D-2, F.A.C., and the Basis of Review. A Self-Relocation 

cannot include any change in ownership, control, Use Type or increase in quantities. 

Crop rotation, by planting and irrigating non-contiguous properties within the same locale 

in a structured, revolving fashion, is allowed under a single permit and is not considered 

Self-Relocation. 

Transfer. A permit may be transferred to another person or entity provided there is no 

change in permitted water use activities. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Applications For New Quantities. For applications including New Quantities for 

frost/freeze protection withdrawals located within the DPC WUCA, and applications for 

permits for frost/freeze withdrawals outside the DPC WUCA but with the potential to impact 

to impact the Protection Zone, the District will evaluate the applications to deter- 





mine compliance with the Protection Zone and all other 40D-2, F.A.C. rule criteria. Applications 

for New Quantities that impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone 

cannot be permitted. This applies to all applications inside and outside the DPC WUCA. 

The proposed use shall only be permitted if the proposed ground water withdrawals do 

not impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. Metering of wells and any alternative 

sources shall be required to assure that the alternatives are used when alternative 

frost / freeze methods are proposed for protection. 

1. "New Quantities" means groundwater for frost/freeze protection that is not currently 

authorized to be withdrawn by the applicant or not currently authorized to be used for 

the intended use by the applicant. This includes applications to modify existing permits 

to increase quantities, and/or change the Permit Use Type (affecting only the 

modified portion) and applications for an initial permit but does not include a full or 

partial transfer. A modification to change crops or plants grown under an Agricultural 

Permit Use Type Classification or to change withdrawal location or Use Type that is 

authorized by the terms of the permit or site certification at the time of issuance, is 

not a change in Permit Use Type provided that the quantities do not increase. In addition, 

when land is mined and the land will be returned to the Use Type operation 

authorized under the water use permit (WUP) that existed prior to mining, such activity 

does not constitute a change in Use Type or New Quantities. 

2. Groundwater Withdrawal Impacts and Analysis for Frost / Freeze Withdrawals - All 

applications for New Quantities and applications located outside of the DPC WUCA 

whose requested withdrawals have the potential to impact the Protection Zone will 

be evaluated to determine whether the proposed frost / freeze withdrawal impacts 

the DPC WUCA Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. However, the applicant has 

the option to reduce or redistribute the withdrawals to eliminate any impacts so that 

the withdrawal can be permitted. In addition to the other requirements of Rule 40D- 

2.301(1), F.A.C. and the Basis of Review, the following requirements apply to New 

Quantities and applications located outside the DPC WUCA whose requested withdrawals 

for frost/freeze protection have the potential to impact the Protection Zone: 

44324-000R4.docx 

Frost / freeze Protection – Applications for New Quantities for frost / freeze protection 

shall be evaluated based on a frost / freeze design event of 21 hours of irrigation, followed 

consecutively by 6 hours of non-irrigation, 13 hours of irrigation, 11 hours of 

non-irrigation and by 14 hours of irrigation. For groundwater quantities, the resulting 

drawdown shall not exceed 0.0 ft. within or at the boundary of the Minimum Aquifer 

Level Protection Zone, in addition to meeting the requirements of Rule 40D-2.301(1), 

F.A.C., and the Basis of Review. Existing permitted groundwater withdrawals for frost 

/ freeze protection within the Dover / Plant City WUCA are addressed below in sections 

titled “Investigation of Frost / freeze Withdrawal-Related Well Complaints” and 

the permit conditions for mitigation of impacts to existing legal uses. 





Net Benefit. The Net Benefit provision is available to applicants for New Quantities, including 

applications located outside the DPC WUCA whose requested withdrawals are 

constrained by impacts to the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. The applicant 

may choose to implement one or more of the Net Benefit options listed below in order to 

mitigate the predicted impacts. 

To provide a Net Benefit, the measures proposed by the applicant must offset the predicted 

negative impact of the proposed withdrawal and also provide an additional positive 

effect within or at the boundary of the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone equal 

to or exceeding 20% of the predicted negative impact. For example, if the predicted 

drawdown is 1.0 ft., the mitigation must offset the 1.0 ft. drawdown and provide another 

0.2 ft. (i.e., 20% of 1.0 ft.) of positive effect so that the result is a net improvement of 0.2 

ft. There are two forms of Net Benefit, including Mitigation plus Recovery (Land Use 

Transitions), and Groundwater Replacement Credits, as described below. 

A. Mitigation plus Recovery – This Net Benefit provision consists of retiring from use the 

historically used groundwater quantity associated with one or more permits that impacts 

the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. Mitigation plus recovery must either 

precede or be coincident with any new permitted withdrawals. Historically used 

quantities are those permitted quantities that the District determines have been 

deemed reasonable-beneficial and were withdrawn and used by a permittee. These 

quantities are determined based on documentation previously submitted by a permittee 

and other methods available to the District to verify the quantities being retired. 

The types of documentation submitted by permittees include seasonal/annual crop 

reports, metered data, and other information. Other methods of verification include 

aerial photography, receipts for supplies, equipment, and services, property appraiser 

records and other methods. For small permits below thresholds for crop reporting 

and metering, aerial photography and other methods will be used to determine quantities. 

1. Land Use Transitions 

(a) Where historically used groundwater quantity associated with one or more 

permits that impacts the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone are permanently 

retired, 80% of the quantity is available to be applied as a Net Benefit. 

44324-000R4.docx 

(b) Where an existing permittee replaces groundwater that was historically used 

for frost/freeze protection with water from tailwater recovery systems or other alternative 

frost/freeze protection methods, 35% of the groundwater quantity shall 

remain in the permit for use as tailwater pond makeup supply or emergency 

standby use. The amount available for use as a Net Benefit will be 80% of the 

remaining 65% of the historically used groundwater quantity. 





(c) Where the historically used groundwater quantities are used to provide a Net 

Benefit for another permittee but the donor permittee wishes to maintain a standby 

permit, the donor permittee’s standby quantity shall be 80% of this quantity, 

allowing 80% of the remaining 20% to be available as a Net Benefit. 

2. Recharging the aquifer and withdrawing water such that there remains a net 

positive impact on the Floridan aquifer potentiometric surface at least 20% greater 

than the impact of the proposed withdrawal. 

3. Undertaking other actions to offset the proposed impact of the withdrawal plus 

20% recovery. 

B. Groundwater Replacement Credit - To reduce groundwater withdrawals, a 

Groundwater Replacement Credit can be obtained as an incentive to permittees to 

offset groundwater withdrawals with alternative water supplies (AWS). The holder of 

a Groundwater Replacement Credit can use the Credit to provide a Net Benefit 

where required. The process to obtain a Groundwater Replacement Credit is as follows: 

1. A Groundwater Replacement Credit is created when a person or entity (Supplier) 

provides a quantity of water from an alternative water supply to offset an existing 

permit holder’s (Receiver’s) groundwater withdrawals when those withdrawals 

impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. A Groundwater Replacement 

Credit will be available to either the Supplier or the Receiver, or both, at their mutually 

determined option. 

2. A Groundwater Replacement Credit will be issued for an amount equal to 80 percent 

of the reasonable-beneficial quantity that has been historically used. 

3. The Supplier and Receiver shall apply to the District for the credit and indicate to 

the District which entity should obtain the credit quantity, or whether the credit 

quantity will be divided between them. 

44324-000R4.docx 

4. The District will set aside the groundwater quantities that are discontinued as a 

result of the offset by AWS in a standby permit that will be issued to the Receiver 

to allow withdrawal of all or a portion of such quantities in the event that the alternative 

water supply is interrupted, discontinued, becomes unsuitable or is decreased. 

5. The Groundwater Replacement Credit will exist for only so long as the Receiver 

maintains its use of the AWS, unless all groundwater use at the Receiver site 

ceases, in which case the Credit shall remain in effect and available to the holder 





of the Credit. The Credit will also remain available if the Receiver transfers the 

standby permit to a new owner at the same site who continues the same water 

use with the AWS. 

6. The only withdrawals that may be considered for a Groundwater Replacement 

Credit are those that meet the permitting criteria of Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C., and 

this Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications. 

7. Reclaimed water suppliers shall not be eligible for a Groundwater Replacement 

Credit when reclaimed water is directed from existing reclaimed water users to 

other reclaimed water users and such redirection causes an existing reclaimed 

water user to reinstate permitted standby ground water withdrawals. In such a 

case the credit shall be applicable if the reclaimed water provider can demonstrate 

that the cumulative effect of such redirection will achieve more recovery of 

the Minimum Aquifer Level than would otherwise occur absent of the redirection. 

1.9 Alternative Frost / Freeze Protection Methods 

Revisions to Section 7.4 of the Basis of Review address the requirement of certain water 

use permit applicants to investigate the technical, economic and environmental feasibility 

of using alternatives to ground water for frost / freeze protection. This feasibility analysis 

is required of all applicants for permits with at least 100,000 gpd average annual daily 

water quantities for an activity that typically uses frost / freeze protection and has or proposes 

to have a groundwater withdrawal with the potential to impact the Minimum Aquifer 

Level Protection Zone. 

If it is determined that alternatives to groundwater are not feasible, applications for New 

Quantities that impact the Minimum Aquifer level Protection Zone will not be permitted 

without a Net Benefit. However, in evaluating renewal applications for permits in effect 

as of the effective date of rule, a determination that alternatives to groundwater are not 

feasible shall not be a basis for denial of the renewal application. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The proposed rule provides examples of alternatives to using groundwater to provide 

frost / freeze protection. These examples are tailwater recovery systems, storm water 

systems, tunnels, covers, foam, heaters and methods supported by documentation from 

the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida. The required 

evaluation shall determine whether alternatives are available to use in lieu of groundwater 

for all or part of frost / freeze crop protection including investigation of participation in 

the FARMS program set forth in Chapter 40D-26, F.A.C. Infeasibility shall be supported 

with a detailed explanation, including a description of the investigation of participation in 

the FARMS program. Use of alternatives to groundwater for frost / freeze protection shall 

be required where technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. 





1.10 Investigation of Frost / Freeze and Crop Establishment Withdrawal – 

Related Well Complaints by Permittees within the Dover / Plant City WUCA 

Revisions to Section 7.4 of the BOR describes a method to allocate permittee responsibility 

for well complaints by determining, to the extent possible, the actual contribution of 

a permittee’s withdrawal to a well complaint and methods for allocating well complaints 

to individual permittees. 

Under current rule, all water use permits have conditions that hold the permittee responsible 

for any damage caused by the permittee’s water withdrawals. In the Dover / Plant 

City area, the District created mitigation areas in 2002 to identify which permit holders 

would be held accountable for properties with wells that pre-date the farming activity’s 

water use. If a well within that permit holder’s mitigation area is unable to draw water as 

a result of the permittee's withdrawals and the well predates the farming activity, the 

permittee is required to provide water to the affected well owner and to repair or provide 

reimbursement for the well. 1 

As a result of the 2010 11-day freeze event, District staff received 616 well complaints 

within a permittee’s mitigation area. One third of the well issues were temporary in nature, 

with approximately 413 requiring repair or replacement. Historically, when a well 

complaint is received, staff investigates whether the complaint falls within a permittee’s 

mitigation area and if so, and if there are multiple overlapping mitigation areas, the complaint 

is assigned to the permit issued most recently with increased quantities. During 

this year’s freeze event, only 62 of the 447 agricultural permits were assigned well complaints 

to investigate, with one permittee receiving more than 125 well complaints, two 

with more than 75 and two with more than 50. A majority of the permits (86%) did not 

have well complaints assigned to them under the District’s current protocol. The magnitude 

of this year’s freeze event, the large number of complaints assigned to a small 

number of permittees and the slow pace of mitigation activity caused reconsideration of 

the District’s system for assigning well complaints. 2 

The result is the following revision to current rule regarding well complaints in the DPC 

WUCA. 

Well Construction Standards. The District adopted 40D-3.600, F.A.C., effective April 9, 

2002, that established well construction standards to ensure that wells built after the ef- 

44324-000R4.docx 

1 From the Frequently Asked Questions pdf file at 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/agriculture/freeze-management/ 

2 From Southwest Florida Water Management District document called “Consideration of a More 

Equitable Approach for Assigning Well Mitigation Responsibility for Freeze Events in the Dover / 

Plant City Area, Team Leader - Alba Mas, March 22, 2010. 





fective date within portions of the Dover / Plant City WUCA (“Original Dover Area”) would 

not be impacted as a result of aquifer drawdown caused by pumping by another legal 

water use. Effective August 17, 2010, the District amended 40D-3.600, F.A.C. to expand 

the well construction standards to the remaining areas of the Dover / Plant City WUCA 

(“Expanded Dover Area”). If the complainant’s well was constructed after April 9, 2002 or 

subsequently repaired in the Original Dover Area or constructed or repaired after August 

17, 2010 in the Expanded Dover Area, the complaint will not be assigned to a permittee 

for investigation. 

Method of Well Complaint Investigation. Permits in effect as of the effective date of 

the rule with a withdrawal located in the DPC WUCA shall have the following permit 

conditions removed: conditions requiring investigation of frost / freeze crop protection or 

crop establishment withdrawal-related well complaints or agricultural withdrawal-related 

complaints within a specified area or distance. These conditions will be replaced with the 

following permit condition. In addition, permits issued on or after the effective date of the 

rule or for uses permitted prior to the effective date of the rule that include frost / freeze 

protection, crop protection, or crop establishment and do not have a specific condition 

requiring complaint investigations shall also include this permit condition. 

A. Well Evaluation and Temporary Supply. After the District receives a well complaint 

and determines that there is a responsible permittee, as provided in subsection 

5, of Section 7.4 of the WUP BOR, incorporated by reference in 40D-2.091, F.A.C., 

the District will then notify the responsible permittee of the complaint. It will also inform 

the complainant of the responsible permittee. 

1. Estimates of Repairs 

(a) The permittee shall arrange with the complainant for the evaluation and preparation 

of an estimate for restoration of water service to the complainant. The evaluation 

shall occur within 24 hours of the receipt of the complaint by the permittee, unless 

the complainant agrees to an alternative time period. The permittee shall notify the 

District of the date and time for the evaluation of the complainant’s well. Selection of 

a water well contractor to undertake either the repair or replacement of the complainant’s 

well is at the discretion of the permittee, as long as the water well contractor 

has a license in good standing issued by a water management district. If only a pump 

repair is required, the person doing the repair shall have the appropriate occupational 

license. 

44324-000R4.docx 

(b) Alternatively, the complainant and the permittee can jointly arrange for the evaluation 

and preparation of an estimate to address the well complaint. If this option is chosen, 

then the evaluation must occur within 24 hours of the receipt of the complaint by the 

permittee, unless the complainant agrees to an alternative time period. 





(c) The permittee shall provide a temporary water supply to the complainant within five 

hours of the completion of the well evaluation and continue to provide the temporary 

water supply until water service is restored to the complainant’s well as long as the 

complainant cooperates with the permittee in the repair of the complainant’s well. 

2. Restoration of Water Supply 

(a) If the evaluation indicates that groundwater pumping for frost/freeze crop protection 

resulted in loss of the complainant’s water service, the permittee shall pay for the 

work necessary to restore water service to the complainant. 

(b) If the evaluation does not occur within 24 hours or within a longer time period agreed 

to by the complainant or temporary water supply is not provided, the complainant 

may arrange for the evaluation and repair or replacement of the well as necessary to 

restore water supply and a temporary water supply if needed. Once the complainant 

provides a detailed accounting of well repair or replacement expenditures, and expenses 

for a temporary water supply if applicable, to the District and the permittee, 

the permitteee shall reimburse the complainant within 30 business days of permittee’s 

receipt of the detailed accounting for the well or provide a report to the District 

within five days of the receipt by the permittee of disputed costs. This report shall 

detail why the permittee is not responsible for reimbursing all of the funds expended 

by the complainant for the well repair or replacement. The permittee shall provide a 

copy of this report to the complainant. The District will review the report and determine 

the appropriate reimbursement based on the cause of the well complaint and 

the appropriate remedy. 

44324-000R4.docx 

B. Pre-Complaint Repairs. If a complainant has expended funds for a well repair or 

replacement before submitting a well complaint to the District, and upon filing the 

complaint within 14 days of the water use permittee’s pumping that resulted in interference, 

the District determines that there is a responsible permittee as provided in 

subsection 5, of Section 7.4 of the WUP BOR described above, if the complainant 

provides a detailed accounting of expenditures for well repair or replacement, and for 

a temporary water supply if applicable, then the responsible permittee shall reimburse 

the complainant for its actual expenditures, not to exceed $1,500 within 30 

days of permittee’s receipt of the detailed accounting of the expenditures or provide 

a report to the District within seven days of the receipt by the permittee of disputed 

costs. This report shall detail why the permittee is not responsible for reimbursing all 

of the funds expended by the complainant for the well repair or replacement, and 

temporary water supply if applicable. The permittee shall provide a copy of this report 

to the complainant. The District will review the report and determine the appropriate 

reimbursement based on the cause of the well complaint and the appropriate 

remedy. 





C. Permittee’s Mitigation Activities & Report. 

1. The permittee shall inform the District as to how the permittee intends to proceed 

to mitigate the complaint within one business day after notice of responsibility to 

mitigate the complaint is delivered by the District to the permittee via electronic 

mail, phone call or message, or facsimile transmission, or within three business 

days after depositing a letter to permittee in the U.S. Mail. 

2. If the permittee informs the District that it has determined that it is not responsible 

for mitigation of the complaint, then the permittee must provide a full explanation 

for its position. If, after the District has reviewed the permittee’s response, the 

District determines that the permittee is still responsible for mitigating the complaint, 

the permittee shall proceed with full mitigation of the complaint as set forth 

in this condition. 

3. All well complaints shall be fully mitigated by the permittee as soon as is practicable. 

Full mitigation of the well complaint shall be restoration of the complainant’s 

well to pre-impact condition or better, including the pressure levels, discharge 

quantity, and water quality. Full mitigation of the well complaint necessitates the 

construction of a new well for the complainant if the existing well cannot be restored 

to pre-impact condition. 

4. Within one business day after the complaint is fully mitigated, the permittee shall 

provide a report to the District in which the permittee details the activities undertaken 

by either the complainant or the permittee to mitigate the complaint as well 

as any reimbursements made by the permittee to the complainant. The permittee 

shall provide a copy of this report to the complainant. The District will review the 

report submitted by the permittee and may require additional action by the permittee 

if the District determines that the complaint has not been fully mitigated. 

D. If the permittee makes a good-faith effort to comply with the response process set 

forth above but is unable to repair or replace the well because of the lack of cooperation 

of the complainant, the permittee may request that the District deem the permittee 

to have satisfied this permit condition. 

44324-000R4.docx 

E. Time is of the essence of this permit condition and each of its provisions. For example, 

the full mitigation of a complaint does not excuse the failure to timely comply with 

each of the provisions of this condition. 

Mitigation of Impacts to Existing Legal Uses. Persons who believe that groundwater 

pumping by a water use permittee for crop establishment or frost / freeze protection has 

interfered with the person’s existing legal use of groundwater may seek mitigation based 





upon the process set forth above. An example of interference with the person’s existing 

legal use of groundwater is that the person’s well pump no longer operates. In order to 

seek mitigation through this process such persons must provide the District with their 

name, address, phone number and the location of their affected groundwater well within 

14 days of the water use permittee’s pumping that resulted in the interference. 

1.11 Additional Permit Conditions 

Notice of Recovery Strategy. All new, renewal and existing permits located in the Dover 

/ Plant City WUCA, or that are determined to impact the Minimum Aquifer Level or 

Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone, both with or without providing a Net Benefit, include, 

as of the effective date of the rule, the following condition: 

This permit is located within the Dover / Plant City WUCA or potentially impacts the 

Minimum Aquifer Level or Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone for the Dover / 

Plant City WUCA. Pursuant to Section 373.0421, F.S., the Dover / Plant City WUCA 

is subject to a minimum levels recovery strategy that became effective on [effective 

date of rule]. As set forth in rule 40D-80.075, F.A.C., the recovery strategy, including 

water use permitting rules, is subject to change based on, among other criteria, the 

Governing Board’s periodic assessment of water resource criteria and cumulative 

water withdrawal impacts as described in Chapter 40D-80, F.A.C. This permit is subject 

to modification to comply with new rules. 

Adverse Impacts. The following condition is removed from all existing permits located 

within the Dover/ Plant City WUCA, or that are determined to impact the Minimum Aquifer 

Level or Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone, both with or without providing a Net 

Benefit, as of the effective date of the rule: 

The Permittee shall mitigate any adverse impact to environmental features or offsite 

land uses as a result of withdrawals. When adverse impacts occur or are imminent, 

the District shall require the Permittee to mitigate the impacts. Adverse impact include 

the following: 

1. Significant reduction in levels or flows in water bodies such as lakes, impoundments, 

wetlands, springs, streams, or other watercourses. 

44324-000R4.docx 

2. Sinkholes or subsidence caused by reduction in water levels. 

3. Damage to crops and other vegetation causing financial harm to the owner. 

4. Damage to the habitat of endangered or threatened species. 





All new, renewal and existing permits located in the Dover / Plant City WUCA, or that are 

determined to impact the Minimum Aquifer Level or Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone, both with or without providing a Net Benefit, include , as of [effective date of rule] 

the following condition: 

The Permittee shall mitigate any unacceptable adverse impact resulting from withdrawals 

to environmental features, Minimum Flows or Minimum Levels, or offsite land uses, 

as specified in Ch. 40D-2.301(1)F.A.C., and the Water Use Permit Information Manual, 

Part B, the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications, Chapter 4. Should unanticipated 

or unmitigated unacceptable adverse impacts occur, the Permittee shall be required 

to expeditiously mitigate the impacts. 

44324-000R4.docx 




Chapter 2.0 

Number of Individuals and 

Entities Required to Comply 

The proposed rule addresses the impacts of ground water withdrawals for frost / freeze 

protection on ground water levels in the Dover / Plant City WUCA (DPC WUCA). The 

individuals and entities required to comply with the proposed rule are limited to those 

who have or who will apply for a water use permit from the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District and who have water uses that meet specific criteria as summarized 

in Chapter 2.1 below. 

2.1 Summary of Proposed Rule Affecting Individuals and Entities 

According to Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C., Consumptive Use of Water, a water use permit 

(WUP) from the Southwest Florida Water Management District is required as follows. 

40D-2.041 Permits Required. 

1. Unless expressly exempted by law or District rule, a WUP must be obtained 

from the District prior to withdrawal of water if any of the following thresholds are 

exceeded: 

a. Total withdrawal capacity from any source or combined sources is greater 

than or equal to 1,000,000 gallons per day (gpd). 

b. Annual average daily withdrawal from any source or combined sources is 

greater than or equal to 100,000 gpd. 

c. Withdrawal is from a well having an outside diameter of 6 inches or more at 

the surface. 

d. Withdrawal is from a surface water body and the outside diameter of the 

withdrawal pipe or the sum of the outside diameters of the withdrawal pipes 

is 4 inches or greater. 

44324-000R4.docx 

e. In addition to the thresholds set forth in paragraphs (1)(a) through (1)(d) 

above, a permit is required within the MIA as set forth in subparagraph 40D- 

2.801(3)(b)2., F.A.C., when withdrawal is from wells having a cumulative 



PAGE 2-1 


2.0 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES REQUIRED TO COMPLY JANUARY 2011 

outside diameter greater than 6 inches at the surface any of which wells is 

constructed after April 11, 1994. This paragraph (e) shall not apply to any 

proposed well less than 6 inches in diameter at the surface when it is of the 

same diameter or smaller than a well it replaces and an application to plug 

the replaced well in accordance with Rule 40D-3.531, F.A.C., is filed with 

the application to construct the replacement well in accordance with Rule 

40D-3.041, F.A.C. 

Individual homes and businesses that obtain water from a private well or from a surface 

water source are not required to have a water use permit as long as they do not meet 

the criteria listed in 40D-2.041, F.A.C., Permits Required, as reprinted above. 

Water users who do not meet the criteria listed above are not required to have a water 

use permit and will not need to comply with the proposed rule. 

Water use permit applicants and water use permittees required to comply with one or 

more provisions of the proposed DPC WUCA rule are those that have or request to 

have: 

1. Permitted ground water withdrawals located within the DPC WUCA; or, 

2. Permitted ground water quantities outside of the DPC WUCA that have the potential 

to impact the DPC Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. 

The major components of the proposed rule that illustrate the types of water use permittees 

required to comply are as follows. 

Water Use Permittees and Applicants. All applications to use ground water withdrawals 

for frost / freeze protection inside and outside the DPC WUCA will be evaluated for 

impacts to the proposed Dover / Plant City Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. 

However, the impacts of existing permitted quantities on the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone will not be a basis for permit denial because the DPC WUCA Recovery 

Strategy is intended to achieve recovery to the established minimum level as soon as 

practicable. 

44324-000R4.docx 

For existing water use permittees, applications for permit renewals or modifications with 

no proposed increase in permitted frost / freeze protection quantities or change in Use 

Type associated with frost / freeze protection will be evaluated to determine compliance 

with the conditions for permit issuance set forth in Rule 40D-2.301, F.A.C., which is not 

proposed to be changed, and the Water Use Permit Basis of Review in its entirety – as 

are all applications. When evaluating the reasonable-beneficial use of the water, emphasis 

will be given to reasonable water need, water conservation, use of alternative water 





supplies, and use of alternative frost/freeze protection methods. As noted above, the existing 

impacts of permitted quantities on the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone will 

not be a basis for permit denial because the DPC WUCA Recovery Strategy is intended 

to achieve recovery to the established minimum level as soon as practicable. Existing 

groundwater withdrawal impacts for frost/freeze protection shall be evaluated at renewal 

or modification based on a frost/freeze design event of 21 hours of irrigation, followed 

consecutively by 6 hours of non-irrigation, 13 hours of irrigation, 11 hours of nonirrigation 

and by 14 hours of irrigation. 

Requests for New Quantities. For New Quantities where new permitted water quantities 

for frost / freeze protection are requested, the resulting drawdown from withdrawals 

for frost / freeze protection shall not exceed 0.0 ft. at the Dover / Plant City Minimum 

Aquifer Level Protection Zone. Applications for new ground water quantities for frost / 

freeze protection inside and outside the DPC WUCA that impact the Minimum Aquifer 

Level Protection Zone cannot be permitted. The proposed use shall only be permitted if: 

1. The proposed ground water withdrawals do not impact the Minimum Aquifer 

Level Protection Zone; or, 

2. The applicant reduces or redistributes the withdrawals to eliminate any impacts 

so that the withdrawal can be permitted; or, 

3. The applicant demonstrates adequate alternative frost/freeze protection methods 

for the proposed use to eliminate any impacts so that the withdrawal can 

be permitted; or, 

4. The applicant implements a combination of (2) and (3) that does not result in an 

impact. 

Feasibility of Using Frost / Freeze Protection Alternatives to Water. The proposed 

rule includes a new requirement that certain water use permittees investigate the technical, 

economic and environmental feasibility of using alternatives to groundwater for 

frost/freeze crop protection. These permittees have at least 100,000 gpd average annual 

daily permitted ground water quantities for an activity that typically uses frost / freeze 

protection and has or proposes to have a ground water withdrawal with the potential to 

impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Water Withdrawal Metering and Reporting. Metering of water withdrawals at all permitted 

water withdrawal points and the use of automated meter reading (AMR) devices 

will be required of permittees in the DPC WUCA with permitted ground water quantities 

that use or could use water for frost / freeze protection. These permittees have permitted 

ground water withdrawals for frost / freeze protection or they have a water use permit for 





supplemental irrigation using ground water and the crop typically requires frost / freeze 

protection. For all other individuals and entities with a water use permit for ground water 

quantities greater than or equal to 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) in the DPC WUCA, metering 

of all water withdrawals, but not the use of AMR devices, will be required under 

the proposed rule. 

For the types of individuals and entities identified above, there are additional provisions 

of the proposed rule that may incur transactional costs that are addressed in Chapter 4.0 

Transactional Costs. 

2.2 Existing Water Use Permittees in the Dover / Plant City WUCA 

The Dover and Plant City area, located between the City of Tampa and the City of Lakeland 

in Florida, is a mix of agricultural, residential and industrial land uses. Dover is an 

unincorporated area of Hillsborough County and Plant City is an incorporated city. This 

area is well-known for its valuable strawberry production and hosts the Annual Strawberry 

Festival each year. 

The number of water use permits that have at least one ground water withdrawal in the 

DPC WUCA by water use category and whether they will need to comply with the proposed 

rule is provided in Table 2.1. Water use permittees required to comply are those 

with average daily permitted ground water quantities of at least 100,000 gallons per day 

(gpd) or who have permitted ground water quantities for frost / freeze protection or who 

have uses that typically require frost / freeze protection. The numbers of these permittees 

by water use category are provided in Column (2) of the table. The numbers of all 

other water use permittees in the DPC WUCA by water use category are provided in 

Column (3) and the total numbers by water use category are provided in Column (4) of 

the table. 

As indicated in Column (4) of Table 2.1, there are 660 water use permits in the DPC 

WUCA. Most of these permits (581 out of 660 or 88 percent) are for agricultural production 

including crop irrigation, tropical fish farms, and livestock watering. The remaining 

permits are for public supply (34 permits), recreation / aesthetic (22 permits), and industrial 

/ commercial (23 permits) water uses. 

44324-000R4.docx 

There are 547 existing water use permittees who will be required to comply with the proposed 

rule. Most of these permittees, or 95 percent, use water for agricultural crop irrigation. 

The remaining permittees are tropical fish farms (7 permits under Agricultural), public 

supply (10 permits), industrial / commercial (6 permits) and recreation / aesthetic (4 

permits). 





There are 113 water use permittees who are not required to comply with the proposed 

rule. However, they will need to comply if they add or change crops or use types such 

that frost/freeze protection is needed. About 50 percent of these permittees use water for 

agricultural production. 

Table 2.1 

Number of Water Use Permits with Ground Water Withdrawals in the 

Dover / Plant City WUCA By Water Use Category and Need to Comply (a) 

Water Use Category 

Need to Comply 

with Proposed 

Rule (b) 

Number of Permits 

Do Not Need to 

Comply with 

Proposed Rule (c) 

Total 

(1) (2) (3) (4) 

Recreation / Aesthetic 4 18 22 

Agricultural 527 54 581 

Industrial / Commercial 6 17 23 

Public Supply 10 24 34 

Mining / Dewatering 0 0 0 

Total 547 113 660 

(a Based on permit data from Southwest Florida Water Management Water Use Permit 

Database as of August 2010. 

(b) 

(c) 

These permits have greater than 100,000 gpd average daily permitted water quantity 

or have permitted water quantities for frost / freeze protection or the use typically requires 

frost / freeze protection. 

Unless they request new ground water quantities such that their average daily withdrawal 

increases to at least 100,000 gpd or they change crops or use type such that 

frost/freeze protection is needed. These permits have less than 100,000 gpd average 

daily permitted water quantity and do not need frost / freeze protection. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Most of the permittees who need to comply have permitted ground water withdrawals for 

frost / freeze quantities. This is demonstrated in Table 2.2 where the number of permits 

with at least 100,000 gpd and less than 100,000 gpd and that have frost / freeze quantities 

or who grow crops that typically require frost / freeze quantities by water use category 

are provided. Of the 543 existing water use permittees who will need to comply with 

the proposed rule, 505 have permitted ground water withdrawals for frost / freeze protection. 

Only 26 permits have no permitted quantities for frost / freeze protection but grow 

crops or fish that typically require frost / freeze protection. 





Table 2.2 

Number of Water Use Permits With Ground Water Withdrawals in the Dover / Plant City 

WUCA by Water Use Category, Size of Permitted Quantity and the Frost / Freeze Criteria 

Use Category 

Number of Permits by Average 

Daily Permitted Quantity 

At Least 

100,000 

gpd 

Less than 

100,000 

gpd 

Total 

Number of Permits by Frost / 

Freeze (F/F) Criteria 

Has 

Permitted 

F/F 

Quantities 

No Permitted 

F/F but 

Typically 

Requires F/F 

Protection 

Recreation / Aesthetic 4 18 22 0 0 0 

Agricultural 105 476 581 505 26 531 

Industrial / Commercial 6 17 23 0 0 0 

Public Supply 10 24 34 0 0 0 

Total 125 535 660 505 26 531 

Total 

Source: Based on water use permit data provided by the Southwest Florida Water Management District from their 

database. Extracted in September 2010. 

As demonstrated in Table 2.3, most of the water use permits in the DPC WUCA are located 

in either the Northern Tampa Bay WUCA (NTB WUCA) or the Southern WUCA 

(SWUCA). Of the 606 permits, 453 are located in the NTB WUCA and 77 are located in 

the SWUCA. 

Table 2.3 

Number of Water Use Permits With Ground Water Withdrawals in the 

Dover / Plant City WUCA That Are In the NTB WUCA or the SWUCA 

Use Category NTB WUCA SWUCA No WUCA Total 

Recreation / Aesthetic 9 6 7 22 

Agricultural 415 58 108 581 

Industrial / Commercial 11 8 4 23 

Public Supply 18 5 11 34 

Total 453 77 130 660 

Source: Based on water use permit data provided by the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District from their database. Extracted in September 2010. 

44324-000R4.docx 

As indicated above, most of the permittees required to comply with the proposed rule 

use ground water for irrigating agricultural crops. A snapshot of the types of crops and 

landscaping grown by all water use permittees in the DPC WUCA by irrigation method is 

provided in Table 2.4. The table shows that the most common crops irrigated are strawberries 

and citrus with 34 percent and 24 percent, respectively, of total crop and land- 





scape acreage irrigated. Bear in mind that some farmers plant two crops on their fields 

each year so the total acres irrigated as indicated in the last row of the table can include 

double-counting of some land. The table also shows that drip and low volume irrigation 

systems are the most commonly used methods to irrigate agricultural crops. About 85 

percent of all crops are irrigated using drip or low volume methods. Sprinkler irrigation 

methods are most commonly used to irrigate golf courses, lawns, landscapes, cemeteries, 

parks, playgrounds, and sports fields. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Table 2.4 

Number of Acres Irrigated in the DPC WUCA by Crop or Landscape Irrigated and 

Irrigation Method - Water Use Permits with Ground Water Quantities (a) 

Crop or Landscape Irrigated 

Number of Acres Irrigated by Irrigation Method 

Sprinkler 

Drip or Low 

Volume Other Total 

Percent of 

Total Acres 

Strawberries 777 6,837 0 7,613 34% 

Orchards, predominately Citrus (b) 424 4,656 168 5,248 24% 

Tomatoes 71 1,454 0 1,525 7% 

Cucumbers 0 1,225 0 1,225 6% 

Other Vegetables (c) 618 2,237 36 2,892 13% 

Melons 20 1,200 0 1,220 5% 

Nursery 563 374 23 961 4% 

Golf Course 411 0 0 411 2% 

Lawn / Landscape 253 6 0 259 1% 

Pasture 64 0 177 241 1% 

Blueberries 100 76 0 176 1% 

Cemetery / Parks / Playgrounds / 

Sports Fields 117 0 0 117 1% 

Other Crops Irrigated (d) 184 45 42 270 1% 

Total 3,602 18,110 446 22,158 100% 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Based on the water use permit information provided by the Southwest Florida Water Management District from its 

database in 2010. Many farms produce two crops on the same land during the year and this is reflected in the table. 

For example, a 10 acre farm growing strawberries and a vegetable crop on the same land during the year will 

have 20 acres reflected in this table. 

Most of this acreage (5,267 acres) is in citrus. 

"Other vegetables" includes beans, cauliflower, eggplant, peppers, small vegetables, onions, peas, snow peas, 

zucchini, squash, sweet corn and oriental vegetables. 

"Other crops irrigated" includes commercial hay, cover crop, peanuts, vineyards, sod, and spray mix for crops. 





The acreage distribution of strawberry farms in the DPC WUCA is provided in Table 2.5. 

Almost 60 percent of these farms are 20 acres or less. The strawberry farm sizes range 

from 3 to 190 acres with an average size of 27 acres and a median size of 18 acres. 

Table 2.5 

Acreage Distribution of Strawberry Production by Water Use 

Permittees in the DPC WUCA 

Number of % of Number 

Acreage Range 

Permits Permits of Acres 

Less than or equal to 5 acres 12 4% 49 

Greater than 5 to 10 acres 55 20% 451 

Greater than 10 to 20 acres 97 35% 1,519 






Total 278 100% 7,679 

Minimum Acres 3 

Maximum Acres 190 

Average Acres 27 

Median Acres 18 

Summary statistics of the property acreage associated with agricultural water use permits 

with permitted ground water withdrawals in the DPC WUCA are provided in Table 

2.6. While these water use permits include crop irrigation, tropical fish farms, and livestock 

watering, the vast majority of permits are for crop irrigation. Only 29 and 7 of agricultural 

permits include withdrawals for livestock watering and tropical fish farms, respectively. 

Of the 581 agricultural water use permits, property acreage data was available 

for 558 and the data for these permits is reflected in the table. The property acreage 

of the agricultural permits ranges from 0.7 acres to 1,771 acres per permit. The average 

property acreage per permit is 48 and the median is 25. 

44324-000R4.docx 





Table 2.6 

Total Property Acreage of Agricultural Permits 

in the DPC WUCA (a) 

Statistic 

Acres 

Minimum 0.7 

Maximum 1,771 

Average 48 

Median 25 

(a) 

Of the 558 water use permits for which total property 

acreage was available. The total number of 

agricultural permits is 581. Based on permit data 

from Southwest Florida Water Management Water 

Use Permit Database as of August 2010. 

The distribution of all agricultural water use permits by total property acreage ranges is 

provided in Table 2.7. About one-fourth of the permits represent farm sizes from 25 to 50 

acres. Farms up to 10 acres in size comprise about 18 percent of the permits. Only one 

percent of the permits have a total property acreage greater than 500 acres. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Table 2.7 

Total Property Acreage Distribution of Agricultural Water 

Use Permits In the Dover / Plant City WUCA 

Total Property Acreage Range 

Number of 

Permits 

% of Agricultural 

Permits 

Up to 10 acres 101 18% 

Greater than 10 to 15 acres 59 11% 



Greater than 25 acres to 50 acres 147 26% 



Greater than 500 acres 5 1% 

Total 558 100% 

(a) 

Of the 558 water use permits for which total property acreage was available. The total 

number of agricultural permits is 581. Based on permit data from Southwest Florida Water 

Management Water Use Permit Database as of August 2010. 

Descriptions of all water use permits that have permitted ground water quantities in the 

DPC WUCA for uses other than crop or landscape irrigation are provided in Table 2.8. 





This table provides the number of permits by predominant water use type. Bear in mind 

that this table includes crop and landscape irrigation permits that have non-irrigation 

uses on the permit. Each permit is counted only once in the table. The most common 

permitted non-irrigation water use is for public water supply with 80 permits, or 57 percent 

of the 141 permits. Public water supply includes regional water supply system and 

personal sanitary use associated with residential communities, schools, and a single 

business or individual dwelling associated with the permit. The second most common 

non-irrigation water use is animal watering and cooling with 29 permits or 21 percent of 

the 141 permits. The remaining non-irrigation water uses include fire protection, fighting 

and testing; tropical fish farms; augmentation for environmental purposes; and general 

product manufacturing, among others. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Water Use Type 

Table 2.8 

Number of Water Use Permits in the DPC WUCA 

That have Non-Irrigation Water Use Types (a) 

Public water supply for residential or sanitary use or 

for a regional water supply system (c) 


Permits (b) 

Percent of 

141 Permits 

80 57% 

Animal Watering and Cooling 29 21% 

Fire Protection, Fire Fighting and Testing 8 6% 

Tropical Fish Farms 7 5% 

Other (Non-Crop Miscellaneous Water Needs) 3 2.1% 

Augmentation for Environmental 3 2.1% 

General Product Manufacturing 3 2.1% 

Perishable Food Processing 2 1.4% 

Truck Crop Packing 1 0.7% 

Cements or Concrete Products 1 0.7% 

Dilution 1 0.7% 

Lime Processing Preparation (Food, Fertilizer, Water) 1 0.7% 

Phosphate Chemical Processing 1 0.7% 

Temporary Employee Housing 1 0.7% 

Total 141 100% 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Based on the water use permit information provided by the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District from its database in 2010. 

A permit is counted only once in this table based on the largest amount of water permitted 

to that use on the permit other than an irrigated crop or landscape use. This table includes 

crop and landscape irrigation permits that have non-irrigation uses on the permit. 

Public water supply includes regional water supply system and personal sanitary use 

associated with residential communities, schools, and a single business or individual 

dwelling associated with the permit. 





2.3 Future Water Use Permit Applicants in the Dover / Plant City WUCA 

The number of future applicants for new ground water withdrawals for frost / freeze protection 

in the DPC WUCA is not known. Given the number of water use permits issued 

over the past ten years and the amount of undeveloped land that could be developed in 

the future, it is likely that applicants will request new ground water quantities in the DPC 

WUCA. If these applicants request ground water for uses that typically require frost / 

freeze protection, then they will be required to comply with the proposed rule. Future 

applicants with average daily permitted water quantities greater than or equal to 100,000 

gpd will be required to install and maintain water flow meters and provide flow meter 

readings to the District. 

An historic picture of the number of new water use permits approved in the DPC WUCA 

over the past 10 years by type of water use permit is provided in Table 2.9. There are 

three types of water use permits based primarily on the amount of water needed for a 

year: (1) Individual - 500,000 gpd or more; (2) General - 100,000 gpd or more, but less 

than 500,000 gpd (also includes some uses less than 100,000 gpd); and (3) Small general 

- most uses less than 100,000 gpd. All three types of permits can have permitted 

quantities for frost / freeze protection. 

The table shows that over the past ten years, from 2000 to 2009, 47 water use permits 

were approved in the Dover / Plant City WUCA. Of these, 38 were agricultural permits; 5 

were industrial and commercial permits; 0 were mining and dewatering permits; 1 was a 

public supply permit; and 3 were recreation / aesthetic permits. Most of these permits 

are for ground water quantities. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Table 2.9 

Dover / Plant City Water Use Caution Area 

Number of New Water Use Permits Approved from 2000 to 2009 (a) 


WUP Type 

Individual General Small General 

Agricultural 0 9 29 38 

Industrial and Commercial 0 0 5 5 

Mining and Dewatering 0 0 0 0 

Public Supply 0 1 0 1 

Recreation and Aesthetic 0 0 3 3 

Total 0 10 37 47 

Total 

(a) From Southwest Florida Water Management District accessed via SAS on October 1, 2010. 

Dividing these numbers by 10 years provides the average annual number of water use 

permits approved in the DPC WUCA. This calculation is provided in Table 2.10. On av- 





erage, 4.7 water use permits were approved each year. Of these, 3.8 were agricultural 

permits and less than one each was industrial / commercial, public supply and recreation 

/ aesthetic. These agricultural permittees may grow crops that need frost / freeze protection. 

So if history is an indication of the future, then it is likely that there will be future applications 

for new ground water quantities where the applicant will need to comply with 


Table 2.10 

Dover Plant City Water Use Caution Area 

Average Annual Number of Water Use Permits Approved from 2000 to 2009 (a) 


WUP Type 

Individual General Small General 

Average 

Agricultural 0.00 0.90 2.90 3.80 

Industrial and Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 

Mining and Dewatering 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Public Supply 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 

Recreation and Aesthetic 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 

Average 0.00 1.00 3.70 4.70 

(a) From Southwest Florida Water Management District accessed via SAS on October 1, 2010. 

A review of the property records from the Property Appraisers’ offices of Hillsborough 

and Polk counties found that 32 percent of the land area in the DPC WUCA is either vacant; 

pasture or grazing land; timber land; or vacant acreage not zoned agricultural. This 

32 percent is about 55,000 acres of the approximately 172,000 acres that comprise the 

DPC WUCA. While it is not known how quickly this land will develop or what the developed 

land uses will be, it is likely that a water supply source will be needed to support 

the land uses be they agricultural, public supply, recreation / aesthetic, or industrial / 

commercial. However, the number of future applications for New Quantities for frost / 

freeze protection and the number of new water use permittees with average daily permitted 

withdrawals greater than 100,000 gpd are not known. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The number of vacant and undeveloped properties and acreage of these land uses in 

the Hillsborough County portion of the DPC WUCA is provided in Table 2.11. The total 

land area that is vacant or undeveloped in the Hillsborough County portion of the DPC 

WUCA comprises 27 percent of the land area in the DPC WUCA. Most of the 46,674 

acres of vacant or undeveloped land is grazing land or pasture that comprises 33,652 

acres or 72 percent. 

The number of vacant and undeveloped properties and acreage of these land uses in 

the Polk County portion of the DPC WUCA is provided in Table 2.12. The total land area 





that is vacant or undeveloped in the Polk County portion of the DPC WUCA comprises 

about 5 percent of the land area in the DPC WUCA. About half of the 8,160 acres of vacant 

or undeveloped land is grazing land or pasture that comprises 4,420 acres. 

Property Use (b) 

Table 2.11 

Number of Vacant and Undeveloped Properties and Acreage in the 

Dover / Plant City WUCA, Hillsborough County, by Property Use (a) 

DOR Use 

Code 


Properties 

Acreage 

Average 

Acres Per 

Property 

% of Land in 

DPC WUCA 

(of 172,000 

acres) 


Landowners 

Vacant, Residential 0000 2,888 3,082 1.07 2% 3,925 

Vacant, Commercial 1000 403 603 1.50 0.4% 482 

Vacant, Industrial 4000 76 581 7.65 0.3% 85 

Timberland 5900 23 403 17.54 0.2% 31 

Grazing Land 6000 1,966 33,652 17.12 20% 2,947 

Acreage Not Zoned 

Agricultural 9900 1,376 8,353 6.07 5% 1,955 

Total 6,732 46,674 6.93 27% 9,425 

(a) 

(b) 

The values in this table are based on land property data of all land in the Hillsborough County portion of the Dover 

/ Plant City WUCA. The land property and GIS data were obtained from the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's 

database obtained from this office in August 2010. 

Privately owned land only. Does not include any land owned by State or local governments. 

44324-000R4.docx 





Property Use 

Table 2.12 

Number of Properties and Acreage Associated with Vacant and 

Undeveloped Land Uses in the Polk County Portion of the DPC WUCA (a) 

Use Code 


Properties (b) 

Acres 

Average 

Acres Per 

Property 

% of Land In 

DPC WUCA (of 

172,000 acres) 

Inaccessible tracts 9910 1 1 1 0.00% 

Pasture 6000 113 4,420 39 2.57% 

Pasture w/Commercial 6070 2 107 53 0.06% 

Pasture w/Misc.Imp. 6004 11 564 51 0.33% 

Pasture w/Mobile Home 6006 7 147 21 0.09% 

Pasture w/Residence 6005 52 904 17 0.53% 

Pasture w/Und Lnd w/MH 6016 1 20 20 0.01% 

Pasture w/Undev. Land 6010 5 639 128 0.37% 

Phosphate Land 9200 5 55 11 0.03% 

Recreational Land (Private) 9940 3 6 2 0.00% 

Timberland 5490 1 17 17 0.01% 

Unplatted tracts 10 - 29.99 acres 9920 14 249 18 0.14% 

Unplatted tracts 30 to 59.99 acres 9925 2 72 36 0.04% 

Unplatted tracts 60 - 99.99 acres 9930 1 71 71 0.04% 

Unplatted up to 10 acres 9900 89 350 4 0.20% 

Vac. Res. 0001 537 410 1 0.24% 

Vacant Commercial 1000 28 129 5 0.07% 

Total 872 8,160 9 4.74% 

(a) 

(b) 

The values in this table are based on land property data of all land in the Polk County portion of the Dover / Plant 

City WUCA. The land property and GIS data was obtained from the Polk County Property Appraiser's database 

obtained from their website in September 2010. 

There is only one property owner name listed for each property. 

44324-000R4.docx 

2.4 Existing and Future Water Use Permit Applicants Outside the Dover / Plant 

City WUCA 

The number and locations of water use permit applicants outside the DPC WUCA whose 

requested ground water withdrawals for frost / freeze protection would impact the DPC 

Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone is not known. The extent to which New Quantities 

would impact the Zone will depend on the size and location of the requested withdrawal. 




Chapter 3.0 

Cost to the District and to Any Other 

State and Local Government Entities 

The proposed rule is expected to incur costs to the District but not to any other State or 

local government entity unless that entity is a water use permittee or applicant. The proposed 

rule is not expected to have any effect on State or local government revenues. 

3.1 Cost to the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

The District will implement and enforce the proposed rule. In addition, the District will 

provide for the flow meters at withdrawal points of existing permittees under certain con- 

ditions as specified in the proposed rule. The District will also install, maintain, repair 

and replace automatic meter reading (AMR) devices for those permittees required to 

have these devices under the proposed rule. The District will purchase the annual subscription 

service that will collect the water flow and related data from the AMR devices. 

The total estimated cost to the District associated with the DPC WUCA Rule is com- 

prised of a one-time cost of $1.8 million and an annual cost of $1.36 million as summarized 

in Table 3.1. Most of this cost is associated with the provision of automatic meter 

reading (AMR) devices and the collection of water flow and related data from these de- 

vices. 

Based on previous experience, about 1.00 full-time-equivalentequivalent in District staff time during 

the first two years after the rule is adopted will be required to supervise and manage the 

contractors’ installation and maintenance of the meters and the AMR devices. The types 

of staff positions that would provide this service include a project manager, a field tech- 

nician and an administrative assistant. In addition, about 2.22 full-time-equivalents in 

District staff time will be required to manage the AMR data collection and other com- 

pliance responsibilities each year. The types of staff positions include field and data 

technicians. 

44324-000R4.docx 



PAGE 3-1 


3.0 COST TO THE DISTRICT AND ANY OTHER STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT JANUARY 2011 

Table 3.1 

Total Estimated Cost to the District 

Associated with the DPC WUCA Rule 

Program One-Time Cost Annual Cost 

Flow meters $1,546,750 $0 

Automatic Meter Reading Devices $126,000 $1,352,568 

District administration of flow meter 

and AMR device installation $148,358 $0 

Allocation of Well Complaints $0 $4,445 

Total Cost to District $1,821,108 $1,357,013 

The estimated costs to the District are described in detail as follows. 

Flow Meter Purchase and Installation. For permits existing as of the effective date of 

the rule, the District will provide for the flow meters on withdrawal points, inflow lines, 

catchment facility, tailwater recovery or rainfall capture pond and storage facility in existence 

prior to the effective date of the rule that are not equipped with and not required by 

District rule as of the effective date of the rule to have a flow meter. 

The estimated cost to the District for the flow meters, including their installation, at 642 

withdrawal sites in the DPC WUCA is estimated to be $1.5 million as itemized in Table 

3.2. These withdrawal sites were identified as being in the DPC WUCA associated with 

ground water withdrawal permits where flow meters are not required under current rule. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Item 

Table 3.2 

Estimated Total One-Time Cost to Purchase, 

Install and Administer Flow Meters (a) 

One-Time Cost 

Purchase Flow meters $663,644 

Install Flow meters $818,906 

Withdrawal Site Reviews $64,200 

Total $1,546,750 

(a) 

This is the flow meter cost for existing permittees required to 

have flow meters under the DPC WUCA Rule but not under current 

rule and do not have flow meter. There are about 642 withdrawal 

points that would be supplied with a flow meter. 

The estimation of this $1.5 million cost is provided in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. The estimated 

cost to provide for the flow meters is provided in Table 3.3 and the estimated cost to in- 





stall the flow meters is provided in Table 3.4. The data sources used to estimate these 

costs are provided in the footnotes to these tables. It is envisioned that two District request 

for proposals would be advertised – one to purchase of the flow meters and one to 

install the flow meters. 1 The actual cost will depend on the contractor responses to these 

requests for proposals and the resulting contracts. The withdrawal site reviews itemized 

in Table 3.2 are assumed to be made by contractors at an estimated cost of $100 per 

withdrawal site times 642 withdrawal sites. The $100 cost per site is from the District and 

includes salary, employee benefits and travel. 

Pipe Diameter 

in Inches 

Table 3.3 

Estimated Cost to Purchase Flow Meters 


Withdrawal Sites (a) 

Estimated Flow Meter 

Cost Per Withdrawal 

Site (b) 

Cost 

2" through 6" 301 $971 $292,211 

8" 207 $1,042 $215,611 

10" 79 $1,111 $87,785 

12" 51 $1,177 $60,037 

16" to 24" 4 $2,000 $8,000 

Total 642 $663,644 

(a Estimated number of withdrawal sites required to comply under the DPC WUCA but not 

under current rule based on water use permit data provided by the District from the District's 

database in 2010. All of these withdrawal points are small general permits. Of the 

sites from 2" to 6" pipe diameter, 94% of these sites are from 4" to 6" diameter. 

(b) 

Does not include the cost of installing the flow meter. Estimated cost per withdrawal site 

assumes one flow meter per withdrawal site. The cost was quoted by The Avanti Company 

on April 20, 2010 and reflects a strap-on saddle type propeller meter with standard 

1000 gallon totalizer and includes straightening vanes. The cost includes the price quote 

per flowmeter times 1.2 to reflect dealer markup. The actual cost will depend on the contractor 

responses to the District's Request for Proposals to purchase flow meters. 

44324-000R4.docx 

1 Alternatively, the District may implement a cost reimbursement program. The estimated costs are not expected 

to be significantly different than those reported in this SERC. 





Effort Required to 

Install (a) 

Table 3.4 

Estimated Cost to Install Flow Meters 


Withdrawal 

Sites (b) 

Estimated 

Installation Cost 

Per Withdrawal 

Site (c ) 

Total Cost 

Low Effort 321 $729 $234,048 

Moderate Effort 161 $1,562 $251,546 

High Effort 160 $2,083 $333,312 

Total 642 $818,906 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Withdrawal sites were divided into those that will require a low level of effort to 

install; those that will require a moderate amount of effort to install and those 

that will require a high amount of effort to install. Withdrawal sites were divided 

up as follows: 50% Low Effort; 25% Moderate Effort; and 25% High Effort. 

Estimated number of withdrawal sites required to comply under the DPC WU- 

CA but not under current rule based on water use permit data provided by the 

District from the District's database in 2010. All of these withdrawal points are 

small general permits. 

The estimated cost of flow meter installation per withdrawal site (and per flow 

meter) is equal to 70% of the 8" flow meter cost ($1,042) for the Low Effort installation; 

150% of the 8" flow meter cost for the Moderate Effort installation 

and 200% of the 8" flow meter cost for the High Effort installation. 

Automatic Meter Reading Device Purchase and Installation. For existing and future 

permits with permitted quantities for frost / freeze protection and permits for uses that 

typically require frost / freeze protection, the District will provide and install automatic 

meter reading (AMR) devices on each flow meter that is not already so equipped. The 

District will also maintain, repair and replace the AMR devices. The District will include 

these devices in the District’s data collection and reporting service subscription at no 

cost to the permittee. 

The proposed AMR requirements apply to the following water use permits. 

1. Permits with frost / freeze quantities to be withdrawn from groundwater within the 


44324-000R4.docx 


frost / freeze quantities from any combination of sources that if withdrawn from 

groundwater alone would have the potential to impact the Minimum Aquifer Level 

Protection Zone established for the Dover / Plant City WUCA; or, 






supplemental irrigation for a use that typically requires frost / freeze protection 

and where such protection could be achieved through groundwater withdrawals 

but alternative protection methods are proposed. 

The District cost in 2010 dollars to purchase, install, replace, maintain and repair the 

AMR devices at the 1,121 existing withdrawal sites required to have devices and to collect 

water flow and related data is estimated to be a $126,000 one-time cost and an annual 

cost of $1.35 million per year. The annual cost is expected to increase by about 

0.65 percent per year (less than 1%) as new permittees needing frost / freeze protection 

locate in the DPC WUCA. Thus, this annual cost is expected to increase by about 

$8,800 each year in 2010 dollars. At some point in the future, the annual costs should 

stabilize as the total number of withdrawal points reaches a maximum in the DPC WUCA 

area. These costs are itemized in Table 3.5. 

Table 3.5 

Estimated Cost to Purchase, Install, Replace, Maintain and Repair 

Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Devices and Data Collection 

In 2010 Dollars (a) 

Item One-Time Cost Annual Cost (b) 

Purchase, Install and Replace AMR 

Devices $0 $558,922 

Maintain and Repair AMR Devices $0 $215,793 

Database Preparation and Data 

Collection Cost $126,000 $577,853 

Total Cost $126,000 $1,352,568 

(a) Estimated one-time and annual cost to purchase, install, replace, maintain and repair 

AMR devices and collect water withdrawal and related data from the AMR devices. 

44324-000R4.docx 

(b) 

The annual cost is expected to increase by 0.65 percent per year (less than 1%) as 

new permittees needing frost / freeze protection locate in the DPC WUCA. Thus, this 

cost is expected to increase about $8,800 per year. Based on the past 10 years, it is 

estimated that 3.47 new agricultural permits needing frost / freeze quantities will locate 

in the DPC WUCA each year. The average number of withdrawal points per permit in 

the DPC WUCA is 2.11. Thus, the total number of withdrawal sites in the DPC WUCA 

is estimated to increase by 7.33 new withdrawal sites per year (3.47 x 2.11). This annual 

number is 0.65% of the 1,121 existing withdrawal sites in the DPC WUCA. The 

costs are proportional to the number of withdrawal sites. 

The estimation of this AMR cost is provided in Tables 3.6 and 3.7. The estimated cost to 

purchase and install the AMR devices is provided in Table 3.6 and the estimated cost to 





collect the water flow and related data is provided in Table 3.7. The data sources used to 

estimate these costs are provided in the footnotes to these tables. It is envisioned that 

one or more District requests for proposals to provide, install, maintain and repair the 

AMR devices would be advertised. The actual cost will depend on the contractor responses 

to these requests for proposals and the resulting contracts. 

Table 3.6 

Estimated Cost to Purchase and Install Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) 

Devices in the Dover / Plant City WUCA, 2010 Dollars 

Water Use Permit Type 

Purchase and Installation 

Cost (b) 


Withdrawal Sites (a) 

Estimated Cost per 

AMR Device 

Cost 

Individual 36 $3,850 $138,600 

General 408 $3,850 $1,570,800 

Small General 677 $3,850 $2,606,450 

Total Purchase and 

Installation Cost 

Annualized purchase, 

installation and replacement 

cost (c) 

Annual Maintenance and 

Repair (O&M) Cost (d) 

1,121 $4,315,850 

$558,922 

1,121 $193 $215,793 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Based on the water use permit information provided by the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

from its water use permit database in 2010. This table includes only existing and proposed withdrawals 

(no capped, dismantled or plugged wells) in DPC WUCA that have frost / freeze permitted 

quantities OR have uses that traditionally require frost / freeze protection. 

Cost includes AMR device purchase and installation; meter head change; and temperature and pressure 

sensors. Cost based on current costs paid by District for AMR devices with a 10% markup to reflect 

higher cost of retrofiting existing meters. From Ron Cohen, P.E., Agricultural and Irrigation Engineer, 

Southwest Florida Water Management District in September 2010. 

The total purchase and installation cost was amortized over the useful life of the AMR device which is 

about 10 years and using a 5% annual interest rate. The actual cost each year will depend on the 

number of AMR devices installed or replaced each year. 

44324-000R4.docx 

(d) 

Annual maintenance and repair (O&M) cost consists of replacing the rechargeable battery once every 

five years; checking the AMR device one time per year to make sure it is working properly; and repairing 

or replacing any broken system components. Does not include the cost to replace the AMR device. 

This annual O&M cost per withdrawal site is estimated as 5% of the purchase and installation 

cost ($193 = $3,850 x 0.05). 





44324-000R4.docx 

Cost Item 

Annual Costs 

Table 3.7 

Estimated Cost to Collect Water Withdrawal and Related Data from the 

AMR Devices in the Dover / Plant City WUCA, 2010 Dollars 


Withdrawal 

Sites (a) 

1. Subscription Fee to Collect the Site Data via AMR Devices (b): 

Estimated 

Cost Per Site 

Cost 

- Once per day for 7 months of the year 1,121 $70.00 $78,470 

- Hourly for 5 winter months of the year 1,121 $300.00 $336,300 

2. Cost for the District to switch each AMR 

device from daily to hourly and then from 

hourly to daily (c) 

1,121 $38.86 $43,588 

3. District Data Processing Cost (d) 1,121 $51.64 $57,886 

4. Quality Control of Collected Data (e) Lump Sum $61,639 

Total Annual Data Collection Cost $577,853 

5. One-time Cost to Prepare Database 

for daily and hourly data (f) 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

$126,000 

Based on the water use permit information provided by the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District from its water use permit database in 2010. 

Estimated cost per withdrawal site is the estimated monthly subscription cost per withdrawal site per 

month times the number of months per year. This cost estimate assumes that the data will be collected 

once per day during the 7 month non-winter period (April through November) at a cost of $10 

per withdrawal site per month. During the winter months of December through March, the data will be 

collected hourly (24 times per day) at an estimated subscription cost of $60 per withdrawal site per 

month. Includes cellular transmission of withdrawal and temperature data plus alerts. Each day the 

Contractor collects the data and downloads it to the District's ftp site. The monthly subscription costs 

are estimates provided by the District's contractor of the District's AMR pilot project. Actual cost will 

be based on contractor responses to the District's Request for Proposal process. 

Estimated cost per site is based on District staff switching each AMR device to transmit daily or 

hourly two times per year. Cost is one-half hour per site times two trips to switch transmittal frequency 

times the hourly salary and benefits of a Grade 16 Senior Field Technician ($38.86 per hour). 

Estimated cost per withdrawal site is based on District staff seasonally reprogramming the database 

to accept hourly or daily data. Cost is equal to 2 hours per withdrawal site times the hourly salary and 

benefits of a Grade 12 Data Processor ($22.84 per hour). 

One full time District staff person at pay grade 15 at annual salary of $46,068 times 1.338 to account 

for salary, benefits and overhead. Information from District. 

Estimated cost provided by the District. 





The District cost associated with providing quality control of the data collected through 

the AMR subscription service is provided in item 4 in Table 3.7. This cost is in anticipation 

that additional staff will be required to follow up on flagged (perceived incorrect) data. 

Although AMR reduces human reporting errors, there will be more permits reporting 

withdrawals and the frequency and number of pieces of data reported will significantly 

increase. For withdrawal data reporting alone, the number of pieces of data collected 

from this area per year could increase from approximately 5,748 to 4,271, 010. 2 For 

example, if the error rate is 1-in-100 for permittee-reported data and the error rate for 

AMR-reported data is 1-in-1,000, then the number of data pieces prone to error could 

increase from 57 to 4,271. While this order of magnitude increase is unlikely as many 

errors would be repeats of the same error, there are many more reporting sites subject 

to additional equipment and other failures. Not only will there be increased withdrawal 

reporting, there will also be reporting of temperatures and on/off times. As there is little 

District experience with daily and hourly withdrawal, temperature and on-off AMR reporting, 

additional compliance monitoring costs cannot be precisely estimated. However, 

the data is highly suggestive of the need for at least 1.0 full-time-equivalent District staff 

and this is reflected in item 4 in Table 3.7. 

Allocation of Permittee Responsibility for Well Complaints. The District has designed 

a new process for determining which permit holder is responsible for dry well 

complaints and assigning the responsibility to investigate and resolve the complaint. This 

process will result in a more equitable approach to assign each permittee a relative responsibility 

based on the volume of groundwater they are permitted to use for crop protection 

and crop establishment. Revisions to Section 7.4 of the BOR describe the method 

to allocate permittee responsibility for well complaints by determining, to the extent 

possible, the actual contribution of a permittee’s withdrawal to a well complaint and methods 

for allocating well complaints to individual permittees. 

Annually, the District will update the allocation model designed to facilitate the process. 

As a large part of this effort, the District will conduct groundwater modeling simulations 

to determine the Floridian aquifer drawdown resulting from each permitee’s permitted 

frost/freeze groundwater withdrawals (for any crop) and permitted crop establishment 

groundwater withdrawals (for strawberry production). Additionally, District staff will determine 

allocation ratios, based on each permittee’s percent of the total frost/freeze or 

crop establishment quantity permitted within the Dover/Plant City WUCA, and input this 

information into the model. The estimated annual cost to implement and maintain the 

model for the allocation of dry well complaints in the Dover/Plant City WUCA is $4,445. 

44324-000R4.docx 

2 Current number of data pieces equals (1121 – 642) withdrawal points times 12 meter readings per year = 

5,748. Proposed equals (7 mos. x 30 days x 1,121 withdrawal points) + (5 mos. x 30 days x 24 hrs. x 1,121 

withdrawal points) = 4,271,010. 





Groundwater modeling simulations constitute the bulk of the estimated annual cost and 

represent 4.10 percent of a full time equivalent professional geologist position. 

In the event that a dry well complaint is received, the District will incur the costs associated 

with administering the investigation and resolution process by the responsible 

permittee. Associated costs are likely to include the costs to determine the location of 

the impacted well, assigning responsibility to the permittee, noticing costs, and the evaluation 

of mitigation reports to determine if the permittee has fully mitigated the dry well 

complaint. The cost per dry well complaint is estimated to be $337 and is anticipated to 

be less than what was incurred from each well complaint received during the 2010 11- 

day freeze event. 

3.2 Cost to Any Other State and Local Government Entities of 

Implementing and Enforcing the Proposed Rules 

State and local government entities, as water use permit applicants or permitees, may 

incur costs associated with complying with the provisions of the proposed rule, but will 

not incur costs to implement or enforce the proposed rule. Costs to state and local government 

entities as water use permittees and applicants are addressed as transaction 

costs in Chapter 4.0 of this Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. 

3.3 Anticipated Effect on State or Local Revenues 

The proposed rule is not expected to have any significant effect on State or local government 

revenues. 

44324-000R4.docx 




Chapter 4.0 

Transactional Costs 

This chapter presents the estimated transactional costs to the individuals and entities 

required to comply with the proposed DPC WUCA Rule. The actual transactional costs 

to each individual water use permit applicant and permittee will depend on the following 

factors. 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Whether the water will be withdrawn for a use that typically needs frost / freeze 

protection; 

Whether the average daily permitted water quantity assigned to the permit or ap- 

plication request is at least 100,000 gpd; 

Whether or not the permit application is for groundwater withdrawals inside or 

outside the DPC WUCA; and, 

Whether or not the permitted withdrawal is located in the Northern Tampa Bay 


For the purposes of the DPC WUCA rule, the District considers strawberries, blueber- 

ries, nurseries (container and some field), citrus (ridge and flatwood) and tropical fish 


This chapter 4.0 Transactional Costs describes how the rule will impact water use permittees 

and applicants and provides estimated unit costs and estimated ranges of total 

costs to the permittee or applicant associated with each provision of the proposed rule. 

Applicants and permittees are encouraged to use their own situation and the information 

and unit costs provided in this Chapter to obtain an understanding of how the proposed 

rule will impact their own operations. The costs of alternative frost / freeze protection methods 

other than water and the costs of alternative water sources will be fully or partially 

offset by the avoided costs associated with ground water withdrawals. In addition, cer- 

tain components of frost / freezee protection methods other than the use of ground water 

may be eligible for District funding which is described in chapter 7.0 of this SERC. 

44324-000R4.docx 

In preparing this SERC, care was taken to identify direct and indirect costs. 

Indirect 

costs that were identifiedd are the overhead costs and the cost to obtain other permits. 

Costs associated with labor activities such as completing District forms were based on 



PAGE 4-1 


4.0 TRANSACTIONAL COSTS JANUARY 2011 

an hourly labor cost where salary, benefits and overhead costs are included. Activities 

conducted in compliance with the proposed rule that would require other types of permits 

from the District or permits from other agencies are associated with the construction of 

tailwater recovery ponds as described in this chapter. 

4.1 Summary of Transactional Costs 

The estimated transactional costs associated with the proposed DPC WUCA Rule are 

summarized as follows. Only those individuals and entities who meet specific criteria as 

described in Chapters 2 and 4 of this SERC would be expected to incur each cost. In 

addition, some of the costs would only be incurred at the discretion of the water use 

permittee or applicant. 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Cost to complete new supplemental forms; 

Cost to purchase, install and maintain flow meters; 

Increased water use permit fee and the cost of more frequent permit renewals 

for Small General permittees with uses that typically require frost / freeze protection 

Cost to manually report to the District the amount of water withdrawn for those 

permittees who are not required to have automatic meter reading devices; 

Cost to prepare feasibility analysis of frost/ freeze protection methods other than 

ground water; 

Cost to use frost /freeze protection methods other than water; and, 

Cost of Alternative Water Sources. 

Each of these costs is presented and discussed in turn. 

4.2 Submittal of Forms 

Applicants for permitted ground water quantities in the DPC WUCA will be required to 

complete at least one new form and no more than three new forms as follows. 

44324-000R4.docx 

During the water use permit application process, applicants in the DPC WUCA will need 

to submit the Supplemental Form similar to that used for the Southern Water Use Caution 

Area. This is current rule for applicants requesting permits in the SWUCA portion of 

the DPC WUCA. For all other applicants in the DPC WUCA, the estimated labor cost 

including salary, benefits and overhead to complete this supplemental form ranges from 

$700 to $2,200 depending on the complexity of the water use permit application. The 

cost was based on 8 to 24 hours of time needed to complete the form and an hourly salary, 

benefits and overhead cost of $88. The calculation of this hourly cost is provided in 

Table 4.16 located at the end of this Chapter 4.0. The preparation time and expense for 

existing permittees that are not requesting additional frost / freeze water quantities will 

likely be significantly lower. 





If a net benefit is to be considered by the District, the applicant will need to complete the 

Net Benefit Supplemental Form similar to that used in the Southern Water Use Caution 

Area. The estimated labor cost including salary, benefits and overhead to complete this 

net benefit supplemental form ranges from $700 to $2,200 depending on the complexity 

of the water use permit application. The calculation is the same as that provided in the 

previous paragraph. 

If a water replacement credit is to be considered by the District, the applicant will need to 

complete the Water Replacement Credit Application – Southern Water Use Caution Area 

and Dover / Plant City Water Use Caution Area Form, incorporated by reference in Subsection 

40D-2.101(6), F.A.C. The estimated labor cost including salary, benefits and 

overhead to complete this water replacement credit application form ranges from $700 to 

$2,200 depending on the complexity of the water use permit application. The calculation 

is the same as that provided in the previous paragraph. 

4.3 Responsibility for Sinkholes and Subsidence 

Under Standard Permit Conditions, the requirement that a permittee shall mitigate “sinkholes 

or subsidence caused by reduction in water levels” will be deleted under Chapter 

40D-2.381 (3)(m)(2)). Under existing rule, permittees are required to mitigate adverse 

impacts to offsite land uses and the rule includes a list of occurrences that are considered 

adverse impacts, including sinkholes or subsidence caused by reductions in water 

levels. The proposed rule changes the list from an all inclusive list to be a list of examples 

of adverse impacts. This list does not include sinkholes or subsidence as examples 

but does not eliminate responsibility for such occurrences where responsibility can be 

determined. 

44324-000R4.docx 

4.4 Frost / Freeze Protection Permitted Quantities 

Maximum daily allocations for frost freeze protection will be allocated based on a 21 

hour event. Under current rule, the allocations are based on a 24 hour event. This 

change will reduce the maximum daily permitted withdrawal. If a frost / freeze event occurs 

continuously over a 22 to 24 hour period, then the grower will need to increase the 

efficiency of the water applied to the crop each hour and/or use an alternative water 

source other than ground water and/or use a frost / freeze protection method other than 

ground water to make up the difference. In order to protect the plant from freezing temperatures, 

the grower must keep water flowing to the plants throughout the duration of 

the frost / freeze event. 1 The temperature must return to above the critical temperature 

before the water can be turned off. 

1 From Ron Cohen, P.E., Agricultural and Irrigation Engineer, Southwest Florida Water Management 

District via telephone on October 13, 2010. 





The costs of alternative frost / freeze protection methods and alternative water sources 

are provided in Chapters 4.6 and 4.7, respectively. According to the District 2 , any frost / 

freeze event that lasts longer than 21 hours per day is extremely rare in the DPC WUCA 

area. 

4.5 Metering Requirements 

Metering of water withdrawals at all permitted water withdrawal points and the use of automated 

meter reading (AMR) devices will be required of permittees in the DPC WUCA 

with permitted ground water quantities that use or could use water for frost / freeze protection. 

For all other individuals and entities with a water use permit for at least 100,000 

gpd annual average daily permitted ground water quantities in the DPC WUCA, metering 

of all water withdrawals, but not the use of AMR devices, will be required under the proposed 

rule. 

Automatic Meter Reading devices are not required under current rule. However, under 

current rule, if the permittee or applicant is located in a WUCA (such as the SWUCA or 

Northern Tampa Bay WUCA) then metering is required when the permitted quantity is 

100,000 gpd or greater regardless of the quantities permitted for frost /freeze protection. 

If not located in a WUCA, then metering is only required when the permitted quantity is 

500,000 gpd or greater regardless of the quantities permitted for frost /freeze protection. 

In addition, all Public Supply permits for annual average daily quantities greater than 

100,000 gpd in all areas of the District are required to be metered. 

Flow Meter Cost. The proposed rule describes District funding of some metering requirements. 

For permits existing as of the effective date of the rule and for permits resulting 

from applications submitted prior to the effective date of the rule, the District will 

provide and install the flow meters. These flow meters will be installed on withdrawal 

points, inflow lines, catchment facility, tailwater recovery or rainfall capture pond and storage 

facility in existence prior to the effective date of the rule that are not equipped with 

and not required by District rule as of the effective date of the rule to have a flow meter. 

Persons and entities that submit a water use permit application on or after the effective 

date of the rule shall provide and install flow meters at their expense. All permittees are 

responsible for the cost of operation, maintenance and replacement of all flow meters. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The cost to purchase a flow meter increases with the size of the meter. The estimated 

cost to purchase a flow meter is provided in Table 4.1. For a strap-on saddle type pro- 

2 From Ron Cohen, P.E., Agricultural and Irrigation Engineer, Southwest Florida Water Management 

District via telephone on October 13, 2010. 





peller meter with a standard 1,000 gallon totalizer and straightening valves, the price 

starts at about $970 for a 4 inch to 6 inch meter and increases to a maximum of $2,000 

for a 16 inch to 24 inch meter. 

Pipe Diameter in Inches 

Table 4.1 

Estimated Cost to Purchase Water Flow Meters 

Estimated Purchase Cost 

per Withdrawal Site (a) 

4” or 6" $971 

8" $1,042 

10" $1,111 

12" $1,177 

16" to 24" $2,000 

(a) 

Does not include the cost of installing the flow meter. Estimated cost per withdrawal 

site assumes one flow meter per withdrawal site. The cost was quoted by The 

Avanti Company on April 20, 2010 and reflects a strap-on saddle type propeller 

meter with standard 1000 gallon totalizer and includes straightening vanes. The 

cost includes the price quote per flow meter times 1.2 to reflect dealer markup. 

The cost to install the meter will depend on the degree of effort needed to retrofit it into 

the existing pumping and irrigation system. The estimated installation costs per withdrawal 

site for three levels of effort, low, moderate, and high, are provided in Table 4.2. 

The cost ranges from about $730 per meter to about $2,100 per meter. 

Effort Required to Install 

Table 4.2 

Estimated Cost to Install Water Flow Meters 

Estimated Installation Cost 

per Withdrawal Site (a) 

Low Effort $729 

Moderate Effort $1,562 

High Effort $2,084 

(a) 

The estimated cost of flow meter installation per withdrawal site (and per flow 

meter) is equal to 70% of the 8" flow meter cost ($1,042) for the Low Effort installation; 

150% of the 8" flow meter cost for the Moderate Effort installation and 

200% of the 8" flow meter cost for the High Effort installation. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The flow meter cost to a permittee who requests a water use permit in the DPC WUCA 

on or after the effective date of the rule will be based on the number of withdrawal points 

on the permit, the size of the meters needed and the level of effort needed to install the 

meters. The average number of withdrawal points per permit in the DPC WUCA is 2.11. 





The only maintenance requirement of a flow meter is to have it calibrated every five 

years to make sure it is obtaining accurate measurements of water flow. The cost is 

about $200 per calibration. The estimated useful life of a water flow meter is 10 to 15 

years. The annualized cost, which includes replacement cost of the flow meter, is provided 

in Table 4.3. 

For permittees inside the DPC WUCA and those outside the NTB WUCA and the SWU- 

CA with at least 100,000 gpd permitted quantity and no frost / freeze protection quantities 

will be required to meter their water withdrawals and report the amounts of these 

withdrawals to the District each month. The estimated annual cost is $1,056. This cost 

was estimated as 12 hours per year times the median hourly salary, benefits and overhead 

cost of $88 per hour associated with the types of water use permittees that would 

be required to comply. 

Automatic Meter Reading Cost. Because the District will purchase, install, replace, 

maintain and repair the AMR devices required under the proposed rule, the permittee 

will not incur any significant cost associated with the AMR devices. 

Total Metering Cost Per Permit and Per Acre. An example of the estimated cost to 

purchase, install and maintain a water flow meter is summarized in Table 4.3. The cost 

to purchase and install an 8 inch water flow meter is estimated to be $2,604. Using a 

useful life of 12 years for the meter and an annual interest rate of 5 percent, the total annualized 

cost is $294 per meter, or about $300 per year. The annual operation and 

maintenance of the meter is estimated to be $46 dollars per meter. Thus, the total annualized 

purchase, installation and O&M cost is estimated to be $340 per withdrawal site. 

The estimated total annualized costs per acre for three farm sizes, 10 acres, 25 acres 

and 100 acres, are also provided in the table. The number of withdrawal points is assumed 

to be 2 for a 10-acre farm, including standby wells, 3 for a 25-acre farm, and 5 for 

a 100-acre farm. These annualized costs include the replacement cost of the flow meter 

and the O&M cost. The annual metering cost per acre ranges from $20 to $68. For 

permittees and applicants that exist as of the effective date of the rule, the metering cost 

is only the O&M cost of $46 per withdrawal point per year until the original meter installed 

by the District needs to be replaced after about 12 years. At that point, the permittee 

will be responsible for replacing the meter. Some or all of this cost will be offset 

by the permittee not having to manually collect and submit monthly withdrawal data and 

withdrawal data for frost / freeze protection as is required under current rule. 

44324-000R4.docx 





Item 

Table 4.3 

Estimated Cost to Purchase, Install and Maintain a Water Flow Meter 

Purchase and Installation Cost Per Withdrawal Point 

Cost 

Useful Life 

in Years 

Annualized 

Cost (a) 

8 inch flow meter with moderate effort to install $2,604 12 $294 

Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Per Withdrawal Point 

Water Flow Meter Calibration 200 5 $46 

Total Annualized Purchase, Installation and O&M Cost per Permit 

One Withdrawal Point $340 

Average of 2.11 Withdrawal Points Per Existing Permittee $717 

Total Annualized Purchase, Installation and O&M Cost Per Farmed Acre 

(a) 

Cost per Acre for a 10 acre farm with 2 withdrawal points $68 



Annualized cost is the total cost amortized over the useful life of the item at 5% interest rate per year. 

Permit Reclassification. Because the proposed rule requires permittees with uses requiring 

frost / freeze protection to meter all withdrawal quantities, the permit classification 

for permittees that have a Small General water use permit will change to a General permit. 

Small General permits typically qualify for a 20 year permit under current rule whereas 

General permits can be issued for 20 years only under certain conditions. 

Under the proposed rule, the existing Small General permittees whose water use typically 

requires frost / freeze protection will be required to become General permits because 

their water withdrawals will be metered. These permittees will still complete the Small 

General Water Use Permit Application but their permits will be issued as General Permits. 

As such, they will not be required to implement certain activities required of General 

Permits, such as submitting a water conservation plan. However, they will be required 

to pay the higher General permit renewal fee. In addition, their permit durations 

would extend 10 years, not the current 20 years, so they would need to renew their permits 

more frequently. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The permit fee for a renewing a Small General permit no greater than 20 years in duration 

is $70. The permit fee for renewing a General permit no greater than 10 years in 

duration is $185. Therefore, the additional permit fee is $115 at permit renewal. To account 

for the fact that the permit would need to be renewed every 10 years instead of 

every 20 years, the ten year net present value of this change in fees and timing of fee 





payments was calculated at an annual interest rate of five percent. The net present value 

of the increased permit fee and reduced permit duration is $223.10 over ten years. 

In addition to paying the permit fee, the permittee will need to complete the Small General 

Permit application every 10 years instead of every 20 years. The labor cost to complete 

the application is estimated to be $440 which is five hours times an $88 per hour 

labor cost that includes salary, benefits and overhead. The net present value of this increase 

in hours needed to complete the Small General permit application form every 10 

years instead of every 20 years is $270 over ten years at 5 percent annual interest. 

Thus, the total net present value of the fee increase and the additional time needed to 

complete the application is estimated to be $493 over ten years. 

New applicants for ground water in the DPC WUCA for uses that typically require frost / 

freeze protection that would have been issued Small General permits under current rule 

will, instead, be issued General permits under the proposed rule. These applicants will 

still need to complete the Small General Water Use Permit Application, as under current 

rule, but their permits would be issued as General Permits. As such, they will not be required 

to implement certain activities required of General Permits, such as submitting a 

water conservation plan. However, they will be required to pay the higher new General 

permit fee. The permit fee for a new Small General permit no greater than 20 years in 

duration is $100. The permit fee for a new General permit no greater than 10 years in 

duration is $250. Thus, the additional fee at permit application will be $150 higher under 


4.6 Frost / Freeze Protection Methods Other Than Irrigation Water 

Under the proposed rule, certain water use permit applicants will be required to investigate 

the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of using alternatives to ground 

water for frost/freeze protection. This feasibility analysis will be required of all water use 

permit applicants with at least 100,000 gpd annual average daily water quantity for an 

activity that typically uses frost / freeze protection and who have or propose to have a 

ground water withdrawal with the potential to impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone. Use of alternatives to groundwater for frost/freeze protection shall be required 

where technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The potential transactional costs associated with this proposed rule revision is the cost 

to prepare the feasibility study and the cost to implement any alternative measures that 

are found to be technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. 

Estimated Cost to Prepare the Feasibility Analysis. The cost to the applicant to prepare 

a feasibility analysis will primarily depend on the mix and acreage of crop types 





grown on the farm and the size of the farm. Using an average preparation cost per hour 

of $108 and an estimated 40 hours of preparation time, the one-time cost to prepare a 

feasibility analysis is estimated to be $4,320. This cost estimate would also be representative 

for aquaculture operations such as tropical fish farms. 

The estimated hourly labor cost is the average opportunity cost of time per hour expended 

by a consulting engineering firm or professional with expertise in evaluating alternative 

frost / freeze methods. Alternatively, if the farm owner or manager has the time 

to prepare this study, the cost would be the hourly rate paid to this person or persons 

plus the cost of any employee benefits times the number of hours spent in preparation. 

This opportunity cost represents the amount of money and other benefits that an applicant 

or permittee would pay the person or people conducting the compliance activities. 

The $108 per hour was based on the annual payroll and number of paid employees of 

the engineering and related services industry sector reported in the 2002 Economic 

Census for Florida compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (www.census.gov). The ratio of 

the annual payroll and the number of paid employees provides an estimate of the average 

annual salary per employee in 2002 dollars. The hourly salary was computed by dividing 

the annual salary by the number of working hours in a year estimated as 1,840 

hours. This hourly salary was increased by four percent per year for eight years, or by 

the factor 1.37, to convert the 2002 salary to an estimated 2010 salary assuming that 

annual raises averaged four percent per year over the eight year period. The 2010 average 

annual salary was then multiplied by 3.0 to account for the employee’s salary, benefits, 

overhead and profit. This multiplier is from in-house sources. The actual multiplier 

for a particular business may differ from 3.0. 

Cost to Implement Alternative Frost / Freeze Protection Methods. There are two 

site-specific characteristics that will affect the type of frost / freeze protection method that 

would be effective in protecting the crop from a frost / freeze event: (1) the type of frost / 

freeze event; and (2) the height of the crop being protected. 

44324-000R4.docx 

There are two types of frost / freeze events: radiation and advection. A radiation event is 

characterized by an increase in temperature with height (temperature inversion) under 

clear and calm weather conditions. An advection event occurs when a cold air mass is 

moving into the local area and is characterized by windy conditions and no temperature 

inversion. Frost / freeze protection is more difficult during an advection event than during 

a radiation event. Using water for frost / freeze protection can effectively protect the 

crop from cold damage under both types of freeze events, unless the wind speed is too 

great to allow sufficient water to freeze on the plant in a manner that does not harm the 

plant. 





Frost / freeze protection methods other than the use of water that are believed to be 

feasible in the Dover / Plant City area are being investigated with the help of the District’s 

FARMS program. These methods are as follows. 

1. High Tunnels, also called hoop houses, can be used to protect farm-raised fish 

and all types of crops except trees during advection and radiation events 

2. Crop cloths, also called floating covers, row covers and freeze cloths, can be 

used to protect aquaculture ponds and crops that are short in height such as 

strawberries and small nursery plants. They are very effective during radiation 

events and may be somewhat effective during advection events if the wind is not 

blowing too hard. 

3. Wind machines would be effective for blueberries and tree crops during a radiation 

event. Growers in the Dover / Plant City area do not believe they would be 

effective for strawberries because this crop grows very low to the ground. 3 

The capital and annual operation and maintenance costs of these three methods were 

estimated for this SERC. Other methods that may also be feasible to an individual grower 

include wraps and soil banking for young citrus, low tunnels for row crops, foam for 

row crops and nurseries, enclosed shade houses for nurseries, soilless production for 

row crops, fog for row crops and citrus, and heaters for all crops. 

A description and estimated costs associated with high tunnels, crop cloths and wind 

machines is provided below. 

High Tunnels. A high tunnel is a structure composed of a tubular aluminum framework 

covered in plastic. The structure resembles a green house but it is not as sturdy or as 

expensive as a traditional greenhouse. It covers the crop rows and is high enough to allow 

farm machinery to pass through. High tunnels are used in Florida and other States 

and countries to extend the growing season of vegetable crops and small horticultural 

crops and are expected to be effective in protecting crops from frost / freeze events. 4 

High tunnels are used in aquaculture operations in Hillsborough County to help control 

the water temperature of fish ponds and to act as a barrier to predatory birds. 5 

44324-000R4.docx 

3 From William Orendorff, FARMS Program Manager, Southwest Florida Water Management District, 

September 30, 2010. 

4 Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University Extension 

Service, “High Tunnel Crop Production Project”, 2009. 

5 From William Orendorff, FARMS Program Manager, Southwest Florida Water Management District, 

October 26, 2010. 





High tunnels can be used on all types of crops except large tree crops. High tunnels can 

be provided and installed by dealers and are available in a variety of sizes and roof configurations. 

The cost estimate does not include electrical connections. The inside temperature 

is controlled by rolling up or down the plastic sides and/or opening or closing 

the doors located at either end of the tunnel. The plastic can be removed to provide water 

to the crop during rainfall events, if needed. The amounts of water for crops grown 

on plastic mulch, such as strawberries, are permitted as if there is no effective rainfall. 

Research conducted at the University of Florida’s Gulf Coast Research and Education 

Center in Balm during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 growing seasons found that high tunnels 

improved marketable strawberry yield by 29 percent during the early harvests and 

56 percent overall. 6 Balm is 36 miles southwest of Plant City. The strawberry cultivars 

tested were Strawberry Festival, Winter Dawn, and Florida Elyana. During these seasons, 

no sprinkler irrigation for freeze protection was necessary inside the high tunnels. 

The minimum temperature inside the high tunnels during all freeze events was 34 o F. 

In addition, the marketable yields per acre of the next six harvests after freezing increased 

by 75 percent in 2007-08 and 64 percent in 2008-09. According to the researchers, 

several factors likely influenced these results. First, high tunnels protected 

the flowers and small fruit from freezing temperatures, which were spared from the damage 

caused by sprinkler irrigation during freeze events. Second, the fruit was protected 

against the damaging effects of rainfall which reduces fruit number and quality. The researchers 

also noted that high tunnels can reduce the fuel costs of water pumping and 

the cost of fungicide applications. Because high tunnels protect the crop from rainfall, 

the incidence of foliar and fruit diseases that are disseminated by rain drops will be reduced. 

Therefore, the cost of high tunnels will be at least partially if not fully offset by the 

benefits of high tunnels as they increase crop yield per acre and lower production costs. 

The estimated cost per acre to purchase and install high tunnels to protect crops is provided 

in Table 4.4. Two cost estimates are provided. The first cost estimate is based on 

farmers' current experience in the Dover / Plant City area as they work with the Southwest 

Florida Water Management District's FARMS program. 7 The cost of the frame 

structure is estimated to be about $27,000 per acre installed. This cost estimate reflects 

a frame that is about 15 feet high. The cost of the plastic sheeting is estimated to be 

about $3,000 per acre installed. The framework is permanent and lasts about 12 to 15 

44324-000R4.docx 

6 University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Berry / Vegetable Times, February 2010, “Notes on Cultural 

Practices: Can High Tunnels Reduce Water Volumes for Freeze Protection and Improve Strawberry 

Yields at the Same Time?” by Bielinski M. Santos and Teresa P. Salamé-Donoso, pages 5 to 8. 

7 The high tunnel cost information was obtained from William Orendorff, FARMS Program Manager, 

Southwest Florida Water Management District, September 2010. 





years. The plastic sheeting lasts about five years before it needs to be replaced. The 

annualized cost over the useful lives of these components at five percent annual interest 

rate is $3,739 per acre per year. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Item 

Table 4.4 

Estimated Cost to Protect Crops from Frost / Freeze Events 

using High Tunnels 

Value From 

FARMS 

Program (a) 

Value 

Provided by 

Grower (b) 

Acres 1 1 

Materials and Installation Cost (M and I Cost): 

Frame Structure $27,000 $60,000 

Plastic sheeting $3,000 $5,000 

Total Cost $30,000 $65,000 

Useful Life – Frame 12 12 

Useful Life – Plastic 5 3 

Annualized M and I Cost at 5% annual interest rate (c) $3,739 $8,606 

Annual Labor Cost (d) $273 $273 

Total Annualized Cost per Farmed Acre $4,012 $8,879 

Avoided fuel savings from avoided ground water use (e) $163 $163 

Net Annualized Cost per Farmed Acre $3,849 $8,716 

(a) Based on farmers' experience in the Dover / Plant City area as they work with the Southwest 

Florida Water Management District's FARMS program. Information obtained from William Orendorff, 

FARMS Program Manager. This method can be used on all types of crops except tree 

crops. 

(b) Based on 2009 and 2010 cost information provided by a Florida strawberry grower. 

(c) The 5% annual interest rate is the current prime rate of 3.25% (Wall Street Journal) plus 1.75 

percentage points. This is a high end estimate of the current interest rate that farmers would pay 

for an intermediate term loan. Currently such interest rates are roughly 3.5%. 

(d) Annualized cost to use and maintain the high tunnels is the average of the two year costs in 2009 

and 2010 provided by the Florida strawberry grower. 

(e) Avoided cost is the fuel cost estimated as $0.20 per 1,000 gallons of water pumped at 6,788 gallons 

per hour per acre for 24 hours over five days. The $0.20 per 1,000 gallons is based on $2.40 

per gallon cost of diesel fuel to growers and 210 feet of total dynamic head. The 6,788 gallons 

per hour per acre is the permitted frost / freeze quantity for blueberry, nursery and strawberry 

production. The permitted frost / freeze quantity for citrus is 3,000 gallons per hour per acre. 

The second cost estimate was provided by a Florida strawberry grower and reflects 

costs experienced in 2009 and 2010. The cost of the frame structure is significantly 

higher than the cost experienced by the FARMS program because the plastic on all 





sides, including the ceiling can be easily opened and closed. This grower provided two 

years of annual labor costs per acre (2009 and 2010) associated with using and maintaining 

the tunnels. The average of these two costs, $273, was used for both the 

FARMS cost estimate and the grower’s cost estimate. 

The total annualized cost per acre is estimated to be $4,012 based primarily on the 

FARMS cost data and $8,879 based on the grower’s cost data. The estimated avoided 

fuel cost savings from not needing to use ground water for frost / freeze protection was 

deducted from these costs. This avoided fuel cost was estimated as $0.20 per 1,000 

gallons of water pumped at 6,788 gallons per hour for 24 hours over five days per year. 

The 6,788 gallons per hour is the permitted allocation. The estimated avoided fuel cost 

is $163 per acre per year. The net annualized cost per acre is estimated to range from 

$3,849 using the FARMS information and $8,716 using the grower’s information. 

The estimated cost to purchase and install high tunnels over fish ponds is provided in 

Table 4.5. This cost estimate is based on information provided by a high tunnel manufacturer 

and retailer based on specifications provided by a southwest Florida tropical fish 

farm owner. The total materials and installation cost for a 26 foot wide x 130 foot long 

structure with a four foot sidewall that is partially underground, including the cover and 

skirting is $7,825. Given the useful lives of the structure, cover and skirting, the annualized 

cost is about $78 per 100 square feet of pond. 

44324-000R4.docx 





Item 

Table 4.5 

Estimated Cost to Protect Fish Ponds from Frost / Freeze Events 

using High Tunnels (a) 

Value 

Acres (b) 0.078 


Frame Structure (c) $6,250 

Plastic sheeting to cover structure (d) $750 

Skirting on sides of structure $825 

Total Cost $7,825 

Useful Life – Frame 8 

Useful Life – Plastic and Skirting 1 

Annualized M and I Cost at 5% annual interest rate (e) $2,621 

Total Annualized Cost per 100 square feet of pond $77.54 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Based on cost quote provided by Stuppy Greenhouse, Inc. of Kansas City, 

Missouri and high tunnel specifications and size provided by a tropical fish 

farm owner in southwest Florida. 

This table represents the cost for a high tunnel that is 26 feet wide x 130 feet 

long that covers one fish pond. 

The frame structure is 26 x 130 feet with a four foot sidewall that is partially 

underground. 

This is a single layer of clear polyethylene. 

(e) The 5% annual interest rate is the current prime rate of 3.25% (Wall Street 

Journal) plus 1.75 percentage points. This is a high end estimate of the current 

interest rate that farmers would pay for an intermediate term loan. Currently 

such interest rates are roughly 3.5%. 

Crop Cloths. Crop cloths are used to cover the crop during frost / freeze events and 

may be used on all crops except trees. They are extended over the field and are held in 

place by sand bags placed every 3 to 5 feet. The wire framework that supports the crop 

cloths is installed after the crop is planted and watered and before frost / freeze events 

are expected. Each time a frost / freeze event is imminent, the cloths are placed over the 

crop until the frost / freeze event is over. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The crop cloths are stored until the next frost / freeze event. Cloth storage is probably 

the most challenging part of this method because farmers are typically using most or all 

of their indoor shed space for equipment and parts. The cloths are 500 foot long sheets 

that must be folded into long and narrow strips and then rolled up. They can be stored 

indoors or covered with a tarp and stored in a shaded area. Crop cloths need to be replaced 

about every two to three years. The frequency of replacement depends on how 





often they are used and how protected they are during storage. According to the strawberry 

grower who provided cost information for the high tunnels and the crop cloths, 

there may be food safety issues associated with unsanitary crop cloths being in contact 

with the crop. 

The cloth comes in many weights, from 0.5 ounces per square yard to 2 ounces per 

square yard. Strawberry growers in the Dover / Plant City area believe that cloth weights 

between 1.5 and 2 ounces per square yard are appropriate to protect the crop from the 

temperature expected during freeze events. 

The estimated cost per acre to purchase the crop cloth is provided in Table 4.6. Two 

cost estimates are provided – one based on cost information from the District’s FARMS 

program and one based on cost information provided by a Florida strawberry grower. 

The first cost estimate is based on farmers' current experience in the Dover / Plant City 

area as they work with the Southwest Florida Water Management District's FARMS program. 

8 The purchase price of the crop cloth is estimated to be $2,000 per acre with a 

useful life of 2 years. The cost of the wire framework is estimated to be $1,000 with a 

useful life of five years. A machine can be used to feed out the cloth as workers cover 

the field. The estimated cost is $1,200 per machine which has a useful life of about 15 

years. The cost of sandbags is from the strawberry grower and they are expected to last 

about 3 years. The annualized cost over the useful lives of these components at five 

percent annual interest rate is $3,798 per acre. The annual cost for the farm to install 

and remove the cloth was obtained from the strawberry grower and is the average of two 

years of cost data (2009 and 2010). This value is $826 per acre per year. The total annual 

cost to use crop cloths is estimated to be $2,412 per farmed acre per year. 

44324-000R4.docx 

8 The crop cloth cost information was obtained from William Orendorff, FARMS Program Manager, 

Southwest Florida Water Management District, September 2010 and Ron Cohen, P.E. District Agricultural 

Engineer, October 2010. 





44324-000R4.docx 

Item 

Table 4.6 

Estimated Cost to Protect Crops from Frost / Freeze Events using Crop Cloths (a) 

Value from FARMS 

Program (b) 

Value Provided 

by Grower (c) 

Acres 1 1 

Materials Cost: 

Crop Cloth $2,000 $2,000 

Wire Framework $1,000 $1,200 

Cloth installation machine (d) $48 $200 

Cloth installation machine reels – 2 needed over 25 acres $0 $32 

Sandbags $750 $750 

Cloth Storage $0 $7,500 

Total Cost $3,798 $11,682 

Useful Life in years – Cloth 2 3 

Useful Life in years – Wire framework 5 5 

Useful Life in years – Machine and reels 15 15 

Useful Life in years – Sandbags 3 3 

Useful Life in years – Cloth storage 15 15 

Annualized Materials Cost at 5% annual interest rate (e) $1,587 $2,032 

Annual Cost to Install and Remove Cloth (f) $826 $826 

Total Annualized Cost per Acre $2,412 $2,857 

Avoided fuel savings from avoided ground water use (g) $163 $163 

Net Annualized Cost per Farmed Acre $2,249 $2,694 

(a) Crop cloths are also called floating covers, row covers and freeze cloths. This method can be used on all crops 

except tree crops. 

(b) Based on farmers' experience in the Dover / Plant City area as they work with the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District's FARMS program. Information obtained from William Orendorff, FARMS Program Manager and 

Ron Cohen, District Agricultural Engineer. 

(c) Based on 2009 and 2010 cost information provided by a Florida strawberry grower. 

(d) The FARMS Program value uses a machine cost of $1,200 averaged over 25 acres. The grower value uses a 

machine cost of $5,000 averaged over 25 acres. 

(e) The 5% annual interest rate is the current prime rate of 3.25% (Wall Street Journal) plus 1.75 percentage points. 

This is a high end estimate of the current interest rate that farmers would pay for an intermediate term loan. Currently 

such interest rates are roughly 3.5%. 

(f) 

Annual cost to install and remove cloth is the average of the two year costs in 2009 and 2010 provided by the Florida 

strawberry grower. 

(g) Avoided cost is the fuel cost estimated as $0.20 per 1,000 gallons of water pumped at 6,788 gallons per hour for 

24 hours over five days. The $0.20 per 1,000 gallons is based on $2.40 per gallon cost of diesel fuel to growers 

and 210 feet of total dynamic head. The 6,788 gallons per hour per acre is the permitted frost / freeze quantity for 

blueberry, nursery and strawberry production. The permitted frost / freeze quantity for citrus is 3,000 gallons. 





The second cost estimate was provided by a Florida strawberry grower and reflects 

costs experienced in 2009 and 2010. In this cost estimate the cost of the machine is 

higher. An additional cost is added for the machine reels. In addition, the cost to build a 

storage building to store the crop cloths in a sanitary manner is added. This cost is estimated 

as $75 per square foot times 100 square feet of building floor space for a total 

cost of $7,500. The useful life of the storage is estimated to be 15 years. The life of the 

crop cloth is increased by one year to account for a benefit of this storage. The annualized 

cost over the useful lives of these components at five percent annual interest rate is 

$2,032 per acre. The annual cost for the farm to install and remove the cloth was obtained 

from the strawberry grower and is the average of two years of cost data (2009 

and 2010). This value is $826 per acre per year. The total annual cost to use crop 

cloths is estimated to be $2,857 per farmed acre per year. 

The total annualized cost per acre is estimated to be $2,412 based primarily on the 

FARMS cost data and $2,857 based on the grower’s cost data. The estimated avoided 

fuel cost savings from not needing to use ground water for frost / freeze protection was 

deducted from these costs. This avoided fuel cost was estimated as $0.20 per 1,000 

gallons of water pumped at 6,788 gallons per hour for 24 hours over five days per year. 

The 6,788 gallons per hour is the permitted allocation. The estimated avoided fuel cost 

is $163 per acre per year. The net annualized cost per acre is estimated to range from 

$2,249 using the FARMS information and $2,694 using the grower’s information. 

Wind Machines. Wind Machines can be used to protect blueberries and tree crops from 

radiation frost events. These machines provide warmth to the plants by stirring the air so 

that the warmer air mixes with the colder air that is closer to the ground. Wind machines 

are about 15 to 20 feet high and are a permanent part of the field. There are some wind 

machines that are also low to the ground and are used to mix pockets of trapped air. 

The estimated cost per acre to purchase, install and use wind machines for a 10 acre 

blueberry farm is provided in Table 4.7. These costs are based on farmers' current experience 

in the Dover / Plant City area as they work with the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District's FARMS program. 9 The purchase price and installation cost of a 

wind machine is $30,000. One wind machine should be sufficient to protect 10 acres of 

blueberries. The useful life of the wind machine is about 20 years. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The major operating cost is the cost of diesel fuel to power the machine. The annual fuel 

cost was estimated based on an on-farm diesel fuel price of $2.40 per gallon, the consumption 

of 10 gallons of diesel fuel per hour of operation, and 24 operating hours per 

9 The wind machine cost information was obtained from William Orendorff, FARMS Program Manager, 

Southwest Florida Water Management District, September 2010. 





day over five radiation freeze days per year. These assumptions imply an annual fuel 

cost of $2,880 per year for a 10-acre farm using one wind machine. Given these costs, 

the annual total cost per acre to use wind machines for radiation frost protection is estimated 

to be $529 per farmed acre per year. 

The cost savings associated with not needing to use irrigation system for radiation frost 

protection is estimated to be $163 per acre and is included in the cost estimate provided 

in Table 4.7. The estimated net annualized cost per farmed acre is $366. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Item 

Value 

Acres 10 

Table 4.7 

Estimated Cost to Protect Crops from Frost / Freeze Events 

using Wind Machines (a) 


1 Wind Machine $30,000 

Useful Life 20 

Annualized M and I Cost at 5% annual interest rate (b) $2,407 

Average Annual Fuel Cost (c) $2,880 

Total Annualized Cost per Acre $529 

Avoided fuel savings from avoided ground water use (d) $163 

Net annualized cost per farmed acre $366 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Wind machines could be used for blueberries and tree crops. Based on farmers' experience 

in the Dover / Plant City area as they work with the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District's FARMS program. Information obtained from William Orendorff, FARMS Program 

Manager. 

The 5% annual interest rate is the current prime rate of 3.25% (Wall Street Journal) plus 

1.75 percentage points. This is a high end estimate of the current interest rate that farmers 

would pay for an intermediate term loan. Currently such interest rates are roughly 3.5%. 

Average annual fuel cost is equal to the estimated on-farm diesel price of $2.40 per gallon 

times 10 gallons per hour operated times 24 operating hours per day over five radiation 

freeze days per year These values are from William Orendorff, FARMS Program Manager, 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 

Avoided cost is the fuel cost estimated as $0.20 per 1,000 gallons of water pumped at 

6,788 gallons per hour for 24 hours over five days. The $0.20 per 1,000 gallons is based on 

$2.40 per gallon cost of diesel fuel to growers and 210 feet of total dynamic head. The 

6,788 gallons per hour per acre is the permitted frost / freeze quantity for blueberry, nursery 

and strawberry production. 





4.7 Cost to Use Alternative Water Sources for Frost / Freeze Protection 

This subsection presents and describes the estimated costs associated with using alternative 

water sources to supply water needed for frost / freeze protection. These water 

sources could offset some or all of the withdrawals from ground water. They are: 

● 

● 

● 

Tailwater recovery system 

Horizontal wells 

Reclaimed water 

Each is discussed in turn. Strawberries, blueberries, nurseries (container and some 

field), citrus (ridge and flatwood) and tropical fish farms are activities that typically require 

frost / freeze protection. 

Tailwater Recovery System. A tailwater recovery system is a system to collect, store 

and use water from tailwater or rainfall for irrigation. Typically this system consists of a 

water storage pond or reservoir, a pumping station with filtration, pipes and irrigation distribution 

system that moves water from the pond to the field for cold protection, crop establishment 

or supplemental irrigation. When this water is used for supplemental irrigation, 

additional treatment might be needed to prevent clogging of drip and low volume 

irrigation systems or to eliminate any plant disease problems. 

According to the District 10 , 

44324-000R4.docx 

“About six percent of the agricultural permits in the Dover / Plant City area currently 

utilize tailwater recovery / rainfall harvest ponds to provide water for cold protection. 

These systems are frequently operated in conjunction with ground water withdrawals. 

This conjunctive use results in a substantial reduction in ground water withdrawals 

for these permittees. The District’s Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management 

Systems (FARMS) program has provided funding and technical assistance for 

eight agricultural projects in Hillsborough County and is working to increase the 

number of tailwater recovery / rainfall harvesting ponds. To-date, the FARMS program 

has a total of seven projects involving strawberry production in Hillsborough 

County. Three of these projects are operational, one is under construction and three 

have contracts pending. The total project costs range from $151,000 to $346,000, 

with the District’s contributions ranging from $65,500 to $142,750. Each of these 

projects can or will be capable of providing 100 percent of the cold protection quantities 

needed for three days. Ideally, as many growers as practical in the area should 

10 “Developing Means to Significantly Increase the Percentage of Freeze Protection in the Dover / Plant City 

Area Accomplished by Methods Other Than Upper Floridan Aquifer Groundwater”, Team Leaders – Eric De- 

Haven and Ron Cohen, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Draft – April 15, 2010. 





use surface water for cold protection and crop establishment. However, level of service, 

pond dimensions, site specific topography and economics may limit the number 

of growers that will use surface water.” 

The capital cost per acre of the 17 tailwater recovery systems constructed in 2008 and 

2009 under the FARMS program ranged from $272 per acre for a 1,600 acre farm to 

$13,300 per acre for a 55 acre farm. The capital cost per acre averaged over the 17 

projects was $3,800 per acre. 11 These costs do not include any net income reductions 

associated with siting the tailwater recovery pond on productive cropland, which are addressed 

below. 

Two cost estimates for a tailwater recovery system were developed for this SERC. The 

first cost estimate assumes that the pond is below ground and must be excavated. The 

second cost estimate assumes that the pond is above ground and must be created. 

These two cost estimates provide a range of potential costs associated with a tailwater 

recovery system. 

There are likely to be economies of scale such that the cost per farm acre for a tailwater 

recovery system falls as the size of the farm increases. To account for this, cost estimates 

for the two tailwater recovery systems are provided for a 10 acre farm, a 25 acre 

farm and a 100 acre farm. These farm sizes represent the farm sizes in the DPC WUCA. 

One of the cost items associated with a tailwater recovery system is the amount of productive 

farm land that would need to be taken out of production in order to site the tailwater 

pond. The cost would be the lost net income from the lost production. In some 

cases, the pond can be sited on land that is not used for production and in this case 

there would be no lost income. It is likely that one of the design considerations will be to 

minimize the amount of productive land displaced by the pond. Low lying areas and fumigant 

buffer zone areas might be used to minimize lost income. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The size of the tailwater recovery pond is based on site specific parameters such as 

pond depth, the runoff volume, site topography, and the amount of water needed. Tailwater 

recovery pond sizes used in this cost estimation were based on a pond with an 

average depth of 10 feet that would be used for frost / freeze protection. Detailed modeling 

to evaluate the optimum pond size was not conducted. However, calculations indicate 

that the pond sizes used in this cost estimation will provide water for about 1.5 days 

of 24 hour frost / freeze protection if the amount of water stored at the time protection is 

needed is 75 to 90 percent of pond capacity. Frost / freeze events that last longer than 

11 From FARMS 2008 Annual Report dated February 2009 and FARMS 2009 Annual Report dated June 2010 

prepared by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. 





36 consecutive hours or that occur when the pond is below 75 to 90 percent of capacity 

would require alternative cold protection methods (i.e., crop cloths, high tunnels) or other 

water sources such as ground water to supplement frost / freeze protection water needs. 

Alternative frost / freeze protection methods other than water will reduce the amount of 

ground water that would be needed during frost / freeze events. 

The estimated costs of the tailwater recovery system are presented in two parts and 

then summarized. First, the estimated cost of the tailwater recovery system is presented. 

Then, estimates of net income per farm acre for strawberries and citrus are presented. 

These are the predominant crops grown in the DPC WUCA that typically require frost / 

freeze protection. Finally, the costs are organized into three tables that summarize the 

estimated total cost of a tailwater recovery system for each of the two tailwater cost estimates, 

each of the three farm sizes and each of the two crops. 

The estimated capital costs per acre of a tailwater recovery system presented in the 

tables below are within the cost per acre range of the tailwater recovery systems built 

under the District’s FARMS program. The estimated costs per acre are in the high end 

of this range because in the tables below it is assumed that all components are installed 

new, none of the existing farm infrastructure is used, and there are no existing ponds 

that could be used. The District’s FARMS program provides for the cost-sharing of tailwater 

recovery systems and other methods to reduce frost/freeze quantities permitted 

from the Upper Floridan aquifer. Additional information regarding this program is provided 

in Chapter 7.0 of this SERC. 

There may be relatively nominal County and District permitting costs associated with 

constructing the ponds. These costs are not included in the cost estimates but are not 

expected to significantly change the estimated costs per farmed acre per year reported 

in this SERC. It is likely that most, if not all, ponds would require the excavation of less 

than 100,000 cubic yards of soil and will be less than five surface acres. If this is the 

case, then the District would consider the activity an AGSWM exemption as long as 

there are no wetland impacts.12 The exemption fee is $100 and includes the AGSWM 

process option of having the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service design the 

pond at no cost to the applicant. Provision of this service is at the discretion of the applicant. 

A District Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) is not required. If there are wetland 

impacts, then a General or Individual ERP is required depending on the extent of 

wetland impacts. The permit fee will vary from $1,500 to $3,900 and the permit is perpetual. 

44324-000R4.docx 

12 Information regarding District permitting is from the Southwest Florida Water Management District. 





In addition to addressing pond permitting issues with the District, the applicant will need 

to obtain an operating permit from the county. For ponds located in Hillsborough County 

that are less than 100,000 cubic yards excavated the County’s land excavation review 

process fee is $525. 13 In addition, the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection 

Commission review fee is $870. Once these fees are paid and the operating permit application 

is approved, then the operating permit for the pond is issued. If the applicant 

contracted with the District’s FARMS program or the USDA’s EQUIP program and there 

are no wetland impacts, the entire process takes about one month. The applicant does 

not need to receive funding from these programs in order to qualify. 

If the applicant does not work with the District’s FARMS program or the USDA’s EQUIP 

program, then the process to obtain an operating permit could take up to six months and 

could take longer if significant issues, such as wetland impacts, need to be addressed. 

In developing the tailwater recovery cost estimates, it is assumed that the excavated 

material can either be used on the farm for the above ground dikes or other uses, or is 

hauled off site. If there is a strong construction market in the regional area, this fill material 

could be sold to developers. If there is no market for the fill and the fill cannot be 

used on the farm, then the grower may need to pay for its disposal. The pond cost estimates 

provided in these tables do not include any revenue from selling the fill or any 

payments made to others to accept the excavated material. 

The estimated costs of the tailwater recovery system that includes the cost of excavating 

a below ground pond for each of the three farm sizes are provided in Table 4.8. The estimated 

annualized installation and O&M cost per farmed acre per year in 2010 dollars is 

$1,029 for a 10 acre farm, $750 for a 25 acre farm and $620 for a 100 acre farm. The 

methods used to estimate these costs are described in the footnotes to this table. 

44324-000R4.docx 

13 Information regarding Hillsborough County permitting is from the Hillsborough County Planning and Growth 

Management Department 





44324-000R4.docx 

Item 

Table 4.8 

Estimated Cost of a Tailwater Recovery System, Including Excavation of 

Below Ground Pond For Three Farm Sizes in the DPC WUCA, 2010 $ 

Small 

Farm 

Median 

Farm 

Large 

Farm 

Farm Size in Number of Acres 10 25 100 

Surface Acres of Tailwater Recovery Pond (a) 0.96 1.96 6.2 

Excavation Cost per Cubic Yard (EQIP EXMAT), 2007 dollars 

converted to 2010 dollars using 1.049202 (b) 

$3.67 $3.67 $3.67 

Cubic Yards Excavated 12,815 27,500 99,100 

Total Excavation Cost $47,059 $100,986 $363,916 

Filter, self-cleaning screen (c) $2,500 $6,000 $9,000 

Pump, centrifugal, diesel engine (d) $54,800 $84,570 $290,040 

Pond Inlet Culvert, cost per foot (c) $56 $71 $100 

Feet of pond water intake 30 30 60 

Total Pond Inlet Culvert Cost $1,680 $2,130 $6,000 

Pipe from pond to irrigation system, cost per foot of pipe (e) $70.00 $100.00 $120.00 

Feet of pipe from well to irrigation system 110 174 348 

Total Piping Cost $7,700 $17,393 $41,742 

Total Installation Cost $113,739 $211,078 $710,698 

Total Cost per Farm Acre (with Pond Acreage Removed 

from Denominator) $12,582 $9,161 $7,577 

Total Annual Cost Per Acre Per Year Amortized At 5% 

Over 20 Years $1,009.59 $735.13 $607.98 

Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost 

Total Management Cost (f) $172.80 $352.80 $1,116.00 

Management Cost per Farm Acre per Year (w/Pond 

Acreage Removed from Denominator) $19.12 $15.31 $11.90 

Total Annualized Installation and O&M Cost per Farm Acre 

per Year, 2010 $ $1,028.70 $750.45 $619.87 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

These estimated costs assume that all components are installed new, that none of the existing farm infrastructure 

is used, and there are no existing ponds that could be used. For the purposes of this cost estimation, 

the pond is 10 feet deep. In addition, there is a one foot freeboard. 

Source of costs is State of Florida, Area III Cost Share List for Selected Conservation Practices for EQIP, 

FY 2007, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Environmental 

Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). Area III is the central Florida area which includes the counties of the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District except for Citrus, Marion and Levy counties. All EQIP costs 

include installation. The cost cubic yard excavated includes compaction and/or hauling the soil from the 

site. 

Cost of self-cleaning screens and culvert from in-house sources. 





(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

Centrifugal pump costs are from quotes by Hudson Pumps, Lakeland, Florida. Pump manufacturer for cost 

quote is Gorman-Rupp Pumps. The 10 acre farm would have a 1,100 gpm pump, 10 inch pipe diameter 

with dimensions 5 feet by 9 feet (Model number PA6C6OC-F6L) . The 25 acre farm would have a 2,800 

gpm pump, 16 inch pipe diameter with dimensions 6 feet by 11 feet (Model RP8A6O). The 100 acre farm 

would have 3 pumps with 3,667 gpm each, 18 inch diameter pipe, dimensions 5 feet by 11 feet each (Model 

RP8C6O). Includes installation and covering. 

Cost from in-house sources. Includes PVC Schedule 80 and installation. 

Management includes cleaning and re-grading of collection facilities, inspection and removal of debris and 

sediment, inspection of pipeline and pump components, and routine maintenance of mechanical components 

in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Annual per acre cost is estimated at $180 using 

$12.00 per acre labor cost times 15 hours per year per acre of pond. 

The estimated costs of the tailwater recovery system that includes the cost of excavating 

an above ground pond for each of the three farm sizes are provided in Table 4.9. The 

estimated annualized installation and O&M cost per farm acre per year in 2010 dollars is 

$988 for a 10 acre farm, $648 for a 25 acre farm and $449 for a 100 acre farm. The methods 

used to estimate these costs are described in the footnotes to this table. 

44324-000R4.docx 





Item 

Table 4.9 

Estimated Cost of a Tailwater Recovery System, Including Excavation of an 

Above Ground Pond for Three Farm Sizes in the DPC WUCA, 2010 $ 

Small 

Farm 

Median 

Farm 

Farm Size in Number of Acres 10 25 100 

Large 

Farm 

Surface Acres of Tailwater Recovery Pond (a) 1.45 4.40 16.00 

Excavation Cost per Cubic Yard (EQIP EXMAT), 2007 dollars (b) $3.67 $3.67 $3.67 

Cubic Yards Excavated 3,700 6,500 12,300 

Total Excavation Cost $13,587 $23,869 $45,168 

Filter, self-cleaning screen (c) $2,500 $6,000 $9,000 

Pump, centrifugal, diesel engine (d) $54,800 $84,570 $290,040 

Pump, lift, diesel engine (e) $23,389 $24,670 $48,000 

Pipe from pond to irrigation system, cost per foot of pipe (f) $70 $100 $120 

Feet of pipe from well to irrigation system 110 174 348 

Total piping cost $7,700 $17,393 $41,742 

Total Installation Cost $101,976 $156,501 $433,950 

Total Cost per Farm Acre (with Pond Acreage Removed from 

Denominator) $11,927 $7,597 $5,166 

Total Annual Cost per Acre per Year Amortized at 5% over 20 years $957.06 $609.62 $414.54 

Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost 

Total Management Cost (g) $261.00 $792.00 $2,880.00 

Management Cost per Farm Acre per Year (w/ Pond Acreage 

Removed from Denominator $30.53 $38.45 $34.29 

Total Annualized Installation and O&M Cost per Farm Acre per Year $987.58 $648.06 $448.82 

(a) 

The depth of the above ground pond is four feet including a one foot freeboard. This is why the pond surface area is 

larger than the below ground pond. These estimated costs assume that all components are installed new, that none 

of the existing farm infrastructure is used, and there are no existing ponds that could be used. 

(b) Source of costs is State of Florida, Area III Cost Share List for Selected Conservation Practices for EQIP, FY 2007, 

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Environmental Quality Incentive 

Program (EQIP). Area III is the central Florida area which includes the counties of the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District except for Citrus, Marion and Levy counties. All EQIP costs include installation. The cost cubic yard 

excavated includes compaction and/or hauling the soil from the site. 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

Cost of self-cleaning screens and culvert from in-house sources. 

Centrifugal pump costs are from quotes by Hudson Pumps, Lakeland, Florida. Pump manufacturer for cost quote is 

Gorman-Rupp Pumps. The 10 acre farm would have a 1,100 gpm pump, 10 inch pipe diameter with dimensions 5 

feet by 9 feet (Model number PA6C6OC-F6L) . The 25 acre farm would have a 2,800 gpm pump, 16 inch pipe diameter 

with dimensions 6 feet by 11 feet (Model RP8A6O). The 100 acre farm would have 3 pumps with 3,667 gpm 

each, 18 inch diameter pipe, dimensions 5 feet by 11 feet each (Model RP8C6O). Includes installation and covering. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Cost of lift pumps from Godwin Pumps, Dri-Prime Pump with Diesel Engine mounted on skid. 





(f) 

(g) 

Cost from in-house sources. Includes PVC Schedule 80 and installation. 

Management includes cleaning and re-grading of collection facilities, inspection and removal of debris and sediment, 

inspection of pipeline and pump components, and routine maintenance of mechanical components in accordance with 

manufacturer recommendations. Annual per acre cost is estimated at $180 using $12.00 per acre labor cost times 15 

hours per year per acre of pond. 

In the event that some farm land would be removed from production to site the pond, the 

farmer will experience a reduction in net income. The value of this reduction will depend 

on crop type, crop prices, costs of production, and the acres of land removed. This cost 

estimation considers the reduction in net income associated with tailwater recovery systems 

where the pond does not already exist on the property. To account for this net income 

reduction, the net incomes per acre per year associated with citrus and strawberry 

production were considered. 

A high and a low estimate of the net income per acre from orange production (citrus) are 

provided in Table 4.10. The net income per acre is equal to the on-tree orange revenue 

minus all variable costs associated with caring for the grove and producing the oranges. 

The on-tree revenue is equal to the revenue received for the oranges minus harvest and 

marketing costs. Variable costs are the costs that increase with increases in the land 

area planted in citrus. The cost of land is not included in the variable cost because the 

land has already been purchased or leased and is therefore a fixed cost. The net income 

estimate ranges from $738 per acre per year to $383 per acre per year. The costs used 

to estimate these net income values incorporate the cost of grove management to protect 

the trees from citrus canker and citrus greening. The costs associated with replacing 

diseased trees include the cost of replacing seven trees per acre per year. For the 

purposes of the tailwater recovery cost estimation, $738 per year per farmed acre was 

used which represents a citrus farm that manages for canker and greening but has not 

needed to replace diseased trees. 

44324-000R4.docx 





Item 

Table 4.10 

Estimated Annual Revenue and Cash Cost to Produce Southwest Florida Oranges 

With Citrus Canker and Citrus Greening Management, 2010 $ 

$ per Farmed Acre per Year 

Diseased Trees Removed and Replaced NO YES (a) 

Revenue lost from not producing, on-tree (b) $1,837 $1,836 

Variable Costs – Avoided Costs of Not Producing (c) 

Production & Cultural Costs (d) $987 $1,263 

Interest on Production & Cultural Costs (d) $64 $82 

Management Costs (d) $48 $109 

Total Avoided Cost $1,099 $1,454 

Net Income (Revenue lost from not producing minus avoided 

cost of not producing) 

$738 $383 

(a) Cost assumes that, each year, 7 trees per acre are removed and replaced due to citrus canker 

or greening. The yield per acre used to estimate revenue is not different from the scenario 

where no trees are replaced because the Statewide average yield per acre is used in this evaluation. 

However, it would be expected that the yield per acre of a farm that does not need to 

replace trees would be greater than the yield per acre of a farm that replaces trees, all other 

factors equal. 

(b) On-tree revenue is the average annual on-tree price of all oranges in Florida from 2000 to 2009 

in 2010 dollars ($5.26 per box) times the average yield per acre of all oranges in Florida from 

2000 to 2009 (349 boxes per acre). On-tree prices and yields per acre are from Florida Agricultural 

Statistics Service, "Citrus Summary 2008-2009", page 18. From page 9 of this report, "All 

prices ... are on-tree prices representing the average price received by growers for their fruit. 

The term "on-tree" relates to fruit returns to the grower after the costs of picking, hauling, and 

packing have been removed. Prices are based on records of commercial fresh fruit sales and 

processed fruit returns." Because the prices used in the table are “on-tree” prices, the harvest 

and marketing costs are not included in the table because they have already been deducted 

from the price received for citrus after it is harvested and marketed. 

(c) 

These are the annual costs that would not be expended if the land is not used to produce 

oranges. 

(d) All costs reported in this table are from Ronald P. Muraro, Extension Economist, "Summary of 

2009-2010 Citrus Budget for the Southwest Florida Production Region", University of Florida, 

IFAS, CREC, Lake Alfred, Florida, 2010, pages 4 and 5. Cost represents a mature (>/= 10 year 

old) citrus grove in southwest Florida. The production and cultural cost includes cost for repair 

of machinery and equipment; maintenance; labor; chemicals, and overhead management. 

44324-000R4.docx 

An estimate of the net income per acre per year from strawberry production is provided 

in Table 4.11. For the purposes of the tailwater recovery cost estimation, it is assumed 

that only one crop is produced on the land each year. If growers produce more than one 





crop per year on the land that is used to site the tailwater pond, then the net return per 

acre per year will be higher than reported in these tailwater cost estimates. The decision 

to use only one crop per year was made because many growers will not need to remove 

production on all of the land where the pond would be sited. Thus the use of one crop 

per year is meant to provide a weighted average net income loss that is believed to be 

more representative of actual conditions and implies that on average 50 percent of the 

land used for the pond would not replace crop production (1 crop = 2 crops x 0.50 of 

crop land is replaced). 

Item 

Revenue – Price (b) 

Table 4.11 

Estimated Revenue and Costs of Producing Strawberries 

in Plant City, Florida, 2010 Dollars 

Revenue - Yield per acre (b) 

Dollars per Farmed 

Acre (a) 

$15.704 per flat 

2,291.8 flats 

Revenue lost from not producing $35,991 

Variable Costs – Avoided Costs of Not Producing (c) 

Operating Cost $9,791 

Harvest and Marketing Costs $12,834 

Total Avoided Cost $22,625 

Net Income (Revenue lost from not producing minus 

avoided cost of not producing) 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

$13,366 

From Scott Smith and Timothy Taylor, "Production Costs and Commodity Budgets for 

Selected Florida Vegetables", Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida 

Cooperative Extension Service, UF/IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 

2008-2009, EDIS document FE436. 

Prices and Yields are 5-year averages (2005 to 2009) in 2010 dollars from Florida Agricultural 

Statistics Service, Vegetable Summary. Revenue based on 12 pound flats. 

These are the annual costs that would not be expended if the land is not used to produce 

strawberries. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The net income per acre is equal to the strawberry revenue minus all variable costs associated 

with producing strawberries. Variable costs are the costs that increase with increases 

in the land area planted in strawberries. The cost of land is not included in the 

variable cost because the land has already been purchased or leased and is therefore a 

fixed cost. The net income estimate is $13,366 per farmed acre per year. The data 

sources used are described in the footnotes to this table. 

A summary of the estimated costs per farmed acre associated with a tailwater recovery 

system for a 10 acre farm, a 25 acre farm, and a 100 acre farm are provided in Tables 





4.12, 4.13 and 4.14, respectively. These farm sizes are representative of those in the 

Dover / Plant City WUCA. 

Part II of each table provides the cost per farmed acre per year of a tailwater recovery 

system under the two pond alternatives: (1) with a below ground pond, and (2) with an 

above ground pond. These costs do not include estimates of the lost revenue associated 

with siting the pond on land that would otherwise be used for crop production. For a ten 

acre farm, presented in Table 4.12, the cost ranges from $988 per farmed acre per year 

to $1,029 per farmed acre per year. The farm acreage denominator does not include the 

pond acreage. So, for example, the cost of a below ground tailwater recovery system per 

farmed acre for a 10 acre farm uses a farm size of 9.04 acres in the denominator (10 

acres of farm minus 0.96 acres of pond). This method was used to make it easy to compare 

the tailwater system costs to net income per farmed acre for a specific crop. For a 

25 acre farm, presented in Table 4.13, the cost ranges from $648 per farmed acre per 

year to $750 per farmed acre per year. For a 100 acre farm, presented in Table 4.14, the 

cost ranges from $449 per farmed acre per year to $620 per farmed acre per year. 

The estimated lost net income plus the cost of the tailwater recovery system per farmed 

acre per year is included in Part III of the tables. The predominant crops that require 

frost / freeze protection in the DPC WUCA are citrus and strawberries. The sizes of the 

farms that grow citrus and strawberries in the DPC WUCA range from 10 to 125 acres. 

The lost net incomes from creating a pond on land that would have been used to produce 

each of these two crop types are included in Tables 4.12 through 4.14. 

For a ten acre farm with a tailwater recovery system that removes 0.96 to 1.45 acres of 

productive land, the net income loss is $78 to $125, respectively, per farmed acre per 

year if citrus trees are removed to site the pond and $1,419 to $2,267, respectively, per 

farmed acre per year if strawberries are removed to site the pond. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Adding the net income loss per farmed acre per year to the tailwater recovery system 

cost per farmed acre per year provides the potential cost associated with using this water 

source for frost / freeze protection. These total costs are provided in Part III of each 

table. For a 10 acre farm, presented in Table 4.12, the estimated cost is about $1,100 

per farmed acre per year for citrus and from $2,450 to $3,250 per farmed acre per year 

for strawberries. For a 25 acre farm, the estimated cost is about $800 per farmed acre 

per year for citrus and from $1,890 to $3,500 per farmed acre per year for strawberries. 

For a 100 acre farm, the estimated cost ranges from $590 to $670 per farmed acre per 

year for citrus and from $1,500 to $2,995 per farmed acre per year for strawberries. 

In addition to this cost, the grower will incur the cost of metering withdrawals from the 

tailwater ponds. The estimated metering cost to the grower was provided earlier in this 

Chapter. 





These costs might be lower if the pond depths are increased from 10 feet to 15 feet. 

This would result in a pond surface area that is smaller than used in the cost estimates 

and this could reduce the net income losses associated with siting the pond on productive 

farmland. 

The capital costs of the tailwater recovery system can be significantly reduced if the 

grower qualifies for cost-sharing under the District’s FARMS program. Existing growers 

will not be required to install these systems unless the required feasibility analysis demonstrates 

that they are economically, technically and environmentally feasible, with or 

without FARMS cost-sharing. 

Item 

Table 4.12 

Summary of Estimated Costs per Farmed Acre per Year 

Associated with a Tailwater Recovery System for a 10 Acre Farm 

Crop Type Protected 

Citrus Grove 

Strawberry 

Net income per farmed acre per year (a) $738 $13,366 

Pond Surface Acreage – Below Ground Pond 0.96 0.96 

Pond Surface Acreage – Above Ground Pond 1.45 1.45 

I. Lost Annual Net Income as Pond Replaces Production 

Below Ground Pond 

Replaced by Pond Acreage $708 $12,831 

Replaced by Pond Acreage per Acre of Farm (with pond acreage 

removed from denominator) $78 $1,419 

Above Ground Pond 

Replaced by Pond Acreage $1,070 $19,380 



II. Annualized Cost of Tailwater Recovery System per Farmed Acre per Year 

Below Ground Pond $1,029 $1,029 

Above Ground Pond $988 $988 

III. Annualized Cost of Tailwater Recovery System Including Lost Net Income per Farmed 

Acre per Year 

Below Ground Pond $1,107 $2,448 

Above Ground Pond $1,113 $3,254 

44324-000R4.docx 





Item 

Table 4.13 




Citrus Grove 

Strawberry 














Below Ground Pond $750 $750 



Acre per Year 

Below Ground Pond $813 $1,887 

Above Ground Pond $806 $3,503 

44324-000R4.docx 





Item 

Table 4.14 




Citrus Grove 

Strawberry 








removed from denominator) $49 $883 






Below Ground Pond $620 $620 



Acre per Year 

Below Ground Pond $669 $1,503 

Above Ground Pond $589 $2,995 

Horizontal Wells. For farmland that sits on a perched water table, it may be possible to 

obtain water from the surficial aquifer using a horizontal well. However, the application of 

horizontal well technology may be limited in the Dover area. A perched water table, also 

called a perched aquifer, is one that sits above an impermeable or semi-impermeable 

layer between the water table and the aquifer below. A horizontal well is similar to an 

under-drain system except that the perforated pipe is deeper. The rate at which water 

can be pumped from the surficial aquifer will depend on the site specific geology. If 

pumping from horizontal wells has negative impacts on wetland areas, then District permitting 

rules may prevent the grower from using this option. 

44324-000R4.docx 

In the event that a horizontal well would provide a sufficient amount of water and can be 

permitted, then it could be pumped into the tailwater recovery pond for frost / freeze protection 

or it could be pumped directly to the supplemental irrigation system. An estimate 

of the cost to install and use a horizontal well is provided in Table 4.15. The estimated 





annualized capital and O&M costs will depend on the amount of water that can be 

pumped and beneficially used. A range of water yield used in this cost estimation is 0.20 

gpm per foot of well and 1.2 gpm per foot of well. If the horizontal well is 800 feet and 

operated five hours per day for eight months per year, the annual average daily amount 

of water pumped would be 32,000 gpd to 192,000 gpd, respectively. The estimated annualized 

capital and O&M cost would range from $0.65 to $0.11 per 1,000 gallons of water 

produced, respectively. In addition to this cost, the grower will incur the cost of metering 

withdrawals from the horizontal wells. The estimated metering cost to the grower 

was provided earlier in this Chapter. 

The cost to pump water from the Floridan aquifer is about $0.24 per 1,000 gallons. 14 

Thus. the horizontal well cost estimate ranges from one-half to two times the cost of water 

from the Floridan aquifer. The grower will also need to monitor the impact of horizontal 

well pumping on the water table level to make sure it does not fall below the capillary 

fringe. 15 If the applicant can obtain sufficient water supplies from horizontal wells, this 

source may be the least expensive of the alternative frost / freeze protection methods. 

44324-000R4.docx 

14 From page 5-10 of “Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs for the Southern Water Use Caution 

Area II Rulemaking”, prepared by Hazen and Sawyer for the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District, March 14, 2006, $0.22 per 1,000 gallons, increased by 1.0784 to convert 2006 dollars to 

2010 dollars using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator. 

15 Southwest Florida Water Management District, “Regional Water Supply Plan”, August 2001, 

Brooksville, Florida, page 211. 





Item 

1.0 Capital Cost 

Table 4.15 

Estimated Costs of a Horizontal Well to Obtain Water 

from the Surficial Aquifer, 2010 dollars 

Unit 

Cost per 

Unit 


Units 

Total Cost 

Horizontal Well (EQIP 642) (a) Linear feet $31.44 800 $25,181 

Horizontal Well Pump (EQIP 533) (b) 1 pump $22,033 1 $22,033 

Non-Construction Cost (design and 

construction management) 

% of horizontal well 

& pump cost 

12.00% $47,214 $5,666 

Total Capital Cost $52,880 

Total Annualized Capital Cost at 5% over 

20 years 

2.0 Annual O&M Cost 

$4,243 

Diesel Fuel (c) Hours $2.40 1,217 $2,920 

Labor Hours $12.00 40 $480 

Total Annual O&M Cost $3,400 

Total Annualized Capital and O&M Cost $7,643 

3.0 Amount of Water Produced per Year Unit 

Units / 

Minute 

Minutes / 

Year 

Gallons / 

Year 

High estimate - 1.2 gpm per foot Gallons per Minute 960 73,000 70,080,000 

Low estimate - 0.2 gpm per foot Gallons per Minute 160 73,000 11,680,000 

Capital and O&M Cost per 1,000 gallons of water produced 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Low estimate $0.11 

High estimate $0.65 

From State of Florida Area III Cost Share List for Selected Conservation Practices for EQIP, FY 2007 inflated to 

2010 dollars using a factor of 1.0492 from U.S. OMB. Includes the cost of all materials, equipment use and labor 

required to install trenching, backfill, horizontal screen (perforated pipe) and filter. 

From State of Florida Area III Cost Share List for Selected Conservation Practices for EQIP, FY 2007 inflated to 

2010 dollars using a factor of 1.0492 from U.S. OMB. Includes the cost of all materials, equipment use and labor 

required to install a horizontal well pump. 

Dollars per Hour equal to $2.40 per gallon times 1 gallon per hour times 5 hours of irrigation per day for 8 months 

per year. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Reclaimed Water. Reclaimed water may be available from wastewater utilities such as 

the City of Plant City and Hillsborough County. The use of reclaimed water would be 

limited to citrus and nursery crops because of food safety issues. The reclaimed water 

would be stored on-farm at a cost similar to those estimated for the tailwater recovery 

systems provided previously in this Chapter. The potential cost of reclaimed water includes 

the costs of storage, filtration and payments to the reclaimed water utility. There 





are many potential benefits of using reclaimed water including freedom from potential 

irrigation restrictions, reduced fertilizer costs, and the ability to conserve fresh water for 

the other uses. 

Current reclaimed water supplies in northwest Hillsborough County are limited 16 but future 

reclaimed water expansions might provide sufficient quantities of reclaimed water to 

agriculture in the Dover / Plant City area. 17 The City of Plant City’s current reclaimed water 

rate structure for agriculture is a fixed charge from $27 to $50 per month, depending 

on meter size, and $0.05 per 1,000 gallons. 18 The average cost of future reclaimed water 

supplies in northwest Hillsborough County and eastern Polk County is estimated to be 

about $2.15 per 1,000 gallons, with estimated future project costs ranging from $0.67 to 

$13.18 per 1,000 gallons of water produced. 19 

4.8 Alternative Frost / Freeze Protection Methods for Aquaculture 

There are seven tropical fish farms in the DPC WUCA with permitted ground water 

quantities. Fish farms use diverse production formats. For example, fish ponds can be 

indoors, outdoors, semi-enclosed, or a combination of the three. During cold events, 

many fish farms introduce warmer ground water into the ponds to protect the fish. Others 

use heaters and/or covers to keep the ponds warmer. 

During cold events where the outside temperature drops to about 32 o F or lower, the addition 

of warmer groundwater to the fish ponds is necessary in order to protect the fish. 

The addition of groundwater may be necessary even when high tunnels are used depending 

on the type of fish and the cold conditions. Some fish are very cold tolerant, 

others are moderately cold tolerant, and others are not cold tolerant. The only alternative 

to adding groundwater is to install water heaters that heat the pond water. However, 

this alternative is very expensive relative to the revenue generated from the production 

of most fish species. The highest-valued fish species are typically housed indoors 

where heaters are used when needed. The lowest valued fish species are housed in 

44324-000R4.docx 

16 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Reclaimed Water website, “Annual Reuse Inventory, 

2009, Appendix D, Reclaimed Water Utilization”, and the Hillsborough County website. 

17 Southwest Florida Water Management District, Regional Water Supply Plan, DRAFT, April 2010, 

Brooksville, Florida, pages 82 to 84 and 96. 

18 City of Plant City website. 

19 Estimated costs are from the Southwest Florida Water Management District's draft 2010 Regional 

Water Supply Plan for the Tampa Bay Planning Region and the Heartland Planning Region, April 20, 

2010. The projects selected were those located relatively close to the DPC WUCA. 





open ponds and may not be protected from cold because they are cold tolerant or the 

cost of cold protection is not economically feasible. 

Existing aquaculture operations that use ground water for cold protection will be required 

to prepare a feasibility study to evaluate the economic, technical and environmental feasibility 

of using alternatives to ground water for frost/freeze protection as described previously 

in this chapter. The permittee will be required to implement feasible alternatives. 

The cost to implement feasible alternatives will vary significantly due to the diverse nature 

of the aquaculture operations. The estimated cost of using high tunnels to protect 

fish ponds was provided in Section 4.6 of this Chapter. 

Applications for new groundwater quantities that impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone will need to be adjusted to eliminate this impact. Alternative water sources 

may be available to supplement ground water supplies so that at least some of the 

needed water during frost / freeze events may be used. These sources include surface 

water and the surficial aquifer. The cost of horizontal wells and tailwater recovery systems 

to access and use water from these sources were provided earlier in this Chapter. 

If surface water sources are used, additional water filtration may be needed prior to its 

introduction into the fish ponds. 

The applicant may be able to acquire ground water using the Net Benefit provision of the 

proposed rule. Net Benefit options include obtaining the historically used frost / freeze 

groundwater quantities that are retired; aquifer recharge; or obtaining groundwater mitigation 

credits as described in the proposed rule. 

4.9 Well Complaints and Mitigation 

According the Part 3 Basis of Review for the Water Use Permit Information Manual, 6.1 

Standard Permit Conditions: 

“12. The permittee shall mitigate, to the satisfaction of the District, any 

adverse impact to existing legal uses caused by withdrawals. When adverse 

impacts occur or are imminent, the District shall require the permittee 

to mitigate the impacts. Adverse impacts include: 

a. A reduction in water levels which impairs the ability of a well to produce 

water. 

44324-000R4.docx 

b. Significant reduction in levels or flows in water bodies such as lakes, 

impoundments, wetlands, springs, streams or other watercourses. 





c. Significant inducement of natural or manmade contaminants into a 

water supply or into a usable portion of an aquifer or water body.” 

Under current rule, it is possible for a permittee to receive multiple well complaints resulting 

from a single frost / freeze event, as was demonstrated in 2010 during and following 

the 11-day freeze event in the Dover / Plant City area. According to the District, only 61 

of the 504 agricultural permits were assigned well complaints. A majority of the permits 

(86%) did not have well complaints assigned to them under the District’s current protocol. 

Because a large number of complaints was assigned to a small number of permittees 

and due to the slow pace of mitigation activity, the proposed rule provides a different 

method of assigning well complaints. The proposed method more closely links permittee 

pumping activity to well impacts and distributes the cost of well impacts more 

evenly among those causing the impacts. 

Relative to current rule, this change in the method to allocate well complaints among 

permittees is expected to result in the same number or more permittees being assigned 

well complaints and either no change or a reduction in the average number of well complaints 

per permittee. There is no particular cost increase associated with this proposed 

rule change. Depending on the frost / freeze event, some permittees who would not 

have been assigned a well complaint under current rule might be assigned a well complaint 

under the proposed rule. Other permittees who would have been assigned multiple 

well complaints under current rule might be assigned fewer well complaints under 

the proposed rule. In general, the new methodology will reduce the chance that a permittee 

would be assigned a large number of well investigations as occurred during the 

2010 freeze event. 

The mitigation activity required by the permittee and the complainant under the proposed 

rule is, for the most part, the same as under current rule. One difference is that, under 

the proposed rule, if a complainant mitigates the well damage before the permittee investigates, 

then the permittee is required to reimburse the complainant unless the permittee 

can demonstrate that it is not responsible for all or part of the cost. 

44324-000R4.docx 

4.10 Hourly Salary, Benefits and Overhead 

An estimate of the hourly salary, benefits and overhead was used to estimate the costs 

of some rule provisions. The calculation of these hourly costs is provided in Table 4.16. 

The primary data source was the 2002 Economic Census for Florida prepared by the 

U.S. Census Bureau. 





Sector 

Water Utilities 

Table 4.16 

Hourly Salary and Wage Rates used to Estimate Transactional Costs (a) 

Water Use 

Category 

Public 

Supply 

Manufacturing Industrial / 

Commercial 

Non-Metallic 

Mineral Mining 

and Quarrying 

Golf Courses & 

Country Clubs 

Consultants 

Engineering & Related 

Services 

Mining / 

Dewatering 

Recreation 

/ Aesthetic 

Annual Payroll 

in $ 

2002 2010 

Paid 

Employees 

Hourly 

Salary (b) 

Hourly 

Salary (c) 

Hourly Salary, 

Benefits and 

Overhead (d) 

$63,390,000 1,978 $17.42 $23.84 $72 

$14,082,395,000 377,137 $20.29 $27.77 $83 

$211,245,000 5,054 $22.72 $31.09 $93 

$665,608,000 34,089 $10.61 $14.52 $44 

$3,521,571,000 72,942 $26.24 $35.91 $108 

Computer Systems $2,854,747,000 49,094 $31.60 $43.25 $130 

Management $1,864,386,000 41,423 $24.46 $33.48 $100 

Agriculture - all hired workers $11.00 $16.50 

Median of all Sectors $88 

Engineering, Senior $200 

Economist, Senior $175 

(a) 

These are average salaries for the industries indicated. Actual labor costs will vary depending on the salaries of those 

who provide the services. For all sectors except agriculture, data source is 2002 Economic Census for Florida: 

www.census.gov. For agriculture, farm wage data from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Farm Wage Data, 

Florida Farm Labor, February 24, 2009 and other USDA data: http://www.nass.usda. 

gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Economics/index.asp. The hourly salary, benefits and overhead for a Senior 

Engineer and a Senior Economist that would be required for some services is estimated from in-house sources. 

(b) Hourly salary is based on 2,080 hours of full time employment minus three weeks of paid vacation (120 hours),minus 11 

paid holidays minus 32 hours of sick leave or 1,840 working hours. 

(c) The 2010 hourly salary is equal to the 2002 hourly salary increased by 4 percent per year over 8 years (1.04)8. 

(d) 

For all sectors except agriculture, the salary multiplier is 3.0 to account for salary, employee benefits, and overhead. For 

agriculture, the salary multiplier is 1.5 to account for salary and benefits. 

44324-000R4.docx 




Chapter 5.0 

Impacts to Small Businesses, 

Small Cities and Small Counties 

In accordance with Section 120.54(3)(b)2.a, Fla. Stat., the District is required to consider 

the impact of its rules on small businesses, small cities, and small counties. Small business 

is defined in Section 288.703(1), Fla. Stat., as “an independently owned and oper- 

ated business concern employing 200 or fewer permanent full-time employees and that, 

together with its affiliates, has a net worth of not more than $5 million or any firm based 

in this state which has a Small Business Administration (SBA) 8(a) certification”. Small 

city is defined in Section 120.52(18), Fla. Stat., as “any municipality that has an unincar- 

cerated population of 10,000 or less according to the most recent decennial census”. A 

small county is defined in Section 120.52(19), Fla. Stat., as “any county that has an unincarcerated 

population of 75,000 or less according to the most recent decennial cen- 

sus”. 

According to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, “Whenever practicable, an agency shall 

tier its rules to reduce disproportionate impacts on small businesses, small cities or small 

counties to avoid regulating businesses, small counties or small cities that do not contri- 

bute significantly to the problem the rule is designed to address.” 

In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, there were about 5,941 business 

establishments in or near the Dover / Plant City WUCA with 200 or fewer em- 

ployees according to data from the U.S. Census as presented in Table 5.1. The total 

number of business establishments was 5,990. Thus, as much as 99 percent of busi- 

ness establishments in the Dover / Plant City WUCA may be “small businesses” as de- 

fined by Florida Statute. According to the U.S. Census, an establishment is a single 

physical location where business is conducted, or where services are performed. While 

this definition is not identical to the definition provided in Florida Statutes, it provides a 

generaleral idea of the extent of small businesses in the DPC WUCA. 

44324-000R4.docx 



PAGE 5-1 


5.0 IMPACTS TO SMALL BUSINESSES, SMALL CITIES AND SMALL COUNTIES JANUARY 2011 

Table 5.1 

Number of Establishments In or Near the Dover / Plant City 

WUCA by Employee Size Class 

Employee Size Class 


Establishments 

% of All 

Establishments 

1 to 200 Employees 5,941 99% 

Greater than 200 Employees 49 1% 

Total 5,990 100% 

Source: U.S. Census, 2008, County Business Patterns, Zip Code Business Patterns by 

Employment Size Class in 2008. Based on zip codes. Many zip codes include areas 

outside of the DPC WUCA. 

There are no small counties or small cities in the Dover / Plant City WUCA, as identified 

using data from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 

There are several unincorporated census designated places in the Dover /Plant City 

WUCA. The populations of counties, cities and unincorporated census designated places 

in this WUCA are listed in Table 5.2. There are no small cities or small counties immediately 

outside the DPC WUCA. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Table 5.2 

Population of Counties that Comprise the DPC WUCA and the Cities and 

Unincorporated Census Designated Places In the DPC WUCA 

Geographic Area 

Population 

2008 2000 

Hillsborough County 1,200,541 998,948 

City of Plant City 33,500 29,760 

Unincorporated Census Designated Places: 

Dover N/A 2,798 

Valrico N/A 6,582 

Bloomingdale 19,434 19,839 

Polk County 585,733 483,924 

Unincorporated Census Designated Places: 

Willow Oak N/A 4,917 

Winston N/A 9,024 

Kathleen N/A 3,280 

Source: U.S. Census, American Factfinder, www.factfinder.census.gov 

N/A means that the information is not available. 





The proposed rule is not expected to incur costs to small businesses, small cities or 

small counties unless it is a water use permittee in the DPC WUCA; or requests a water 

use permit for frost / freeze protection in the DPC WUCA; or is outside the DPC WUCA 

and requests a groundwater quantity for frost / freeze protection that impacts the Protection 

Zone. In the event that a small business, small city or small county must comply 

with the proposed rule, the potential transactional costs are provided in Chapter 4.0 of 

this Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. 

Furthermore, small businesses, small counties and small cities that are not required to 

obtain a water use permit to conduct their water use activities are not required to comply 

with the proposed rule or incur the costs associated with the proposed rule. According to 

Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C., Consumptive Use of Water, a water use permit (WUP) from the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District is required as follows. 

40D-2.041 Permits Required. 

1. Unless expressly exempted by law or District rule, a WUP must be obtained 

from the District prior to withdrawal of water if any of the following thresholds are 

exceeded: 

a. Total withdrawal capacity from any source or combined sources is greater 

than or equal to 1,000,000 gallons per day (gpd). 

b. Annual average daily withdrawal from any source or combined sources is 

greater than or equal to 100,000 gpd. 

c. Withdrawal is from a well having an outside diameter of 6 inches or more at 

the surface. 

d. Withdrawal is from a surface water body and the outside diameter of the 

withdrawal pipe or the sum of the outside diameters of the withdrawal pipes 

is 4 inches or greater. 

44324-000R4.docx 

e. In addition to the thresholds set forth in paragraphs (1)(a) through (1)(d) 

above, a permit is required within the MIA as set forth in subparagraph 40D- 

2.801(3)(b)2., F.A.C., when withdrawal is from wells having a cumulative 

outside diameter greater than 6 inches at the surface any of which wells is 

constructed after April 11, 1994. This paragraph (e) shall not apply to any 

proposed well less than 6 inches in diameter at the surface when it is of the 

same diameter or smaller than a well it replaces and an application to plug 

the replaced well in accordance with Rule 40D-3.531, F.A.C., is filed with 





the application to construct the replacement well in accordance with Rule 

40D-3.041, F.A.C. 

Small businesses, cities and counties that obtain water from a private well or from a surface 

water source are not required to have a water use permit as long as they do not 

meet the criteria listed in 40D-2.041, F.A.C., Permits Required, as reprinted above and 

will not be required to comply with the proposed rule. 

In accordance with Section 120.54 (3) (b) 2.a., F.S., the District made revisions to the 

proposed rule to reduce adverse impacts to small businesses. First, the proposed rule 

requirement that permittees are responsible for the operation, maintenance and replacement 

of the required automatic reading devices was eliminated. The District will 

now bear those costs. The vast majority of permittees who would have borne those 

costs are small businesses. Second, the proposed rule requirement that permittees with 

permitted ground water quantities for frost/freeze protection be required to conduct feasibility 

analyses of alternative means of frost/freeze protection was modified. It now excludes 

those permittees with less than 100,000 gallons per day annual average daily 

permitted quantity. The vast majority of the permittees that will not have to pay for such 

analyses are small businesses. 

44324-000R4.docx 




Chapter 6.0 

Overall Regulatory Cost and Economic Impact 

The Chapter addresses additional requirements of the Statement of Estimated Regulato- 

ry Costs as passed by the Florida Legislature in November 2010. According to House 

Bill 1565, in addition to the requirements listed in Chapter 120.54, F.S., a Statement of 

Estimated Regulatory Costs shall include: 

(a) An economic analysis showing whether the rule directly or indirectly: 

1. Is likely to have an adverse impact on economic growth, private-sector job 

creation or employment, or private sector investment in excess 

of $1 million 

in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of the rule; 

2. Is likely to have an adverse impact on business competitiveness, including 

the ability of persons doing business in the state to compete with persons 

doing business in other states or domestic markets, productivity, or innovation 

in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years after the imple- 

mentationn of the rule; or 

3. Is likely to increase regulatory costs, including any transactional costs, in 

excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation 

of the rule. 

This Chapter of the SERC addresses these requirements in the following order. 

1. Total estimated regulatory costs within 5 years after rule implementation. 

2. Potential impact on economic growth, private sector job creation and private sec- 

tor investment. 

3. Potential impact on business competitiveness, productivity or innovation. 

44324-000R4.docx 

In preparing this SERC, care was taken to identify direct and indirect costs. 

Indirect 

costs that were identified are the overhead costs and the cost to obtain other permits. 

Costs associated with labor activities such as completing District forms were based on 

an hourly labor cost where salary, benefits and overhead costs are included. Activities 

conducted in compliance with the proposed rule that would require other types of permits 



PAGE 6-1 


6.0 OVERALL REGULATORY COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT JANUARY 2011 

from the District or permits from other agencies are associated with the construction of 

tailwater recovery ponds as described in chapter 4.0 of this SERC. In the case of sales 

and employment, indirect impacts might be felt by industries that provide goods and services 

to the regulated industries. As discussed in this Chapter, the proposed rule is not 

expected to result in significant indirect impacts to other industries. 

6.1 Total Estimated Regulatory Costs 

The total estimated regulatory costs to individuals and entities required to comply with 

the DPC WUCA Rule is estimated to be $400,200 within the 5 years after rule implementation. 

This cost is net of the estimated cost savings associated with current rule requirements 

that would not be required of permittees under the proposed DPC WUCA 

Rule. These estimated costs are based on the costs reported in chapter 4.0 Transactional 

Costs. The estimated transactional costs are summarized in Table 6.1 and are 

from chapter 4.0. These one-time and annual costs were applied to estimates of the 

numbers of existing and new water use permittees that would be required to comply with 

each rule component as summarized in Table 6.2. 

Each row of Table 6.2 represents a DPC WUCA Rule requirement. The calculation of 

the total cost over 5 years, which is presented in Column (7) of Table 6.2, is provided as 

follows. The numbers of existing permittees, new applicants, existing water withdrawal 

sites, and new withdrawal sites used in this cost estimation were obtained from District 

application and permit records in the DPC WUCA. These numbers reflect the criteria 

associated with each rule requirement. 

44324-000R4.docx 

1. Increase in permit fee as Existing Small General permittees renew and become 

General permitees – Because the proposed rule requires permittees with 

uses requiring frost / freeze protection to meter all withdrawal quantities, the permit 

classification for these permittees that have a Small General water use permit will 

change to a General permit. Small General permits typically qualify for a 20 year 

permit under current rule whereas General permits can be issued for 20 years only 

under certain conditions. These permittees will still complete the simpler Small General 

Water Use Permit Application but their permits will be issued as General Permits. 

As such, they will not be required to implement certain activities required of 

General Permits, such as submitting a water conservation plan. However, they will 

be required to pay the higher General permit renewal fee. In addition, their permit 

durations would extend 10 years, not the current 20 years, so they would need to renew 

their permits more frequently. The permit fee for a renewing a Small General 

permit no greater than 20 years in duration is $70. The permit fee for renewing a 

General permit no greater than 10 years in duration is $185. Therefore, the additional 

permit fee is $115 at permit renewal. 





Table 6.1 

Summary of Estimated Costs Associated with Forms, Metering, Data Collection and 

Feasibility Analysis of Proposed DPC WUCA Rule 

One-Time Labor or Purchase 

/ Installation Cost 

Activity Associated with Proposed 

Rule 

Conditions When Compliance 

Required 

Low 

Mid- 

Point 

High 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

Increase in permit fee as 

Small General permittees renew 

and become General 

permittees 

Increase in permit fee as new 

Small General applicants apply 

as General permittees 

Complete DPC WUCA Supplemental 


Existing Small General Permits 

in DPC WUCA typically using f/f 

protection $115 $115 $115 $0 

New applications submitted for 

uses typically using f/f protection 

by those who are Small General 

permits under current rule $150 $150 $150 $0 

All permit applications in DPC 

WUCA $700 $1,450 $2,200 $0 

Complete Net Benefit Form If applicant proposes net benefit $700 $1,450 $2,200 $0 


Credit Application 

Flow meter installation and 

maintenance 


Manual reporting of flow meter 

data to District 12 times per 

year 

If applicant proposes water replacement 

credits $700 $1,450 $2,200 $0 

New applications in DPC WUCA 

submitted after rule date typically 


quanitiy >/= 100,000 gpd $1,700 $2,892 $4,084 $46 

Existing permits in DPC WUCA 


quantity >/= 100,000 gpd $0 $0 $0 $46 

Permittees inside DPC WUCA 

and outside the NTB WUCA and 

SWUCA with at least 100,000 

gpd permitted quantity and no 

frost / freeze protection quantities $0 $0 $0 $1,056 

44324-000R4.docx 

Feasibility analysis of frost / 

freeze protection methods 

other than water 

(a) MALPZ stands for Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. 

Uses that typically require f/f protection 

inside the DPC WUCA or 

outside if impact to MALPZ (a) $4,320 $4,320 $4,320 $0 





Table 6.2 

Summary of Estimated Total Regulatory Costs Associated with the Proposed DPC WUCA Rule (a) 

Activity Associated 

with Proposed Rule 

Units 

One-Time 

Cost Per 

Unit 

Annual 

O&M Cost 

per Unit 

Annual 


Units 

Total Cost 

Per Year 

Total Cost 

Over 5 

Years 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 

Increase in permit fee 

as existing Small 

General permits are 

renewed and become 

General permits 

Increase in permit fee 

as new Small General 

applicants apply as 

General permittees 

Complete DPC WU- 

CA Supplemental 


Complete Net Benefit 

Form 


Credit 

Application 

Flow meter purchase, 

installation and maintenance 


44324-000R4.docx 

Manual reporting of 

flow meter data to 

District 

Number of Existing Small 

General Permits in DPC 

WUCA typically using f/f 

protection assuming that an 

equal number of permits 

come in for renewal each 

year over 10 years 

Average annual number of 

new applications that typically 

use f/f protection and 

that are Small General 

Permits under current rule 


new applications in the 

DPC WUCA not in the 

SWUCA 

Number of existing permits 

in the DPC WUCA not in 

the SWUCA assuming that 

an equal number of permits 

come in for renewal each 

year over 10 years 

If applicant proposes a net 

benefit 

If applicant proposes water 

replacement credits 


new withdrawal sites in 

DPC WUCA typically using 

f/f protection or average 

quantity of at least 100,000 

gpd and not in WUCA 


in DPC WUCA needing f/f 

protection or average quantity 

of at least 100,000 gpd 


not in a current WUCA with 

average quantity of at least 

100,000 gpd and no frost / 

freeze quantities 

$115 $0 40.6 $4,669 $23,345 

$150 $0 4.30 $644 $3,222 

$1,450 $0 

4.15 $6,020 $30,100 

58.3 $84,535 $422,675 

$1,450 $0 NA (b) NA NA 

$1,450 $0 NA (b) NA NA 

$2,892 5.77 $16,683 $83,417 

$46 5.77 $796 (c) $3,980 (c) 

$0 $46 205 $9,415 $47,074 

$0 $1,056 1 $1,056 $5,280 





Table 6.2 

Summary of Estimated Total Regulatory Costs Associated with the Proposed DPC WUCA Rule (a) 

Activity Associated 

with Proposed Rule 

Units 

One-Time 

Cost Per 

Unit 

Annual 

O&M Cost 

per Unit 

Annual 


Units 

Total Cost 

Per Year 

Total Cost 

Over 5 

Years 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 

Feasibility analysis of 

frost / freeze protection 

methods other 

than water 

Number of permits in DPC 

WUCA with at least 

100,000 gpd for uses that 

typically use f/f protection 

assuming that an equal 

number of permits come in 

for renewal each year over 

10 years 

$4,320 $0 10.4 $44,928 $224,640 

Total Cost before Cost-Savings Deducted $168,747 $843,733 

Subtract cost-savings to General permittees from 

not needing to manually report water flow meter 

data to District for permittees required to report 

pumpage under current rule because they are located 

in the SWUCA or the NTB-WUCA 

$0 $1,056 84 -$88,704 -$443,520 

Net Cost of DPC WUCA Rule to Water Use Permittees $80,043 $400,213 

(a) Does not include the cost of the DPC WUCA Rule to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. 

(b) The Net Benefit form and the Water Replacement Credit application would be completed if they provide a positive 

net benefit to the applicant. 

(c) See explanation in text regarding how this cost was calculated. 

There are about 406 existing Small General permits that typically require frost / 

freeze protection. Assuming that an equal number of permits is renewed each year 

over a 10 year period, then the annual number of existing small general permits renewed 

is 40.6. To obtain a total cost to all affected permittees per year, the $115 was 

multiplied by 40.6. The total cost per year is estimated to be $4,669 and the 5-year 

cost is estimated to be $23,345. 

44324-000R4.docx 

2. Increase in permit fee as new Small General applicants apply as General permittees 

– New applicants for ground water in the DPC WUCA for uses that typically 

require frost / freeze protection that would have been issued Small General permits 

under current rule will, instead, be issued General permits under the proposed rule. 

These applicants will still need to complete the simpler Small General Water Use 

Permit Application, as under current rule, but their permits would be issued as General 

Permits. As such, they will not be required to implement certain activities required 

of General Permits, such as submitting a water conservation plan. However, 





they will be required to pay the higher new General permit fee. The permit fee for a 

new Small General permit no greater than 20 years in duration is $100. The permit 

fee for a new General permit no greater than 10 years in duration is $250. Thus, the 

additional fee at permit application will be $150 higher under the proposed rule. 

To obtain an estimated total annual cost to all affected permittees, this $150 was 

multiplied by the estimated 4.30 average annual number of new applicants requesting 

permitted water quantities for a use that typically requires frost / freeze protection. 

The total cost per year is estimated to be $644 and the 5-year cost is estimated 

to be $3,222. 

3. Complete DPC WUCA Supplemental Application Form – All new applicants and 

renewing permittees in the DPC WUCA will need to complete and submit this new 

supplemental form. All applicants and permittees in the SWUCA are required to 

complete this same form under current rule. The estimated labor cost to complete 

this form is estimated to range from $700 to $2,200 depending on the complexity of 

the application. The midpoint cost of $1,450 was used to estimate the total cost to all 

permittees and applicants. 

To estimate an average annual cost for new water use permit applicants, the $1,450 

was multiplied by the 4.15 average annual number of new applicants in the DPC 

WUCA outside of the SWUCA. This average annual cost is $6,020. Over five years, 

this cost totals $30,100. 

At permit renewal, about 583 existing permittees in the DPC WUCA will be required 

to complete this form. These permittees are those that are not located in the SWU- 

CA because permittees in the SWUCA are required to fill out this form under current 

rule. Assuming that an equal number of permits is renewed each year over a 10 

year period, then the annual number of existing permits renewed is 58.3. The total 

annual cost to these permittees was estimated as the $1,450 cost per application 

times the 58.3 existing permittees. This annual cost is $84,535. Over five years, this 

cost totals $422,675. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Completing the Net Benefit form or the Water Replacement Credit application provides 

an opportunity for the applicant to obtain a permit for new ground water quantities 

for frost / freeze protection. It is not known how many applicants and permittees 

will fill out these forms over the next five years. For these reasons, a cost to complete 

these forms was not estimated. 

4. New Applicant Purchase and Installation of Flow Meters – New applications for a 

water use permit in the DPC WUCA with uses that typically require frost / freeze protection 

or permitted quantities of at least 100,000 gpd will be required to purchase 





and install a flow meter on each water withdrawal point. Under current rule, permittees 

with at least 100,000 gpd average daily permitted quantity and in the SWUCA or 

NTB-WUCA are required to purchase and install flow meters. 

The estimated purchase and installation cost ranges from $1,700 to $4,084 per meter. 

The midpoint cost of $2,892 per meter was used. The average number of withdrawal 

sites per permit in the DPC WUCA is 2.11. The estimated annual number of 

new permits requiring flow meters was estimated to be 2.73, based on District permit 

data in the DPC WUCA. Thus, the total number of new withdrawal sites per year is 

estimated to be 5.77 (= 2.11 x 2.73). The average annual cost was estimated as 

$2,892 times 5.77 new withdrawal sites. This annual cost is $16,683 and the five 

year cost is $83,417. 

5. Flow Meter Maintenance – Existing and new permittees will need to maintain the 

flow meter. The estimated annual maintenance cost per flow meter is $46. The total 

annual maintenance cost for new permittees in the first year after rule adoption was 

estimated as $46 times 5.77 new withdrawal sites per year. In year two, the cost is 

$46 times 5.77 times two years. In year three, the cost is $46 times 5.77 times three 

years. In year four, the cost is $46 times 5.77 times four years and in year five, the 

cost is $46 times 5.77 times five years. Summing these annual costs over the five 

years yields a five year cost of $3,980. The average annual cost is $796. 

For existing permittees, the total annual cost was estimated as $46 times the number 

of existing permits in the DPC WUCA typically using frost / freeze protection or with 

average permitted quantities greater than or equal to 100,000 gpd that are not in the 

SWUCA or the NTB WUCA. This number is 205 permittees. Thus the total annual 

meter maintenance cost is estimated to be $9,415 and the five year cost is $47,074. 

6. Manual Reporting of Flow Meter Data to the District – Permittees who are not in 

the SWUCA or the NTB-WUCA with permitted quantities of at least 100,000 gpd for 

uses that do not typically require frost / freeze protection will not be required to install 

AMR devices. However, these permittees will be required to manually report their 

water withdrawals to the District. This reporting cost per year is estimated to be 

$1,056. There is currently only one permittee who falls into this category. Thus the 

total annual cost is $1,056 and the five year cost is $5,280. Evaluation of the District’s 

water use permit application data over the past 10 years found that none of the 

permit-approved applicants fell into this category. 

44324-000R4.docx 

7. Feasibility Analysis of Frost / Freeze Protection Methods Other than Water – 

Upon permit renewal, certain existing permitees will be required to submit an analysis 

of frost / freeze protection methods other than ground water that documents 

whether alternatives are technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. 





These permittees have at least 100,000 gpd average annual daily permitted quantity 

for uses that require frost / freeze protection. The cost of this analysis will vary depending 

on the number of different crop and fish types that need protection and their 

acreages. For the purposes of estimating the total costs to permittees, a cost per 

feasibility analysis is estimated to be $4,320 per permit. 

There are about 104 existing permittees who will need to prepare this feasibility 

analysis. Assuming that an equal number of these permits is renewed each year 

over a 10 ten year period, the average number of permits renewed each year is 10.4. 

The total annual cost was estimated as $4,320 times 10.4 permits or $44,928 per 

year. The five year cost is estimated to be $224,640. 

There are no regulatory costs associated with implementing alternative frost / freeze 

protection methods because such methods would only be required if they are technically, 

economically and environmentally feasible to the permittee. Therefore, only 

those methods that provide benefits to the permittee that are greater than the costs 

to the permittee would be implemented. The District is not requiring permittees or 

applicants to implement any particular frost / freeze protection method. There are a 

variety of methods that could be used to protect crops. These methods include high 

tunnels, crop cloths, wind machines, using surface water through the construction of 

tailwater recovery ponds, and using water from the surficial aquifer through the use 

of horizontal wells. The estimated costs of these alternatives were provided in Chapter 

4.0 of this SERC. Other methods may also be identified and implemented by the 

applicant. 

8. Cost Savings to General Permittees From Not Needing to Manually Report 

Flow Meter Data – There are 84 existing General water use permittees that have 

permitted water quantities for frost / freeze protection and are required to report 

pumpage under current rule. Under the proposed DPC WUCA Rule, the AMR devices 

will electronically report pumpage to the District. Therefore, these permittees 

will not need to manually report pumpage under the proposed rule. The annual cost 

savings was estimated as $1,056 per permit times 84 permits or $88,704 in annual 

cost savings. The five year cost savings is $443,520. 

The regulatory cost of the DPC WUCA Rule is estimated to be $80,043 per year and 

$400,200 over five years, as indicated in the last row of Table 6.2. 

44324-000R4.docx 





6.2 Likely Impact of Proposed Rule on Economic Growth, Private Sector Employment 

and Investment 

The proposed rule is not likely to have an adverse impact on economic growth, privatesector 

job creation or employment, or private sector investment in excess of $1 million in 

the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of the rule. Because the proposed 

rule is not expected to result in measurable negative direct impacts on employment or 

sales, no indirect negative impacts on employment or sales in other industries are expected. 

Existing Permittees – Existing Permitted Withdrawals. The costs of the proposed 

rule to existing water use permittees in the DPC WUCA are not expected to be large 

enough to reduce the area’s production of goods and services relative to that which 

would exist without the proposed rule. These estimated costs were described and provided 

in Chapters 4.0 and 6.1 of this SERC. Therefore, no adverse changes in economic 

growth, private sector employment and private sector investment are anticipated as a 

result of the proposed rule. 

New Permittee and Existing Permittee Requests for New Ground Water Quantities 

for Frost / Freeze Protection. The rule components with the greatest potential to impact 

economic growth, employment and investment are those that could cause applications 

for new permitted ground water quantities for frost / freeze protection to be denied 

when they might not have been denied under current rule. In this case, alternative methods 

other than the use of ground water would need to be implemented in order to grow 

crops that require frost / freeze protection. These crops are strawberries, citrus, nurseries, 

blueberries and tropical fish farms. In the event that these permittees wish to 

change their crops requiring frost / freeze protection to other crops that require frost / 

freeze protection, such as converting a citrus grove to a blueberry orchard, they would 

likely be able to keep their permitted frost / freeze quantities. The future numbers of requests 

for new permitted ground water quantities for frost / freeze protection by crop 

type that will be denied under the proposed rule but might have been approved under 

current rule over the next five years are not known. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Of the crops that require frost / freeze protection, the most predominant crop produced in 

the DPC WUCA in terms of total acreage and the growth in acreage over the past 10 

years is strawberries. Strawberry production comprises 34 percent of the total agricultural 

land with permitted ground water quantities for irrigation in the DPC WUCA. The 

Dover / Plant City area supplies about 6.2 percent of all strawberries produced in the 

United States and 88 percent of all strawberries produced in Florida. Over the next five 

years, strawberries are expected to dominate the growth in acreage of crops needing 

frost / freeze protection in the DPC WUCA. Of the 32 new water use permits for frost / 





freeze protection issued in the DPC WUCA since 2000, 24 of them, or 75 percent were 

for the purpose of irrigating strawberry acreage. Of the remaining 8 new permits, 4 were 

for citrus irrigation and 4 were for container nursery irrigation. 

Harvested strawberry acreage in the Dover / Plant City area 1 increased from 5,530 acres 

in 1997 to 5,800 acres in 2007, according to the 1997 and 2007 Census of Agriculture 

for Florida. Meanwhile, citrus acreage and production has been declining in Hillsborough 

and Polk counties, and in Florida, since 2000 according to data from the Florida 

Agricultural Statistics Service. 2 The four new citrus permits issued over the past ten 

years total only 62 acres. Evaluation of the District’s water use permit data found that 

permitted citrus acreage in the DPC WUCA has declined by at least 821 acres since 

1983. According to the University of Florida, orange production in Florida is expected to 

decline through 2029, from 160 million boxes per year to 135 million boxes per year, 

largely due to the effects of the citrus greening disease. 3 Also, given that the Dover / 

Plant City area is an important supplier of fresh market strawberries that produce greater 

net returns than citrus, it seems unlikely that the area will experience much growth in citrus 

acreage over the next five years. Given these considerations, it seems unlikely that 

new applications for permitted ground water quantities in the DPC WUCA over the next 

five years will be for citrus irrigation. 

The growth in container nursery production in the DPC WUCA over the next five years 

will depend on how well urban development recovers from the recent economic recession. 

Since 2000, there have been only 108 new acres of nurseries permitted to withdraw 

ground water quantities in the DPC WUCA according to the District’s water use 

permit database. 

The seven tropical fish farms in the DPC WUCA comprise a total of 240 acres which is 

unchanged since 1992, according to the District’s water use permit database. 

There are 176 acres of blueberries in the DPC WUCA that have permitted groundwater 

quantities for supplemental irrigation and frost / freeze protection. This acreage is less 

than one percent of all irrigated acreage in the DPC WUCA. According to the District’s 

water use permit database, 53 percent of this acreage is relatively new, having been first 

44324-000R4.docx 

1 The Dover / Plant City area is defined in this study as the strawberry growing area in Hillsborough 

and Polk counties. 

2 Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, “Florida Agriculture Statistics Bulletin, 2010” and “Florida Agricultural 

Facts”, 2000. 

3 Thomas Spreen, Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, 

“World Orange Juice Market Projections Under Endemic HLB”, presentation at the International Citrus 

Economics Conference, October 2010, Orlando, Florida. 





permitted in 2009 on existing permits where it appears that the permitted blueberry 

acreage replaced citrus and vegetable production. 

An assessment of the impact of the proposed DPC WUCA rule on the economic viability 

of new strawberry, citrus and blueberry production is provided below. Because plant 

nurseries and tropical fish farms are extremely diverse and there is a lack of revenue 

and cost data that can be used to conduct an economic assessment, the potential economic 

impacts to these industries are described. 

The estimated net returns to land and risk per acre per year from strawberry, blueberry 

and citrus production are provided in Tables 6.3 through 6.5. These tables provide the 

calculations of the annual net returns to land and risk per farmed acre which is a metric 

that is different from the annual net income per farmed acre estimates provided in Chapter 

4.0 of this SERC. The costs used to calculate the net returns estimates include investment 

costs such as machinery depreciation or machinery fixed cost, taxes and regulatory 

costs, and interest on investment costs. If the annual per acre net return from 

production (revenue minus cost) is greater than the estimated annual per acre cost of 

alternative frost / freeze protection methods, then it is likely that the growth in acreage of 

the crop will not be affected by the proposed rule. If this is the case, then the proposed 

rule is not likely to have an adverse impact on economic growth, private-sector job creation 

or employment, or private sector investment. 

The revenues and costs per farmed acre per year from growing, harvesting and marketing 

strawberries, citrus and blueberries were estimated using revenue information from 

the Florida Agricultural Statistics Service and cost information from the University of Florida 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. The costs are representative of a typical 

farm operation but may be different for individual growers. The prices and yields are averages 

for Florida and may be different for individual growers. These data are the best 

publically available information that can be used to assess the economic viability of frost 

/ freeze protection methods other than the use of ground water and provide a general 

understanding of the economic viability of producing these crops. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Strawberries. The estimated annual net returns to land and risk per acre in the Dover / 

Plant City area from growing one strawberry crop per year is provided in Table 6.3. The 

strawberry price and yield information represents the State of Florida and are from the 

Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. The estimated costs of production represent 

strawberries in the Plant City area of Florida and are from the University of Florida Institute 

of Food and Agricultural Sciences. This analysis estimated that the net returns to 

land and risk from a strawberry farm that grows only one crop on the same field each 

year is $9,745 per acre per year. 





Table 6.3 

Estimated Net Returns to Land and Risk From One Strawberry Crop 

(No double-cropping) Using Alternative Frost / Freeze Protection Methods, 2010 

Item 

Dollars per Acre per Year (a) 

Using Crop Cloths for 

Frost Freeze Protection 

Using High Tunnels for 

Frost Freeze Protection 

Revenue - Price (b) $15.704 per flat $15.704 per flat 

Revenue - Yield per acre (b) 2,291.8 flats 2,291.8 flats 

Total Revenue $35,991 $35,991 


Operating Costs $9,791 $9,791 

Harvest and Marketing Costs $12,834 $12,834 

Machinery Fixed Cost and Overhead $3,620 $3,620 

Total Cost $26,245 $26,245 

Net Returns to Land and Risk Before 

Frost / Freeze Protection $9,745 $9,745 

Annualized Cost of Alternative 

Frost / Freeze Method (c) $2,694 $8,716 

Net Returns to Land and Risk Including 

Frost / Freeze Protection $7,051 $1,029 

NOTE: These tables provide the calculations of the annual net returns to land and risk per 

farmed acre which is a metric that is different from the annual net income per farmed acre estimates 

provided in Chapter 4.0 of this SERC. The costs used to calculate the net returns estimates 

include investment costs such as machinery depreciation or machinery fixed cost, taxes 

and regulatory costs, and interest on investment costs. 

(a) From Scott Smith and Timothy Taylor, "Production Costs and Commodity Budgets for Selected 

Florida Vegetables", Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative 

Extension Service, UF/IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 2008-2009, EDIS document 

FE436. 

(b) Prices and Yields are 5-year averages (2005 to 2009) in 2010 dollars from Florida Agricultural 

Statistics Service, Vegetable Summary. Revenue based on 12 pound flats. 

(c) See Chapter 4.0 Transactional Costs for explanation of how these costs were estimated. 

44324-000R4.docx 

If another crop is planted on the same field in the same year, then the net returns per 

acre per year are even larger than provided in Table 6.3. In many cases, the second 

crop is able to use the existing mulch and fertilizer on and in the soil, respectively, that 

were provided to the first strawberry crop that year. This practice is called double cropping. 

An analysis of District water use permit data found that about 65 percent of strawberry 

growers are assigned other crops on their permit that are likely to be a double 

crop. Interviews with District permitting staff found that about 80 percent of recent permit 





renewals are requesting permitted quantities to double crop strawberries with vegetables 

or with another strawberry crop. 

The estimated costs per acre per year from using crop cloths and high tunnels were provided 

in Chapter 4.0 Transactional Costs of this SERC. The high cost estimates are 

used in Table 6.3. The use of crop cloths is estimated to cost about $2,700 per acre per 

year. The use of high tunnels is estimated to cost about $8,700 per acre per year. 

Evaluation of Table 6.3 finds that the net return to land and risk including the cost of the 

alternative frost / freeze protection method is $7,051 per acre per year when crop cloths 

are used and $1,029 when high tunnels are used. Thus, is it likely that the proposed 

rule will not negatively impact the expansion of strawberry production in the DPC WUCA 

as it would still be a profitable endeavor. 

Citrus. The estimated annual net returns to land, trees, and risk per acre in southwest 

Florida from growing oranges is provided in Table 6.4. The orange prices and yields 

used to estimate revenue represent all oranges grown in the State of Florida and are 

from the Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. The estimated costs of production 

represent orange production practices in southwest Florida and include the cost of managing 

the grove to protect trees from citrus canker and citrus greening. These costs are 

from the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 

This analysis estimated that the net returns to land, trees and risk from citrus production 

ranges from $58 per acre per year if no diseased trees need to be replaced to -$297 per 

acre per year if seven diseased trees per acre per year need to be replaced. These net 

returns do not include the cost of alternative frost / freeze protection methods. Comparison 

of these net returns to the costs of alternative frost / freeze protection methods, such 

as high tunnels and wind machines, finds that these methods are not likely to be economically 

feasible for citrus production over the next five years. 

44324-000R4.docx 

As discussed above, no significant increase in citrus acreage in the DPC WUCA is expected 

over the next five years with or without the proposed rule. New citrus groves in 

the DPC WUCA where owners cannot obtain permitted frost / freeze protection ground 

water quantities may find economically feasible methods to obtain ground water through 

the Net Benefits provision of the proposed rule. Under this provision, ground water for 

frost / freeze protection may be available by using the retired and historically used frost / 

freeze protection quantities of existing permittees or by mitigating the effect of ground 

water pumping through the development of alternative water sources such as surface 

water. In some instances, it may be economically feasible to use surface water or other 

alternative water source for frost / freeze protection. 





Table 6.4 

Estimated Net Returns to Land, Trees and Risk from Producing Oranges 

In Southwest Florida, 2010 Dollars 

Dollars per Acre 

No diseased With diseased tree 

Item 

tree removal removal (a) 

Revenue, on-tree (b) $1,837 $1,837 


Production & Cultural Costs (c) $987 $1,263 

Interest on Production & Cultural Costs (c) $64 $82 

Management Costs (c) $48 $109 

Taxes / Regulatory Costs (c) $61 $61 

Interest on Capital Costs (c) $321 $321 

Depreciation of machinery and equipment (d) $298 $298 

Total Cost $1,779 $2,134 

Net Returns to Land, Trees and Risk $58 -$297 

44324-000R4.docx 

NOTE: These tables provide the calculations of the annual net returns to land and risk per farmed 

acre which is a metric that is different from the annual net income per farmed acre estimates provided 

in Chapter 4.0 of this SERC. The costs used to calculate the net returns estimates include 

investment costs such as machinery depreciation or machinery fixed cost, taxes and regulatory 

costs, and interest on investment costs. 

(a) Cost assumes that, each year, 7 trees per acre are removed and replaced due to citrus canker or 

greening. 

(b) On-tree revenue is the average annual on-tree price of all oranges in Florida from 2000 to 2009 

in 2010 dollars ($5.26 per box) times the average yield per acre of all oranges in Florida from 2000 

to 2009 (349 boxes per acre). On-tree prices and yields per acre are from Florida Agricultural Statistics 

Service, "Citrus Summary 2008-2009", page 18. From page 9 of this report, "All prices ... are 

on-tree prices representing the average price received by growers for their fruit. The term "on-tree" 

relates to fruit returns to the grower after the costs of picking, hauling, and packing have been removed. 

Prices are based on records of commercial fresh fruit sales and processed fruit returns." 

(c) All costs reported in this table are from Ronald P. Muraro, Extension Economist, "Summary of 

2009-2010 Citrus Budget for the Southwest Florida Production Region", University of Florida, IFAS, 

CREC, Lake Alfred, Florida, 2010, pages 4 and 5. Cost represents a mature (>/= 10 year old) citrus 

grove in southwest Florida and includes grove management for citrus canker and greening. The 

production and cultural cost includes cost for repair of machinery and equipment; maintenance; labor; 

chemicals, and overhead management. 

(d) This value was estimated by dividing the $321 interest on capital cost by 5% annual interest to 

obtain an estimate of average farm debt. This debt is used as a proxy for the remaining undepreciated 

value of the equipment and machinery cost. Then is debt was amortized over 15 years at 5% 

annual interest to obtain an estimate of the annual principal and interest payment on this debt. From 

this annual payment, the interest on capital cost was deducted to obtain an estimate of the annual 

depreciation of machinery and equipment. 





Blueberries. The estimated annual net returns to land and risk per acre in Florida from 

growing blueberries is provided in Table 6.5. The blueberry prices and yields used to 

estimate revenue represent all blueberries grown in the State of Florida and are from the 

Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. The estimated costs of production are from the 

University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and represent blueberry 

production practices in Florida for early-ripening southern highbush plantings with pinebark 

mulch. This production system is popular in Florida because it provides marketable 

blueberries early in the season (April and early May) when relatively high prices can be 

obtained. However, this crop is more likely to experience greater damage from freeze 

events than if the crop was harvested later in the season at lower prices. 

This analysis estimated that the net returns to land and risk from blueberry production is 

$2,023 per acre per year. These net returns do not include the cost of alternative frost / 

freeze protection methods. Comparison of these net returns to the costs of three alternative 

frost / freeze protection methods, crop cloths, high tunnels and wind machines 

provided in Table 6.5, finds that only the wind machines would be economically feasible 

to use in blueberry production at this time. Wind machines are effective in protecting the 

plants from radiation freeze events but not advection freeze events. The use of orchard 

heaters can be effective in protecting blueberry plants during both types of freeze 

events, but according to the University of Florida, fuel costs can be over $300 per acre 

for a single night of protection. 4 

Some landowners in the DPC WUCA may desire new permitted groundwater quantities 

to protect blueberries during freeze events. However, the number of additional acres 

over the next five years for which new permitted quantities cannot be obtained under the 

proposed rule but might have been obtained under current rule is not expected to be 

significant. New blueberry orchards in the DPC WUCA where owners cannot obtain 

permitted frost / freeze protection ground water quantities may find economically feasible 

methods to obtain ground water through the Net Benefits provision of the proposed rule. 

Under this provision, ground water for frost / freeze protection may be available by using 

the retired and historically used frost / freeze protection quantities of existing permittees 

or by mitigating the effect of ground water pumping through the development of alternative 

water sources such as surface water. In some instances, it may be economically 

feasible to use surface water or other alternative water source for frost / freeze protection. 

44324-000R4.docx 

4 P.M. Lyrene and J.G. Williamson, “Protecting Blueberries from Freezes in Florida”, Department of 

Horticultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences, University of Florida, Document HS968, May 2004. 





Table 6.5 

Estimated Net Returns to Land and Risk From Blueberry Production in Florida Using 

Alternative Frost / Freeze Protection Methods, 2010 

Item 

Alternative Frost / Freeze Method 

Crop 

Cloths 

Dollars per Acre 

High Tunnels 

Wind Machines 

Price per pound (a) $5.64 $5.64 $5.64 

Yield in pounds per acre (a) 3,052 3,052 3,052 

Yield in flats per acre (a) 825 825 825 

Total Revenue (b) $17,220 $17,220 $17,220 

Costs (c ) 

Land preparation (d) $796 $796 $796 

Planting (e) $415 $415 $415 

Drip irrigation system - well, pump, motor, 

pipe, and drip system (f) $732 $732 $732 

Solid set sprinkler system for frost / freeze 

protection using water (g) $259 $259 $259 

Production cultural operating costs, including 

operating interest - annual $2,259 $2,259 $2,259 

Machinery cost including tractors, sprayers, 

mowers, trucks, etc. (h) $256 $256 $256 

Overhead and management $2,133 $2,133 $2,133 

Harvest cost including picking, packing, packing 

material and broker fee (i) $8,348 $8,348 $8,348 

Total Cost $15,197 $15,197 $15,197 

Net Returns to Land and Risk Before Alternative 

Frost / Freeze Protection Implemented 

$2,023 $2,023 $2,023 

Annualized Cost of Alternative Frost / Freeze Method (j) 

Low Cost Estimate $2,249 $3,849 $366 

High Cost Estimate $2,694 $8,716 $366 

Net Returns Including Frost / Freeze Protection 

Using low cost f/f protection method -$226 -$1,826 $1,657 

Using high cost f/f protection method -$671 -$6,693 $1,657 

44324-000R4.docx 

(a) Price per pound and yield in pounds per acre are five year averages of 2004-05 crop 

year to 2008-09 crop year and are from Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, "Vegetable 

Summary", February 17, 2010; February 19, 2008; and March 14, 2007. A flat is about 3.7 

pounds. 

(b) Revenue is price per pound times yield in pounds per acre. 

(c) All cost data are from 2010 Powerpoint presentation by Jeffery G. Williamson, Horticultural 

Sciences Department and Ronald P. Muraro, Citrus Research and Education Center, 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Costs 

represent early-ripening southern highbush plantings with pinebark mulch. 





(d) Land preparation cost includes land clearing, preplant weed control, triple superphosphate 

application, bedding, breaking aisles, ditching and drainage, and milled pine bark. 

Cost is one-time cost of $6,149 per acre amortized over 10 years of plant life at 5% annual 

interest. 

(e) Cost to plant 1,740 plants per acre 2.5 feet by 10 feet apart. Cost is one-time cost of 

$5,174 per acre amortized over 10 years of plant life at 5% annual interest. 

(f) One-time cost of $5,650 per acre for 20 acre farm amortized over 10 years of system life 

at 5% annual interest. 

(g) One-time cost of $2,000 per acre amortized over 10 years useful life at 5% annual interest. 

(h) One-time cost of $1,974 per acre amortized over 10 years useful life at 5% annual interest. 

(i) Harvest cost per 3.7 pound flat is $10.12. 

(j) See Chapter 4.0 Transactional Costs to explanation of how these costs were estimated. 

Plant Nurseries. Plant nurseries are very diverse in terms of the types of plants grown, 

their sensitivity to cold conditions, and the degree to which they are protected from 

weather through the use of enclosed areas. In the event that the demand for landscape 

plants increases over the next five years, there could be applications for new water 

quantities to provide frost / freeze protection to new nursery areas in the DPC WUCA. 

The impact of the proposed rule on these applications will depend on whether or not 

these requests would have been approved under current rule. Under the proposed rule, 

new and expanding nursery plant farms will be able to pump groundwater for frost 

/freeze protection up to the point where the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone is 

not impacted. Any additional ground water needed for frost /freeze protection would 

need to be obtained using the Net Benefits provision of the proposed rule described 

above and on pages 1-10 to 1-12 of this SERC. If the options available under the Net 

Benefits provision and the use of alternative protection methods are not economically 

feasible, then new nursery plant production in the DPC WUCA might be limited to higher 

valued plants grown in green houses and plants that are cold tolerant. 

44324-000R4.docx 

Tropical Fish Farms. The aquaculture operations in the DPC WUCA are devoted exclusively 

to the production of tropical fish which is by far the most common type of aquaculture 

operation in Florida. Tropical fish farms are very diverse in terms of the types of 

fish species produced and the degree to which they are protected from the weather. 

New and expanding fish farms will be able to pump groundwater for cold protection up to 

the point where the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone is not impacted. Any additional 

ground water needed for cold protection would need to be obtained using the Net 

Benefits provision of the proposed rule described above and on pages 1-10 to 1-12 of 

this SERC. If the options available under the Net Benefits provision are not economically 

feasible, then new fish production in the DPC WUCA might be limited to high value 

fish species grown indoors and cold tolerant species. 





6.3 Likely Impact of Proposed Rule on Business Competitiveness, Productivity or 

Innovation 

The proposed rule is not likely to have an adverse impact on business competitiveness, 

including the ability of persons doing business in the state to compete with persons 

doing business in other states or domestic markets, productivity, or innovation in excess 

of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of the rule. The 

only industry that has the potential to be negatively affected by the proposed rule over 

the next five years, as explained in Chapter 6.2, would likely be businesses who request 

new permitted quantities for frost / freeze protection of a new or expanding strawberry 

farm and their request is denied because of the proposed rule. The future numbers of 

requests for new permitted ground water quantities for frost / freeze protection by crop 

type that will be denied under the proposed rule but might not be denied under current 

rule over the next five years is not known. 

Most of the requests for new permitted ground water quantities in the DPC WUCA are 

expected to be for strawberry production under current rule and the proposed rule. New 

or expanding strawberry farms may experience a production cost increase associated 

with the increased cost of frost / freeze protection. However, this cost increase is not 

expected to be large enough to negatively impact the cost competitiveness of strawberry 

production in the DPC WUCA over the next five years for the following reasons. 

1. The average annual net returns to land and risk per farmed acre from strawberry 

production in Florida, including the cost of frost / freeze protection methods other 

than ground water, are expected to be significantly greater than zero. New 

strawberry farms or newly farmed areas can be designed to incorporate alternative 

frost / freeze methods. Double cropping fields with strawberries or vegetables 

further increases grower net returns to land and risk per acre, thus allowing 

growers to continue growing strawberries under the proposed rule. 

2. Recent research conducted by the University of Florida 5 near the DPC WUCA 

found that use of high tunnels in strawberry production significantly increased 

yield per acre because the flowers and small fruit were spared the damage 

caused by sprinkler irrigation during freeze events and the fruit was protected 

against the damaging effects of rainfall that reduces fruit number and quality. 

Crops grown on plastic mulch, such as strawberries, are permitted as if there is 

44324-000R4.docx 

5 University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Berry / Vegetable Times, February 2010, “Notes on Cultural 

Practices: Can High Tunnels Reduce Water Volumes for Freeze Protection and Improve Strawberry 

Yields at the Same Time?” by Bielinski M. Santos and Teresa P. Salamé-Donoso, pages 5 to 8. 





no effective rainfall so rainfall should not be needed to grow strawberries. Therefore, 

the cost of high tunnels will be at least partially if not fully offset by the benefits 

of high tunnels as they increase crop yield per acre. 

3. Historic and recent strawberry prices and yields in Florida have been economically 

strong and growing. The average real prices received by Florida strawberry 

growers have increased over the past 10 years. The 5-year average real price 

received from 2000 to 2004 was $13.08 per 12-pound flat according to price data 

from the Florida Annual Statistical Bulletin 2010. 6 The 5-year average price received 

from 2005 to 2009 was $15.70 which is 20 percent higher than the previous 

five years. Average yield per acre increased by 4.6 percent over the same 

period. 

4. The United States is the world’s largest producer of strawberries, consistently 

producing over 25 percent of the world’s production. Florida is the second largest 

U.S. supplier of strawberries after California. Florida provides about 7 percent 

of U.S. production and 1.8 percent of world production. About 90 percent of 

Florida’s strawberry production is in the Dover / Plant City area. 7 Florida strawberry 

growers can harvest during the winter months of November through February 

when supplies from other growing regions are limited, thus supplying an important 

market niche. While strawberry growers in the Dover / Plant City area 

cannot control the price they receive for strawberries, they are a dominant player 

in the national and world wide strawberry market. 

Because strawberries are an agricultural commodity, growers can only influence the 

price that they receive by choosing their harvest dates, to the extent that they can control 

those dates. As long as the price they receive for strawberries and their yield per acre 

are sufficient to cover all costs of production, harvesting and marketing, including the 

cost of frost / freeze protection, then business competitiveness, productivity, and innovation 

will not be negatively affected by the proposed rule. 

44324-000R4.docx 

6 Florida price and yield data are from United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, “Florida Annual Statistical Bulletin 2010”, Page E-14. 

7 United States Department of Agriculture, “Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook”, July 28, 2005, FTS-317, 

pages 15 to 24. 




Chapter 7.0 

Additional Information 

This chapter describes the benefits of the proposed rule and the recovery strategy and 

summarizes the non-regulatory approach that will be used to assist in achieving the 

goals of the proposed rule. 

7.1 Benefits of the Proposed Rule and Recovery Strategy 

The proposed rule and recovery strategy are primarily designed to: 

 

 

 

 

minimize potential negative impacts of the proposed rule on existing growers in 

the region, 

prevent the worsening of the recent widespread negative impacts from cold protection 

groundwater pumpage (addressed in the Executive Summary), 

provide regulatory and non-regulatory incentives to reduce existing cold protec- 

tion groundwater pumpage and its impacts, and 

more equitably distribute well failure investigation and repair responsibilities 

among permittees. 

Some of these benefits may be difficult to quantify, but they are nonetheless significant. 

For example, proposed requirements to implement economically feasible alternative cold 

protection methods and the financial assistance provided to growers to implement them 

are anticipated to facilitate the transition to non-groundwater cold protection. However, it 

is not possible to precisely predict how much growers will be able to reduce cold protection 

pumpage for a given freeze event through the implementation of economically feasible 

alternative cold protection methods. It is also not possible to precisely predict how 

much a given reduction in cold protection pumpage would reduce the incidence of well 

failures and sinkhole formation in the region. It is also not possible to predict how and for 

whom existing permitted cold protection quantities might have to be cut in the absence 

of an approved recovery and prevention strategy. Despite these uncertainties, many 

benefits will be realized and are addressed below. 

44324-000R4.docx 



PAGE 7-1 


7.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION JANUARY 2011 

Avoided Revenue Losses from Reduced Cold Protection Pumpage in the Absence 

of an Adopted Recovery Strategy Rule. By declaring the Dover / Plant City area a 

Water Use Caution Area, establishing a Minimum Aquifer Level, and proposing a recovery 

strategy to achieve the Minimum Aquifer Level, the District avoids the need for near 

term reductions in existing cold protection water use that would otherwise be required by 

current District rule and State statute to address the unacceptable impacts that occurred 

in January 2010. The most likely action, absent the proposed recovery strategy, would 

be to limit the overall amount of pumping during a freeze event to the amount that would 

keep the aquifer level at least 10 feet above mean sea level (about a 20% reduction). 

Levels lower than 10 feet will likely repeat the widespread well failures and sinkhole formation 

of the January 2010 freeze event. If, in the near term, the duration of allowable 

pumping were reduced to prevent aquifer levels from falling below 10 feet, those without 

alternative cold protection methods would likely suffer total crop failure when the duration 

and/or severity of the freeze event would require the pumping of ground water quantities 

beyond those allowable under current rule. 

As shown in Table 4.11 in Chapter 4.0 of this SERC, an acre of strawberries (without 

double-cropping) can produce net income of approximately $13,400 per acre. If the crop 

is lost due to freeze damages, the $13,400 in net revenue per acre could become a 

$23,000 1 loss per acre as most operating costs would have been incurred and there 

would be no revenue to offset costs. A typical strawberry farm of about 20 farmed acres 

could lose as much as $460,000 in one season if sufficient water was not permitted for 

cold protection and alternative methods of cold protection were not yet available. There 

are 7,613 acres permitted for strawberry production in the DPCWUCA and nearly all are 

permitted ground water quantities for frost / freeze protection. 

The adoption of the recovery strategy will avoid the need for near term reductions in 

permitted cold protection quantities and allow the strawberry, citrus, nursery, blueberry 

and tropical fish farm industries the time necessary to adopt alternative cold protection 

methods when feasible and avoid potential significant near term economic impacts to 

those industries and the economy of the region. 

Avoidance of Sinkhole Formation and Well Failures Resulting From Groundwater 

Use for Cold Protection. The negative impacts of well failures and the formation of 

sinkholes related to the cold protection pumpage during the January 2010 freeze are documented 

in the Executive Summary of this SERC. 

44324-000R4.docx 

1 $13,366 in lost net revenue plus $9,791 in cash costs (not including harvesting and marketing 

costs). 





The proposed rules prohibit the issuance of new cold protection quantities that would 

affect the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone. This will not prevent future sinkhole 

formation and well failures due to existing permitted cold protection quantities. However, 

for a freeze event of a given duration and severity, it is probable that there would be 

fewer sinkholes and well failures than if additional cold protection quantities from 

groundwater were permitted that would impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection 

Zone. 

Regarding existing permitted cold protection quantities, it is anticipated that feasibility 

analyses of alternative cold protection methods required under the proposed rule and 

the provision of funding for alternative cold protection equipment costs will reduce the 

frequency and severity of well failure and sinkhole events. The regulatory approach is 

described in Chapter 1.2 of this SERC. The non-regulatory cost-sharing provisions are 

addressed in Chapter 7.2 below. If, at the conclusion of the 5 year review process, the 

goals of the recovery strategy appear to not be met, then additional regulatory and/or 

non-regulatory actions may be required. 

More Equitable Distribution of the Impact of Well Complaint Investigations and 

Repairs. Another issue highlighted by the January 2010 freeze event is that the current 

method for allocating permittee well failure investigations and mitigation can cause financial 

hardship to newer permittees using cold protection quantities in the region. The 

investigation and mitigation of well failures can be costly. Based on the 149 receipts 

provided to the District for repairs inside the area in which well mitigation permit conditions 

were applied, the range of costs to repair or replace pumps and wells in a single 

investigation can range from less than $20 to more than $10,000 (if the pump and well 

require replacement). The average receipt was $1,391. 2 The types of repairs needed to 

address well failures are addressed in Table 7.1. 3 Over $1,200,000 was spent in well 

repairs and replacements as a result of the January 2010 frost / freeze event. 

44324-000R4.docx 

2 Southwest Florida Water Management District, unpublished dataset file 1_2010_well mitigation 

complaints within mitigation area.xslx. 

3 Southwest Florida Water Management District, January 3-13, 2010 Frost Freeze Event Public 

Workshop presentation, presented September 14, 2010 in Plant City, Florida. 





Well Status 

Table 7.1 

Status of Wells and Magnitude of Repairs That Resulted 

From the January 2010 Frost / Freeze Event 

Within 

Mitigation Area 

Number of Wells 

Outside Mitigation 

Area 

Total 

% of Total 

Complaints 

Came back on its own 268 37 305 40.1% 

Required minor repair 61 16 77 10.1% 

Required major repair 233 45 278 36.6% 

New well drilled 26 9 35 4.6% 

Other 34 31 65 8.6% 

Total Complaints 622 138 760 100.0% 

Source: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

The results of the proposed changes in the allocation methodology are illustrated in Figures 

7-1 (current) and 7-2 (proposed). The current allocation methodology assigns well 

complaints to those with the most recent permit action, whether that is the issuance of a 

new permit or modification of an existing permit. Under the existing method, during the 

January 2010 freeze event, only 61 of 504 permittees were required to investigate complaints 

and one permittee was assigned over 100 complaints. The proposed methodology 

relies more on the proportion of frost/freeze quantities permitted to the individual 

grower. In a freeze event similar to the January 2010 event under the proposed methodology, 

it is estimated that the complaints would be spread among 360 permittees and 

the most complaints assigned to an individual would be 16. This represents a significant 

reduction in the potential for catastrophic costs for smaller and newer growers 4 and more 

equitably allocates well mitigation among all permittees contributing to the problem. 

Some long-time permittees may be required to investigate complaints under the new 

methodology that would not have had to under the existing methodology but their exposure 

to multiple investigations and repair costs would be limited. 

44324-000R4.docx 

4 Southwest Florida Water Management District, January 3-13, 2010 Frost Freeze Event Public 

Workshop presentation, presented September 14, 2010 in Plant City, Florida. 




75 

33 

Number of Complaints 

17 

12 

10 

6 

2 

0 

0 31111112211111 

0 1 2 

3 5 

4 9 

19 

61 out of 504 Got All Complaints 

Based on Last In. One Permit 

Holder Assigned Over 100. 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 


443 

Figure 7-1 

2010 Complaint Allocation Using Existing Methodology 

Number of Complaints 

21 

16 

13 

11 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 11 

1 2 

1 

2 

3 

5 

14 

20 

40 

360 of 504 would get Well Complaints Based on 

Quantity and Proximity to Problem. Most Assigned 

to an Individual Would be 16 for Similar Event. 

75 

144 

195 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

44324-000R4.cdr 


Figure 7-2 

Distribution of Complaints per Permit using New Allocation Method 

Figures 7-1 and 7-2 

Distribution of Complaints Using Existing Methodology vs New Allocation Method


7.2 Non-Regulatory Approach 

To achieve the goals of the recovery strategy, the District is employing both a regulatory 

and a non-regulatory approach to address frost/freeze withdrawal impacts in the Dover/Plant 

City area. During rule development, the District considered many options including: 

(1) an across the board reduction in water quantities; (2) requiring water use permittees 

to obtain insurance to cover mitigation costs; and (3) relying on existing rules to deny 

permits on a permit-by-permit, case-by-case basis. However, the District believed that 

the economic cost to permittees would be too great and opted for a regulatory program 

that does not reduce quantities on existing permits and sets a reduction goal of 20 percent 

over 10 years. 

Relying solely on a regulatory approach, such as across the board cuts in frost/freeze 

quantities or limiting the duration of allowable pumping during frost freeze events could 

have a significant impact on the agricultural and overall economy of the area. Unlike 

some other crops that can be insured against natural disasters such as hail, there is no 

“freeze event” subsidized crop insurance for strawberries, the main crop in the area. Further, 

such insurance generally requires the grower to make every effort to protect the 

crop, including pumping groundwater. The grower would be responsible for any losses 

due to freezes. Therefore the grower will utilize permitted frost/freeze protection water 

quantities and/or a financially feasible alternative means to protect the crop. 

The regulatory provisions of the recovery strategy are designed primarily to restrict any 

increase in impact from frost / freeze withdrawals on groundwater levels in the Minimum 

Aquifer Level Protection Zone. This is accomplished by restricting increases in 

frost/freeze protection groundwater quantities so that water levels would not be lowered 

even further during frost/freeze events. To some extent, frost/freeze protection groundwater 

quantities may be reduced through rule provisions such as “net benefit” where a 

specified portion of groundwater withdrawal reductions are reserved to protect the aquifer 

level. 

44324-000R4.docx 

The primary method for reducing existing groundwater withdrawals in and around the 

Minimum Aquifer Level Protection zone will be non-regulatory. The focus of this effort is 

to provide further incentives for water users to adopt technologies that reduce 

frost/freeze protection groundwater withdrawals such as the use of tailwater recovery 

systems and protection methods other than water such as crop cloths and crop enclosures. 

These alternatives are generally more expensive to the water use permittee than 

the use of groundwater for frost/freeze protection. The enhanced incentives will mainly 

come in the form of a higher percentage of District cost-sharing of projects designed to 

replace groundwater withdrawals for frost/freeze protection through the Facilitating Agricultural 

Resource Management Systems (FARMS) program. The projects constructed 

under the FARMS program in 2008 and 2009 are provided in Table 7.2. 





44324-000R4.docx 

Table 7.2 

Summary of the District's FARMS Projects in 2008 and 2009 

No. County Project Components Crop Type 

1 Charlotte Use alternative surface water supplies. 

Construct surface water reservoir. 

2 Charlotte Install a surface-water pumping station, 

controls, filtration, and mainline pipe 

connecting the existing irrigation system. 

3 Charlotte Use a network of solar-powered field 

sensors uplinked to the Internet to monitor 

soil parameters and climate conditions 

that will enable the grower to optimize 

irrigation scheduling, prevent 

over-watering and improve crop yields. 

4 Charlotte Use wireless instrumentation and sensors 

to monitor soil moisture and climate 

conditions in the grove environment. 

5 Charlotte Install hydraulic valves which will be 

controlled by a timer at each irrigation 

zone, a cut-off switch for the single 

power unit, and a rain sensor to shut 

down the system during rainfall events. 

6 Charlotte Use probes and electronic components 

to remotely monitor real-time soil moisture 

conditions. 

7 Charlotte Construct and operate reservoir; retrofit 

2 surface water irrigation pump stations, 

automated pumps controlled by soil 

moisture probes and rain monitoring 

devices. 

8 Charlotte Construct a surface water pump station, 

with associated filters and mainline piping, 

to withdrawal water directly from 

Shell Creek. 

9 Citrus Construct 1 surface-water irrigation 

pump station, filtration, and piping to 

connect surface-water reservoir system 

to existing irrigation system. 

Crop 

Acres 

Ground 

Water 

Saved, 

gpd 

Total 

Project 

Cost 

Citrus 688 181,200 $850,000 

Citrus 160 80,000 $253,350 

Citrus 696 26,700 $28,000 

Citrus 688 27,170 $17,868 

Citrus 430 23,790 $50,000 

Citrus 15 835 $3,659 

Citrus 1,113 826,000 $1,000,000 

Citrus 40 55,200 $160,000 

Blueberry 10 NA $80,000 





Table 7.2 



Crop 

Acres 

Ground 

Water 

Saved, 

gpd 

Total 

Project 

Cost 

10 Desoto 

Construct and operate a 5-acre surface 

water irrigation reservoir, 1 surface water 

irrigation pump station, filtration, and 

piping necessary to connect surface 

water reservoir system to existing irrigation 

system. 

Citrus 1,615 92,300 $440,000 

11 Desoto Construct and operate a linear surfacewater 

irrigation reservoir, 1 surfacewater 

irrigation pump station, filtration, 

and the mainline piping to connect the 

reservoir to a more efficient microjet 

irrigation system. 

12 Desoto Construct 2 surface-water reservoirs 

and the construction of 2 surface-water 

irrigation pump stations, filtration, and 

piping to connect proposed surface water 

reservoirs to existing irrigation system. 

13 Desoto Construct a 2-acre reservoir (within an 

existing stormwater and tailwater retention 

area), surface water irrigation pump 

station, filtration, and piping to connect 

the surface water reservoir system to 

the existing irrigation system. 

14 Desoto Construct and operate a 1-acre surface 



piping to connect surface water reservoir 

system to existing irrigation system. 

15 Desoto Collect and reuse tailwater and construct 

a 1-acre reservoir, 1 surface water 



to existing irrigation system. 

Citrus 111 225,100 $175,000 

Sod 80 129,000 $170,000 

Blueberry 72 100,000 $380,000 

Blueberry 40 48,600 $280,000 

Strawberry 33 53,340 $150,000 

16 Desoto Construct 2 surface water irrigation 

pump stations, filtration and piping to 

connect existing surface water reservoir 


44324-000R4.docx 

NA 526 76,980 $371,288 





44324-000R4.docx 

Table 7.2 



17 Desoto Capture and reuse surface water and 

tailwater from an existing reservoir to 

irrigate a 470 acre block of citrus at the 

grove site. 

18 Desoto Use solar powered field sensors and 

radio telemetry to monitor soil parameters 

and climate conditions 

19 Desoto Install two weather stations, soil moisture 

sensors, and automated pump controls 

20 Desoto Use probes and electronic components 

to remotely monitor real-time soil moisture 

conditions. 

21 Desoto Install two weather stations, soil moisture 

sensors, and automated pump controls. 

22 Hardee Install two surface water pumping stations, 

controls, filtration, and mainline 

pipe to connect to the irrigation system, 

and install a weather station to enable 

the grower to optimize irrigation scheduling. 

23 Hardee Install a surface water pumping station, 

controls, filtration, mainline pipe to the 

irrigation system, and a crossconnection 

to the irrigation system servicing 

a portion of the nearby citrus 

grove operation. 

24 Hardee Provide updates to an existing system 

of weather and soil moisture monitoring 

stations for real-time monitoring. 

25 Hardee Install four soil-moisture probes and two 

weather stations to monitor localized 

irrigation demands and climatic conditions. 

26 Hardee Install two soil-moisture probes and a 

weather station to monitor localized irrigation 

demands and climatic conditions. 

Crop 

Acres 

Ground 

Water 

Saved, 

gpd 

Total 

Project 

Cost 

Citrus 470 348,400 $617,550 

Citrus / 

Turf sod 

Citrus / 

Sod 

2,150 57,885 $40,628 

1,460 180,700 $270,000 

Citrus 215 8,680 $7,319 

Blueberry 157 25,000 $95,600 

Blueberry 80 72,200 $353,394 

Blueberry 50 64,000 $340,666 

Citrus 3,050 109,900 $8,655 

Citrus 1,170 45,515 $34,375 

Citrus 444 29,485 $19,090 





Table 7.2 



Crop 

Acres 

Ground 

Water 

Saved, 

gpd 

Total 

Project 

Cost 

27 Hardee Use an integrated system that includes 

soil moisture sensors and telemetry. 

The existing irrigations system already 

has automated valves and the ability to 

turn off the pump remotely. 

28 Highlands Use integrated irrigation system including 

soil moisture sensors connected to 

automatic valve controllers to reduce 

frequency and duration of irrigation. 

Caladiums 330 60,000 $132,000 

Citrus 1,315 87,800 $80,000 

29 Hillsborough Construct and operate 2, 3-acre tailwater 

recovery and surface water irrigation 

reservoirs including 2 surface water irrigation 

pump stations, filtration, and the 

piping necessary to connect the proposed 

surface water reservoir system to 

the existing irrigation system. 

30 Hillsborough Install and automate 3 surface water 

irrigation pump stations, filtration, and 

piping to connect designed tailwater 

interception and surface water reservoir 


Strawberry 

/ Row 

crops 

Strawberry 

/ Row 

crops 

100 60,800 $335,470 

55 140,250 $730,000 

31 Hillsborough Construct a Tailwater Recovery and 

Surface Water Irrigation Reservoir 

32 Hillsborough Collect and use stormwater runoff from 

about 3 acres of proposed greenhouse 

roofs for irrigation. Collect and recirculate 

excess irrigation water from the hydroponic 

vegetables growing inside the 

greenhouses. Components include multiple 

stormwater collection tanks and 

piping to connect rainwater cisterns to 

hydroponic irrigation system. 

Strawberry 32 112,500 $225,000 

Vegetables NA 12,060 $100,000 

44324-000R4.docx 





Table 7.2 



Crop 

Acres 

Ground 

Water 

Saved, 

gpd 

Total 

Project 

Cost 

33 Manatee Construct retention for irrigation and 

stormwater runoff as well as a seepage 

interception system along the farm 

boundary including culverts with risers 

to retain water in a series of six stairstepped 

storage areas; about 5,700 feet 

of drainpipe; an automatically operated 

pump station; and about 5,500 feet of 

pressure pipe to convey seepage water 

to an upgradient storage area and a 

network of data loggers to record water 

levels both inside the farm and outside 

the seepage interception system. 

34 Manatee Construct and operate a 5-acre surface 





35 Polk Install an integrated irrigation system 

including a weather station, soil moisture 

sensors, and automated pump controls 

to reduce the number and duration 

of irrigation events. 

36 Polk Install an on-site weather station that 

controls the operation of a network of 

automated hydraulic irrigation valves, 

based on localized climatic conditions. 

Tomato 1,240 100,000 $250,000 

Citrus 245 70,500 $350,000 

Citrus 949 68,935 $10,000 

Nursery 62 27,200 $21,973 

37 Polk Convert 110-acres of the blueberry irrigation 

system from overhead sprinkler 

to double row drip tape for crop production. 

NA means Not Available. 

Blueberry 110 134,175 $352,000 

Sources: Southwest Florida Water Management District, Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems 

(FARMS), "2008 Annual Report" dated February 2009 and "2009 Annual Report" dated June 2010, Brooksville, 

Florida. 

44324-000R4.docx 





Prior to the frost/freeze event of 2010, the District’s percentage cost share of agricultural 

projects to reduce Floridan aquifer withdrawals in the area was limited to 50 percent unless 

the project also improved water quality. Revisions to the FARMS rule (40D-26, 

F.A.C.) which was approved by the District’s Governing Board will specifically allow reductions 

in frost/freeze groundwater withdrawals to be counted in cost effectiveness calculations 

to increase the likelihood that such projects will qualify for cost sharing. In addition, 

the District’s share of the eligible project costs was increased from 50 percent to 75 

percent. The intent is to make frost/freeze protection groundwater reduction projects 

more financially feasible to growers and provide a significant reduction in permitted 

ground water withdrawals in and around the DPC WUCA over time. The District anticipates 

spending approximately $2.2 million per year over the next 10 years to reduce 

frost/freeze quantities permitted from the Upper Floridan aquifer. 5 

The revised FARMS rule contained in 40D-26, F.A.C. is reprinted below in strikeout 

(Old) and underline (New) format to highlight the changes approved by the District’s Governing 

Board. 

44324-000R4.docx 

5 The $2.2 million per year is the District’s estimate of the amount of District funding needed to reduce 

the amount of water pumped for frost / freeze protection during the 2010 freeze event by 20 percent if 

the reduction was accomplished using tailwater recovery systems. 




RULES OF THE 


CHAPTER 40D-26 

FACILITATING AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (FARMS) PROGRAM 

40D-26.011 Policy and Purpose. 

40D-26.021 Definition 

40D-26.091 Publications Incorporated by Reference. 

40D-26.101 Conditions of Eligibility. 

40D-26.201 Program Application. 

40D-26.301 Eligibility Determination. 

40D-26.401 Cost-Share Rates. 

40D-26.011 Policy and Purpose. 

(1) The purpose of the Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Program is to expedite the 

implementation of water resource development and alternative water supply development projects by providing funding assistance 

for the development of production-scale Best Management Practices (BMPs) for agriculture that will result in reductions in water 

use and improvements in water quality and to natural systems within the District. 

(2) This chapter sets forth the procedures for the FARMS Program and the requirements for obtaining funding assistance. 

Specific Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 373.0831(3), 373.196(1), 373.1961(3) FS. History–New 1-7-09. 

40D-26.021 Definitions. 

When used in this chapter: 

(1) “Agriculture” means the science and art of production of plants and animals and includes aquaculture, horticulture, 

floriculture, viticulture, forestry, nurseries, dairy, livestock, poultry, bees, and any and all forms of farm products and farm 

production. 

(2) “Best Management Practice” means a practice or combination of practices based on research, field-testing, and expert 

review, to be the most practicable on-location means, including economic and technological considerations, for improving water 

conservation and quality in agricultural discharges. BMPs for agricultural discharges shall reflect a balance between water resource 

improvements and agricultural productivity. 

(3) “District” means the Southwest Florida Water Management District. 

(4) “Equipment” means the tangible items and components of a project including software and internet services for the first year 

of a project’s operation. 

(5) “Model Farms Costs” means those estimated costs developed to identify reasonable costs associated with implementing 

various water conservation methods by a variety of agricultural operations as set forth in Tables A-1 through A-18 of the Model 

Farms Economic Update the District’s 2001 Model Farms Costs incorporated herein by reference in Rule 40D-26.091, F.A.C. 

(6) “Program” means the Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems Program described in this chapter. 

(7) “Project Area” means the land upon which the components of the BMPs are located and includes the land to be served by a 

project. 

Specific Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 373.0831(3), 373.196(1), 373.1961(3) FS. History–New 1-7-09, Amended 

_______. 

40D-26.091 Publications Incorporated by Reference. 

The following document is hereby incorporated by reference into this chapter and is available from the District upon request: 

Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Program Model 

Farms Economic Update 2001 Model Farms Costs (effective date June 2009 August 1, 2001). 


_______.

40D-26.101 Conditions of Eligibility. 

(1) Agricultural operations located within the District that are in compliance with the District’s Environmental Resource 

Permitting rules in Chapters 40D-4, 40D-40 and 40D-400, F.A.C., and the District’s Water Use Permitting rules in Chapter 40D-2, 

F.A.C., District issued permits and District funding agreements and that have been operational for the preceding 3 years are eligible 

for the Program. Agricultural operations less than 3 years old are eligible if the project will result in a reduction in the use of ground 

water. A project shall not be eligible if the applicant previously received Program funds and construction of the funded project has 

not commenced. 

(2) The following projects are eligible for the Program: 

(a) Implementation of BMPs that reduce withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer or from any combination of ground, 

surface or reclaimed water sources and have a cost-benefit that is equal to or less than the Model Farms Costs; however no more 

than 5% of frost/freeze protection quantities authorized by a District Water Use Permit shall be used in calculating the amount of 

water no longer withdrawn from the Upper Floridan aquifer in areas outside of the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area. 

(b) Implementation of BMPs that improve ground or surface water quality impacted by ground water withdrawals.; and 

(c) Implementation of BMPs that improve natural systems functions within the Upper Myakka River Watershed. 

(d) Implementation of BMPs that reduce frost/freeze protection withdrawals authorized by a District Water Use Permit from the 

Upper Floridan aquifer within the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area. 

(3) Projects that retrofit or upgrade an irrigation system shall be eligible only if the applicant previously applied for funding 

assistance under the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program within the preceding 3 years and that otherwise meet the requirements of this rule. 


________. 

40D-26.201 Program Application. 

(1) Applicants shall consult with District FARMS Program staff at a pre-application meeting to discuss proposed projects before 

submitting their applications. 

(2) Applicants for funding shall submit to the District the information required on District Form LEG-R.22.021 (84/0910), titled 

Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems Program Funding Application Form, adopted and incorporated by reference 

in this rule. This form is available from the District’s website at www.watermatters.org or from the District upon request. 

(3) Applications for leased property shall be a joint application signed by the lessee and property owner. If there are multiple 

owners, all owners shall sign the application form or sign an attachment to the application form indicating they join in the 

application. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 373.0831(3), 373.196(1), 373.1961(3) FS. History–New 1-7-09, Amended 

8-30-09, _________. 

40D-26.301 Eligibility Determination. 

(1) The District shall fund projects that meet all conditions of eligibility set forth in Rule 40D-26.101, F.A.C., subject to 

available funding. If the District receives completed applications for projects that exceed available funding, the District shall first 

fund those projects that qualify for a 75% cost-share rate as set forth in paragraph 40D-26.401(1)(b), F.A.C., and then those projects 

that have the greatest reduction in withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer, provided there are sufficient funds to fully fund 

each project as set forth in Rule 40D-26.401, F.A.C. A complete application means that all information in Rule 40D-26.201, F.A.C., 

has been submitted with sufficient detail for the District to determine eligibility. 

(2) The District shall notify an applicant in writing as to whether a project is eligible. The notice shall constitute agency action 

subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S. If the District denies eligibility, the notice of denial shall specify the reasons for the 

denial. 

(3) If an application is funded, all property owners and lessees shall enter into a legally binding agreement with the District. 

Specific Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 373.083(1), 373.0831(3), 373.196(1), 373.1961(3) FS. History–New 1-7-09.

40D-26.401 Cost-Share Rates. 

(1) The District’s cost-share rate for a funded project shall be based upon a project’s resource benefit as follows: 

(a) Equipment costs shall be reimbursed up to a maximum of 50% of the total project cost when a project: 

1. Reduces withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer by less than 50%; 

2. Reduces withdrawals from any combination of ground, surface or reclaimed water sources; 

3. Improves ground or surface water quality impacted by ground water withdrawals; or 

4. Improves natural system functions within the Upper Myakka River Watershed. 

(b) Equipment costs shall be reimbursed up to a maximum of 75% of the total project cost when a project: 

1. Reduces withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer by 50% or more; or 

2. Reduces withdrawals by 15% or more from any combination of ground, surface or reclaimed water sources of which a 

minimum of 5% of the total withdrawal reduction is from the Upper Floridan aquifer and the project improves water quality in 

surface or ground water impacted by ground water withdrawals or improves natural system functions within the Upper Myakka 

River Watershed; or. 

3. Reduces frost/freeze protection withdrawals authorized by a District Water Use Permit from the Upper Floridan aquifer 

within the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area. 

(2) Only costs for Equipment procured in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the applicant and the District 

shall be eligible for reimbursement. 

(3) Applicants shall fund a minimum of 25% of the total project cost exclusive of any funding provided by other sources. 

(4) For purposes of this rule, costs associated with a project’s excavation activities shall not be included in the total cost of the 

project; however, these costs shall count towards applicant’s minimum 25% funding requirement if as-built construction drawings 

certified by a licensed professional engineer or surveyor are provided to the District and then to the following extent: 

(a) 100% of the costs if excavated material will not be removed from owner’s property. 

(b) 50% of the costs if excavated material will be removed from owner’s property. 


________. 

40D-1.659 Forms and Instructions. 

The following forms and instructions have been approved by the Governing Board and are incorporated by reference into this 

chapter or into a specific District rule as indicated. Copies of these forms may be obtained from the District offices or the District’s 

website at www.watermatters.org. 

(3) OTHER 

(a) No change. 

(b) FACILITATING AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (FARMS) SYSTEMS PROGRAM FUNDING 

APPLICATION FORM, FORM LEG-R.22.022 (8/10) LEG-R.22.021 (4/09), incorporated by reference in subsection 40D- 

26.201(2), F.A.C. 

(c) – (d) No Change. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.149, 373.171, 373.337 FS. Law Implemented 373.083, 373.0831(3), 373.083(5), 373.116, 373.196(1), 

373.1961(3), 373.206, 373.207, 373.209, 373.216, 373.219, 373.229, 373.239, 373.306, 373.308, 373.309, 373.313, 373.323, 373.324, 373.413, 

373.414, 373.416, 373.419, 373.421, 668.50 FS. History–New 12-31-74, Amended 10-24-76, Formerly 16J-0.40, 40D-1.901, 40D-1.1901, 

Amended 12-22-94, 5-10-95, 10-19-95, 5-26-96, 7-23-96, 2-16-99, 7-12-99, 7-15-99, 12-2-99, 5-31-00, 9-3-00, 10-26-00, 6-26-01, 11-4-01, 6-12- 

02, 8-25-02, 2-26-03, 9-14-03, 9-30-04, 2-1-05, 6-5-05, 10-19-05(1) and (2), 10-19-05(5), 10-19-05(20), 2-6-07, 9-27-07, 11-11-07, 11-25-07, 1-8- 

08, 4-7-08, 5-12-08, 5-20-08, 8-19-08, 12-30-08, 3-26-09, 7-1-09, 8-30-09, 9-1-09, 10-26-09, 1-27-10, 4-12-10, 4-27-10,_________.

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs for the Dover / Plant City ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?