notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

Governing Board 

Meeting 

Agenda 

and 

Meeting Information 

October 25, 2011 

9:00 a.m. 

Tampa Service Office 

7601 U.S. Hwy. 301 North • Tampa, Florida 

(813) 985-7481 1-800-836-0797

An Equal 

Opportunity 

Employer 

MEETING NOTICE 

2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 

(352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only) 

TDD only 1-800-231-6103 (FL only) 

On the Internet at: WaterMatters.org 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis of disability. This nondiscrimination 

policy involves every aspect of the District's functions, including access to and participation in the District's programs and activities. 

Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact the District's Human 

Resources Director at 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, FL 34604-6899; telephone (352) 796-7211, ext. 4702, or 1-800-423-1476 

(FL only), ext. 4702; TDD (FL only) 1-800-231-6103; or email to ADACoordinator@swfwmd.state.fl.us. 

AGENDA 

GOVERNING BOARD MEETING 

OCTOBER 25, 2011 

9:00 a.m. 

TAMPA SERVICE OFFICE 

7601 US HIGHWAY 301 NORTH 

813-985-7481 OR 1-800-836-0797 

� All meetings are open to the public. �� 

� Viewing of the Board meeting will be available at each of the District offices 

and through the District’s web site (www.watermatters.org) -- follow directions 

to use internet streaming. 

� Public input will be taken only at the meeting location. 

� Public input for issues not listed on the published agenda will be heard shortly 

after the meeting begins. 

Unless specifically stated, scheduled items will not be heard at a time certain. 

At the discretion of the Board, items may be taken out of order to 

accommodate the needs of the Board and the public. 

The meeting will recess for lunch at a time to be announced. 

The current Governing Board agenda and minutes of previous meetings 

are on the District's web site: www.WaterMatters.org 

9:00 A.M. CONVENE PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING (TAB A) 

1. Call to Order 

2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation 

3. Additions/Deletions to Agenda 

4. Employee Recognition 

5. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda 

Bartow Service Office 

170 Century Boulevard 

Bartow, Florida 33830-7700 

(863) 534-1448 or 1-800-492-7862 (FL only) 

Sarasota Service Office 

6750 Fruitville Road 

Sarasota, Florida 34240-9711 

(941) 377-3722 or 1-800-320-3503 (FL only) 

Tampa Service Office 

7601 US Highway 301 North 

Tampa, Florida 33637-6759 

(813) 985-7481 or 1-800-836-0797 (FL only)

SWFWMD GOVERNING BOARD AGENDA -2- OCTOBER 25, 2011 

CONSENT AGENDA (TAB B) 

All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine and action will be taken by one motion, 

second of the motion and approval by the Board. If discussion is requested by a Board member, that item(s) will 

be deleted from the Consent Agenda and moved to the appropriate Committee or Report for consideration. 

Finance & Administration Committee 

6. Budget Transfer Report 

Regulation Committee 

7. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Extend Interval for Submittal of Statements of Inspection 

Required for Environmental Resource Permits 

8. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rule 40D-40.302, Florida Administrative Code, to Clarify 

Threshold for General Environmental Resource Permits Involving Impacts to Surface Waters 

9. Individual Water Use Permits 

a. WUP No. 20008522.009 – City of Haines City (Polk County) 

b. WUP No. 20010420.007 – Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

(DeSoto County) 

Resource Management Committee 

10. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rule 40D-2.302, Florida Administrative Code, 

to Reserve Water in Lake Pretty for Use in Restoring Water Levels in Lakes Horse, Raleigh 

and Rogers for the Protection of Fish and Wildlife 

11. Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Update 

12. Five-Year Water Resource Development Work Program 

13. Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

a. Marion County Watersheds – Flemington, Hog Prairie, NW Ocala, Gum Swamp and 

Big Jones Creek 

b. Sarasota County Watersheds – Whitaker Bayou and Alligator Creek 

c. Sumter County 

14. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) 

a. American Citrus Products Corporation (H639) – Charlotte County 

b. JWCD - Dr. Waters Grove - Amendment (H608) – DeSoto County 

c. Peace Valley Groves, Inc. (H648) – DeSoto County 

d. Brookdale Farms, LLC - Amendment (H625) – Hillsborough County 

e. Loop Farms, LLC - Flowers Road (H647) – Hillsborough County 

f. GDK Land Trust (H652) – Hillsborough County 

g. Circle G Farm and Ranch - Phase 2 (H653) – Hillsborough County 

h. Castillo Farms, LLC - Stafford Road (H654) – Hillsborough County 

i. FLM, Inc. - Blossom Grove Phase 3 (H615) – Manatee County 

j. Evans Ranch, LLC (H646) – Polk County 

k. Jeremy Scott Blueberries (H650) – Polk County 

Executive Director’s Report 

15. Approve Governing Board Minutes 

a. September 13, 2011 Tentative Budget Hearing 

b. September 27, 2011 Monthly Meeting 

c. September 27, 2011 Final Budget Hearing 

FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (TAB C) 

Discussion Items 

16. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 

Submit & File Report 

17. Office of Inspector General – Chemistry Laboratory Managerial Audit 

Routine Reports 

18. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register and Contingency Funds Report 

19. Monthly Financial Statement 

20. Management Services Significant Activities


OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE (TAB D) 


21. Legislative Preview 

22. Fiscal Year 2013 Cooperative Funding Initiative Update 

Submit & File Reports –None 


23. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews 

24. Development of Regional Impact Activity Report 

25. Significant Activities 

REGULATION COMMITTEE (TAB E) 



27. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report 

28. Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022 – Consider Current and Projected Conditions 

29. Approve Revisions to Previously-Approved Amendments to 40D-21, Florida Administrative Code, 

Water Shortage Plan, to Reduce Regulatory Costs 

30. Denials Referred to the Governing Board 

Submit & File Reports 

31. Permits with Five-Year Compliance Reports 

32. Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Update 


33. Public Supply Report 

34. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities 

35. Overpumpage Report 

36. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications 

37. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff 

38. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB F) 



40. Development of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Nutrients in Florida 

41. Southern Water Use Caution Area Recovery Strategy – Annual Status Report 

42. Surplus Lands Assessment Program Update 

Submit & File Reports – None 


43. Minimum Flows and Levels 

44. Structure Operations 

45. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization 

46. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects 

GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT (TAB G) 


47. Supplement to Resolution Authorizing Proceedings in Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Certain 

Interests in Land Necessary for the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project 


48. Receipt of Formal Opinion of the Attorney General – Competitive Negotiation for Public 

Construction Projects 


49. Litigation Report 

50. Rulemaking Update


COMMITTEE/LIAISON REPORTS (TAB H) 

51. Well Drillers Advisory Committee Meeting 

52. Other Liaison Reports 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT (TAB I) 

53. Executive Director’s Report 

CHAIR’S REPORT (TAB J) 

54. Chair’s Report 

ANNOUNCEMENTS 

�� RECESS PUBLIC HEARING � � � 

� Governing Board Meetings Schedule: 

Surplus Lands Subcommittee Meeting – Tampa ....................................... November 3, 2011 

Meeting – Tampa ...................................................................................... November 29, 2011 

Meeting – Haines City ............................................................................... December 20, 2011 

Meeting – Brooksville ............................................................................... January 31, 2012 

Meeting – Brooksville ............................................................................... February 28, 2012 

� Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule: 

Joint Meeting of All Advisory Committees – Tampa ................................... November 4, 2011 

Joint Agricultural/Green Industry – Tampa ................................................ December 8, 2011 

Environmental – Tampa ........................................................................... January 9, 2012 

Well Drillers – Tampa .............................................................................. January 11, 2012 

Industrial – Tampa ................................................................................... February 14, 2012 

Public Supply – Tampa ............................................................................ February 14, 2012 

ADJOURNMENT 

The Governing Board may take action on any matter on the printed agenda including such items listed as reports, 

discussions, or program presentations. The Governing Board may make changes to the printed agenda only for 

good cause as determined by the Chair, and stated in the record. 

If a party decides to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at a hearing or 

these meetings, that party will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose that party may need to 

ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon 

which the appeal is to be based. 

If you wish to address the Board concerning any item listed on the agenda or an issue that does not appear on the 

agenda, please fill out a speaker's card at the reception desk in the lobby and give it to the recording secretary. 

Your card will be provided to the Chair who will call on you at the appropriate time during the meeting. When 

addressing the Board, please step to the podium, adjust the microphone for your comfort, and state your name for 

the record. Comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. In appropriate circumstances, the Chair may 

grant exceptions to the three-minute limit. 

The Board will accept and consider written comments from any person if those comments are submitted to the 

District at Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899. The 

comments should identify the number of the item on the agenda and the date of the meeting. Any written 

comments received after the Board meeting will be retained in the file as a public record.

GOVERNING BOARD OFFICERS,COMMITTEES 

AND LIAISONS 

Effective June 2011 

OFFICERS 

Chair H. Paul Senft 

Vice Chair Hugh M. Gramling 

Secretary Douglas B. Tharp 

Treasurer Albert G. Joerger 

The full Board serves as the members for each committee. 

REGULATION COMMITTEE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 

Bryan K. Beswick, Chair Hugh M. Gramling, Chair 

Todd Pressman, Vice Chair Neil Combee, Vice Chair 

Judith C. Whitehead, Second Vice Chair Vacant, Second Vice Chair 

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 

COMMITTEE 

OUTREACH AND PLANNING 

COMMITTEE 

Albert G. Joerger, Chair* Jeffrey M. Adams, Chair 

Douglas B. Tharp, Vice Chair Jennifer E. Closshey, Vice Chair 

Carlos Beruff, Second Vice Chair Michael A. Babb, Second Vice Chair 

*Board policy requires the Governing Board treasurer 

to chair the Finance and Administration Committee. 

STANDING COMMITTEE LIAISONS 

Agricultural Advisory Committee Hugh M. Gramling 

Environmental Advisory Committee Judith C. Whitehead 

Green Industry Advisory Committee Douglas B. Tharp 

Industrial Supply Advisory Committee Jennifer E. Closshey 

Public Supply Advisory Committee Carlos Beruff 

Well Drillers Advisory Committee Neil Combee 

OTHER LIAISONS 

Governing Board Diversity Coordinator Carlos Beruff 

Strategic Planning Initiative Jennifer E. Closshey 

Central Florida Water Initiative (formerly CFCA) H. Paul Senft 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Policy Board Bryan K. Beswick 

Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Policy Board Albert G. Joerger 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program Policy Board Hugh M. Gramling 

Todd Pressman, Primary 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 

Jeffrey M. Adams, Alternate 

10/12/2011

Governing Board Meeting 


9:00 a.m. 

�� CONVENE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD � � � 

AND PUBLIC HEARING 

PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING (TAB A) 

1. Call to Order ......................................................................................................................... 2 

2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation ................................................................................... 2 

3. Additions/Deletions to Agenda ............................................................................................. 2 

4. Employee Recognition ......................................................................................................... 3 

5. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda .............................................. 4




Items 1 - 3 

The Board Chair calls the meeting to order. The Board Secretary confirms that a quorum is 

present. The Board Chair then opens the public hearing. 

Anyone wishing to address the Governing Board concerning any item listed on the agenda or 

any item that does not appear on the agenda should fill out and submit a speaker's card. 

Comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker, and, when appropriate, exceptions to 

the three-minute limit may be granted by the Chair. Several individuals wishing to speak on 

the same issue/topic should designate a spokesperson. 


The Board Chair leads the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 

Mr. Pepper offers the invocation. 


According to Section 120.525(2), Florida Statutes, additions to the published agenda will only 

be made for "good cause" as determined by the "person designated to preside." The items 

that have been added to the agenda were received by the District after publication of the 

regular agenda. The Board was provided with the information filed and the District staff's 

analyses of these matters. Staff has determined that action must be taken on these items 

prior to the next Board meeting. 

Therefore, it is the District staff's recommendation that good cause has been demonstrated 

and should be considered during the Governing Board's meeting. 

Staff Recommendation: 

Approve the recommended additions and deletions to the published agenda. 

Presenter: Blake C. Guillory, Executive Director 

�



Employee Recognition 

Item 4 

The District's employees are its most valuable resource. We are pleased and proud that the 

average tenure of all employees at the District is 12 years and that we are able to retain such 

remarkable talent. Each year, many District employees reach significant longevity milestones in 

their service to the District and many reach momentous milestones, which make them eligible 

for retirement. The District as a whole, as well as each employee’s department, acknowledges 

and celebrates these milestones/retirements and the tremendous individual contributions they 

represent to the achievement of the District’s mission. 

At the Governing Board meeting, presentations will be made to the Board for all employees who 

have achieved milestones of 20 years or greater and those retiring from the District, to specially 

acknowledge and commend the contributions of these individuals. 

This item provides the Board with the opportunity to personally recognize and thank our 

dedicated employees who have reached five-year increments in service to the District and those 

employees who have completed at least 30 years of employment in the Florida Retirement 

System and are retiring from the District. We have seventeen employees that have achieved 

longevity milestones for the period of October 1, 2011 to October 31, 2011. 

MILESTONE 

EMPLOYEE 

NAME 

Retirement None for this meeting. 

Employee Recognition – Service/Retirement 

TITLE DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE 

LOCATION 

35 Years Kevin Love Land Management Manager Land Resources Brooksville 

30 Years Chuck Tucker Survey Technician 2 Land Resources Brooksville 

25 Years None for this meeting. 

20 Years 

Barbara Matrone Senior Administrative Assistant Resource Projects Brooksville 

Joyce Morra Administrative Coordinator Finance Brooksville 

15 Years Diana Burdick Senior Project Manager Information Resources Brooksville 

10 Years 

5 Years 


Eloise Buzbee Senior Budget Analyst Finance Brooksville 

Lesley Touchton Staff Engineer Operations Brooksville 

Wayne Alonso Heavy Equipment Operator Operations Tampa 

Michael Cote Senior Reg Processing Specialist Brooksville Regulation Brooksville 

R.J. Dowling Engineer Resource Projects Brooksville 

Tim Fagley Staff Business App Developer Information Resources Tampa 

Dan Golus Staff Engineer Sarasota Regulation Sarasota 

Jason Hust Supervisor, Field Technician Res Data & Restoration Tampa 

Nancy Norton Professional Engineer Res Data & Restoration Tampa 

Tony Soos Field Technician Tampa Regulation Tampa 

Brian Townsend Senior Heavy Equipment Operator Operations Tampa 

John Walker Accountant 1 Finance Brooksville 

This item is presented for the Board’s information, and no action is required. 

Presenter(s): Appropriate Staff Member(s) 

�



Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda 

At this time, the Board will hear public input for issues not listed on the published agenda. 

� 

Item 5



CONSENT AGENDA 

All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine and action will be taken by one motion, 

second of the motion and approval by the Board. If discussion is requested by a Board member, that item(s) 

will be deleted from the Consent Agenda and moved to the appropriate Committee or Report for consideration. 


6. Budget Transfer Report ........................................................................................................... 2 


7. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Extend Interval for Submittal of 

Statements of Inspection Required for Environmental Resource Permits .............................. 5 

8. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rule 40D-40.302, Florida Administrative 

Code, to Clarify Threshold for General Environmental Resource Permits Involving 

Impacts to Surface Waters ...................................................................................................... 8 

9. Individual Water Use Permits 

a. WUP No. 20008522.009 – City of Haines City (Polk County) ........................................... 11 

b. WUP No. 20010420.007 – Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply 

Authority (DeSoto County) ................................................................................................. 35 


10. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rule 40D-2.302, Florida Administrative 

Code, to Reserve Water in Lake Pretty for Use in Restoring Water Levels in Lakes 

Horse, Raleigh and Rogers for the Protection of Fish and Wildlife ....................................... 56 

11. Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Update ............................................ 59 

12. Five-Year Water Resource Development Work Program ..................................................... 64 

13. Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency .......................................................................................... 116 

a. Marion County Watersheds – Flemington, Hog Prairie, NW Ocala, Gum Swamp 

and Big Jones Creek ........................................................................................................ 117 

b. Sarasota County Watersheds – Whitaker Bayou and Alligator Creek ............................ 118 

c. Sumter County ................................................................................................................. 119 

14. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) 

a. American Citrus Products Corporation (H639) – Charlotte County ................................. 120 

b. JWCD - Dr. Waters Grove - Amendment (H608) – DeSoto County ............................... 123 

c. Peace Valley Groves, Inc. (H648) – DeSoto County ....................................................... 126 

d. Brookdale Farms, LLC - Amendment (H625) – Hillsborough County ............................. 129 

e. Loop Farms, LLC - Flowers Road (H647) – Hillsborough County ................................... 132 

f. GDK Land Trust (H652) – Hillsborough County .............................................................. 135 

g. Circle G Farm and Ranch - Phase 2 (H653) – Hillsborough County .............................. 137 

h. Castillo Farms, LLC - Stafford Road (H654) – Hillsborough County ............................... 140 

i. FLM, Inc. - Blossom Grove Phase 3 (H615) – Manatee County ..................................... 142 

j. Evans Ranch, LLC (H646) – Polk County ....................................................................... 145 

k. Jeremy Scott Blueberries (H650) – Polk County ............................................................. 147 



a. September 13, 2011 Tentative Budget Hearing .............................................................. 1�� 

b. September 27, 2011 Monthly Meeting ............................................................................. 154 

c. September 27, 2011 Final Budget Hearing ..................................................................... 164

Consent Agenda 


Finance and Administration Committee 

Budget Transfer Report 

Item 6 

Purpose 

Request approval of the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers made during the 

month of September 2011. 

Background 

In accordance with Board Policy No. 130-8, all transfers approved by the Basins, Executive 

Director and Finance Director under delegated authority are regularly presented to the Finance 

and Administration Committee for approval on the Consent Agenda at the next scheduled 

meeting. The exhibit for this item reflects all such transfers executed since the date of the last 

report for the Committee's approval. 

Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit 

Approve the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers for September 2011. 

Presenter: Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Director, Finance Department 

2

3 

Item 

No. 

--- TRANSFERRED FROM --- 

--- TRANSFERRED TO --- 

Department / Department / 

Expenditure Category Expenditure Category 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 


September 2011 

Executive Director Approved 

General Fund: 

1 0Information Resources 0Information Resources Transfer of funds originally budgeted for purchase of report archive software. Funds were $ 43,400 

3421 Software ecm6 Enterprise Content Contr Svcs 

3422 Software Maintenance 

2 6Operations 6Operations Transfer of funds originally budgeted for onsite visits to mapping vendors for quality control 

1,143 

4002 Travel - Staff Duties 3111 Consultant Services 

inspections. The funds were required for consultant services to create Trimble Global 

Positioning System Data Dictionaries for use by the Engineering Staff to collect field data for 

the Geographic Watershed Information System. 

3 0General Services 0General Services Transfer of funds originally budgeted for routine purchases of equipment non-capital outlay. 

1,500 

5221 Equipment - Non-Capital Outlay 6401 Equipment - Inside 

Funds were needed to purchase an ice machine for the Bartow Service Office which 

exceeded the $1,000 equipment non-capital threshold. 

Total Executive Director Approved $ 46,043 

Finance Director Approved 

1 5Resource Projects 5Resource Projects 

Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate expenditure category for the Myakka State 

3111 Consultant Services 3431 Contracted Construction Forest Hydrologic Restoration and the Edward W. Chance Reserve Hydrologic Restoration 

projects for contracted construction phase of the project. 

$ 394,338 

2 5Resource Projects 5Resource Projects Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate expenditure category for the Lake Isis - 

303,232 

3111 Consultant Services 3431 Contracted Construction 

Implementation of BMPs project within the Ridge Lakes for contracted construction phase of 

the project. 

3 5Resource Projects 5Resource Projects Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate project for construction and maintenance of the 15,000 

3431 Contracted Construction 3431 Contracted Construction 

Green Swamp Hampton Tract Hydrologic Restoration Florida Department of Transportation 

(FDOT) Mitigation project. 

4 5Resource Projects 5Resource Projects Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate expenditure category for the Lake Wailes and 502,000 

3111 Consultant Services 3431 Contracted Construction 

Lake Tulane - Implementation of the BMPs projects within the Ridge Lakes for contracted 

construction in the Peace River Basin. 

5 0General Services 0Human Resources & Risk Mgmt Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate department and expenditure category for 

198 

3405 Security Services 3401 Other Contractual Services security background checks for the cafeteria staff. 

6 0General Services 0Information Resources Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate department and expenditure category for 

17,612 

3431 Contracted Construction 6401 Equipment - Inside 

5221 Equipment - Non-Capital Outlay 

Reason For Transfer 

required for implementation of the report archive functionality in the Enterprise Content 

Management project. 

network equipment (switches) to support the security cameras for the Tampa and Sarasota 

Services Offices. 

7 3Resource Data & Restoration 3Resource Data & Restoration Transfer of budgeted funds to the general Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management 

57,062 

8107 Grant - Agriculture 8107 Grant - Agriculture 

Systems (FARMS) budget appropriation for future allocation to specific FARMS projects. 

Transfer 

Amount

4 

Item 

No. 

--- TRANSFERRED FROM --- 

--- TRANSFERRED TO --- 

Department / Department / 

Expenditure Category Expenditure Category 



September 2011 

Reason For Transfer 

8 0Human Resources & Risk Mgmt 5Resource Projects 

0Communications 

Transfer of budgeted funds to appropriate departments for the INROADS Student Program. 22,366 

3424 Temp Contracted Services 1201 Regular Salaries & Wages 

2101 FICA 

9 0Human Resources & Risk Mgmt 0Planning 

4Tampa Regulation 

5Resource Projects 

6Operations 

Transfer of budgeted funds to appropriate departments for the Student Intern Program. 

42,109 

1201 Regular Salaries & Wages 1201 Regular Salaries & Wages 

2101 FICA 2101 FICA 

Transfer 

Amount 

Total Finance Director Approved $ 1,353,917 

Total Transfers for Governing Board Approval $ 1,399,960 

This report identifies transfers made during the month that did not require advance Governing Board approval. These transfers have been approved by either the Executive 

Director or Finance Director consistent with Board Policy 130-8, and are presented for Governing Board approval on the consent agenda. Executive Director approved transfers 

are made for a purpose other than the original budget intent, but are limited to individual transfer amounts of $50,000 or less. Finance Director approved transfers are 

accounting type transfers with no change to the original budget intent.




Item 7 

Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Extend Interval for Submittal of Statements of 

Inspection Required for Environmental Resource Permits 

The District’s Annual Regulatory Plan for July 2011 – June 2012 identifies rulemaking initiatives 

that are intended to amend or repeal outdated rules, reduce costs and implement changes that 

would reduce burdens and achieve other streamlining benefits for the regulated public. One 

such initiative relating to Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs) is to extend to five years the 

required reporting interval for re-inspections of effluent filtration water quality treatment systems 

and to establish a consistent five year reporting interval for the re-inspection of all other types of 

water quality treatment systems. 

Under current rules in effect since 1988, the reporting period for re-inspection of effluent 

filtration systems is eighteen months and the reporting period for re-inspection of other types of 

water quality systems is unspecified. ERPs for treatment systems other than effluent filtration 

typically include a specific condition requiring re-inspection reports every two years. Based on 

experience performing compliance inspections, staff proposes that a re-inspection reporting 

interval of five years is sufficient to ensure the effective performance of permitted systems. 

Accordingly, staff proposes amendments to Section 2.6.3 of the ERP Basis of Review and to 

Rule 40D-4.091(1), F.A.C., to extend to five years the required reporting interval for reinspections 

of effluent filtration water quality treatment systems and to establish a consistent five 

year reporting interval for the re-inspection of all other types of water quality treatment systems. 

Additionally, staff proposes to retroactively apply the five year re-inspection reporting interval to 

all existing permitted projects currently in operation phase with more frequent re-inspection 

reporting requirements. The proposed changes will reduce the burden on the regulated public 

and provide greater certainty for permittees operating these systems. 

A copy of the proposed rule amendments is included in the Board packet as an exhibit to this 

item. This rulemaking initiative is included in the District’s Regulatory Plan for July 2011 – June 

2012. A Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs is not required as this rulemaking is not 

expected to result in any direct or indirect cost increases for small businesses or increased 

regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 within one year of implementation. Ratification by the 

legislature also is not necessary for this rulemaking. Upon Governing Board approval of this 

rulemaking package, District staff will submit notice to the Governor’s Office of Fiscal 

Accountability and Regulatory Reform (OFARR) and proceed with formal rulemaking without 

further Governing Board action. If substantive comments are received from the public or 

reviewing entities such as OFARR or the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, this 

matter will be brought back to the Governing Board for further consideration. The below chart 

identifies the rulemaking process, with the current step highlighted. 

5

Staff Recommendation See Exhibit 

Item 7 

Approve the proposed amendments and authorize staff to proceed with rulemaking to amend 

Section 2.6.3 of the Basis of Review and Rule 40D-4.091(1), F.A.C., to extend the required 

reporting interval for re-inspections of water quality treatment systems 

Presenters: H. Clark Hull, Environmental Regulation Program Manager 

Marti Moore, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel 

6

Exhibit A 

Rulemaking to Extend Interval for Submittal of Statements of Inspection Required for 

Environmental Resource Permits 

40D-4.091 Publications, Forms and Agreements Incorporated by Reference. 

The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference and are applicable to this chapter and 

Chapters 40D-40 and 40D-400, F.A.C.: 

(1) Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual Part B, Basis of Review, Environmental 

Resource Permit Applications within the Southwest Florida Water Management District, ___________ 

December 8, 2010. This document is available from the District’s website at www.WaterMatters.org or 

from the District upon request. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.046, 373.113, 373.171, 373.414 FS. Law Implemented 373.0361, 373.079(4)(a), 

373.083(5), 373.114, 373.171, 373.403, 373.413, 373.4135, 373.4136, 373.414, 373.4144, 373.416, 373.429, 

373.441 FS. History–New 4-2-87, Amended 3-1-88, 9-11-88, 10-1-88, 4-1-91, 11-16-92, 1-30-94, 10-3-95, 12-26-95, 

5-26-96, 7-23-96, 4-17-97, 4-12-98, 7-2-98, 12-3-98, 7-28-99, 8-3-00, 9-20-00, 6-12-01, 10-11-01, 2-27-02, 7-29-02, 

3-26-03, 7-22-03, 8-3-03, 3-11-04, 6-7-04, 2-1-05, 6-30-05, 10-19-05, 2-8-06, 5-2-06, 7-1-07, 9-25-07(1), 9-25-07(4), 

11-26-07, 5-12-08, 5-20-08, 6-22-08, 5-12-09, 5-17-09, 8-30-09, 11-2-09, 11-3-09, 12-9-09, 9-5-10, 12-8-10, 

________, _________. 

Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual Part B 

Basis of Review 

2.6.3 Future Operation and Maintenance. 

The operation and maintenance entity is required to provide for the inspection of the surface water 

management system by a Florida licensed registered pProfessional eEngineer or other licensed or 

registered professional [amendments pending in other rulemaking] to assure that the system is properly 

operated and maintained. Inspection schedules will be specifically stated in the permit. Water quality 

treatment systems shall be inspected every five years and. For those systems utilizing effluent filtration or 

exfiltration, the inspections shall be performed 18 months after operation is authorized and every 18 

months thereafter. A a written report of the findings finds [amendment pending in other rulemaking] of the 

inspection shall be submitted on the Statement of Inspection for Proper Operation and Maintenance, 

Form No. LEG-R.044.01(9/11) LEG-R.044.00 (4/09), [amendment pending in other rulemaking] 

incorporated by reference in subsection 40D-4.351(3), F.A.C., and filed with the District within thirty (30) 

days of the date of the inspection. The permit shall be subject to additional reasonable conditions as are 

necessary, including performance bonds, to ensure future operation and maintenance of the surface 

water management system. 

Amended 8-30-09, __________, _________. 

7




Item 8 

Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rule 40D-40.302, F.A.C., to Clarify the 

Threshold for General Environmental Resource Permits Involving Impacts to Surface 

Waters 

The District’s Annual Regulatory Plan for July 2011 – June 2012 identifies rulemaking initiatives 

that are intended to amend or repeal outdated rules, reduce costs and implement changes that 

would reduce burdens and achieve other streamlining benefits for the regulated public. One 

such initiative relating to Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs) is to allow under the 

threshold for General ERPs the ability to conduct dredge or fill activities in ponds up to one acre 

in size and constructed in uplands, for which no mitigation is required. This amendment will 

make the threshold for a general permit consistent with the provision in Section 3.2.2.2 of the 

ERP Basis of Review which allows alterations to certain wholly owned ponds constructed 

entirely in uplands and which are less than one acre in size without requiring mitigation to offset 

adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. 

Accordingly, staff proposes amendments to Rule 40D-40.302(2)(b)(3), Florida Administrative 

Code (F.A.C.), to allow under the threshold for General ERPs the ability to conduct dredge or fill 

activities in ponds up to one acre in size and constructed in uplands, for which no mitigation is 

required. 

A copy of the proposed rule amendments is included in the Board packet as an exhibit to this 

item. This rulemaking initiative is included in the District’s Regulatory Plan for July 2011 – June 

2012. A Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs is not required as this rulemaking is not 

expected to result in any direct or indirect cost increases for small businesses or increased 

regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 within one year of implementation. Ratification by the 

legislature also is not necessary for this rulemaking. Upon Governing Board approval of this 

rulemaking package, District staff will submit notice to the Governor’s Office of Fiscal 

Accountability and Regulatory Reform (OFARR) and proceed with formal rulemaking without 

further Governing Board action. If substantive comments are received from the public or 

reviewing entities such as OFARR or the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, this 

matter will be brought back to the Governing Board for further consideration. The below chart 

identifies the rulemaking process, with the current step highlighted. 

8

Staff Recommendation See Exhibit 

Item 8 


Rule 40D-40.302, F.A.C., to clarify the threshold for general Environmental Resource Permits 

involving impacts to surface waters. 

Presenters: H. Clark Hull, Environmental Regulation Program Manager 

Marti Moore, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel 

9

Exhibit A 

Rulemaking to Amend Rule 40D-40.302, F.A.C., to Clarify Threshold for General Environmental 

Resource Permits Involving Impacts to Surface Waters 

40D-40.302 Conditions for Issuance of General Permits. 

In order to qualify for a general permit for construction and operation under this chapter, the applicant 

must provide reasonable assurance that the surface water management system meets all conditions of 

subsection 40D-40.302(1), F.A.C., all thresholds in subsection 40D-40.302(2), F.A.C., and all applicable 

additional conditions of subsections 40D-40.302(3) and 40D-40.302(4), F.A.C. To obtain a general site 

conditions assessment permit under this chapter, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that 

all conditions of subsection 40D-40.302(5), F.A.C., are met. To obtain a permit for construction of 

incidental site activities under this chapter, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that all 

conditions of subsections 40D-40.302(1) and 40D-40.302(6), F.A.C., are met. 

(1) Conditions. The surface water management system must meet the conditions specified in Rules 

40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302, F.A.C. 

(2) Thresholds. 

(a) The project area except for public highway projects, must be less than 100 acres. 

(b) Construction or alteration of a system, including dredging or filling to occur in, on or over a total of 

one acre or less of wetlands and other surface waters. For this purpose, calculation of the one acre area 

shall not include: 

1. Ditches that were originally constructed in uplands. 

2. Any wholly owned, isolated wetland or other surface water less than one-half acre in size and for 

which mitigation is not required. 

3. Any wholly owned pond constructed entirely in uplands and less than one acre in size for which 

mitigation is not required. 

(3) – (6) No change. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.118 FS. Law Implemented 373.079(4)(a), 373.083(5), 373.413, 

373.414, 373.416, 373.419 FS. History–New 10-1-84, Amended 3-1-88, 5-10-88, 9-13-88, 10-3-95, 7-23-96, 7-16-02, 

9-26-02, 8-3-03, 2-19-04, 2-1-05, 11-2-09, _________. 

10




Item 9.a. 

Individual Water Use Permits – WUP No. 20008522.009 - City of Haines City (Polk County) 

This is a renewal with modification of an existing water use permit for public supply. The project 

site is located in the Southern Water Use Caution Area in northeast Polk County. This permit is 

issued for a term of 20 years because within 10 years the permittee should achieve 75% 

system-wide use of reclaimed water and 75% of that quantity offsetting existing and planned 

water supplies. The authorized quantities shown above are an increase from those previously 

permitted. The increase in quantities is due to an increase in the projected population. 

Quantities are based on actual reported pumpage data, information submitted by the applicant, 

and the District's population projection model with a projected increase in population to 44,858 

residents by year 2031. The modification updates the Net Benefit mitigation plan 

allowing pumpage up to a specified quantity, linked to mitigation offset quantities that are 

retired. 

Special Conditions include those that require the Permittee to continue to record and report 

monthly meter readings from all withdrawal points; submit a 10 year compliance report; modify 

the permit to reflect incorporation of any new alternative sources of water; comply with the 

Southern Water Use Caution Area recovery strategy; comply with rolling 12-month average 

pumpage; cap all wells not in use; maintain a water conservation plan; submit a public supply 

annual report; submit a beneficial reuse report; adhere to per-capita requirements; maintain a 

water-conservation oriented rate structure; maintain environmental monitoring plan; and adhere 

to the mitigation plan. 

Changes from prior permit: The modification to the existing water use permit increased the total 

annual average quantity from 5,712,000 gpd to 5,921,300 gpd (increase of 209,300 gpd). The 

peak month quantity increased from 6,625,900 gpd to 7,046,300 gpd (increase of 420,400). 

The projected population increased from 43,274 persons to 44,858 persons. 

The permit application meets all Rule 40D-2 Conditions for Issuance. 

Staff Recommendation: See Exhibits 

Approve the proposed permit attached as an exhibit. 

Presenter: Brian S. Starford, P.G., Bartow Regulation Department 

11

October�25�� 

�� 


�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

12

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

13

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

14

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

15 

��

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

16

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

17

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

18

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

19

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

20

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

21

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

22

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

23

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

24

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

25

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

26

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

27

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

28

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

29

EXHIBIT B 

City of Haines City 

Water Use Permit No. 8522.009 

PS RECLAIMED WATER TABLE 

CURRENT 1 

(2010) 

PLUS 

ONGOING 

PROJECTS 2 

(2015) 

PROJECTED 

(2030) 3 

Total wastewater flow (gpd) 1,330,000 1,790,000 3,170,000 

Reclaimed water available (gpd) 1,330,000 1,790,000 3,170,000 

Reclaimed water utilization (gpd) 4 

600,000 1,572,000 2,380,000 

Beneficially used (gpd) 600,000 1,572,000 2,380,000 

Reclaimed water disposal (gpd) 730,000 218,000 790,000 

Potable quality water offset (gpd) 440,000 1,272,000 1,785,000 

Reclaimed water utilization (%) 

45% 88% 75% 

Reclaimed water offset 

efficiency (%) 73% 81% 75% 

1 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Annual Reclaimed Water Inventory Report, (2010 data). 

2 

Includes 0.972 mgd supply and 0.832 mgd offsets associated with 2 reuse expansion projects (N065, N407). 

3 

Regional Water Supply Plan (SWFWMD, 2011) 

4 

Does not include Sprayfields, RIBs or At Treatment Plant Use 

Note: The percentage of utilization and offset efficiency is greater for Plus Ongoing Projects over Projected. There is a projected 

greater population in 2030, which would produce more wastewater than new utilization of reclaimed water customers, lowering the 

utilization and efficiency percentages in 2030. 

8/25/2011 

30

Haines City – WUP No. 8522.009 

Water Conservation Information 

Category Practice 

Single Family 

Residential Rate Inclined Block 

Structure 

Cost Region 1 (Low) 

Base Charge / Month 

� Domestic Meter 

� Irrigation Meter 

Block 1 range 



Block 2 range 



Block 3 range 



Conservation Practices 

Permit Required 

Water Efficient 

Landscape and 

Irrigation 

Codes/Ordinances 

Public Information and 

Education Programs 

$9.29 

$9.29 

0 - 3,000 gallons: $0.75 per 1,000 gallons 

0 – 10,000 gallons: $1.50 per 1,000 gallons 

3,001 – 10,000 gallons: $0.98 per 1,000 gallons 



20,001 gallons and above: $3.10 per 1,000 gallons 

Adhere to the Water Conservation Plan submitted with the permit 

application. 

� ARTICLE V. - WATER RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

o Sec. 20-153. - Declaration of water shortage, water shortage 

emergency (Ord. No. 782, § 3.0, 6-6-91) 

o Sec. 20-154. - Enforcement. (Ord. No. 782, § 4.0, 6-6-91) 

o Sec. 20-155. - Penalties. (Ord. No. 782, § 5.0, 6-6-91) 

o Sec. 7-44. - Water closet, maximum quantity of water per 

flush; shower heads and faucets, maximum flow rate; 

exceptions, penalty. (Ord. No. 825, § 1, adopted March 18, 

1993, added a new § 7-59. In order to keep related sections 

together, the editor has redesignated said provisions as § 7- 

44) 

o Sec. 17-2.1. - Land development regulations adopted. 

Landscaping and tree protection. To provide for protection of 

existing vegetation and prescribe minimum requirements for 

landscaping and conservation of irrigation water. (Ord. 

No. 796, §§ 1—19, 12-5-91) 

o ARTICLE 6. IRRIGATION DESIGN STANDARDS. 

� Sec. 10.6.1. GENERAL. 

� Sec. 10.6.2. DESIGN ELEMENTS AND CRITERIA 

� Automatic rain shut off devices should be considered as 

a method of conserving water. 

The City conducts public education and outreach regarding the 

critical importance of water conservation. In-school education and 

public awareness programs provide education to the public, but 

generally are not considered quantifiable. Use of radio and 

television media, educational brochures, and the City’s website are 

all relevant education vehicles. These efforts can reach a broad 

population base and maintain public awareness, and are excellent 

31

Haines City – WUP No. 8522.009 

Water Conservation Information 

Category Practice 

tools for promoting water conservation measures that can be 

implemented by members of the public. The City is aware of 

numerous public education materials that the SWFWMD has 

published. The City intends to continue to coordinate with the 

District to obtain educational information that it can use or distribute 

Water Conservation 

Incentive Programs 

Alternative Water 

Supply Programs 

Conserve Florida Guide 

No 

(Y/N) 

Other N/A 

to further public awareness. 

1. Ultra-low volume toilet rebates 

2. Ultra-low volume urinal rebates 

3. High Efficiency Clothes Washer rebates 

4. ICI Spray valve replacements 

5. Rain sensor shut-off devices 

6. Irrigation system efficiency audits 

� See Reclaimed Water scorecard 

� Land Use Transitions 

32

33 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

1983 

�� 

1985 

�� 

�� 

1987 

1989 

1991 

1993 

1995 

1997 

1999 

2001 

2003 

2005 

2007 

�� 

2009 

2011 

2013 

2015 

2017 

2019 

2021 

2023 

2025 

2027 

2029 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

�� 

�� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

34




Item 9.b. 

Individual Water Use Permit – WUP No. 20010420.007 - Peace River Manasota Regional 

Water Supply Authority (DeSoto County) 

This is an application for modification of an existing water use permit for public supply. The 

permit is issued to the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority (PRMRWSA), a 

regional water supplier representing co-permittees Charlotte County, DeSoto County, Manatee 

County, Sarasota County, and the City of North Port. The PRMRWSA relies exclusively upon 

surface water withdrawals from the lower Peace River for water supply. The PRMRWSA facility 

includes two off-line reservoirs with combined storage of 6.6 billion gallons and two Aquifer 

Storage and Recovery (ASR) wellfields that store and recover water withdrawn from the Peace 

River. The facility is located in southwestern DeSoto County and within the Southern Water 

Use Caution Area (SWUCA). 

The purpose of the modification is to recognize additional demand in DeSoto County associated 

with the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facility located on Highway 31 south of Arcadia. 

The permitted Annual Average quantity increases by 155,000 gallons per day (gpd), from 

32,700,000 gpd to 32,855,000 gpd. The permitted Peak Month quantity increases by 200,000 

gpd, from 38,100,000 gpd to 38,300,000 gpd. The modification also adds two existing 

groundwater withdrawals on the DJJ property in a standby status for emergency use only. 

The Annual Average and Peak Month quantities represent finished water demand on this utility 

through 2016. Actual diversions from the river will continue to be limited by the Minimum Flow 

and Level (MFL) for the Lower Peace River and the Maximum Day quantity of 120,000,000 gpd, 

which is unchanged. 

The permit application meets all Rule 40D-2 Conditions for Issuance. 


Approve the proposed permit attached as an exhibit. 

Presenter: Ross T. Morton, P.W.S., Director, Sarasota Regulation Department 

35

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

October 25,2011 

36

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

37

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

38 

��

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

39

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

40

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

41

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

42 

��

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

43

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

44

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

45

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

46

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

47

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

48

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

49

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

50

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

51

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

52

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

53

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

54

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

55




Item 10 

Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rule 40D-2.302, Florida Administrative Code, 

to Reserve Water In Rocky Creek For Use In Restoring Water Levels In Lakes Horse, 

Raleigh and Rogers For the Protection of Fish and Wildlife 

Purpose 

To initiate rulemaking to establish a reservation of water within the Rocky Creek watershed to 

help achieve the minimum levels established for Horse Lake as set forth in Chapter 40D-8, 

Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and to enhance water levels in lakes Raleigh and Rogers, 

which are stressed and on the Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule for 

establishment of minimum levels in 2012. 

Background/History 

Within the Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area (NTBWUCA) certain wetlands, lakes, 

streams, springs, and aquifer levels have been impacted by lower groundwater levels resulting 

from groundwater withdrawals and do not meet the established minimum flows or levels. 

Minimum levels are water levels at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to 

the water resources of the area. Florida law requires the District to set minimum flows and levels 

for certain water bodies. Florida law also requires that where a water body is not meeting its 

minimum flow or level, the District adopt and implement a recovery strategy that will achieve the 

minimum flow or level. The District Governing Board adopted by rule two phases of a minimum 

flow and level recovery strategy for the NTBWUCA. The first phase was adopted by rule in 2000 

and extended through 2010. The second phase was adopted in 2010 and extends through 

2020. The goal of the second phase, the Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) Recovery Strategy 

and the Environmental Resources Recovery Plan (Comprehensive Plan) for the NTBWUCA, is 

to achieve recovery of MFL waterbodies to their established MFLs and avoidance and mitigation 

of unacceptable adverse impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, springs, and aquifer levels. 

During the first phase of the recovery strategy, the Board adopted minimum levels into rule for 

Horse Lake. Establishment of minimum levels is in the process for lakes Raleigh and Rogers. 

Water levels on Horse Lake do not meet minimum levels specified in the adopted rule. Lakes 

Raleigh and Rogers are stressed, and it is anticipated that their levels will not meet minimum 

levels. 

Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Governing Board by rule to reserve from use 

by permit applicants, water, as in its judgment may be required for the protection of fish and 

wildlife, including achieving minimum flows and levels. In order to help achieve recovery of 

minimum levels as required by statute, the District is implementing the Rocky Creek Lake 

Enhancement Project to divert water from Pretty Lake, which is part of the Rocky Creek system, 

to Horse Lake. During wet periods when Pretty Lake and downstream Lake Armistead are 

above normal operating levels, a small portion of water, which would otherwise flow 

downstream into Tampa Bay, is proposed to be diverted into nearby Horse Lake which will 

eventually flow into lakes Raleigh and Rogers. The District will need to reserve from use by 

permit applicants the quantity of water from Rocky Creek sufficient to enhance water levels of 

lakes Horse, Raleigh, and Rogers. Establishing a reservation will ensure that the wet period 

water is not permitted away and continues to be available to divert to help recover the minimum 

56

Item 10 

level of Horse Lake and stressed lakes Raleigh and Rogers consistent with the Board-adopted 

Recovery Strategy and Comprehensive Plan. 

A rule workshop was held on October 6, 2011, for residents of lakes Pretty, Armistead, Horse, 

Raleigh, and Rogers and other interested parties to discuss implications of the proposed 

reservation. The proposed rule amendments presented at the workshop are being presented to 

the Governing Board for consideration. 

A copy of the proposed rule amendments for this item is provided in the Board packet. This 

rulemaking is included in the District’s Regulatory Plan for July 2011–June 2012. Upon 

Governing Board approval of this rulemaking, District staff will submit notice to the Governor’s 

Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform (OFARR) and proceed with formal 

rulemaking without further Governing Board action. A Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs 

is not required as this rulemaking is not expected to result in any direct or indirect cost increases 

for small business or increased regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 within one year of 

implementation. Ratification by the Legislature also is not necessary for this rulemaking. If, 

during the rulemaking process, substantive comments are received from the public or reviewing 

entities such as OFARR or the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, this matter will be 

brought back to the Governing Board for further consideration. The below chart identifies the 

rulemaking process, with the current step highlighted. 



Rule 40D-2.302, F.A.C., to reserve water from the Rocky Creek watershed to work toward 

recovery of the minimum level for Horse Lake and stressed lakes Raleigh and Rogers for the 

protection of fish and wildlife. 

Presenter: Tamera McBride, P.G., Project Manager, Resource Projects Department 

57

EXHIBIT 

Exhibit to Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rule 40D-2.302, Florida Administrative 

Code, To Reserve Water In Rocky Creek For Use In Restoring Water Levels In Lakes Horse, 

Raleigh and Rogers for the Protection of Fish and Wildlife 

40D-2.302 Reservations from Use. 

(1) All available water from the Morris Bridge Sink but not greater than 3.9 million gallons of 

water on any given day is reserved to be used to contribute to achieving or maintaining the 

Minimum Flows for the Lower Hillsborough River set forth in Rule 40D-8.041, F.A.C. The Morris 

Bridge Sink is located in Section 5, Township 28S, Range 20E, approximately 0.6 miles south of 

the Hillsborough River and 0.5 miles north of Cow House Creek in Hillsborough County, Florida. 

(2) The Governing Board anticipates reserving from use water necessary to recover to, and 

protect, the Minimum Flows and Levels established for the Southern Water Use Caution Area 

as set forth in Chapter 40D-8, F.A.C. These reservations will be adopted through future 

rulemaking on a case-by-case basis, to address water that is developed through water resource 

development projects designed to achieve and maintain Minimum Flows and Levels. Adopted 

reservations will be incorporated into this Rule 40D-2.302, F.A.C. 

(3) The Governing Board finds it necessary to reserve the following water from Rocky Creek in 

Hillsborough County, Florida, to be used to contribute to achieving or maintaining water levels, 

including Minimum Levels, for lakes Horse, Raleigh and Rogers, in northwest Hillsborough 

County, Florida, within the Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area: water that is above 

44.5 feet NGVD (1929) in Pretty Lake, but not greater than 8.7 million gallons of water on any 

given day, when the water level is at or above 41.5 feet NGVD (1929) in Lake Armistead. Pretty 

Lake is located within Section 26, Township 27 South, Range 17 East and Lake Armistead is 

located within Section 25, Township 27 South, Range 17 East 

58




Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Update 

Item 11 

Purpose 

To approve the Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule (Priority List) for 

submission to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 


Pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.), each water management district is required to 

annually update its Priority List for the establishment of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs), 

submit the list to DEP by November 15 for review and approval, and include the approved list in 

the District's consolidated annual report. 

Staff presented the proposed 2012 Priority List to the September Governing Board prior to 

seeking public input. Comment was received at four public workshops held at the District's 

Bartow and Tampa Service Offices on October 3, 2011; and at the Sarasota Service Office and 

the Lecanto Government Building on October 4, 2011. 

Approximately sixteen members of the public attended the Bartow workshop on October 3. The 

public expressed a number of concerns regarding various issues ranging from management of 

water levels on Lake Henry, the need to develop alternative sources for coastal areas, overdrainage 

and development in floodplains, Tampa Bay Water’s desalination plant, and population 

growth in Florida, how MFLs are used in the permitting process, etc. A single recommendation 

was received regarding the possibility of adding Ellis Branch (a tributary to the North Prong of 

the Alafia River) to the priority list or establishing a “mini-MFL” since there was concern that 

flows would decline as a result of wastewater flows no longer being diverted to a created 

wetland that discharges to this tributary. Staff responded that they did not feel that this was a 

candidate for inclusion on the priority list, since it was not expected that flows would be 

impacted by “withdrawals.” The purpose of MFLs is to protect from significant harm due to 

withdrawals. 

Three members of the public attended the Tampa Service Office workshop held on October 3. 

At this meeting, a letter was received from a representative of the City of Temple Terrace stating 

“that interest persists in adding the middle Hillsborough River to the list of water bodies eligible 

for establishing a standard” and further noting that repairs to the C.W. Bill Young Reservoir 

could lead to increased demands on area well fields and the Hillsborough River. The issue of 

establishing minimum levels on the Hillsborough River above the City of Tampa’s dam was 

extensively vetted before the Board two years ago. Staff’s position continues to be that it is not 

appropriate to set a minimum level on a potable water supply reservoir and does not 

recommend including this water body on the priority list. 

Three members of the public attended the Sarasota Service Office workshop, and two members 

of the public attended the workshop held at the Lecanto Government Building on October 4, 

2011. No recommendations regarding changes or additions to the proposed priority list and 

schedule were received at either meeting. 

59

Item 11 

Considering input from these sources, no further additions or changes to the list other than 

those previously discussed at the September 2011 Governing Board meeting are proposed. 

Benefits/Costs 

As presented previously, MFLs remain to be set on 71 water bodies; however, it is anticipated 

that contractual funding will only be needed on 23 water bodies over the course of the next four 

years. The MFLs Priority List and Schedule includes all significant estuarine, riverine and first 

magnitude spring systems within the District, and it is anticipated that MFLs for all listed water 

bodies will be adopted by 2015. 


Approve the Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule for submission to DEP for 

review and approval as required by Chapter 373, F.S. 

Presenter: Martin H. Kelly, Ph.D., Minimum Flows and Levels Program Director 

Resource Projects Department 

60

PROPOSED 2012 

MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS PRIORITY LIST AND SCHEDULE 

Minimum Flows and Levels Already Adopted 

� Alafia River (upper freshwater segment) 

� Alafia River Estuary (includes Lithia and Buckhorn Springs) 

� Anclote River (estuarine and freshwater segments) 

� Braden River (freshwater segment) 

� Citrus County Lakes – Ft. Cooper, Tsala Apopka – Floral City, Inverness and Hernando Pools 

� Dona Bay/Shakett Creek System 

� Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Minimum Aquifer Level 

� Hernando County Lakes – Hunters, Lindsey, Mountain, Neff, Spring and Weekiwachee Prairie 

� Highland County Lakes – Angelo, Anoka, Denton, Jackson, Little Lake Jackson, June-in-Winter, 

Letta, Lotela, Placid, Tulane and Verona 

� Hillsborough County Lakes – Alice, Allen, Barbara, Bird, Brant, Calm, Charles, Church, Crenshaw, 

Crescent, Crystal, Cypress, Dan, Deer, Dosson, Echo, Ellen, Fairy [Maurine], Garden, Halfmoon, 

Harvey, Helen, Hobbs, Horse, Jackson, Juanita, Little Moon, Merrywater, Mound, Platt, Pretty, 

Rainbow, Reinheimer, Round, Saddleback, Sapphire, Stemper, Strawberry, Sunset, Sunshine, 

Taylor and Virginia. 

� Hillsborough River (lower segment) 

� Hillsborough River – upper segment (including Crystal Springs) 

� Levy County Lake – Marion 

� Peace River (middle segment) 

� Peace River (three upper segments – "low" minimum flows) 

� Lower Peace River 

� Northern Tampa Bay – 41 Wetland sites 

� Northern Tampa Bay – 7 Wells – Floridan Aquifer/Saltwater Intrusion 

� Pasco County Lakes – Bell, Big Fish, Bird, Buddy, Camp, Clear, Green, Hancock, Iola, 

Jessamine, King, King [East], Linda, Middle, Moon, Padgett, Parker aka Ann, Pasadena, Pasco, 

Pierce, and Unnamed #22 aka Loyce 

� Polk County Lakes – Annie, Bonnie, Clinch, Crooked, Crystal, Dinner, Eagle, Lee, Mabel, McLeod, 

North Lake Wales, Parker, Starr, Venus and Wales 

� Myakka River (upper freshwater segment) 

� Sulphur Springs (Hillsborough County) 

� Sumter County Lakes – Big Gant, Black, Deaton, Miona, Okahumpka and Panasoffkee 

� SWUCA – Floridan Aquifer 

� Tampa Bypass Canal 

� Weekiwachee River System and Springs (includes Weeki Wachee, Jenkins Creek, Salt, Little 

Weeki Wachee and Mud River springs) 

61 

October 5, 2011

Proposed 2012 

Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule 

2011 

� Chassahowitzka River System and Springs (includes Chassahowitzka Main, Chassahowitzka #1, 

Crab Creek, Potter, Ruth and Blind springs) 

� Gum Springs Group 

� Hillsborough County Lakes – Carroll (S15-T28S-R18E), Hooker (S12-T29S-R203), Wimauma 

(S09-T32S-R20E) 

� Homosassa River System and Springs (includes Halls River Springs, Southeast Fork Homosassa 

River Springs, Homosassa Main Springs, Hidden River Springs) 

� Lower Myakka River System 

� Marion County Lakes – Bonable (S31-T15S-R18E), Little Bonable (S30-T15S-R18E), Tiger (S32- 

T15S-R18E) 

2012 

� Brooker Creek 

� Crystal River System and Kings Bay Springs 

� Hernando County Lakes – Tooke (S13-T22S-R17E), Whitehurst (S17-T22-R18) 

� Hillsborough County Lakes – Kell (S01-T27S-R18E), Keene (S07-T27S-R19E), Hanna (S18- 

T27S-R19E), Raleigh (S27-T27S-R17E), Rogers (S27-T27S-R17E), Starvation (S21-T27S-R18E) 

� Little Manatee River 

� Lower Withlacoochee River System 

� Manatee River System (includes Braden River Estuary) 

� North Prong Alafia River 

� Pithlachascotee River System 

� Polk County Lake – Hancock (S08-T29S-R25E) 

� Rainbow River and Springs (includes Bubbling and Waterfall Springs) 

� South Prong Alafia River 

� Upper and Middle Withlacoochee River System (Green Swamp) 

� Upper Peace River "Middle" and "High" Minimum Flows 

2013 

� Charlie Creek 

� Horse Creek 

� Prairie Creek 

� Polk County Lakes – Lowery (S14-T27S-R26E), Amoret (S24-T30S-R27E), Aurora (S13-T30S- 

R28E), Bonnet (S14-T28S-R23E), Easy (S19-T30S-R28E), Effie (S03-T30S-R27E), Little Aurora 

(S13-T30-R28E), Josephine (S13-T30S-R27E) 

� Shell Creek (freshwater segment) 

� Highland County Lakes – Damon (S03-T33-R28), Pioneer (S11-T33-R28), Pythias (S02-T33- 

R28), Viola (S14-T33-R38) 

� Polk County Lake – Trout (S34-T32-R28) 

2014 

� Cypress Creek 

� Bullfrog Creek 

62 

October 5, 2011

Proposed 2012 

Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule 

2015 

� Lower Peace River – Reevaluation 

� Polk County Lake – Eva (S32-T27-R27) 

Section-Township-Range (S-T-R) information is listed for lakes scheduled for minimum levels 

development to assist in locating individual water bodies. Similar information is provided for lakes 

with adopted minimum levels in Table 8-2, Rule 40D-8.624(12), Florida Administrative Code. 

All spring, freshwater river segments and estuarine minimum flows and levels will be submitted for 

voluntary scientific peer review. 

Notes: Changes being proposed to the Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule are attributable to 

the following: 

(1) Lakes Raleigh, Rogers and Starvation – Delayed pending development of an acceptably 

calibrated hydrologic model needed to evaluate the effects of structural alterations and changes to 

the water budgets of the subject lakes. 

(2) Polk County Lake (Lake Hancock) – Delayed pending completion of acquisition of lands 

associated with the upper Peace River recovery strategy. 

(3) Polk County Lakes (Lakes Amoret, Aurora, Bonnet, Easy, Effie, Little Aurora, Josephine, 

Lowery) – These lakes within the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) area delayed at the 

request of CFWI steering group pending development of a consistent minimum levels approach to 

be applied by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, South Florida Water Management 

District and St. Johns River Water Management District. 

(4) Upper and Middle Withlacoochee River System (Green Swamp), Chassahowitzka River 

System and Springs, Homosassa River Systems and Springs, and Lower Myakka River 

System – Minimum flows and levels reports on these water bodies have been peer reviewed; 

however, adoption of minimum flows and levels has been delayed to provide for additional public 

comment/discussion. 

(5) Manatee River System, Little Manatee River, Pithlachascotee River System, Crystal River 

System and Kings Bay Springs, Lower Withlacoochee River System, Rainbow River and 

Springs, and Upper Peace River “Middle” and “High” Minimum Flows – Behind schedule due 

to need to complete data analysis, model development/refinement and in some cases, to develop 

recovery strategies. 

(6) Little Manatee River and Brooker Creek – Delayed pending completion of peer review, which is 

expected before the end of the calendar year. Rule adoption anticipated in early 2012. 

(7) Shell Creek Estuary – Delayed pending development of a recovery strategy. 

(8) Charlie and Horse Creeks – Moved from 2012 to 2013 due primarily to recent work force reduction 

and the need to complete work on other water bodies. 

63 

October 5, 2011




Five-Year Water Resource Development Work Program 

Item 12 

Purpose 

Approve the proposed Five-Year Water Resource Development Work Program (Work Program). 


The Work Program (attached) is required by Florida Statute (F.S.) (Subsection 373.536(6)) to 

be prepared annually and must describe the District’s implementation strategy for the water 

resource development component of the approved 2010 Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP). 

The Work Program must be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) and specified state and local government officials within 30 days after the adoption of the 

District’s final budget. The District’s Work Program is due to DEP by October 27, 2011. 

The Work Program (attached) covers the period from fiscal year (FY) 2012 through FY2016. It is 

a comprehensive discussion of the District’s water resource development activities intended to 

assist in meeting water supply demands over a 20-year planning horizon. These activities 

include data collection and analyses efforts and 20 active water resource development projects 

the District is financially and technically participating in during FY2012. 

In 2008, DEP requested the District provide a distinct mechanism where projects funded in the 

current fiscal year budget, but not specifically mentioned in the RWSP, can be approved as 

consistent and incorporated into the RWSP. These projects would be eligible for state funding 

by this inclusion. In response to this request, staff now uses the Work Program to provide yearly 

demand projections and a listing of new water supply development projects suitable for 

inclusion in the RWSP. This addition provides the most current information on water supply to 

decision-makers. 

Within 30 days after the Work Program submittal, DEP must review and submit its findings, 

questions, and comments to the District. The review must include a written evaluation of the 

program’s consistency with promoting the goals of the RWSP and the adequacy of proposed 

expenditures. Within 45 days after receiving comments from DEP, the Governing Board must 

state in writing to DEP which of the changes recommended by DEP will be incorporated into the 

Work Program or specify the reasons for not incorporating the changes. DEP must then prepare 

a final evaluation report, including the District’s responses, and submit this report to the 

Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives. 


Approve the proposed Five-Year Water Resource Development Work Program for submittal to 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for review. 

Presenter: Brian J. Armstrong, P.G., Manager, Water Supply and Resource Development 

64

DRAFT 

2012 

Water 

Five-Year 

Resource 

Development 

Work Program 

65

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis 

of disability. This nondiscrimination policy involves every aspect of the District's functions, 

including access to and participation in the District's programs and activities. Anyone requiring 

reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact 

the District's Human Resources Director, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899; 

1-352-796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (Florida only), extension 4702; TDD (Florida only) 1-800- 

231-6103; or email to ADACoordinator@swfwmd.state.fl.us. 

2 

66

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction/Purpose ..................................................................................…........... 4 

II. Water Resource Development..............................................................................…... 4 

A. Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................. 5 

B. Projects.................................................................................................................. 11 

III. Water Supply Development Assistance.................................................................... 29 

IV. Funding Sources....................................................................................................... 33 

V. Summary/Conclusions............................................................................................. 36 

APPENDIX A: 2011 Demands Update.......................................................................... 37 

APPENDIX B: Descriptions of New Water Supply Development Projects.................. 43 

3 

67

Introduction/Purpose 

The District is required to update its Five-Year Water Resource Development Work Program (Program) as 

a part of its annual budget reporting process, pursuant to Subsection 373.536(6), Florida Statutes (F.S.): 

“The program must describe the district's implementation strategy for the water resource development 

component of each approved regional water supply plan developed or revised under s. 373.709. The 

work program must address all the elements of the water resource development component in the 

district's approved regional water supply plans and must identify which projects in the work program 

will provide water, explain how each water resource development project will produce additional water 

available for consumptive uses, estimate the quantity of water to be produced by each project, and 

provide an assessment of the contribution of the district’s regional water supply plans in providing 

sufficient water to meet the water supply needs of existing and future reasonable-beneficial uses for a 1in-10-year 

drought event.” This report represents the District’s eleventh Five-Year Water Resource 

Development Work Program and covers the period from fiscal year (FY) 2012 through FY2016. This 

Program is consistent with the planning strategies of the recently adopted 2010 Regional Water Supply 

Plan (RWSP), which identifies projects throughout the District region. 

Beginning with the FY2009 Program, appendices are attached to include an update of demand 

projections and descriptions of new water supply development projects introduced in the District’s annual 

budget. These additions were included at the request of the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) as an annual update and as an effort to give decision-makers the most current 

information on water supply. 

Water Resource Development 

Chapter 373, F.S., defines Water Resource Development as “the formulation and implementation of 

regional water resource management strategies, including the collection and evaluation of surface 

water and groundwater data; structural and nonstructural programs to protect and manage water 

resources; the development of regional water resource implementation programs; the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of major public works facilities to provide for flood control, surface and 

underground water storage, and groundwater recharge augmentation; and related technical assistance 

to local governments and to government-owned and privately owned water utilities.” (Subsection 

373.019(22), F.S.) 

The intent of Water Resource Development projects and activities is to enhance the amount of available 

water. The District is primarily responsible for Water Resource Development projects. The Water 

Resource Development component of the District’s RWSP identifies a series of data collection and 

analysis activities the District is undertaking which meet this statutory definition. The implementation 

strategy for this category is contained in the Water Resource Development (Data Collection and 

Analysis) section of this report. 

In addition for purposes of annual budget reporting, Water Resource Development “Projects” are 

categorized as regional projects designed to create an identifiable, quantifiable supply of water for existing 

and/or future reasonable beneficial uses. The implementation strategy for this more narrowly defined 

category is contained in the Water Resource Development (Projects) section of this report. 

4 

68

Water Resource Development (Data Collection and Analysis) 

The District budgeted significant funds in FY2012 to implement the Water Resource Development 

component of the RWSP. The activities summarized in Table 1 are mainly data collection and analysis 

activities that support water supply development by local governments, utilities, regional water supply 

authorities, and others. The table indicates that approximately $20.2 million will be allocated annually 

toward these activities between FY2012 and FY2016 for a total of approximately $101.3 million. Because 

budgets for the years beyond FY2012 have not yet been developed, funds for FY2013 through FY2016 are 

estimates set equal to FY2012 funding. The annual expenditure for data collection and analysis activities 

has actually decreased substantially over the prior five year period; from $57 million in FY2008, $38 

million in FY2009, $31 million in FY2010, and $26 million in FY2011. Funding for these activities is from 

the District's Governing Board, water supply authorities, local governments, and the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS). Each of the activities in Table 1 is further described below. 

Hydrologic Data Collection - (Chapter 7, Section 1.1.0 of the 2010 RWSP) The District has 

a comprehensive hydrologic conditions monitoring program. This program includes data collected by 

District staff and permittees as well as data collected as part of the District’s cooperative funding program 

with the USGS. Data collected from this program allows the District to gage changes in the health of 

water resources, monitor trends in conditions, identify and analyze existing or potential resource 

problems, and develop programs to correct existing problems and prevent future problems from 

occurring. The primary hydrologic conditions that are monitored include rainfall, evapotranspiration, 

lake levels, discharge and stage height of major streams and rivers, groundwater levels, various water 

quality parameters of both surface and groundwater (including springs), and water use. In addition, the 

District monitors ecological conditions as they relate to both potential water use impacts and changes in 

hydrologic conditions. The District also monitors data submitted by Water Use Permit (WUP) holders to 

ensure compliance with permit conditions and to assist in monitoring hydrologic conditions. 

Regional Observation Monitoring Program (ROMP) - (Chapter 7, Section 

1.2.0 of the 2010 RWSP) The purpose of the ROMP program is to develop a regional groundwater 

monitoring network through well construction and an understanding of the hydrogeologic framework of 

the District through core drilling and aquifer testing. Data from these monitoring sites is used to evaluate 

seasonal and long-term changes in groundwater levels and quality, and the interaction and connectivity 

between ground and surface water bodies. Geophysical logging is also conducted on existing wells to 

provide data on well construction, hydrogeology, and water quality, most of which is incorporated into the 

District’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Impacts resulting from increased groundwater 

withdrawals over nearly four decades have been documented and assessed through analysis of data 

collected from the ROMP well network. These impacts directly affect the District’s planning, regulatory 

policies, and programs. For example, ROMP data is used during the permitting process to model 

potential impacts of new uses and to monitor existing permittees to prevent impacts to natural systems 

and existing legal users. During construction of new monitor wells, valuable hydrogeologic information 

such as cores, aquifer hydrologic characteristics, water quality data, and potentiometric levels are 

collected. From these data, aquifers and confining units are delineated, location of the 

freshwater/saltwater interface is determined, and water quality within aquifers is characterized. The 

installation of long-term groundwater monitoring sites for the next few years will continue to target the 

District’s water use caution areas (WUCAs) and the Northern Planning Region, as well as the Lower 

Floridan aquifers where additional data is needed to support the evaluation of deeper alternative sources. 

This will provide additional data for the Water Resource Assessment Projects (WRAPs), Central Florida 

Water Initiative, and aquifer characteristics inventory, along with well performance data for wellhead 

protection projects. 

5 

69

70 

Table 1. Major Water Resource Development Data Collection and Analysis Activities 

WRD Data Collection and 

Analysis Activity 

FY2012 

Costs ($) 

FY2013 

Costs ($) 

FY2014 

Costs ($) 

FY2015 

Costs ($) 

FY2016 

Costs ($) 

Total Costs 

($) 

Funding Source 

1) Hydrologic Data Collection $3,471,742 $3,471,742 $3,471,742 $3,471,742 $3,471,742 $17,358,710 SWFWMD, 

USGS 

2) Regional Observation 

Monitoring Program 

3) Quality of Water 

Improvement Program 

4) Minimum Flows and 

Levels Program 

5) Flood Control Projects: 

a) Data Collection Included in 

Hydrologic 

Data 

b) Remediating Existing 

Problems 

$2,382,694 $2,382,694 $2,382,694 $2,382,694 $2,382,694 $11,913,470 SWFWMD, local 

partnerships 

$651,299 $651,299 $651,299 $651,299 $651,299 $3,256,495 SWFWMD 

$2,911,553 $2,911,553 $2,911,553 $2,911,553 $2,911,553 $14,557,765 SWFWMD 

Collection 

Included in 

Hydrologic 

Data 

Collection 

Included in 

Hydrologic 

Data 

Collection 

6 

Included in 

Hydrologic 

Data 

Collection 

Included in 

Hydrologic 

Data 

Collection 

SWFWMD, 

USGS 

$9,832,264 $9,832,264 $9,832,264 $9,832,264 $9,832,264 $49,161,320 SWFWMD, Local 

Government 

Cooperators 

c) Lake Levels Program $106,751 $106,751 $106,751 $106,751 $106,751 $533,755 SWFWMD 

6) Hydrologic Investigations: 

a) USGS Hydrologic Studies $585,250 $585,250 $585,250 $585,250 $585,250 $2,926,250 SWFWMD/USGS 

Local 

Government 

b) Water Resource 

Assessment Projects 

Cooperators 

$315,240 $315,240 $315,240 $315,240 $315,240 $1,576,200 SWFWMD/USGS 

Local 

Government 

Cooperators 

Totals $20,256,793 $20,256,793 $20,256,793 $20,256,793 $20,256,793 $101,283,965 

Source for FY2012: SWFWMD FY2012 Summarized Programmatic Activities Report on September 28, 2011.

Quality of Water Improvement Program (QWIP) – (Chapter 7, Section 1.3.0 of 

the 2010 RWSP) The QWIP was established in 1974 through Chapter 373, F.S., to restore groundwater 

conditions altered by well drilling activities. The QWIP's primary goal is to preserve groundwater and 

surface water resources through proper well abandonment. Plugging abandoned artesian wells eliminates 

the waste of water at the surface and the degradation of groundwater from inter-aquifer contamination. 

Thousands of wells constructed prior to current well construction standards were often deficient in casing, 

which interconnected aquifers and enabled poor-quality mineralized water from deeper aquifers to 

migrate into shallower aquifers that contain potable-quality water. These wells also allow mineralized 

water to flow to the surface and contaminate surface water. 

Plugging wells involves filling the abandoned well with cement. Isolation of the aquifers is reestablished 

and the mixing of varying water qualities and free flow is stopped. Prior to plugging an abandoned well, 

geophysical logging is performed to determine the proper plugging method and to provide groundwater 

quality and geologic data for inclusion in the District's database. The emphasis of the QWIP is primarily 

in coastal portions of the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) where the Upper Floridan aquifer is 

confined and flowing wells can exist. Historically, the QWIP has proven to be a cost-effective method to 

prevent waste and contamination of potable ground and surface waters. In January 1994, the District 

increased QWIP funding as an incentive for property owners to comply with well plugging requirements 

contained in the Florida Statutes. 

Minimum Flows and Levels Program - (Chapter 2, Part B of the 2010 RWSP) 

Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) create hydrologic and ecological standards that can be used for 

permitting and planning decisions concerning how much water may be safely withdrawn from a water 

body. Florida law (Chapter 373.042, F.S.) requires the state water management districts or the DEP to 

establish MFLs for aquifers, surface watercourses, and other surface water bodies to identify the limit at 

which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area. 

Rivers, streams, estuaries and springs require minimum flows, while minimum levels are developed for 

lakes, wetlands and aquifers. MFLs are adopted into District rules (Chapter 40D-8, Florida 

Administrative Code) and are used in the District’s water use permitting program to ensure that 

withdrawals do not cause significant harm to water resources or the environment. 

The District’s process for establishing MFLs includes an independent scientific peer review and an 

opportunity for interested stakeholders to participate in a public review, both of which are considered by 

the Governing Board when deciding whether to adopt a proposed MFL. District monitoring programs 

also provide data for evaluating compliance with the adopted MFLs, determining the need for recovery 

strategies and analyzing the recovery of water bodies where significant harm has been established. 

Flood Control Projects – (Chapter 7, Section 1.4.0 of the 2010 RWSP) The District undertakes 

a number of flood protection activities. These activities include data collection, the Watershed 

Management Program (WMP), and the Lake Levels Monitoring Program. Each of these flood protection 

efforts is described below: 

a. Data Collection - Data collection related to flood protection includes the regular assembly of 

information on such key indicators as rainfall, water levels, and stream flows. The District’s 

capability to assist in flood control has continued to improve during the past several years with the 

expansion of the District’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. This 

computerized data collection system comprises the cornerstone of the District’s flood data collection 

through a Districtwide network of more than 278 continuous water level and rainfall data collection 

stations. These stations are considered "near-real time,” meaning the data are available to District 

staff within minutes of being measured. These data are augmented by 56 remote data loggers that 

record continuous water level and rainfall data until the data are manually downloaded to a computer 

in the field by a technician. 

7 

71

The SCADA system provides an early warning mechanism that allows flood problems to be 

anticipated by observing water level and rainfall trends. This information, which is automatically 

transmitted to District headquarters by radio, allows the District to operate its structures much more 

effectively during rainfall events and provides limited capability to remotely operate gates at water 

control structures. The system was designed with several fail-safe components to keep it operational 

during major storm events, when traditional communication lines may be inoperable. 

The amount and detail of rainfall and stream level data now available for use by modelers has 

expanded significantly in recent years. In addition to the 141 rainfall sites on SCADA, the District 

operates 42 other recording rainfall gauges without telemetry. These instruments record rainfall 

accumulations every 15 minutes transmitting data hourly or daily. More recording rain gauges are 

being installed to develop a dense, Districtwide network of precipitation data. 

The USGS has monitored flow on all major rivers and streams in west-central Florida during the past 

few years, mostly through a cooperatively funded program with the District. The USGS has 

instrumented 130 surface water sites on these rivers and streams with data collection instruments 

that have the capability to relay data in near-real time by satellite. These data are posted on the 

USGS’ Internet site, increasing accessibility for the many entities that use this information. 

b. Watershed Management Program (WMP) - While much of the District’s focus is on 

flood prevention, existing problem areas can be addressed in numerous ways. An example is the 

WMP, which is being implemented by the District in cooperation with local governments. The WMP 

evaluates the capacity of a watershed to protect, enhance and restore water quality and natural 

systems, while achieving flood protection. It identifies ways to effectively coordinate and implement 

watershed management strategies and has five elements: (1) collecting topographic information to 

delineate surface features and understand the boundaries of each watershed, (2) developing a 

watershed evaluation using the topographic information, (3) determining whether a watershed can 

provide adequate water for water supply and the environment and provide flood protection and good 

water quality, (4) implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to improve a watershed 

when its level of service is below targets assigned by local governments, and (5) maintenance of 

watershed information to account for changes to watershed features produced by new growth, land 

alteration, and other natural or anthropogenic events. 

Local governments and the District combine their resources and exchange watershed data to 

implement the WMP. The District will create coordination documents for each county government 

(and city government as requested) to address coordination and enhance cooperation. Local 

governments’ capital improvement plans and the District’s Cooperative Funding Initiative will 

provide funding for local elements of the WMP. Additionally, flood hazard information generated by 

watershed evaluations is used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to revise the 

Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Since the WMP may change based on growth and shifting 

priorities, decision-makers will have opportunities throughout the program to determine when and 

where funds are needed. 

c. Lake Levels Monitoring Program - The District’s Lake Levels Monitoring Program was 

established in the 1970s and provides the adopted management levels for over 400 lakes throughout 

the District. Gages are maintained and monitored to provide data necessary for determining 

hydrologic conditions, flood control assessments, water budgets, and the development of minimum 

lake levels. Flood stage information from this program is used by many local governments in 

regulating development adjacent to lakes, as well as by the District in public flood protection 

education efforts. 

8 

72

Hydrologic Investigations – (Chapter 7, Section 1.5.0 of the 2010 RWSP) Hydrologic 

investigations include USGS Hydrologic Studies and detailed District studies entitled WRAPs, each of 

which is described below: 

a. USGS Hydrologic Studies - The District has a long-term cooperative funding program with 

the USGS to collect hydrologic data and conduct regional hydrogeologic investigations. The goals of 

this program are to monitor for changes in the hydrologic system and improve the understanding of 

cause and effect relationships. Funding for this program is generally on a 50/50 cost-share basis; 

however, this varies based on whether other cooperators are involved in the project and whether 

requests for non-routine data collection or special project assignments are implemented. Hydrologic 

data collection is a large part of the cooperative funding program and is closely coordinated with the 

District’s Hydrologic Data Section. 

Regional investigations of the hydrogeology of the District are an important aspect of the cooperative 

program. These investigations are intended to augment work conducted by the District and are 

focused on improving the understanding of cause and effect relationships and developing analytical 

tools to be used in resource evaluations. These investigations have included: (1) development of 

computer models of the regional groundwater flow systems for the District, Highlands Ridge area, 

Hardee and DeSoto counties, Cypress Creek, Cross Bar, and Morris Bridge wellfields, and the St. 

Petersburg aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) site; (2) detailed analysis of the hydrologic budgets for 

two benchmark lakes (Lucerne and Starr); (3) hydrogeologic characterization of the intermediate 

aquifer; (4) hydrologic assessments of the Peace and Alafia rivers; and (5) investigation of the 

hydrology of the upper Hillsborough River basin. In recent years, this program has included projects 

to determine the effects of using groundwater to augment stressed lakes and investigation of factors 

influencing coastal spring flows. Ongoing projects include: characterizing the hydrology of Tsala 

Apopka Lake, assessing and quantifying factors affecting long-term water level trends in the central 

Florida area, assessing the effects of changes in the potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan 

aquifer on surface features in the wellfield areas of Northern Tampa Bay, and developing a regional 

groundwater model of the central Florida area to assess long-term groundwater availability in the 

area. 

b. Water Resource Assessment Projects (WRAPs) - In the late 1980s, the District 

initiated a program to conduct WRAPs to assess water availability in several regions and to support 

the development and establishment of MFLs. These projects are detailed assessments of regional 

water resources and include intensive data collection and monitoring to characterize hydrologic 

conditions and determine effects of water withdrawals. There are five areas in the District for which 

WRAPs were initiated. The first three WRAPs were initiated in the late 1980s and early 1990s for the 

Northern Tampa Bay (NTB), Eastern Tampa Bay (ETB), and Highlands Ridge (HR) areas. These 

projects were initiated in response to declining lake and wetland water levels and the increased inland 

movement of the freshwater/saltwater interface. In the mid-1990s, a fourth WRAP was initiated that 

encompassed the southern portion of the District, including the ETB and HR WRAPs. A fifth WRAP 

is being conducted for the northern portion of the District, primarily focusing on areas north of Pasco 

County. The data collection element for the Northern District WRAP was initiated in 1998 to 

determine baseline hydrologic conditions. The ETB WRAP was completed in 1993 and the NTB 

WRAP was completed in 1996. The Southern District and Northern District WRAPs are ongoing and 

principally include expansion of the data collection networks, updating groundwater flow models for 

the areas, and continued resource monitoring. As these projects progress they provide the foundation 

for determining water availability and can assist in the establishment of MFLs. Information and 

analyses developed from these projects provide the technical foundation for determining water 

availability and are used in the establishment and monitoring of MFLs. This information is also used 

to establish resource management programs in critical areas of the District. 

In 1999, the District initiated the NTB Phase II investigation as a follow-up to the NTB WRAP. 

Through a series of projects, this study continued assessments of the biologic and hydrologic systems 

in NTB to support the ongoing development of MFLs, water resources recovery, water use permitting, 

and environmental resource permitting. A key component of the NTB Phase II study was the 

9 

73

assessment and expansion of the network of hydrologic and biologic data collection sites maintained 

by both the District and Tampa Bay Water. Impacts to surface water features are generally the most 

limiting factor to water supply development in the NTB area. Because the data from monitoring sites 

in surface water features will form the basis of decisions concerning key water management issues, it 

is critical that data in the NTB area be collected for various types of systems throughout the study 

area. Phase III of this effort was initiated in conjunction with the District’s adoption of the second 

phase of the NTB Recovery Plan (Chapter 40D-80, Florida Administrative Code) in 2009. Key 

components to this phase of the project will include the continued development of MFLs, continued 

assessment of water resource restoration techniques, and the assessment of water resource recovery 

based on reduced levels of groundwater withdrawal. 

10 

74

Water Resource Development (Projects) 

The District currently has 20 projects that meet the definition of Water Resource Development (WRD) 

“Projects.” The total cost of these projects is approximately $211.1 million and a minimum of 67 million 

gallons per day (mgd) of additional water supply will be produced or conserved. At the start of the fiscal 

year, October 1, 2011, the District has approximately $7.7 million allocated in the FY2012 budget for these 

projects. Beyond 2013, it becomes difficult to accurately determine the amount of funding that will be 

allocated to the projects each year. Some large, multiyear projects such as the Lake Hancock Lake Level 

Modification and Outfall Wetland Treatment System are scheduled for completion before 2016, and some 

projects such as the Flatford Swamp Hydrologic Restoration have future phase options that require cost 

evaluation. District funding for a number of these projects is matched to varying degrees by local 

cooperators, including local governments, regional water supply authorities and others. In addition, a 

number of projects have received state and federal funding. District funds for these projects are being 

generated through a number of different mechanisms described in the Funding Sources section of this 

report. Following Table 2, each of the projects is described in detail. 

11 

75

76 

Table 2. Total Project Cost and FY2012 - FY2016 District Funding for Water Resource Development Projects 

Total Prior 

District 

Funding 

FY2012 


Cost 

1) Alternative Water Supply Research and/or Pilot Projects 

a) ASR Pretreatment 

Investigation ³ 

FY2013 


Cost 

FY2014 


Cost 

12 

FY2015 


Cost 

FY2016 


Cost 

Total Cost 

District + 

Cooperator 

$1,114,437 $229,385 $1,743,822 

b) Clearwater Groundwater 

Replenishment Project � $1,012,242 $9,242 $768,125 $3,650,859 

c) Polk County Aquifer 

Recharge to Relieve Flooding $260,124 $5,163 $498,381 

d) Polk Groundwater Recharge 

Investigation $198,381 $198,166 $774,296 

e) South Hillsborough Aquifer 

Recharge Program (SHARP) � $1,177,525 $21,754 $50,482 $50,482 $50,482 $50,482 $2,783,706 

f) Hydrogeologic Investigation 

of Lower Floridan Aquifer in 

Polk County ³ 

Funding Source¹ ² Quantity 

developed or 

conserved¹ 

SWFWMD, 

PRMRWSA, City of 

Bradenton, 

SJRWMD, SFWMD NA 

SWFWMD, City of 

Clearwater 3 mgd 

SWFWMD, Polk 

County 7-8 mgd 

SWFWMD, Polk 

County 0.22 mgd 

SWFWMD, 

Hillsborough County 1.8 mgd 

SWFWMD 

$0 $2,029,671 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $8,029,671 

TBD 

2) Agricultural Water Supply/Environmental Restoration Projects 

a) FARMS Program 

FDACS, SWFWMD, 

State of FL, private 

farms 

$20,581,309 $4,514,683 $34,806,927 

40 mgd 

b) Mini-FARMS Program $125,000 $75,000 $200,000 FDACS, SWFWMD 2 mgd 

c) Rocky Creek Lake 

SWFWMD, TBW 

Enhancement Project $4,170,781 $70,657 $4,411,465 

3.24 mgd 

d) IFAS BMP Implementation $100,000 $50,000 $350,000 SWFWMD, IFAS TBD 

e) Upper Myakka /Flatford 

Swamp Hydrologic Restoration 

SWFWMD 

/Implementation � � 

$5,781,502 $53,689 $900,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $48,788,784 

TBD 

f) Anclote River Structure 

SWFWMD, Pasco 

Changes to Maximize Storage 

County 

at South Pasco Wellfield 

$130,344 $2,478 $300,000 $857,822 

NA 

g) Punta Gorda RO Facility 


$4,519,660 $0 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $3,394,000 $0 $29,407,660 Punta Gorda 3 mgd

77 

Table 2 (Continued) Total Project Cost and FY2012 - FY2016 District Funding for Water Resource Development Projects 

Total Prior 


Funding 

FY2012 


Cost 

FY2013 


Cost 

FY2014 


Cost 

13 

FY2015 


Cost 

FY2016 


Cost 

Total Cost 

District + 

Cooperator 

3) Restoration of Minimum Flows to the Lower Hillsborough River 

a) Lower Hillsborough 

Recovery Strategy � $8,852,849 $0 $0 $0 $16,990,379 

b) Sulphur Springs Weir 

Modifications $278,164 $11,818 $551,225 

c) Pump Stations on Tampa 

Bay Canal $3,593,198 $150,070 $3,743,268 

4) Restoration of Minimum Flows to the Upper Peace River � 

a) L. Hancock Lake Level 

Modification $12,142,974 $90,804 $12,233,778 

b) L. Hancock Outfall 

Structure P-11 Replacement $5,254,948 $26,893 $5,281,841 

c) L. Hancock Outfall 

Wetland Treatment System � $30,243,498 $170,568 $30,414,066 

d) Peace Creek Canal 

Watershed � 

$4,807,225 $0 $5,589,936 

Funding Source¹ ² Quantity 

developed or 

conserved 1 


Tampa TBD 


Tampa NA 


Tampa 7.1 mgd 

SWFWMD, State of 

FL, Federal TBD 


FL NA 


FL, Federal TBD 

SWFWMD, Polk 

County, State of FL, 

FEMA 

Water Resource 

Development Projects - 

Totals $104,344,161 $7,710,041 $7,418,607 $7,950,482 $7,944,482 $2,550,482 $211,107,886 

1. Acronyms: TBD - to be determined; NA - not applicable; PRMRWSA - Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority; SJRWMD - St. Johns River Water Management 

District; SFWMD - South Florida Water Management District; FDACS - Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; IFAS - University of Florida Institute of Agricultural 

Sciences; TBW - Tampa Bay Water; FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

2. Funding identified as the State of Florida is described in the Funding Sources section of this report. 

3. Project is budgeted under category “1.2.1 - Research, Data Collection, Analysis and Monitoring.” 

4. Future funding budget estimates for which specific time frames have not yet been determined are distributed evenly over four years. 

5. Project is budgeted under category “2.3.1 - Surface Water Management.” 

6. Project is budgeted under category “2.2.2 - Water Supply Development Assistance.” 

7. Several of the projects included under Restoration of Minimum Flows to the Upper Peace River require substantial land acquisition. Expenditures for land purchases have totaled 

approximately $165 million with final costs possibly exceeding $200 million. 

8. Project is budgeted under category “1.1.3 - Other Water Resources Planning.” 

List of how Table 2 has been updated from the 2011 Work Program. 

a) New projects this year include: the Hydrogeologic Investigation of Lower Floridan aquifer in Polk County and the Anclote River Structure Changes to Maximize Storage at South 

Pasco Wellfield. 

b) Projects removed since last year include: Lake Jackson Recovery Implementation due to cancellation and Upper Peace Karst Berms due to completion. 

TBD

Alternative Water Supply Research/Pilot Projects 

The following projects are research and/or pilot projects designed to further the development of the 

innovative alternative water sources described in the RWSP. Included in these projects is research to 

improve the water quality and functionality of ASR systems, and feasibility projects for recharging the 

Upper Floridan aquifer with excess stormwater and reclaimed water. Although these projects are, for the 

most part, relatively small scale, their successful completion may lead to their development as major 

sources of water supply for the future. 

a. ASR Pretreatment Investigation (H046) 

Background – This project investigates methods to control the mobilization of arsenic occurring 

during ASR activities. This effort will help water suppliers meet the recently lowered drinking water 

standard for arsenic. There are five sub-projects being conducted as part of this activity, described as 

follows: 

1. Evaluation of Arsenic Mobilization Processes Occurring During Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

Activities - This project involved contracting with two different consultant teams to assess causes of 

arsenic mobilization and propose options for minimizing mobilization in the aquifer. 

2. Florida Geological Survey Bench Scale Leaching Study - This project conducted bench scale 

leaching studies on geologic core material from aquifer storage zones at different sites to determine 

if geochemical processes could be replicated in the laboratory. Information gained from this study 

was used to better assess options for minimizing mobilization. 

3. City of Bradenton Pilot Degasification Project - This project was a pilot project to design, permit, 

and construct a degasification system to remove dissolved oxygen from the injection water prior to 

storage at the City of Bradenton's ASR site. The project was co-funded by the Peace River Manasota 

Regional Water Supply Authority, SFWMD, SJRWMD and the City of Bradenton. The 

degasification system was designed to process water at 0.65 mgd at 99.98 percent dissolved oxygen 

removal, but is actually capable of flow rates as high as 1.1 mgd with the same removal efficiency. 

Cycle testing with degassed water is being performed under the City of Bradenton’s Potable Water 

ASR project. 

4. University of Florida Evaluation of Pre-Treatment Techniques and Operational Strategies for 

Controlling Arsenic Mobilization During Artificial Recharge and ASR - This project involved the 

evaluation of pretreatment methods to control arsenic mobilization being performed by the 

University of Florida. The project involves bench scale tests and development of a computer model 

to assess methods to minimize mobilization of arsenic in the aquifer. 

5. ASR Treatment Cost Efficiency Study - This project is to identify and test cost effective options for 

improving the treatment efficiency associated with removing dissolved oxygen from different 

sources of injection water (i.e., reclaimed water, direct surface water, and conventionally treated 

surface water). The first degas system constructed at the City of Bradenton facility struggled with 

clogging and fouling of the equipment. Methods to minimize this fouling and remove it as it occurs 

needs to be developed or improved for this method to be successful. There are additional methods 

to deoxygenate water that will be tested which may provide better performance or address unique 

water quality characteristics found at different facilities. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – One of the principal components of the 

surface and reclaimed water alternative source projects discussed in the RWSP is storage, because 

these sources are seasonally available. This project is discussed in Chapter 7, Section 2.1 in the 

Heartland, Southern, and Tampa Bay regional volumes of the RWSP. The success of ASR will be 

critical to the future development of surface water and reclaimed water sources, and will affect the 

District's ability to meet future demands. These projects will further the development of ASR systems 

14 

78

y addressing the problem of mobilization of arsenic in the aquifer that contributes to the recovery of 

a lower quality of water. 

Status – The Phase 1 evaluation was completed in 2007, and the Phase 2 study was completed in 

2009. The Phase 3 degasification system was installed and permitted in September 2008. Injection 

of the first deoxygenated water into the aquifer began in December 2008 at approximately 1.0 mgd. 

Dry conditions left the City with very little extra water for cycle testing at this time and cycle testing 

was postponed until the following wet season. Recovery of the 6 million gallons of degassed water 

stored was completed in May 2009. A full-scale cycle test (160 million gallons) began in August 

2009. The test was completed in February 2011 and arsenic concentration was consistently below the 

drinking water standard for arsenic. Results from this test indicated that removal of dissolved oxygen 

does solve the arsenic mobilization problem. Phase 3 is running one more cycle test that will be 

completed in the summer of 2012 and the City is in the process of preparing an operation permit 

application. The final report for Phase 4 was received from the University of Florida and the project 

is now complete. Phase 5 is scheduled to commence in FY2012. The District has started discussion 

with the City of Bradenton to identify methods that may improve performance of the degasification 

system. 

Future Actions – The District and City of Bradenton are commencing the treatment cost 

efficiency study to reduce fouling in the degasification system and improve system performance. The 

pretreatment investigation is expected to influence the direction of other ASR projects and help 

ensure the viability of ASR as a water supply technology. 

b. Clearwater Groundwater Replenishment Project (N179) 

Background – This is a multiyear indirect potable reuse project utilizing highly treated reclaimed 

water to directly recharge the Upper Floridan aquifer at the City of Clearwater's Northeast Advanced 

Pollution Control Facility. According to the City, the project would enable them to utilize 100 percent 

of their reclaimed water, supplement water supplies within the aquifer, and possibly provide a 

seawater barrier to help prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast. Phase 1 was a one-year desktop 

feasibility study to assess water level improvements, regulatory requirements and water treatment, 

estimate construction costs and conduct preliminary public outreach activities. The City is moving 

forward with Phase 2, which includes permitting and installing recharge and monitor wells, collecting 

lithologic cores, performing aquifer testing and groundwater modeling, and conducting pilot 

treatment and aquifer recharge testing, and additional public outreach. If successful, this project 

could provide the City with the information needed to construct a full-scale aquifer recharge facility 

and potentially obtain up to 3 mgd in additional potable water supplies. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is listed as a WRD Project in 

the Tampa Bay regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, Chapter 7, Section 2.1, pages 140, 141. 

Status – The Phase 1 feasibility study was completed in May 2011. The City and District are 

preparing to commence Phase 2 in FY2012. 

Future Actions – Phase 2 is scheduled for completion by February 2014. If pilot testing is 

successful, it is anticipated that the City will request additional funding for plant construction in 

FY2014 - FY2016. 

c. Polk County Aquifer Recharge to Relieve Flooding and Augment 

Groundwater Supplies (L671) 

Background – This is a flood protection project to evaluate use of wells to expedite recharge of 

excess surface water naturally treated by surficial aquifer sands. This project can reduce flooding by 

diverting and expediting the storage of excess surface water through recharge to the Upper Floridan 

aquifer. The project will support other ongoing efforts by the District to restore and enhance historic 

15 

79

wetland and floodplain storage in the Peace Creek Drainage District. Additional benefits include 

recharging the Upper Floridan aquifer in the SWUCA and potentially providing future water supplies 

for the area. The concept of recharge wellfields is to allow water in the lower part of the surficial 

aquifer, which is filtered and treated as it moves downward through the surficial sediments, to 

recharge the underlying Upper Floridan aquifer via a series of collector wells that supply a valveregulated, 

gravity-driven recharge well. 

For Phase 1 of the project, one surficial aquifer test well, three monitor wells, and three nested wells 

were constructed at two test sites. Water quality sampling and analysis of the wells were completed to 

determine if surficial aquifer groundwater quality meets DEP standards for an Underground Injection 

Control (UIC) Permit. If water quality meets DEP requirements and the project is feasible, Phase 2 

will be implemented to construct an Upper Floridan aquifer test well and six Upper Floridan monitor 

wells at one of two test sites. One year of water quality sampling will be completed to determine if 

water quality standards are adequate for obtaining a UIC Permit. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is listed as a WRD Project in 

the Heartland regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, Chapter 7, Section 2.1, page 123. 

Status – At two test locations, one surficial aquifer test well and three monitoring wells were 

installed to collect monthly water quality samples to determine if groundwater quality meets UIC 

water quality standards. Aquifer performance tests were completed at both sites in October and 

November 2009. The final draft of the report is in process. 

Future Actions – Some delays were experienced due to contractual issues, delays in connecting 

electricity to the site, and turbidity in test wells that delayed sampling; however, the project activities 

have been accelerated where possible. The decision to construct Upper Floridan aquifer test and 

monitoring wells will depend on project feasibility and reasonable assurance that this project is 

permittable. 

d. Polk County Groundwater Recharge Investigation (N304) 

Background – This project includes a desktop feasibility study and pilot testing to monitor and 

quantify the effects of applying highly-treated reclaimed water in rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) in 

northeast Polk County. The County will use varying quantities of highly-treated reclaimed water 

flows from their Northeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility to recharge the RIBs, monitor 

water level changes in the surficial and Upper Floridan aquifers, and develop a groundwater model to 

better quantify the amount of recharge occurring in the aquifers. If successful, the project could 

provide the County with an option for mitigating the effects of potential future groundwater 

withdrawals. This would enable the County to beneficially use 100 percent of their excess reclaimed 

water flows while providing opportunities for developing additional water supplies in an area where 

water supply options are limited. Results from this project would also help the District's effort to 

obtain more data and information that would support other similar projects. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is listed as a component of the 

Polk County Aquifer Recharge project listed in the Heartland regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, 

Chapter 7, Section 2.1, page 123. 

Status – Work on the feasibility study commenced in August 2011. 

Future Actions – Field screening, technical investigations, and groundwater modeling are 

expected to follow through FY2012, and a final report is anticipated by January 2013. 

e. South Hillsborough Aquifer Recharge Program (SHARP) (N287) 

Background – This is an aquifer recharge pilot testing project that will assess the effects of using 

16 

80

up to 2 mgd of treated excess reclaimed water from the South-Central Hillsborough County reclaimed 

water system to directly recharge a non-potable zone of the Upper Floridan aquifer at the County's 

Big Bend ASR test well site. The project consists of the design, permitting, and construction of a 

reclaimed water recharge well system with associated wellhead and appurtenances, interconnects, 

and monitor wells. Project tasks include a multiyear aquifer recharge pilot study and groundwater 

modeling to evaluate water level improvements and water quality including metals mobilization. The 

project may allow the County to utilize excess reclaimed water flows, improve water levels within the 

Most Impacted Area of the SWUCA, and potentially provide a salinity barrier against saltwater 

intrusion, as well as additional mitigation offsets for future groundwater supplies. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is not specifically covered in 

the 2010 RWSP, but is consistent with the other WRD recharge projects in Pinellas and Polk counties 

that are listed in the 2010 RWSP. 

Status – Hillsborough County completed an aquifer recharge feasibility study in the Big Bend area 

in 2009. This study identified the initial steps to construct and evaluate a direct reclaimed water 

aquifer recharge pilot project. The County has an existing Big Bend ASR test well that will be used as 

a monitoring well for the aquifer recharge pilot testing program. The project commenced in August 

2011. 

Future Actions – Completion of the injection well facilities is expected in summer 2014. It is 

anticipated that test operations, analyses, and operational permitting will continue to 2017. 

f. Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Lower Floridan Aquifer in Polk 

County (P280) 

Background – This project explores the Lower Floridan aquifer in Polk County to assess its 

viability as an alternative water supply source and to gain a better understanding of the Lower 

Floridan characteristics and groundwater quality. This data will enhance groundwater modeling of 

the Lower Floridan, and determine the practicality of developing the Lower Floridan aquifer as an 

alternative supply in areas facing future water supply deficits. The initial exploratory well will be 

drilled at a site where pumped water could be disposed of properly if an aquifer performance test 

were to be performed. The well will provide geologic data, and water quality will be tested to 

determine its suitability for treatment and potential use for public supply in Polk County. If the water 

quality is suitable, a production well will be drilled and tested at the site in FY2013. An aquifer 

performance test will be performed on the production well to obtain transmissivity and leakance 

information to address the productivity of the aquifer at this site. This data will be added to District 

regional models to further understand the Lower Floridan aquifer regionally. Regardless of the 

suitability of the Lower Floridan aquifer at this site, the first exploration well will be added to the 

District’s monitor network of the Lower Floridan. 

Data from this project will be added to the geologic inputs in the Districtwide Regulation Model to 

assess potential withdrawal-related impacts to water resources in the District. If the tests prove that 

the water quality and quantity are suitable, the water and facilities could be available to a utility in 

Polk County. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – The completion of a 2006 Lower Floridan 

aquifer investigation in Polk County is discussed in the Chapter 1, Part B, Section 1 in the Heartland 

regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. A description of the Districtwide Regulation Model is provided in 

Section 5.4, page 18. The potential use of the Lower Floridan aquifer as new supply for Polk County is 

discussed in Chapter 4, pages 57-62. Brackish groundwater desalination of water pumped from the 

Lower Floridan is discussed in Chapter 5, pages 89-92. 

Status – District staff is coordinating with utilities in Polk County to select the initial well location. 

Well construction may commence in summer 2012. 

17 

81

Future Actions – The scope of this multiyear investigation may include drilling exploratory wells 

at up to six key locations, chosen as most likely to provide comprehensive information on aquifer 

characteristics as well as improving coverage of the Lower Floridan aquifer in the Districtwide 

Regulation Model. 

Agricultural Water Supply/Environmental Restoration Projects 

These projects employ many of the agricultural water conservation strategies described in the RWSP to 

reduce groundwater withdrawals by increasing the water use efficiency of agricultural operations. The 

projects have the added benefit of reducing agricultural impacts to surface water features. The projects 

are public/private partnerships where the District provides financial incentives to farmers to increase the 

water use efficiency of their operations. Included in this section are environmental restoration/MFL 

recovery projects that also develop the water resource. 

a. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) 

Program (H017) 

Background – The FARMS Program is an agricultural BMP cost-share reimbursement program 

consisting of many site-specific projects. The program is a public/private partnership developed by 

the District and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). The 

purpose of the FARMS initiative is to provide an incentive to the District’s agricultural community to 

implement agricultural BMPs that will provide resource benefits including water quality 

improvement, reduced Upper Floridan aquifer withdrawals, and enhancements to the water 

resources and ecology. 

The FARMS Program has five specific goals: (1) offset 40 mgd of groundwater within the SWUCA by 

2025, (2) improve surface water quality impacted by mineralized groundwater within the Shell and 

Prairie Creek watersheds, (3) improve natural systems impacted by groundwater withdrawals within 

the Flatford Swamp region of the Upper Myakka River watershed, (4) prevent groundwater impacts 

due to agricultural withdrawals within the northern areas of the District, and (5) reduce frost-freeze 

pumpage by 20 percent (180 MGD) within the Dover/Plant City WUCA. These goals are critical in 

the District's overall strategy to manage water resources. 

Each project’s performance is tracked to determine its effectiveness toward program goals. Since 

actual use of permitted quantities is dependent on hydrologic conditions, one of the objectives of 

FARMS projects is to reduce groundwater use regardless of hydrologic conditions. Therefore, 

FARMS projects not only offset groundwater use with surface water but also try to increase the overall 

efficiency of irrigation water use. Groundwater use reductions not only benefit the Upper Floridan 

aquifer but also can improve surface water quality in areas where groundwater is highly mineralized. 

The District has expanded the FARMS Program as a segment of the multifaceted Dover/Plant City 

Water Use Caution Area Recovery Strategy. Farmers in the Dover/Plant City area have historically 

pumped groundwater to protect their crops by irrigating when temperatures drop below freezing. 

Because most farmers in the area turn on their irrigation systems to their full capacity all at the same 

time, a tremendous strain is placed on the aquifer resulting in lowered groundwater levels. These 

reduced groundwater levels in turn have resulted in impacts to residential wells. During the 11-day 

freeze event in January 2010, approximately 750 residential wells were impacted. Moreover, 

significant freeze events resulting in well failures have occurred three times over the past 10 years. 

Financial incentives are now provided for alternative freeze protection methods such as tailwater 

recovery ponds and crop covers. The District increased its share of costs for projects that reduce 

groundwater pumping for frost/freeze protection in the Dover/Plant City area from 50 percent to up 

to 75 percent. 

The FARMS Program also funds a limited amount of non-project related outreach activities and data 

collection efforts, including IFAS Flatwood Citrus BMP Implementation. This is an outreach effort by 

18 

82

IFAS that furthers the goals of FARMS Program projects in the Shell, Prairie, and Joshua Creek 

watersheds, in addition to growers within Manatee, Hardee, Sarasota, DeSoto, and Charlotte 

counties. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – The FARMS Program is discussed in 

Chapter 7, Section 2.2 of each regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, and includes a list of active FARMS 

projects within the respective region. 

Status – As of September 2011, the projected annual average daily groundwater offset accomplished 

through the 120 active Board-approved projects in the FARMS Program is approximately 20.6 mgd at 

an approximate cost of $1.09 per 1,000 gallons. The FARMS Program annual average daily offset 

within the SWUCA has a projected offset of 17.996 mgd. Included in the 120 total FARMS program 

projects are 16 frost-freeze protection projects (post-January 2010 freeze event) located within the 

Dover/Plant City WUCA, which have a projected frost-freeze protection offset of 39.6 mgd. The 

locations of the 120 projects are: 86 in the SWUCA, 1 in the Northern Tampa Bay WUCA, 24 in the 

Dover/Plant City WUCA, and 9 not located in a WUCA. 

Future Actions – District staff continue to work with growers during the operational phase of 

projects to document the net improvement of water resources and develop partnerships to implement 

additional projects. 

b. Mini-FARMS Program (H529) 

Background – In 2005, the FDACS and the District agreed to co-fund the Mini-FARMS Program, 

which assists smaller growers (less than 100 irrigated acres) in establishing BMPs for water resources 

improvements within the District. Mini-FARMS is administered by both FDACS and participating 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and authorizes maximum reimbursements capped at $5,000 

per project or 75 percent of program eligible costs. Estimates indicate the Mini-Farms Program 

would offset up to 2 mgd of groundwater use by 2025, primarily through increased irrigation 

efficiencies and updated technologies. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – The Mini-FARMS Program is discussed as 

WRD in Chapter 7, Section 2.2 of each regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. 

Status – FDACS has traditionally been the primary funding source for the Mini-FARMS program. 

The District contributed to the program in FY2007, FY2011, and again in FY2012. Last year’s funding 

provided for 15 projects. There were 13 projects located in Hillsborough County, with eight involving 

cold protection. There was one project located in Polk County and one in DeSoto County. 

Future Actions – As with the FARMS Program, Mini-FARMS will provide cost-share for 

alternative frost-freeze protection methods in response to the 2010 freeze event in the Dover/Plant 

City WUCA. The District has increased its contribution in FY2012. 

c. Rocky Creek Lake Enhancement Project (B027) 

Background – The Rocky Creek Lake Enhancement project, located in northwest Hillsborough 

County, is a cooperative project with Tampa Bay Water to enhance chronically low lake levels 

resulting from groundwater withdrawals. The project is an important element in the Mitigation Plan 

for Tampa Bay Water's Consolidated Wellfields Water Use Permit issued by the District. 

Rocky Creek flows through Pretty Lake into Lake Armistead and then toward Tampa Bay. During wet 

periods when water levels meet or exceed the normal operating levels on lakes Pretty and Armistead, 

a portion of the water that would otherwise flow out of Lake Armistead and into Tampa Bay can be 

diverted to nearby Horse Lake and eventually into lakes Raleigh and Rogers. The District has 

adopted a minimum level for Horse Lake, and has proposed minimum levels for lakes Raleigh and 

19 

83

Rogers. The project is expected to raise lake levels in these lakes in order to work toward minimum 

level restoration. Higher lake levels will increase vegetative and habitat restoration and will enhance 

fish passage by joining lake lobes that separate when water levels are low. 

The project is being conducted in three phases. The objective of Phase 1 was to perform surface water 

modeling, identify the preferred engineering alternative, identify permitting requirements, and 

determine the level of landowner participation. Phase 2 principally consists of developing the 

engineering design of the water delivery system and obtaining the necessary permits. Construction 

and testing will be completed during Phase 3 of the project and is anticipated to result in installation 

of one or two pumps and approximately 5,000 feet of pipe ranging in diameter from 18 to 36 inches. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is discussed as a WRD Project 

in the Tampa Bay regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, Chapter 7, page 141. 

Status – The final technical memorandum for the Phase 1 Lake Water Budget Model was presented 

in January 2008. The Phase 2 hydrologic model report is currently in the review process. Land 

acquisition activities for an intake structure and pipeline at Pretty Lake have faced several setbacks 

resulting in project delays, but progress was made in recent months with land acquisition for pump 

and pipe installations. Public outreach has been conducted to present operating and pumping 

guidelines and to explain the project to residents of Pretty Lake and downstream Lake Armistead. 

Future Actions – Final design and permitting are anticipated to be complete in December 2012, 

and the Phase 3 construction may be complete by June 2013. 

d. University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS) 

BMP Implementation Project (H579) 

Background – The primary goal of this project is to assist the IFAS in promoting FDACS-adopted 

agricultural BMPs, typical FARMS projects, and other practices and preparation. District 

participation in this project will promote the establishment of additional FARMS projects, which will 

provide water resource benefits throughout the District. Assistance will be provided to growers in 

conducting site assessments, selecting applicable FDACS BMPs, and filing notices of intent to 

implement the practices. Staff will follow up with growers to determine whether they need help 

understanding or implementing the BMPs. Technical assistance may be provided directly or by 

coordinating with the appropriate FDACS staff or IFAS extension agents. Growers will be informed of 

available BMP-related programs offered by FDACS, the water management districts, and other 

entities. Field demonstrations, workshops, and other educational opportunities will be provided to 

growers and their employees. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project assists the FARMS Program 

in reaching the agricultural water conservation goal for the SWUCA of 40 mgd by the year 2025. The 

FARMS Program is discussed in Chapter 7, Section 2.2 of each regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. 

Status – To date, the FDACS has developed and adopted nine BMP manuals covering citrus, 

vegetable and agronomic crops, container nurseries, sod, silviculture, aquaculture, and cow/calf, and 

specialty fruit and nut operations. The BMPs involve water management systems including tailwater 

recovery systems, surface water use, and soil moisture monitoring activities. 

Future Actions – Preparatory and educational activities developed by this project were typically 

funded by the FARMS Program. Assistance from the IFAS and FDACS will help to increase the 

amount of District FARMS projects implemented. Furthermore, some of the BMP Implementation 

area includes the Peace River, Myakka River, Manatee River, Little Manatee River, and Alafia River 

watersheds, which are priority areas for the FARMS Program. 

20 

84

e. Upper Myakka/Flatford Swamp Hydrologic Restoration/ 

Implementation (H089) 

Background – Hydrologic alternations and excess runoff has adversely impacted Flatford Swamp 

in the upper Myakka watershed. This project will remove excess flows from Flatford Swamp and 

some portions of the surrounding area to improve the natural systems. The Flatford Swamp 

hydrologic restoration alternative will work to re-establish hydroperiods close to historic levels and to 

restore natural systems. 

Work from the Myakka River Watershed Initiative has shown there is no single BMP that will 

mitigate problems within the Flatford Swamp. The plan remains to address the issues with a multiprong 

adaptive management approach, but from the evaluations it is apparent that a larger 

"workhorse" project is needed to successfully bring hydroperiods within the swamp back closer to 

historic levels. The analysis of the hydrologic restoration alternatives has been divided into three 

parts: (1) withdrawal scenarios from the Flatford Swamp either by diverting flow before it reaches the 

swamp or removal from the swamp, (2) storage for excess water depending on where the end user of 

the excess water is located, and (3) transmission and water quality treatment to potential users. 

This project will include feasibility studies, design/permitting and construction of the alternatives 

identified from the results of the evaluation from the Myakka River Watershed Initiative. Also 

included will be training for District staff on use of the Upper Myakka Water Budget Model which will 

be utilized to track performance of the proposed BMPs after construction. A portion of the funding is 

anticipated to continue wetland restoration planning and to initiate studies with potential partners to 

explore the feasibility of taking the excess water affecting the swamp. Depending on the potential end 

user of the excess water removed from the Flatford Swamp area, benefits could range from 

groundwater use offset to recharge of the Upper Floridan aquifer near the Most Impacted Area. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is discussed as a WRD Project 

in the Southern regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, Chapter 7, page 136. 

Status – A memorandum of understanding outlining the development of a scope of work for a 

feasibility study to determine Mosaic's potential uses for excess water from Flatford Swamp was 

approved by the Governing Board at the November 2010 meeting and executed on December 22, 

2010. The cooperative funding agreement with Mosaic was executed on May 25, 2011; and the 

Request for Proposals for the joint feasibility study was advertised on May 20, 2011. A consultant has 

been selected and contract executed for investigation of required permitting activities, survey work, 

evaluation of reliability scenarios for the intercepting excess flows, determination of sediment buildup 

in the system and continued wetland restoration planning. The anticipated schedule for the 

Mosaic Feasibility Study is 15 months. 

Future Actions – If the alternative with Mosaic using excess water is determined to be feasible 

for both parties and funds are available, design and permitting will commence shortly thereafter 

followed by construction of the project. A best estimate for project completion is January 2018. In 

addition, a portion of project funding will be used to continue wetland restoration planning. 

f. Anclote River Structure Changes to Maximize Storage at South Pasco 

Wellfield (H075) 

Background – This is a project to implement BMPs from the District's WMP for the Anclote River 

watershed. The watershed covers an area approximately 40 square miles in Pasco County, south of 

State Road 54 and east of the Sierra Pines development. Tampa Bay Water’s South Pasco Wellfield is 

within this watershed and consists primarily of wetlands. Project tasks include the evaluation and 

selection of BMPs; and the design and contracted construction of structures in the South and Sandy 

21 

85

Branches of the Anclote River watershed. The project is expected to enhance wetland hydrology, 

natural systems, and water supply; and to reduce flooding in Sierra Pines development. The project 

will address service deficiencies by improving conveyance and adding storage within the 

improvement area. The project includes a stormwater management storage area to improve water 

quality by removing sediments and pollutants from the stormwater runoff. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is the implementation of 

BMPs identified in the District’s Watershed Management Program, which are components of WRD 

Flood Control projects discussed in Chapter 7, Section 1.4.2 in each regional volume of the 2010 

RWSP. 

Status – The District has been working with the County for several years through the WMP for the 

Anclote River watershed to develop a five year implementation schedule based on their projected 

funding levels. Topographic Information, Watershed Evaluation and Management Plan elements are 

being completed under a prior cooperative funding project with Pasco County. A new expenditure 

agreement has been executed between the District and Pasco County. Progress on this project has 

been delayed while parameters, models, and preliminary floodplains for Hernando, Sarasota, and 

Pasco counties are being developed for FEMA map modernization. The map modernization effort in 

these three counties has fully utilized staff and consultant resources. 

Future Actions –The BMP selection process is ongoing. The design and permitting of the first 

implementation project is expected to commence early in FY2013. 

g. Punta Gorda Reverse Osmosis Facility (H087) 

Background – The City of Punta Gorda’s Reverse Osmosis (RO) system is a component of a 

proposed MFL recovery strategy to restore minimum flows on Shell Creek. The City of Punta Gorda is 

developing a 3 mgd RO system to treat brackish groundwater for blending with their existing 10 mgd 

surface water treatment facility. The existing facility utilizes an in-stream reservoir on Shell Creek for 

storage. The MFL report, "Proposed Minimum Flows and Levels for Lower Peace River and Shell 

Creek" was published by the District in April 2010. The report details allowable reductions in flow to 

avoid significant harm to the ecosystem and water resources. These reductions in flow are sometimes 

exceeded due to the impoundment at the in-stream reservoir. The City modeled the allowable 

withdrawals at the facility to the reservoir capacity and Shell Creek's historical flow conditions, and 

concluded that 3 mgd of an alternate supply source was needed to reliably meet the City's 2020 

demands while maintaining the minimum flow on Shell Creek. In addition to assisting the MFL 

recovery strategy, the 3 mgd RO facility will provide a blending source to improve the facility’s water 

quality, assist the City with remediation of their ASR system, and allow the continued use of this 

existing surface water potable supply source within the SWUCA. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is a component of the 

District's MFLs Program, which is discussed in detail in Chapter 2, Part B in each regional volume of 

the 2010 RWSP. The necessity of a MFL recovery strategy for Shell Creek is described in the 

Southern regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, Chapter 3, pages 44, 45. This project is discussed in 

Chapter 4, pages 64, 65 of the Southern regional volume. 

Status – The project was initially evaluated as a potable water supply development project that 

would share water between the City and the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

(PRMRWSA). Due to a decline in projected demand and the availability of excess regional water, the 

PRMRWSA decided not to participate in the development of this project. The District has now 

categorized this project as a WRD Project for its ability to assist with the recovery of the Shell Creek 

MFL. The City provided a water treatment cost analysis and a preliminary design summary in May 

2010. In May 2011, the DEP extended a variance for water quality at the City’s treatment plant for an 

additional 5 years. The variance includes provisions to allow additional time for the City to upgrade 

the facility based on economic indicators. 

22 

86

Future Actions – The project is currently on hold pending a decision from the City whether to 

proceed with final design and construction based on current budget limitations, permit requirements, 

and water demand projections. If the RO facility does not move forward, it may be necessary for the 

District to revise the recovery strategy for the Shell Creek MFL. 

Restoration of Minimum Flows to the Lower Hillsborough River 

Chapter 2, Part B of the 2010 RWSP (each regional volume) outlines the District's strategy for establishing 

MFLs for surface waters, aquifers, and surface watercourses. The District set minimum flows for the 

Lower Hillsborough River (LHR), Sulphur Springs, and the Tampa Bypass Canal in 2007. These MFLs 

have been incorporated as amendments to Rule 40D-8.041, Florida Administrative Code. Increased 

water use from the Hillsborough River Reservoir, surface water drainage alterations, reduction in surface 

storage, long-term rainfall patterns, and induced recharge due to groundwater withdrawals have all 

contributed to a reduction in low flows in the lower river. The LHR's actual flows are below the adopted 

minimum flows, and the development of a recovery strategy was required by Florida Statute. These 

projects are key portions of the recovery strategy to restore minimum flows to the LHR. 

a. Lower Hillsborough Recovery Strategy (H400) 

Background – The LHR recovery strategy outlines six proposed projects and a timeline for their 

implementation. Four projects are being jointly funded by the District and the City of Tampa, and 

two are to being implemented by the District. Implementation of specific projects is subject to 

applicable diagnostic/feasibility studies and contingent on any required permits. These projects and 

the estimated schedule of implementation are: Tampa Bypass Canal Diversions (2008), 

modifications to the weir (2010) and pump station (2011) at Sulphur Springs, the Blue Sink project 

(2011), the Morris Bridge Sink project (2012), an additional transmission pipeline project (2013), and 

the Investigation of Storage Options (2016). 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is discussed in the Tampa Bay 

regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, Chapter 7, pages 144, 145. The project is a component of the 

District's MFLs Program, which is detailed in Chapter 2, Part A. 

Status – Dependent on hydrologic conditions, water to help meet the MFLs for the LHR continues 

to be supplied by temporary pump stations that divert flows (6.5 mgd) from Sulphur Springs to the 

base of the City of Tampa Dam, and from the Tampa Bypass Canal (5.3 mgd). Four cooperative 

agreements with the City of Tampa for the recovery plan were approved in 2010. The agreement to 

modify the lower weir at Sulphur Springs was amended to allow additional permitting time, and 

additional design and construction to address manatee concerns. Construction of the lower weir 

modification is ongoing and near completion. The agreement for the upper weir modifications was 

also amended to fund construction of an alternative two-pump design to provide minimum flows 

simultaneously to the spring run and the lower river. The upper weir modification is scheduled for 

completion in 2012. 

Future Actions – The District is moving forward with two projects: construction of a pipeline 

from Blue Sink to the base of the dam, and the investigation of additional water sources and supply 

options that may be needed to meet minimum flows. 

b. Sulphur Springs Weir Modifications (H401) 

Background – A previous study of weir modifications was conducted by the City of Tampa with 

District cooperation in conjunction with the establishment of minimum flows for Sulphur Springs. 

This study indicated that if the weir was modified at the mouth of the spring run, the run could be 

better protected against salinity incursions. This weir would need to be low enough to allow fish 

passage during periods of high tides, but high enough to prevent salinity incursions. The City of 

Tampa proposed to install an operable weir so that adjustments can be made to protect the spring run 

23 

87

during times of low flow. The weir could also be raised to allow full access to the spring run during 

times of high flow. This project allows the City of Tampa to modify the weir so that maximum 

protection can be provided to the natural resources of Sulphur Springs, while making water available 

for potable supply and to meet minimum flows for the LHR. The project also investigated the 

feasibility of using Blue Sink to help meet minimum flows for the Lower Hillsborough River. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is discussed in the Tampa Bay 

regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, Chapter 7, pages 144, 145. The project is a component of the 

District's MFLs Program, which is detailed in Chapter 2, Part A. 

Status –The weir modifications required a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 

agreement with the City was amended to fund additional weir design specifications to address 

manatee access concerns that were raised in the permitting process. A portion of these funds were 

used to fund a feasibility assessment of using Blue Sink to help provide minimum flows to the LHR, 

which is an important part of the LHR recovery plan. The study was completed and it was concluded 

the Blue Sink project was feasible. 

Future Actions – Completion of the weir modifications is expected in early FY2012. The Blue 

Sink project is moving forward and is budgeted as a component of the Lower Hillsborough Recovery 

Strategy. 

c. Pump Stations on the Tampa Bypass Canal (H402) 

Background – Beginning January 1, 2008, the District became responsible for diverting up to 75 

percent of the 7.1 mgd of water from the Tampa Bypass Canal to the LHR in accordance with adopted 

minimum flow requirements. The diversion is achieved through two pump stations located on the 

Tampa Bypass Canal at structures S-162 and S-161, and a pump station located at the City of Tampa 

Dam. The minimum flows adopted for the LHR will ensure that natural resources associated with the 

LHR are protected from significant harm from consumptive water use. The increase of the minimum 

flow during the months of April, May, and June is to provide additional fresh water for the increased 

seasonal importance of the estuarine nursery habitat. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project is a component of the Lower 

Hillsborough Recovery Strategy discussed in the Tampa Bay regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, 

Chapter 7, pages 144, 145. The District's MFLs Program is detailed in Chapter 2, Part A. 

Status – Beginning December 31, 2007, leased pumps began diverting 7.1 mgd from the Tampa 

Bypass Canal’s middle and lower pools to the Hillsborough River Reservoir, and 5.3 mgd from the 

Hillsborough River Reservoir to the LHR immediately downstream of the City of Tampa Dam, 

meeting the requirements of the newly amended rule. The installation of permanent pumps at each 

of the above sites (Phase Two) was completed on April 1, 2008. Since that time the pumps have been 

operated by the City of Tampa in accordance with the approved recovery strategy for the LHR to meet 

minimum flows. 

Future Actions – Construction is planned in FY2012 for a permanent pump station to divert 3.9 

mgd from the Morris Bridge Sinkhole to the upper pool of the Tampa Bypass Canal, with a gravity fed 

connection to the middle pool. 

Restoration of Minimum Flows to the Upper Peace River 

Chapter 2, Part B of the 2010 RWSP (each regional volume) outlines the District's strategy for establishing 

MFLs for surface waters, aquifers, and surface watercourses. The District has minimum flows for upper, 

middle, and lower segments of the Peace River. Surface water drainage alterations, reduction in surface 

storage, long-term rainfall patterns, and induced recharge due to groundwater withdrawals have all 

contributed to a reduction in low flows in the upper Peace River. A requirement of MFL establishment is 

24 

88

the development of a recovery strategy for when actual levels are below, or are predicted to fall below, the 

established minimums. The actual flows of upper Peace River are below the adopted minimum flows, and 

the development of a recovery strategy is required by Florida Statute. These projects are key portions of 

the recovery strategy to restore minimum flows to the upper Peace River. 

a. Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project (H008) 

Background – The Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification project is part of the proposed 

strategy for achieving MFLs recovery for the upper Peace River established by the District. The goal 

of the Lake Level Modification project is to store water by raising the control elevation of the existing 

outflow structure on Lake Hancock and to slowly release the water during the dry season to help meet 

the minimum flow requirements in the upper Peace River between Bartow and Zolfo Springs. 

Historically, Lake Hancock fluctuated more than a foot higher than it has during the past several 

decades. The project proposes to increase the normal operating level from 98.7 feet to 100.0 feet by 

modifying the P-11 outfall structure, which will provide the storage to increase the number of days the 

upper Peace River will meet minimum flows. Increasing the operating level will also help restore 

wetland function for several hundred acres of contiguous lands to Lake Hancock, and provide 

recharge to the Upper Floridan aquifer through exposed sinks along the upper river. The project will 

further the District's recent efforts to restore minimum flows in the upper Peace River, which is a 

major component of the District's SWUCA Recovery Plan. 

This project is being conducted in 3 steps: Step (1) provided the preliminary evaluations and 

incremental probable costs for raising the normal high operating lake levels. The results of Step 1 

were presented to the District Governing Board in October 2004 and the decision was made to move 

forward with Step 2 of the project. Step (2) involved generating detailed information for submission 

of a Conceptual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), and to identify impacts to private lands for 

acquisition and other mitigation needs (environmental, facilities, etc). Major components of the 

Conceptual ERP include: pre- and post-condition analysis; private property, dwelling, environmental, 

and infrastructure mitigation; outfall structure operation characteristics; and an anticipated 

fluctuation schedule for the lake. Step 2 was completed in 2007. Step (3) is the implementation of 

the mitigation components described in the Conceptual ERP. 

The project is being coordinated with the Outfall Wetland Treatment System, which is intended to 

improve the quality of water released from the lake. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – This project and other components of 

Restoration of Minimum Flows to the upper Peace River are listed in Chapter 7 of the Heartland 

regional volume of the 2010 RWSP, pages 126-129. 

Status – The District is currently negotiating with private land owners to acquire their property or 

secure inundation easements necessary for the project. Of the 73 parcels necessary for the project, 68 

parcels containing 8,335 acres and 30 homes have been acquired or are under contract to purchase. 

An engineering contractor was selected in 2008 to implement Step 3, the design, permitting, and 

development of construction documents for mitigation required upstream of the P-11 structure. The 

District is currently working with FDOT to develop a Joint Partnership Agreement for Highway 540 

improvements. The ERPs for the Polk Parkway and City of Lakeland Cemetery mitigation have been 

obtained. Design is complete and an ERP has been submitted for the Old Florida Plantation 

connection and Lake Lena Run enhancements. A construction contractor for the P-11 structure 

replacement was selected in July 2011. 

Future Actions –This is a high priority project that has an accelerated schedule and District 

staff continues to make sure the project tasks are being completed on schedule. Construction 

elements are scheduled for completion in 2012. 

25 

89

. Lake Hancock Outfall Structure P-11 Modification Project (H009) 

Background – This project is directly related to the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification project 

and is contingent on the successful completion of the steps listed in the Lake Hancock Lake Level 

Modification project. This project involves the actual replacement of the present P-11 control 

structure to raise the normal operating water level by nearly 1.5 feet. The new P-11 water control 

structure design consists of two lift gates for flood control and two drop gates for releasing water to 

meet MFLs in the upper Peace River. 




Status – An engineering consultant completed the new P-11 design plans in May 2010. The District 

has received an ERP to construct the new P-11 structure from DEP which was issued on March 2, 

2010. The project faced a delay when a first round of construction bidding was met with several 

protests and petitions. Project construction rebid in April 2011 and the construction contract was 

awarded to the lowest responsive bidder in August 2011. 

Future Actions – The construction phase of the new P-11 control structure is currently scheduled 

from November 2011 through January 2013. 

c. Lake Hancock Outfall Wetland Treatment System (H014) 

Background – The goal of the Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment project is to improve water quality 

discharging from Lake Hancock through Saddle Creek to the Peace River. Historical data has shown 

that the Saddle Creek drainage basin contributes the greatest nitrogen load to the Peace River of the 

nine sub-basins in the Peace River watershed. Nitrogen has been identified as the primary target 

nutrient in restoring water quality in the Peace River and preventing degradation of Charlotte 

Harbor, a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) priority water body. The project is 

specifically identified in the DEP’s Peace River Basin Resource Management Plan (March 2007), the 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan and the 

Charlotte Harbor SWIM Plan. The Peace River ecosystem routinely suffers from algae blooms during 

periods of low flows and warm weather. These events not only affect the fish and wildlife associated 

directly with the river and estuary, but also affect the region's largest potable surface water supply 

system, operated by the PRMRWSA. Many of the basins along the Peace River, including Lake 

Hancock, have been identified by DEP as impaired under the Clean Water Act. Treating water quality 

of discharges from Lake Hancock is the most cost effective means of reducing nitrogen loads into the 

Peace River and Charlotte Harbor. 

The District has acquired a 3,500-acre property south of Lake Hancock. Portions of this tract of land 

are planned to be utilized for the outfall treatment project. An engineering consultant has been 

retained to conduct a feasibility study of treatment technologies, design and permit the selected 

alternative, and to provide construction management services. 

The project involves five tasks: (1) Research, Monitoring and Data Acquisition, (2) Feasibility Study, 

(3) Design and Permitting, (4) Construction, and (5) System Start-up and Operation. Task 1 provides 

information necessary for evaluation of various treatment technologies and for design of the full-scale 

treatment system. Task 2 is a feasibility study that involves two elements: (a) evaluation of treatment 

technologies and ranking based on expected performance, cost, proof of concept, and other factors; 

and (b) geotechnical and potential constructability testing. Task 3 involves design and permitting of 

the selected treatment system and includes preparing construction plans and specifications. A 

contractor has been procured through the competitive bid process for Task 4, construction of the 

treatment system. Task 5 involves treatment system start-up and optimization of system 

performance to achieve target nutrient removal. 

26 

90




Status – In February 2006, the District adopted a 27 percent nitrogen load reduction goal and 

selected this constructed wetlands project as the primary treatment mechanism. Project design was 

completed in December 2010 and all environmental permits were received. Construction commenced 

in September 2011 and is expected to take 20 months. 

Future Actions – The construction phase is expected to run through 2013. The District will be 

responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the wetland treatment system. 

d. Peace Creek Canal Watershed Management Project (H034) 

Background – This is a multiyear project to collect topographic information, evaluate the 

watershed, and to develop and conduct elements of the District's Peace Creek Canal WMP. 

The Peace Creek Canal watershed covers an area of approximately 230 square miles in Polk County. 

The District has identified the upper Peace River watershed, which includes the Peace Creek Canal 

system, as an area that has undergone significant land alterations including land clearing, draining 

and recontouring of lands for residential and commercial purposes, transportation, agriculture, 

recreation, timbering, power generation, ore and mineral extraction, and other land uses. These 

activities required extensive withdrawals of groundwater that has resulted in significant declines in 

the level of the Floridan aquifer system and flow in the upper Peace River. This project identifies 

future projects that will restore lost basin storage, improve water quality, provide flood protection 

benefits, and improve natural systems. 

In 2005, the District took on the responsibility to maintain and/or improve the water conveyance and 

storage capabilities of the Peace Creek Canal. In 2007, Polk County requested cooperative funding 

from the District for the acquisition of 13 residential properties along the canal that repeatedly 

flooded. The District provided funding ($109,673) to the County, as matching funds for the FEMA 

grant, to assist in acquiring these properties. The purchase of homes and property within flood-prone 

areas is a best management practice that is consistent with the District's WMP. 

The WMP provides a method to evaluate the capacity of a watershed to protect, enhance, and restore 

water quality and natural systems, while achieving flood protection. The information developed 

provides the science for the District's ERP program. It assists local governments: (1) with their land 

management responsibilities by establishing a level of service and developing BMPs to address level 

of service deficiencies, (2) provides a geodatabase and projects results from watershed model 

simulations for floodplain management, and (3) achieves water quality management through the 

Total Maximum Daily Loads process for their National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

permit requirements. In addition, the WMP will also define lake management levels for storage 

optimization and flood protection of the Winter Haven Chain of Lakes, identify and assess the 

impacts of new surface water storage sites within the canal, and analyze the potential for ecological 

restoration of seventeen sites located along the canal previously identified by the District. 




Status – The topographic information, watershed evaluation, immediate canal maintenance, and 

portions of the WMP are completed. Development of the WMP commenced in May 2005. 

Completed portions include the evaluation of approximately 13,000 acres of lakes and 13,000 acres of 

wetland areas for surface water storage potential to help improve natural systems and enhance flood 

protection. The project has been amended multiple times to include additional tasks to the scope of 

work such as the acquisition of 13 residential properties that routinely flooded, and new modeling 

27 

91

equirements necessary to update the FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The watershed 

model was recently completed in April 2011. The Draft WMP is under review. 

A canal Maintenance Evaluation Report was completed in May 2005 which identified short- and 

long-term maintenance activities to improve conveyance in the canal. In June 2009, The District 

approved a planned approach to secure permanent access rights for maintenance activities by 

obtaining voluntary conveyance of easement rights from individual property owners and through 

local government development orders as land transition occurs. Staff identified proposed 

maintenance easement corridor dimensions along the canal and coordinated with the City of Winter 

Haven and Polk County to review land use changes and right-of-way use needs. Local property 

owners were contacted to determine their interest in donating access rights. Sixteen sediment 

removal sites were established and two culvert replacements have been completed. The District 

provides aquatic plant maintenance in the canal under its operational budget and implemented a 

permanent spraying schedule in 2007. During the 2010 legislative session, a resolution was passed to 

abolish the Peace Creek Drainage District and subsequently transfer their responsibilities to the 

District with respect to the ongoing canal system operation and maintenance. 

Future Actions – The review of the Draft WMP for the Peace Creek Canal watershed is 

anticipated to continue in 2012. District staff will perform a detailed review of the watershed model 

and floodplain results; address external review comments; hold public meetings to present 

preliminary floodplain results; collect and address public comments; and present floodplain results to 

the District's Governing Board to obtain authorization to use the results to prepare Flood Insurance 

Rate Maps. 

28 

92

Water Supply Development Assistance 

Although not a required element of this report, the District’s water supply development assistance efforts 

have been included because of the significant magnitude of annual funding provided by the District. Local 

governments, regional water supply authorities, and public and privately owned water utilities typically 

have the principal role in water supply development projects; and the District provides assistance 

primarily through the Cooperative Funding Initiative. The District has an ongoing commitment to 

continue this funding in an effort to ensure there are adequate water resources to meet existing and future 

reasonable and beneficial uses. 

The District budgeted for 85 water supply development projects in FY2012. The projects are categorized 

below as: reclaimed water, conservation, and potable water projects. As shown in tables 3 through 6, the 

total amount of District funding in FY2012 for water supply development assistance is approximately 

$17.1 million. This is a substantial decrease from the $45.3 million budgeted water supply development in 

FY2011, $89.5 million budgeted in FY2010, and $128.7 million budgeted in FY2009. The decrease is 

primarily due to the nearly complete funding of large-scale potable water projects such as the PRMRWSA 

Regional Integrated Loop System phases. To a lesser extent, cooperative funding requests from local 

governments for reclaimed water projects has declined slightly due to current economic conditions. The 

current decline in cooperative funding has helped the District meet budget reduction goals in FY2012; 

although cooperators demand for Water Supply Development assistance is expected to fluctuate over the 

long term. 

Funding amounts of less than $10,000 generally represent management expenses allocated to previously 

funded projects. Most of these projects are matched on a 50/50 cost-share basis with local cooperators, 

including local governments, regional water supply authorities, and others. In addition, a number of 

projects have received state and federal funding. The “total project cost” typically includes the cooperator 

shares and other non-District funding sources. 

Detailed descriptions of new projects that are introduced this year and are consistent with the RWSP are 

available in Appendix B. These descriptions are being provided to give decision-makers the most current 

information on water supply. 

Table 3. FY2012 Reclaimed Water Projects 

Water Supply Development Assistance - Reclaimed Water 

Projects 

Braden River Utilities to City of Bradenton Reclaimed Water 

Interconnect 

Braden River Utilities to City of Sarasota Reclaimed Water 

Interconnect 

Brooksville Storage, Pumps, and Pipes Cobb Road WWTF to 

Southern Hills Development 

29 

FY2012 

Funding 

Prior 

Funding 

Total 

Project Cost 

$750,000 $0 $11,400,000 

$754,166 $0 $1,504,166 

$1,624 $2,739,940 $5,100,478 

Charlotte County Regional Reclaimed Water Expansion Phase 2 $253,757 $907,429 $2,811,186 

Charlotte County Rotunda ASR Well Conversion for Reuse Water $123,012 $1,383,775 $3,025,087 

Citrus County Reclaimed Water Transmission Line Extension $1,341 $152,435 $303,776 

City of Crystal River to Progress Energy Reclaimed Water $321,921 $0 $5,112,891 

City of Oldsmar Reclaimed Water ASR $514,468 $0 $1,745,020 

Clearwater Glen Oaks/Palmetto Reclaimed Water Distribution 

Project 

$753,155 $2,149,525 $5,792,680 

Clearwater Harbor Reclaimed Water $471,549 $639,995 $2,212,569 

Dade City Reclaimed Water Project $2,035 $1,961,505 $3,855,919 

District funding includes project management expenses. The “Total Project Costs” may include cooperator shares and other non- 

District funding sources. 

93

Table 3. (Continued) FY2012 Reclaimed Water Projects 

Water Supply Development Assistance - Reclaimed Water 

Projects 

30 

FY2012 

Funding 

Prior 

Funding 

Total Project 

Cost 

Englewood Reclaimed Water Supply Project $2,268 $135,444 $267,712 

FGUA Wet Weather Reclaimed Water Project $500,357 $0 $3,000,357 

Hernando County Reclaimed Water Transmission Phase 1, US19 $626,921 $0 $1,251,921 

Lake Tarpon ASR Testing Phase 4 $6,025 $2,376,676 $4,614,601 

Lake Wales Country Club Reuse $250,357 $0 $750,357 

Largo/Clearwater/Pasco - ASR/Interconnect $4,964 $444,127 $10,824,108 

Manatee County 10 MG Reclaimed Water Storage Tank $1,578 $2,256,300 $4,507,878 

Manatee County 10 MG Reclaimed Water Storage Tank #2 $1,253,859 $1,253,032 $5,006,891 

Manatee County Meadows Reclaimed Water Transmission $238,562 $0 $473,420 

Marion County Oak Run Reclaimed Water Project $1,278 $1,563,968 $3,123,246 

Marion County Spruce Creek Reclaimed Water Transmission $107,341 $707,435 $1,625,776 

North Port Reclaimed Water Transmission Expansion Phase 1 $585,768 $198,339 $3,896,107 

Palmetto Reclaimed Water ASR $2,472 $886,410 $2,357,410 

Pasco County Boyette Wet-Weather Reclaimed Water Reservoir $6,569 $9,438,150 $18,577,494 

Pasco County Overpass Road Reclaimed Water Transmission 

Main 

$1,686 $815,711 $1,609,317 

Pasco County Reclaimed Water Natural Systems Restoration $313,652 $364,420 $18,789,072 

Pasco County SE Regional Reclaimed Water Loop $4,992 $1,534,207 $3,168,771 

Pasco County Shady Hills WWTF/SR 52 Regional Reclaimed 

Water Interconnect 

$1,890,155 $4,986,252 $13,139,654 

Pasco County SR 52 East/West Regional Reclaimed Water 

Interconnect 

$7,634 $9,950,635 $18,638,635 

Pinellas County S. Reclaimed Water ASR Project $10,527 $552,019 $1,071,546 

Plant City Sydney Road Reclaimed Water Project $2,024 $1,994,643 $3,717,314 

Polk County NERUSA Holly Hill Reclaimed Water Storage, 

Pumping Station, and LFA Well 

$3,198 $2,037,457 $3,036,629 

Polk County NWRUSA Storage and Pumping Station $3,257 $2,274,820 $5,547,506 

Riverwood Community Development District Reclaimed Water 

Expansion 

$304,000 $0 $608,000 

Riverwood Community Development District Reclaimed Water 

Interconnect to Charlotte County 

$127,370 $228,839 $706,209 

Sarasota County N. Reclaimed Water ASR $2,472 $2,070,791 $6,505,066 

Southwest Polk County/Tampa Electric Reclaimed Water Project $4,132,334 $28,070,175 $73,246,596 

St. Leo University Reclaimed Water Storage Pond and Piping $1,712 $456,096 $907,808 

Winter Haven #3 Reclaimed Water Interconnect, Storage, and 

Pumping 

$691,725 $0 $5,504,225 

Total Reclaimed Water Projects $15,032,085 $84,530,550 $259,337,398 



94

Table 4. FY2012 Conservation Projects 

Water Supply Development Assistance - Conservation 

Projects 

31 

FY2012 

Funding 

Prior 

Funding 

Total 

Project Cost 

Bay Laurel Center CDD Toilet Rebate Program $32,241 $0 $62,241 

Braden River Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Project $1,383 $105,650 $207,033 

City of Venice Toilet Replacement Program $44,133 $0 $86,883 

East Pasco County Low Flow Toilet Rebate Program $3,383 $25,067 $42,850 

FGUA Conservation Initiative - Toilet Rebate Phase 2 $21,691 $0 $40,454 

FGUA Water Conservation Incentive Program $3,043 $24,183 $38,157 

Frostproof Toilet Rebate Project $1,383 $5,888 $10,121 

Home Depot Rainwater Harvesting and Commercial Reuse $326,269 $0 $781,269 

Indoor/Outdoor Water Conservation Program $28,439 $196,513 $224,952 

Lake Alfred Water Conservation Project $1,315 $11,138 $20,553 

Manatee County Indoor Water Conservation Retrofit Program $722 $72,476 $136,270 

Manatee County Toilet Rebate Program Phase 4 $1,445 $68,516 $133,033 

Manatee County Toilet Rebate Program Phase 5 $2,166 $111,831 $222,747 

Marion County Toilet Rebate Program $1,947 $52,435 $104,382 

Marion County Toilet Rebate Program Phase 2 $51,213 $0 $101,213 

Mira Bay Weather Based Controller Project $1,922 $25,000 $50,000 

Mobile Irrigation Lab for Highlands County Soil and Water 

Conservation District Phase 1 

$697 $13,302 $17,254 

Mobile Irrigation Lab for Highlands County Soil and Water 

Conservation District Phase 2 

$1,213 $16,506 $24,384 

Pasco County Toilet Rebate Program $103,083 $0 $203,083 

Pasco County Toilet Rebate Program Phase 4 $4,921 $152,616 $307,537 

Pasco County ULV Toilet Rebate Program Phase 2 $811 $117,723 $228,534 

Polk County Utilities Landscape and Irrigation Evaluation $126,162 $0 $251,582 

Polk County Utilities Rain Sensor Rebate Program $3,053 $64,042 $125,370 

St. Petersburg Sensible Sprinkling Program Phase 4 $1,383 $54,756 $106,139 

St. Petersburg Sensible Sprinkling Program Phase 5 $51,383 $0 $101,383 

St. Petersburg Toilet Replacement Program Phase 11 $1,383 $79,843 $156,226 

St. Petersburg Toilet Replacement Program Phase 12 $1,383 $77,739 $154,122 

St. Petersburg Toilet Replacement Program Phase 13 $76,383 $0 $151,383 

Urban Mobile Lab Permanent/Ongoing Program $83,547 $162,544 $246,091 

Winter Haven Smart Controller Pilot Project $2,012 $28,309 $52,821 

WRWSA Regional Irrigation Audit and Education Pilot Program $2,554 $102,434 $204,988 

Total Conservation Projects $982,663 $1,568,511 $4,593,055 



95

Table 5. FY2012 Potable Water Projects 

Water Supply Development Assistance - Potable Water 

Projects 

32 

FY2012 

Funding 

Prior 

Funding 

Total Project 

Cost 

Bradenton ASR Program $6,108 $880,503 $2,454,321 

Bradenton Reservoir Expansion $7,246 $5,445,165 $17,418,871 

Clearwater Brackish Facility at WTP No. 2 $3,107 $1,425,565 $30,455,537 

North Port ASR Feasibility Phase 5 $10,288 $1,049,941 $2,094,299 

North Port Treatment Reliability Project $3,107 $1,411,549 $10,414,656 

Oldsmar Alternative Water Supply $5,233 $9,167,163 $20,820,403 

PRMRWSA Investigation of Brackish Groundwater Development $309,774 $953,494 $1,863,268 

PRMRWSA Regional Integrated Loop System Phase 1A 

Interconnect 

$7,412 $12,044,113 $19,059,025 

PRMRWSA Regional Integrated Loop System Phase 2 

Interconnect 

$301,445 $7,394,471 $17,698,931 

PRMRWSA Regional Integrated Loop System Phase 3A 

Interconnect 

$7,442 $13,929,949 $27,524,689 

Sarasota County Pilot Treatment Study and Dona Bay Water 

Supply 

$15,978 $1,178,127 $2,241,605 

Tampa Bay Water System Configuration 2 $8,658 $127,011,396 $247,835,189 

Tarpon Springs Alternative Water Supply Project $3,748 $20,162,598 $45,024,451 

TBW Surface Water Expansion Project $9,999 $776,666 $2,282,685 

Total Potable Water Projects $699,545 $202,830,700 $447,187,930 



Table 6. FY2012 Total Funding for Water Supply Development Projects 

Project Totals 

FY2012 

Funding 

Reclaimed Water Projects $15,032,085 

Conservation Projects $982,663 

Potable Water Projects $699,545 

Water Supply and Resource Development Reserves $1,625,140 

Total FY2012 Funding 

District FY2012 funding includes project management expenses. 

$18,339,433 

96

Funding Sources 

The sources of District funding for the water resource development and water supply development 

projects include the Cooperative Funding Initiative, the Water Supply and Resource Development 

Program, and District Initiatives. Portions of state funding are allocated to the District through the Water 

Protection and Sustainability Program through Senate Bill (SB) 444 and SB 1740, the West-Central 

Florida Water Restoration Action Plan recognized in SB 2080, Florida Forever funds, and state 

appropriations for the District’s FARMS Program. These sources are described below 

District Funding 

Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) - The CFI is a local matching grant program. The 

District jointly participates with local governments and other entities in funding water management 

programs and projects of mutual benefit. The goal is to ensure proper development, use and protection of 

the regional water resources of the District. Projects are generally funded 50 percent by the District with 

the local cooperators funding the remaining 50 percent. The CFI has been highly successful since its 

inception in 1988, with the Basin Boards providing project funding totaling $564.6 million from FY1988 

through FY2011, which was matched by local cooperators. 

Water Supply and Resource Development Program (WSRD) - The District’s 

WSRD program was established in 2000 to provide funding for projects of regional significance on a 

matching, flexible basis to complement the District’s New Water Sources Initiative (NWSI) and CFI 

programs. The NWSI was funded from FY1994 through FY2007 and was combined with the WSRD 

budget with the completion of the Tampa Bay Partnership Agreement funding obligation. Through the 

annual budget, the District has jointly provided funds to develop alternative supplies and restore historic 

flows and levels. These funds are generally matched by a partnering entity that benefits from the projects. 

Projects funded include reclaimed water, ASR, agricultural conservation, and hydrologic restoration 

projects. From FY1994 through FY2011, the District has provided cumulative project funding totaling 

$745 million ($421 million WSRD and $324 million NWSI) for WSRD/NWSI projects that have been 

completed or are in the process of being completed. These funds were matched when a partnering entity 

was involved. It is anticipated that the District will contribute at least $22 million annually for the WSRD 

program from 2012 through 2030, to be matched by local cooperators. 

District Initiatives - District Initiatives are funded in cases where a project is of great importance 

or priority to a region. The District can increase their percentage match and in some cases provide total 

funding for the project. Examples of these initiatives include: (1) the QWIP initiative to plug 

deteriorated, free-flowing wells that waste water and cause inter-aquifer contamination, (2) the leak 

detection program to conserve water by having District staff inspect and detect leaks in public water 

system pipelines, (3) data collection and analysis to support major District initiatives such as the MFL 

program, and (4) various agricultural research projects designed to increase the water-use efficiency of 

agricultural operations. 

State Funding 

Water Protection and Sustainability Program - The state of Florida’s Water Protection 

and Sustainability Program was created in the 2005 legislative session through SB 444. The program 

provides matching funds for the District’s CFI and WSRD program for alternative water supply 

development assistance. For 2006, the first year of funding, the Legislature allocated $100 million for 

alternative water supply development assistance, with $25 million allocated for the District. The District 

was allocated $15 million in FY2007 and $13 million in FY2008. In FY2009, the District was allocated 

$750,000, for two specific projects. The reduced funding is related to the state’s budget constraints 

resulting from the economic downturn and the declining real estate industry. In FY2011, the state did not 

allocate funding for the program. During the 2009 legislative session, the Legislature passed SB 1740 

which recreated the Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund as part of Chapter 373, F.S., 

33 

97

indicating the state’s continued support for the program. It is anticipated that the state will resume its 

funding for the program when economic conditions improve. 

The state funds are applied toward the maximum 20 percent of the construction costs of eligible projects. 

In addition, the Legislature has established a goal for each water management district to annually 

contribute funding equal to 100 percent of the state funding for alternative water supply development 

assistance, which the District has exceeded annually. If funding is continued by the Legislature, the 

state's Water Protection and Sustainability Program could serve as a significant source of matching funds 

to assist in the development of alternative water supplies. 

West-Central Florida Water Restoration Action Plan - The West-Central Florida 

Water Restoration Action Plan (Plan) is an implementation plan for components of the SWUCA Recovery 

Strategy adopted by the District. The document outlines the District’s strategy for ensuring that adequate 

water supplies are available to meet growing demands, while at the same time protecting and restoring 

the water and related natural resources of the area. The Plan prescribes measures to implement the 

recovery strategy and quantifies the funds necessary, making it easier for the District to seek funding for 

the initiative from state and federal sources. In 2009, the Legislature officially recognized the Plan 

through SB 2080, creating Section 373.0363, F.S., as the District’s regional environmental restoration and 

water-resource sustainability program for the SWUCA. In FY2009, the District received $15 million in 

funding for the Plan. Again, due to economic conditions, no new funding was provided for FY2010 or 

FY2011. It is anticipated that the state will again provide funding for the Water Restoration Action Plan 

as the economy stabilizes. 

The Florida Forever Program - The Florida Forever Act, passed in 1999, was a $10 billion, 10year, 

statewide program. A bill to extend the Florida Forever program was passed by the Legislature 

during the 2008 legislative session, continuing the Florida Forever program for 10 more years at $300 

million annually, and reducing the annual allocation to water management districts from $105 million to 

$90 million, with $22.5 million (25 percent) to be allocated to the District, subject to annual 

appropriation. For FY2010, the Legislature did not appropriate funding for the Florida Forever program, 

other than for the state’s debt service. For FY2011, the 2010 Legislature appropriated $15 million in total 

with $1.125 million allocated to the District. Future funding for the Florida Forever program will depend 

on improvement in the economy and stabilization of the documentary stamp tax funding source. 

The District has allocated $95 million ($81.6 million for land acquisition and $13.4 million for water body 

restoration) of Florida Forever funding in support of water resource development. A “water resource 

development project” is defined as a project eligible for funding pursuant to Section 259.105 (Florida 

Forever) that increases the amount of water available to meet the needs of natural systems and the 

citizens of the state by enhancing or restoring aquifer recharge, facilitating the capture and storage of 

excess flows in surface waters, or promoting reuse. Implementation of eligible projects under the Florida 

Forever program includes land acquisition, land and water body restoration, aquifer storage and recovery 

facilities, surface-water reservoirs and other capital improvements. An example of how the funds were 

used for water resource development was the purchase of lands around Lake Hancock within the Peace 

River watershed as the first step in restoring minimum flows to the upper Peace River. In addition, the 

District Governing Board has allocated $79 million ($31.7 million expended to date) in ad valorem based 

funding to complete the acquisition of lands associated with the Lake Hancock project acquired on a 

voluntary basis and through eminent domain proceedings. 

State Funding for the FARMS Program - Now operating under Rule 40D-26, Florida 

Administrative Code, the FARMS Program, through the District, seeks additional funding annually. Since 

the inception of the program, the District has received $6.4 million in state appropriations and $1.3 

million from the FDACS. No funding was provided for FY2010 or FY2011. Future state funding for the 

program will likely depend on improvement in the economy. 

34 

98

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) - The EQIP provides 

technical, educational, and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water and 

related natural resource concerns on their lands. The program provides assistance to farmers and 

ranchers to comply with federal, state of Florida, and tribal environmental laws that encourage 

environmental enhancement. The purpose of the program is achieved through the implementation of a 

conservation plan, which includes structural, vegetative, and land management practices. The program is 

carried out primarily in priority areas that may be watersheds, regions and/or multi-state areas where 

significant resource concerns exist. Water supply and nutrient management through detention/retention 

or tail water recovery ponds can be pursued through this program. 

The District’s FARMS Program works cooperatively with the NRCS EQIP program on both financial and 

technical levels. In this effort, FARMS staff has coordinated dual cost-share projects whenever possible. 

By an agreement between the District, FDACS, and the NRCS, the maximum funding for using both 

FARMS and EQIP is 75 percent of total project cost. To date, 31 FARMS projects have involved some level 

of dual cost-share with EQIP, with several additional cooperative projects expected in the near future. On 

a technical level, agency interaction includes using the NRCS mobile irrigation lab to investigate using 

FARMS cost-share for improvements to overall irrigation system efficiency, using NRCS engineering 

designs for regulatory agricultural exemptions whenever possible, and coordinating cost-share on specific 

project related infrastructure. As an example, FARMS may assist with an alternative source of irrigation 

water and EQIP assists with an upgrade to an irrigation delivery system. The relationship is mutually 

beneficial, extends cost-share dollars, and provides more technical assistance to participants in both 

programs. 

In addition to EQIP, the FARMS Program has partnered with NRCS through the Agriculture Water 

Enhancement Program (AWEP) to bring additional NRCS cost-share funding to the SWUCA. The AWEP 

was created by the 2008 Farm Bill with similar goals as the EQIP program including conserving and/or 

improving the quality of ground and surface water. By entering into a partnership agreement, the District 

and NRCS can leverage existing cost-share funds toward mutual water conservation goals and provide 

project funding to more producers in the SWUCA. 

35 

99

Summary/Conclusions 

The water resource and water supply development projects and funds identified above reflect the 

District’s continuing commitment to ensure that adequate water resources are available to meet both 

existing and future reasonable and beneficial needs. The annual budget for water resource development 

combined activities and programs has decreased by 46 percent from $51.7 million in FY2011 to $28.0 

million in FY2012. Additionally, the annual budget for water supply development has decreased by 60 

percent from $45.3 million in FY2011 to $18.3 million in FY2012. While the District has maintained 

water resource development efforts, budget reductions in water supply development reflect the current 

recessionary economic environment that affects the District’s many financial cooperators, a temporary 

stagnation in anticipated population growth, as well as the completed funding of some large-scale 

projects. The financial conditions make it critical for the District to efficiently apply limited resources to 

the highest priorities. Challenges that lie ahead in implementing the RWSP include the maximization of 

conservation and reuse offsets to extend the availability of current water supplies, continuing the 

establishment of minimum flows and levels to better comprehend the limitations of our natural systems, 

and identifying cost-effective and economically efficient methods of meeting the needs of self-supplied 

users (whose ability to pay ranges widely) when their traditional, lower-cost sources of water are no 

longer readily available. 

36 

100

Appendix A: 2011 Demands Update 

Summary of Projected Increases and Reductions in Demand in 

the Planning Region 

The tables below are provided as an update to the 20-year water demand projections published in the 

2010 RWSP. At the request of the DEP in 2008, the District began including this appendix as an annual 

update to the RWSP, and to provide lawmakers the most recent data on water supply. The tables 

summarize the projected increases and reductions in water demand for the four planning regions 

spanning the District, as shown in Figure A-1. The water use sectors are given for: public supply; 

agriculture; industrial & commercial, mining & dewatering, and power generation (IC/MD/PG); 

recreation/aesthetic; and environmental restoration. The following demand projections match the values 

in the 2010 RWSP in each water use sector except for public supply. The public supply planning 

projections are frequently updated through coordination with utilities and were sourced from District 

records as of August 31, 2011. 

Table A-1 summarizes the 5-in-10 increase in demand for the average rainfall condition for each water use 

category in 5-year increments during the planning period. Table A-1 shows that the increase in water 

supply demand for the planning period for all use sectors is nearly 343 mgd; a 29 percent increase over 

the quantity used in the 2005 base year. This total demand projection for the District is a decrease from 

the projected 430 mgd increase published in the 2010 RWSP. A major factor in the decrease was updated 

population projections from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) that were used to 

calculate public supply demand. The 2009 BEBR medium 20-year population for the District region was 

reduced by 7 percent from the year before. Another large factor has been the District’s outreach efforts, 

which have focused on individual utilities with per capita water use exceeding 150 gallons per day to assist 

with annual water use reporting and to help implement water conservation initiatives. 

Approximately 169 mgd of this demand has been met by projects that the District considers to be under 

development. Of the 174 mgd projected demand that is not yet under development, 53.1 mgd will be for 

environmental restoration. The environmental restoration category comprises of water quantities that 

need to be retired to meet established MFLs. Approximately 38.2 mgd of this quantity will consist of 

reductions in groundwater withdrawals necessary to meet the Saltwater Intrusion Minimum Aquifer Level 

(SWIMAL) in the SWUCA in the Southern, Heartland, and Tampa Bay planning regions. The remaining 

14.9 mgd is needed to meet the Hillsborough and Alafia river minimum flows in the Tampa Bay Planning 

Region and the upper Peace River minimum flow in the Heartland Planning Region. The environmental 

restoration demand could increase during the planning period based on the recovery requirements of 

MFLs established in future years. 

Table A-2 summarizes the projected increases in water demand under drought conditions. Each water 

use category except for agriculture is given as a 1-in-10 drought scenario. The 1-in-10 year drought event 

is, “an event that results in an increase in water demand of a magnitude that would have a 10 percent 

probability of occurring during any given year.” (Water Planning Coordination Group, 2003) The 

agricultural sector is calculated under a 2-in-10 drought scenario. A number of factors precluded the use 

of a 1-in-10 scenario for agriculture, the most significant being the application of the District’s current 

version of the Agricultural Water Use Allocation Program (AGMOD) for water supply planning purposes. 

The District is developing a more flexible version of AGMOD in order to consistently fulfill reporting 

expectations. 

Significant reductions in demand are expected during the planning period in the agricultural use sector 

and to a lesser degree in the IC/MD/PG sectors. Table A-3 shows that 5-in-10 reductions in demand of 

32.0 mgd will occur through 2030 for these use sectors. Table A-4 shows the reductions in demand under 

drought conditions. Most of the reductions will be groundwater from the Upper Floridan aquifer in the 

Southern, Heartland, and Tampa Bay planning regions where new groundwater withdrawals are 

restricted due to environmental impacts. These quantities can be permanently retired to help meet the 

37 

101

SWIMAL and/or they can be used as mitigation to offset the impacts of potential new groundwater 

withdrawals. 

Figure A-1. The District’s Four Planning Regions 

38 

102

Table A-1. Summary of Projected Increases in Water Demand by Planning Region (mgd) (5-in-10) 

Water Use 

Categories 2005 Base 

Planning Period 

2005 2010 2015 

2010 2015 2020 

Southern Planning Region 

2020 

2025 

2025 

2030 

Total Increase 

mgd % 

Public Supply 100.2 0.1 6.1 7.1 6.8 6.3 26.4 26.3% 

Agriculture 117.8 6.1 0.1 0.04 0.04 1.0 7.3 6.2% 

IC/MD/PG 6.3 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.3 36.5% 

Rec/Aesthetic 27.4 1.8 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.4 11.6 42.3% 

Env. Restoration n/a 5.9 4 4 4 - 17.9 n/a 

Incremental 

Increase 

Cumulative 

Increase 

n/a 15.5 12.8 13.8 13.4 9.9 n/a n/a 

251.7 267.2 280.0 293.8 307.3 317.2 65.5 26.0% 

Heartland Planning Region 

Public Supply 91.6 7.1 7.6 8.4 8.3 7.9 39.3 42.9% 

Agriculture 202.3 - - - 0.02 - 0.02 0.01% 

IC/MD/PG 68.5 5.8 - 1.9 2.3 2.6 12.6 18.4% 

Rec/Aesthetic 17.3 2.9 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 10.7 61.8% 

Env. Restoration n/a 3.2 12.9 7.9 7.9 - 31.9 n/a 

Incremental 

Increase 

Cumulative 

Increase 

n/a 19.0 22.6 20.1 20.4 12.3 n/a n/a 

379.7 398.7 421.3 441.4 461.8 474.1 94.4 24.9% 

Tampa Bay Planning Region 

Public Supply 299.2 - 14.1 18.1 17.3 16.3 65.8 22.0% 

Agriculture 61.4 2.7 - 1.1 1.1 1.8 6.7 10.9% 

IC/MD/PG 17.6 - 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.7 9.7% 

Rec/Aesthetic 36.9 2.2 2 2.7 2.7 2.7 12.3 33.3% 


Incremental 

Increase 

Cumulative 

Increase 

n/a 7.4 17.4 32.9 22.5 21.2 n/a n/a 

415.1 422.5 439.9 472.8 495.3 516.5 101.4 24.4% 

Northern Planning Region 

Public Supply 82.4 15.1 11.2 13.0 12.8 12.1 64.2 77.9% 

Agriculture 18.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.1 3.3 17.5% 

IC/MD/PG 23.3 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 3.7 15.9% 

Rec/Aesthetic 18.6 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.2 11.3 61.0% 

Env. Restoration n/a - - - - - - n/a 

Incremental 

Increase 

Cumulative 

Increase 

n/a 19.6 15.3 16.6 16.1 14.9 n/a n/a 

143.2 162.8 178.1 194.7 210.8 225.7 82.5 57.6% 

District Total 1,189.70 61.5 68.1 83.4 72.5 58.3 343.8 28.9% 

39 

103

Table A-2. Summary of Projected Increases in Water Demand by Planning Region under Drought Conditions 

(mgd) (1-in-10 for each category sans Agriculture, 2-in-10) 


Categories 2005 Base 

Planning Period 

2005 2010 2015 

2010 2015 2020 


2020 

2025 

2025 

2030 

Total Increase 

mgd % 

Public Supply 100.2 7.5 8.1 8.9 8.8 8.4 41.7 41.6% 

Agriculture n/a 9.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 9.6 5.6% 

IC/MD/PG n/a 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.3 36.5% 

Rec/Aesthetic n/a 2.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 14.7 41.6% 

Env. Restoration n/a 5.1 4 4 4 - 17.9+ n/a 

Incremental 

Increase 

n/a 25.5 15.6 16.2 16.3 11.8 n/a n/a 

Cumulative 

Increase 

251.7 277.2 292.8 309.0 325.3 337.1 85.4 33.9% 


Public Supply 91.6 7.5 8.1 8.9 8.8 8.4 41.7 45.5% 

Agriculture n/a - - - 0.05 - 0.05 2.0% 

IC/MD/PG n/a 5.8 - 1.9 2.3 2.6 12.6 18.4% 



Incremental 

Increase 

n/a 20.4 23.6 21.0 21.5 13.4 n/a n/a 

Cumulative 

Increase 

379.7 400.1 423.7 444.7 466.2 479.6 99.9 26.3% 


Public Supply 299.2 - 14.9 19.2 18.3 17.3 69.7 23.3% 

Agriculture n/a 5.3 - 1.9 1.8 3.1 12.1 13.2% 

IC/MD/PG n/a - 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.7 9.7% 



Incremental 

Increase 

n/a 10.6 19.0 35.4 24.7 24.3 n/a n/a 

Cumulative 

Increase 

415.1 425.7 444.7 480.1 504.9 529.1 114.0 27.5% 


Public Supply 82.4 16.0 11.9 13.8 13.6 12.8 68.1 82.6% 

Agriculture n/a 0.87 0.93 0.97 0.89 1.2 4.86 18.6% 

IC/MD/PG n/a 1.1 1 0.5 0.6 0.5 3.7 15.9% 


Env. Restoration n/a - - - - - - n/a 

Incremental 

Increase 

n/a 21.4 16.5 18.2 17.7 17.3 n/a n/a 

Cumulative 

Increase 

143.2 164.6 181.1 199.2 216.9 234.2 91.0 63.6% 

District Total 1,189.7 77.9 74.7 90.7 80.2 66.8 390.3 32.8% 

40 

104

Table A-3. Projected Reductions in Water Demand for the Agricultural and IC/MD/PG Water Use Categories 

by Planning Region under Drought Conditions (mgd) (Agriculture 2-in-10; IC/MD/PG 1-in-10) 

Planning Period Total Decrease 


2005 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Categories 

mgd % 

Base 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 


Agriculture 117.8 -0.16 -1.1 -1.5 -0.9 -0.07 -3.7 3.1% 

IC/MD/PG 6.3 -1.5 - - - - -1.5 23.8% 

Incremental 

Decrease 

n/a -1.7 -1.1 -1.5 -0.9 -0.07 -5.3 n/a 


Agriculture 202.3 -4.3 -0.8 -0.04 - -0.01 -5.2 2.6% 

IC/MD/PG 68.5 -0.2 -6.1 - - - -6.3 9.2% 

Incremental 

Decrease 

n/a -4.5 -6.9 -0.04 - -0.01 -11.5 n/a 


Agriculture 61.4 -0.2 -0.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -1.3 2.1% 

IC/MD/PG 17.6 -3.5 - - - - -3.5 19.9% 

Incremental 

Decrease 

n/a -3.7 -0.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -4.8 n/a 


Agriculture 18.9 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.6 4.2% 

IC/MD/PG 23.3 -9.8 - - - - -9.8 42.0% 

Incremental 

Decrease 

n/a -10 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -10.4 n/a 

District Total n/a -19.9 -9.0 -1.7 -1.1 -0.28 -32.0 n/a 

41 

105

Table A-4. Projected Reductions in Water Demand for the Agricultural and IC/MD/PG Water Use Categories 

by Planning Region from 2005-2030 (mgd) (5-in-10) 

Planning Period Total Decrease 


2005 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Categories 

mgd % 

Base 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 


Agriculture 117.8 - -1.6 -2.2 -1.3 -0.1 -5.1 3.1% 

IC/MD/PG 6.3 -1.5 - - - - -1.5 23.8% 

Incremental 

Decrease 

n/a -1.5 -1.6 -2.2 -1.3 -0.1 -6.6 n/a 


Agriculture 202.3 -4.7 -1.2 -0.07 - -0.2 -6.2 2.3% 

IC/MD/PG 68.5 -0.2 -6.1 - - - -6.3 9.2% 

Incremental 

Decrease 

n/a -4.9 -7.3 -0.7 - -0.2 -12.5 n/a 


Agriculture 61.4 -0.3 -0.8 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -1.3 1.4% 

IC/MD/PG 17.6 -3.5 - - - - -3.5 19.9% 

Incremental 

Decrease 

n/a -3.8 -0.8 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -4.9 n/a 


Agriculture 18.9 -0.35 -0.17 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 -1.0 3.8% 

IC/MD/PG 23.3 -9.8 - - - - -9.8 42.0% 

Incremental 

Decrease 

n/a -10.2 -0.17 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 -10.4 n/a 

District Total n/a -20.35 -9.87 -3.16 -1.56 -0.56 -34.4 n/a 

42 

106

Appendix B: Descriptions of New Water Supply 

Development Projects 

New Water Supply Development Projects 

Descriptions of the following projects are provided at the request of the DEP in 2008 to provide a distinct 

mechanism where projects funded in the current fiscal year budget can be incorporated into the RWSP. 

Such projects can be evaluated by the DEP for adequacy and consistency with the goals of the RWSP, and 

adopted projects may potentially become eligible for some types of state funding through this process. The 

19 water supply development projects shown below are newly introduced in the District’s FY2012 budget. 

1. Bay Laurel Community Development District Toilet Rebate Program 

2. Braden River Utilities to City of Bradenton Reclaimed Water Interconnect 

3. Braden River Utilities to City of Sarasota Reclaimed Water Interconnect 

4. City of Crystal River to Progress Energy Reclaimed Water 

5. City of Oldsmar Reclaimed Water ASR 

6. City of Venice Toilet Rebate Program 

7. FGUA Conservation Initiative - Toilet Rebate Phase 2 

8. FGUA Wet Weather Reclaimed Water Project 

9. Hernando County Reclaimed Water Transmission Phase 1, US-19 

10. Home Depot Rainwater Harvesting and Commercial Reuse 

11. Lake Wales Country Club Reuse 

12. Manatee County Meadows Reclaimed Water Transmission 

13. Marion County Toilet Rebate Program Phase 2 

14. Pasco County Toilet Rebate Program 

15. Polk County Utilities Landscape and Irrigation Evaluation 

16. Riverwood Community Development District Reclaimed Water Expansion 

17. St. Petersburg Sensible Sprinkling Program Phase 5 

18. St. Petersburg Toilet Replacement Program Phase 13 

19. Winter Haven #3 Reclaimed Water Interconnect, Storage, and Pumping 

43 

107

1. Bay Laurel Community Development District Toilet Rebate Program 

(N365) 

Background – The project consists of the replacement of existing high-flow toilets (pre-1995) with 

low-flow models in single family residences at the On Top of the World Communities in Ocala, 

Florida. Approximately 400 toilet rebates of up to $150 will be offered to customers (maximum two 

per customer). The goal of this project is to reduce the amount of water used for toilet flushing in 

residential settings by installing new hardware. All of the toilets will be inspected and replaced 

models will be collected and destroyed before disposal. The estimated savings is 5,200 gallons per 

day. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – Toilet replacement programs are a 

component of the District’s water conservation strategy as described in Chapter 4, Section 6.1 in each 

regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. The use of toilet rebate and plumbing retrofit programs are listed 

as a water supply development option in Chapter 5, Section 6. 

Status –Advertisement of the toilet rebate program is scheduled for November 2011. Distribution 

of toilet rebates may begin by February 2012. 

2. Braden River Utilities to City of Bradenton Reclaimed Water 

Interconnect (N336) 

Background – This project will design and construct approximately 11 miles of transmission line, 

storage, and pumping facilities to provide reclaimed water to existing residential and commercial 

irrigation customers within the Braden River watershed. This watershed is located within the Most 

Impacted Area of the SWUCA. The project will provide an interconnection between the City of 

Bradenton's Reclaimed Water System and the Braden River Utilities’ irrigation system. The City of 

Bradenton will supply Braden River Utilities with up to 4 mgd of reclaimed water to offset potable 

groundwater that is currently being used for irrigation. The project also includes the construction of 

transmission line segments within Braden River Utilities reclaimed water system to move supplies to 

the northwest and southwest sectors of the Lakewood Ranch Development in Manatee County. The 

reclaimed water will replace groundwater now used by residents and commercial users in these 

sectors of Lakewood Ranch and a 100 percent offset is anticipated. The northwest and southwest 

sectors of Lakewood Ranch currently have 7,104 residential units and an irrigation demand of over 

5.0 mgd. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – The District’s commitment to maximizing 

reclaimed water reuse to offset traditional water supplies is described in Chapter 4, Section 2 in each 

regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. This project is listed as a water supply development option in 

Chapter 5, Section 2 in the Southern regional volume, page 92. 

Status – Design and permitting is scheduled to begin November 2011. Construction is tentatively 

scheduled for October 2012. 

3. Braden River Utilities to City of Sarasota Reclaimed Water Interconnect 

(N355) 

Background – This project will construct approximately 1,500 feet of 18-inch and 11,300 feet of 

12-inch reclaimed water transmission line to provide reclaimed water to existing residential and 

commercial irrigation customers and offset potable groundwater use within the Braden River 

watershed. This watershed is located within the Most Impacted Area of the SWUCA. The project will 

provide an interconnection between the City of Sarasota's reclaimed water system and the Braden 

River Utilities’ irrigation system. The City of Sarasota has agreed to supply Braden River Utilities 

with 1.5 to 2.0 mgd of reclaimed water. Two points of interconnection will be constructed between 

the City's system and Braden River Utilities’ system. The project will include the construction of 

44 

108

transmission line segments within Braden River Utilities’ reclaimed water system to enable the use of 

reclaimed water in the southwest sector of the Lakewood Ranch Development. The reclaimed water 

will replace the potable groundwater now used by residents and commercial users and a 100 percent 

offset is anticipated. The southwest sector of Lakewood Ranch currently has an irrigation demand of 

over 5.0 mgd used by commercial and residential customers. 



regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. This project is not specifically listed as a water supply 

development option but is very similar in scope to other options listed in Chapter 5, Section 2 of the 

Southern regional volume. 

Status – Construction is scheduled for November 2011. 

4. City of Crystal River to Progress Energy Reclaimed Water (N358) 

Background – The project provides treated wastewater effluent from the City of Crystal River to 

the Progress Energy Power-Generation Complex in Citrus County for their use in a Flue Gas 

Desulfurization System, in lieu of using potable-quality groundwater from Progress Energy’s local 

wellfield. The project entails construction of a 16-inch transmission pipeline approximately 8 miles 

due west from the City's current spray-field operation located on County Road 495 to the boundary 

line of the Progress Energy complex, located west of Highway 19. Due to security restrictions, 

Progress Energy will complete the transmission line from their boundary to the Flue Gas 

Desulfurization System. This project is expected to provide a flow of 0.75 mgd and have a potable 

groundwater offset efficiency of 100 percent. Additional flows and offsets would be available as the 

wastewater collection system expands. 




Chapter 5, Section 2 of the Northern regional volume, page 92. 

Status – Design and permitting is scheduled to begin November 2011. Construction is tentatively 

scheduled for October 2012. 

5. City of Oldsmar Reclaimed Water ASR (N398) 

Background – This project will design, permit, construct, and cycle test a permanent reclaimed 

water ASR facility in Pinellas County. The project includes the installation of monitor wells, 

permanent well pumps, temporary and permanent piping, monitoring equipment and other 

appurtenances, and complete modifications to an in-ground tank to be used during testing. The 

construction of an exploratory/ASR test well was completed in FY2011 as a previous cooperative 

funding project with the City. The ASR will use an aquifer storage zone that is not defined as an 

underground source of drinking water; therefore the mobilization of arsenic in the aquifer is not a 

concern for this project. 

The reclaimed water ASR will enable the continued expansion of Oldsmar's reuse system. This 

reclaimed water ASR will significantly reduce the amount of reclaimed water currently disposed into 

Old Tampa Bay and will increase the seasonal availability of reclaimed water. The storage capacity of 

the reclaimed water ASR will be determined during cycle testing. Reclaimed Water ASRs do not 

result in direct offsets, since these projects address system storage. Actual offsets will be associated 

with other related reclaimed water supply projects. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – The use of ASR and other seasonal 

storage methods to increase utilization of reclaimed water supplies is discussed in Chapter 4, Section 

45 

109

2 in each regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. Additional information on ASR is provided in Chapter 

4, Section 6. The feasibility phase of this project is listed as a reclaimed water supply project under 

development in Chapter 6 of the 2010 RSWP Tampa Bay regional volume, page 120. 

Status – Construction is tentatively scheduled for July 2012. ASR cycle testing will likely be 

conducted over a three year period beginning in spring 2013. 

6. City of Venice Toilet Rebate Program (N412) 

Background – This project consists of offering financial incentives to the City of Venice’s water 

customers for replacing conventional toilets and urinals with water-conserving equivalents and 

providing plumbing retrofit kits. The project will target the replacement of approximately 300 

conventional toilets and 100 conventional urinals with low-flow equivalents. The City will provide a 

$100 credit to the customer's water bill upon low-flow toilet or urinal installation and inspection. In 

order to ensure that the conventional toilets or urinals will not be reinstalled at another location, the 

City will require permanent disposal of the fixtures as a condition of the credit. The project will also 

provide up to 550 water conservation kits and educational materials at no charge to City potable water 

customers. These kits will include a low-flow showerhead, bath and kitchen faucet aerators, toilet 

flapper valve, toilet tank leak detection dye tablets, and water conservation educational materials. 

The showerheads will be provided as an exchange program. The City plans to hire a consultant to 

administer the project. The consultant will perform the rebate qualifications, educational component, 

installation inspections, and customer surveys, while the City will track pre- and post-water fixture 

installation usage. The estimated total water savings over the 20-year life of the project is 16,330 gpd. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – Toilet replacement and plumbing retrofit 

programs are a component of the District’s water conservation strategy as described in Chapter 4, 

Section 6.1 in each regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. The use of toilet rebate and plumbing retrofit 

programs are listed as a water supply development option in Chapter 5, Section 6. 

Status – The program is scheduled to commence in February 2012. 

7. FGUA Conservation Initiative - Toilet Rebate Phase 2 (N410) 

Background – The Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) is a utility that provides 

potable water service to over 50,000 customers in Pasco, Lee, and Collier counties. This project 

provides FGUA customers in Pasco County with account credits for the purchase and installation of 

low-flow toilets to replace toilet fixtures designed and installed prior to 1995. The FGUA will provide 

up to a $100 account credit for the purchase of a low-flow toilet and a $60 credit for the purchase of a 

second low-flow toilet. The program will cover the replacement of up to 200 toilets, with a maximum 

of two rebates per customer account. The program also would provide water conservation 

informational materials and education flyers, including education on maintaining toilet flapper 

valves, checking for toilet leaks and other ways the FGUA customers may save water expended from 

their bathroom fixtures. A third-party contractor will inspect, authorize, and dispose of old toilets 

and report account credits to the FGUA for customers that have successfully installed the new toilets. 

It is estimated that a total of 4,766 gallons per day will be saved throughout the FGUA service area. 





Status – The rebate program is expected to commence in January 2012. 

46 

110

8. FGUA Wet Weather Reclaimed Water Project (N370) 

Background – This project will consist of the design and construction of reuse infrastructure that 

maximizes the use of wet-weather flows from the FGUA reclaimed water system serving the Seven 

Springs area in Pasco County, and may include an interconnect with the County’s reclaimed water 

system, wet-weather storage, and/or the supply of reclaimed water to additional FGUA customers. 

The FGUA Seven Springs wastewater treatment facility has an average daily flow of 1.75 mgd, and 

provides an average of 1.25 mgd of reclaimed water to nearly 2,000 residential/commercial 

customers, a golf course, a park, and four schools. Approximately 0.5 mgd of reclaimed water is 

disposed of through storage ponds and spray fields. A feasibility study was completed in July 2011 to 

determine the best options to use the available flows in a cost-effective manner. The feasibility study 

examined options to expand the reclaimed water transmission system within the FGUA service area, 

interconnect with neighboring reclaimed water systems to allow regional redistribution of resources, 

and provide reclaimed water for public access irrigation. The study also investigated seasonal storage 

improvements to maximize water utilization and reduce the amount of effluent being discharged into 

spray fields, such as adding lining to existing FGUA reclaimed water ponds. 



regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. The Seven Springs service area is listed in Table 5-2 as a location 

for potential reuse expansion in Chapter 5 of the Tampa Bay regional volume, page 96. 

Status – The FGUA has entered into discussions with Pasco County for potential interconnections 

between the two reclaimed water systems. The FGUA has also entered discussions with the 

representatives from the Trinity Oaks Home Owners' Association and Mitchell Ranch over providing 

wet-weather reclaimed flows to those common areas. Design of final options will begin in early 

FY2012, and construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in November 2012. 

9. Hernando County Reclaimed Water Transmission Phase 1, US-19 (N395) 

Background – This project is to install four miles of a 16-inch diameter reclaimed water main, one 

mile of 4-inch diameter reclaimed water line, a 100,000 gallon storage tank, and a pumping station to 

supply reclaimed water to a tie-in point with the existing reclaimed water infrastructure at the Timber 

Pines Golf Course. Once this line is connected, additional users such as the Hernando County School 

Board, Weeki Wachee Springs State Park, and the Oak Hill Hospital will be pursued for connection. 



regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. Reclaimed water expansion options for Hernando County are 

listed in Chapter 5, Section 2, Table 5-2 of the Northern regional volume. 

Status – Construction is expected to commence in June 2012. 

10. Home Depot Rainwater Harvesting and Commercial Reuse (N397) 

Background – This project consists of the installation of a rainwater collection system to collect 

water from the garden center catchment area, along with the condensate from the AC units on the 

roof top, in each of the Home Depot stores in the District to irrigate the plants within the garden 

centers, in lieu of potable water. These systems will include corrugated steel tank (6' x 20') for a total 

storage capacity of 4150 gallons each. The complete conveyance system includes a pump, floating 

extractor, pump control, motorized municipal backflow valve, flow meter and pre-filtration. Home 

Depot and the District will also work together to provide educational messages to store customers 

about the innovative reuse technology being used at the stores as well as general water conservation 

messages for homes and businesses. The project is expected to reduce potable water use at each store 

by 1,370 gallons per day, with a total reduction in the District in 35 stores of 48,000 gallons per day. 

47 

111

In addition to the savings realized, the project provides the community an example of how to make 

beneficial use of all available water. It also affords the District an opportunity to expand its outreach 

efforts by working with Home Depot to communicate the need for and benefits of water conservation 

to numerous store customers. A similar project has been successfully implemented between 

SJRWMD and Home Depot for ten stores within the SJRWMD. The systems were recently brought 

on-line (January 2011) and savings data will be forthcoming. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – Rainwater harvesting is included as an 

agricultural alternative water source option Chapter 5, Section 2.7 of the 2010 RWSP. Educational 

Outreach components of the District’s water conservation strategy are described in Chapter 4, Section 

7.1.0. 

Status – District and Home Depot staff discussed communications/education plans for the project 

and agreed on in-store and media concepts for the project. Equipment installations are ongoing and 

the educational component is scheduled to commence February 2012. 

11. Lake Wales Country Club Reuse (N335) 

Background – This project will consist of the construction of 2.8 miles of 8-inch to 16-inch 

reclaimed water transmission main beginning at the Lake Wales Country Club in Polk County. Design 

has been initiated by the City of Lake Wales and will be completed without assistance from the 

District. The project will allow the City to provide up to 0.35 mgd of reclaimed water to a pond at the 

country club that is currently used for irrigation purposes. The City of Lake Wales will own and 

operate the transmission main upon completion of the project. The goal of this project is to replace 

potable quality groundwater used for irrigation with reclaimed water. The country club has used an 

average of 0.262 mgd of groundwater since 2008, and that amount will be offset by reclaimed water 

as a result of this project. 



regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. This project is listed as a reclaimed water project option in 

Chapter 5, Table 5-3 of the Heartland regional volume, page 86. 

Status – Construction is scheduled to commence in January 2012. 

12. Manatee County Meadows Reclaimed Water Transmission (N344) 

Background – This project will design and construct 0.8 miles of 10-inch and 8-inch reclaimed 

water transmission line from the Manatee Agricultural Reuse Supply (MARS) System to the Country 

Meadows Development. This will connect 247 residential 1-acre lots in the subdivision that are 

currently using potable water for irrigation to the MARS reclaimed water system. The 247 lots in the 

subdivision collectively use about 0.15 mgd of potable water for irrigation, and this project will offset 

that amount with reclaimed water. The transmission line will also allow for the future connection of 

an additional 51 homes to the reclaimed water system. 



regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. 

Status – Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in June 2012. 

13. Marion County Toilet Rebate Program Phase 2 (N411) 

Background – This phase of the Marion County Toilet Rebate Program will offer financial 

incentives to water customers within the portion of the Marion County Utilities' service area within 

48 

112

the District for replacement of existing high-volume toilets. Approximately 35 percent of Marion 

County Utilities' 27,400 residential accounts were built or improved before 1995 (~9,840 homes), 

making them eligible for plumbing retrofit incentives. In FY2012, Marion County Utilities expects to 

distribute 700 rebates to qualified homes west of I-75. Single family residences will be offered up to 

two toilet rebates per home while multifamily dwellings will be encouraged to replace all devices at 

one time. These quantities are planned each year for a term of seven years. The projected savings is 

15,753 gallons per day. 





Status –The promotion of the rebate program begins in November 2011. 

14. Pasco County Toilet Rebate Program (N382) 

Background – This will be the fifth phase of Pasco County's toilet rebate program. In a 2005 

public opinion survey conducted by Tampa Bay Water, about 60 percent of Pasco County residents 

surveyed indicated they would be willing to participate in a rebate program for low-flow toilets. The 

first phase of this project provided rebates for 500 toilets in west Pasco County in FY2008. The 

second phase of this project provided rebates for 1,500 toilets in west Pasco County. The third and 

fourth phases each provided rebates for 1,500 toilets in all of Pasco County. As of December 2010, 

Pasco County estimated that approximately 34,600 potential rebates remain within the County. The 

FY2012 project proposes to retrofit and rebate up to an additional 1,000 toilets. Depending on the 

program's success, the cooperator may continue the program for additional years. A toilet flapper 

educational component and a low-flow shower head replacement component will also be included 

with this program. It is estimated that a total of 26,700 gallons per day will be saved. 




programs are listed as a water supply development option in Chapter 5, Section 6. Prior phases of the 

Pasco County Toilet Rebate Program are listed in Chapter 6: Projects under Development, in the 

Tampa Bay regional volume, page 127. 

Status – The rebate period commenced in October 2011. 

15. Polk County Utilities Landscape and Irrigation Evaluation (N363) 

Background – This project with Polk County Utilities (PCU) and participating county 

municipalities will provide 1,093 landscape evaluations for customers to become knowledgeable 

about how their individual irrigation systems and landscaping can be modified to maximize water 

savings through efficiency. PCU will administer the evaluations and compile conservation kit items 

for customers. The cities of Auburndale, Winter Haven, Lakeland and Polk City are expected to 

participate; and will individually set their participation limits according to their available budgets. 

The municipalities will reimburse PCU for their half of the costs directly related to evaluations and 

conservation kits, and will provide water consumption information for each participant to the County 

project manager. The landscape and irrigation evaluations are available to customers using either 

potable or reclaimed water for irrigation. Each participating customer will be provided with a 

detailed report recommending modifications for improving the efficiency of their irrigation system 

and landscaping, and distribute water conservation kits. Participants will also receive a water 

conservation kit including a low-flow hose nozzle, kitchen faucet aerator, low-flow shower head 

(exchange program), and conservation information. A sample of participants will receive a follow-up 

evaluation/inspection within six months to determine if modifications have been implemented and to 

49 

113

evaluate water use changes. The project is anticipated to save an estimated 166,136 gallons per day. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – Water efficiency irrigation and landscape 

evaluations are a component of the District’s water conservation strategy as described in Chapter 4, 

Section 6.1 in each regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. The use of evaluation programs is listed as a 

water supply development option in Chapter 5, Section 6. 

Status – Advertizing for the program is scheduled to begin in January 2012, and the evaluations 

will be scheduled from February through September 2012. 

16. Riverwood Community Development District Reclaimed Water 

Expansion (N346) 

Background – This project will connect additional customers in the Riverwood Community 

Development District (RCDD) to the Charlotte County Reclaimed Water System. The project will 

construct system improvements to provide reclaimed water to additional subdivisions within the 

RCDD. The RCDD will construct a pump station with meter assembly, filtration system, system 

connections, metering, and telemetric isolation valves at the entrances of each subdivision. The 

RCDD currently has existing irrigation piping system installed throughout the community. There are 

several locations where reclaimed water connection piping will be added to isolated subdivisions. The 

system is currently configured with connections from the potable system for irrigation purposes. The 

estimated reclaimed water flow is 0.13 mgd to 289 residential customers, which will offset 97,500 gpd 

of potable water supply. 




Chapter 5, Table 5-2 of the Southern regional volume, page 94. 

Status – Design and permitting was completed July 2011. Construction is to commence in 

November 2011. 

17. St. Petersburg Sensible Sprinkling Program Phase 5 (N408) 

Background – This project is the continuance of an outdoor water conservation education and 

irrigation evaluation project that educates customers on irrigation system modifications that can 

maximize watering efficiency. Project participants will receive an irrigation system evaluation, sitespecific 

recommendations, rain sensor installation if an operable sensor is not present, Florida 

Friendly landscaping educational materials, and a watering shut-off nozzle. The evaluation and 

materials are available to customers who use potable water, private well or reclaimed water for 

irrigation. Reclaimed water and private well water users have been included to encourage 

conservative practices and prevent over-utilization of these resources. Over 1,332 evaluations and 

987 rain sensor installations have been performed in previous project phases. The FY2012 project 

expects to perform approximately 300 additional irrigation system evaluations. The project is 

anticipated to save an estimated 42,000 gallons per day as a result of irrigation evaluations and rain 

sensor installations. The project helps to protect natural systems and water quality, minimize 

flooding potential, and increase resource availability to customers. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – Water efficiency irrigation and landscape 

evaluations are a component of the District’s water conservation strategy as described in Chapter 4, 

Section 6.1 in each regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. The use of evaluation programs is listed as a 

water supply development option in Chapter 5, Section 6. 

Status – Phase 5 of the program is scheduled to be implemented in February 2012. 

50 

114

18. St. Petersburg Toilet Replacement Program Phase 13 (N409) 

Background – This project will continue a water conservation project offering financial incentives 

to customers for the replacement of conventional toilets with low-flow toilets which use 1.6 gallons 

per flush (gpf) or less. The City initiated Phase 1 of this program in 1997, and has since replaced over 

31,000 conventional toilets with more efficient fixtures. Interest in the program and the range of 

program participants has continued. This project phase is expected to provide rebates for the 

replacement of approximately 900 high flow toilets. Efforts will be made to target new audiences who 

have not participated, including low income residential households. Participants will be provided 

with educational materials on leak detection, indoor water conservation, and proper replacement 

flapper installation to ensure the low-flow toilets remain water conserving fixtures. The project is 

anticipated to save an estimated 24,300 gallons per day. 

Linkage to the Regional Water Supply Plan – The use of ASR and other seasonal 

storage methods to increase utilization of reclaimed water supplies is discussed in Chapter 4, Section 

2 in each regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. Additional information on ASR is provided in Chapter 

4, Section 6. The feasibility phase of this project is listed as a reclaimed water supply project under 

development in Chapter 6 of the 2010 RSWP Tampa Bay regional volume, page 120. 

Status – Toilet replacement and plumbing retrofit programs are a component of the District’s water 

conservation strategy as described in Chapter 4, Section 6.1 in each regional volume of the 2010 

RWSP. The use of toilet rebate and plumbing retrofit programs are listed as a water supply 

development option in Chapter 5, Section 6. Prior phases of the Pinellas County Rebate Program are 

listed in Chapter 6: Projects under Development, in the Tampa Bay regional volume, page 127. 

19. Winter Haven #3 Reclaimed Water Interconnect, Storage, and Pumping 

(N339) 

Background – This project consists of the design, permitting and construction of a reclaimed 

water storage, pumping and transmission system for the City of Winter Haven wastewater treatment 

plant #3 in Polk County. The project includes a 5 million gallon ground storage tank for flow 

management and diurnal storage; a reclaimed water pump station, and installation of 25,000 linear 

feet of 20-inch diameter reclaimed water transmission mains interconnecting the City's two reclaimed 

water systems. The project will transfer reclaimed water from the southern region of the City to the 

northern City service areas in northeast Polk County, and will provide reclaimed water to 500 initial 

existing residential customers with dry-line distribution systems in-ground. The system will also 

allow excess reclaimed water to be sent to existing rapid infiltration basins for recharge. The project 

could potentially also supply reclaimed water to two golf courses (Lake Ashton and Four Lakes Golf 

courses) and 5,000 future residential customers. The project will provide an annual average 

reclaimed water flow of 0.30 mgd and offset 0.15 mgd of potable quality groundwater in northeast 

Polk County. 



regional volume of the 2010 RWSP. This project is listed in Chapter 5, Table 5-3 of the Heartland 

regional volume, page 84. 

Status – Design and permitting is scheduled to begin January 2012. Construction is tentatively 

scheduled to commence January 2013. 

51 

115




Item 13 

Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 


The District initiated a partnership with FEMA to modernize FIRMs as part of its Watershed 

Management Program (WMP). Flood protection and floodplain information has been a priority at 

the District since the inception of the organization and that priority was renewed following the El 

Niño weather event in 1997-1998. In addition to studies conducted by the District and others, 

information on floodplains (elevations) is available through the FEMA FIRMs. However, many of 

the existing maps do not accurately represent the flood-prone areas because either the initial 

studies were technically limited, or the maps are outdated due to significant land use changes 

since completion. To improve the floodplain information, develop regional scale flood routing 

models for alternative analysis, and improve local government’s understanding of their flood 

protection level of service, the District reached out to local governments and initiated the WMP 

in the late 1990s. 

The District recognized a potential funding partner in FEMA as they had mutual goals to 

improve and modernize the existing FIRMs to better identify risks of flooding within the District. 

The District and FEMA executed a Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Memorandum of 

Agreement on September 14, 2001, to formalize the relationship. As a CTP, the District is 

eligible for federal funds to act as FEMA's partner in modernization of the FIRMs. Federal funds 

have allowed the District and local governments to accomplish significantly more than would 

have otherwise been possible. To date, the District has received approximately $12 million in 

federal funds from FEMA for countywide map modernization projects in Pasco, Sarasota, 

Hernando, Marion, Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, Citrus, Sumter, Levy, and Highlands counties. FEMA 

also includes federal funding for the Map Modernization Management Support (MMMS) 

program to ensure MMMS partners can support the map modernization effort through activities 

that do not directly result in production of new or revised flood hazard maps. The District 

received $953,860 in fiscal years 2004 through 2010 for the MMMS program. 

In October 2007, staff provided a report to the Governing Board outlining staff’s technical and 

procedural approach for development and professional oversight of watershed models. Since 

March 2008, staff provides the Board an update on the status of the District’s WMP and FEMA 

Map Modernization, including an update on the progress and activities associated with these 

issues. Since November 2008, the Governing Board has authorized staff to submit preliminary 

FIRMs to FEMA for 17 watersheds in Hernando County, four watersheds in Pasco County, two 

watersheds in Citrus County, one watershed in Manatee County, one watershed in Sarasota 

County, one watershed in Polk County, two watersheds in DeSoto County, five watersheds in 

Hardee County, and one watershed in Marion County. 

116




Item 13.a. 

Authorize Submission of Preliminary FIRMs to the FEMA 

Marion County Watersheds – Flemington, Hog Prairie, Northwest Ocala, Gum Swamp, 

and Big Jones Creek 

Purpose 

To request the Board authorize staff to submit the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

(FIRMs) for the Flemington, Hog Prairie, Northwest Ocala, Gum Swamp, and Big Jones Creek 

watersheds in Marion County to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The 

one-day rainfall event was used for each watershed. The watershed models and floodplain 

information have gone through the District’s process, including internal review and external peer 

review by experienced licensed professional engineers. Preliminary floodplain information was 

presented for review and comment during public workshops held April 26 and June 23, 2011. 

The preliminary floodplain information is ready to be formatted to meet FEMA’s mapping 

specifications and submitted to FEMA. Following submittal of the preliminary FIRMs, FEMA will 

conduct their own technical review, take public input, and allow for a 90-day appeals period 

during the adoption process. Depending on public input, the FEMA process can take one to two 

years. 


The floodplain information for the watersheds was prepared by the District’s consultants 

(Engineering Firm of Record) and reviewed by District and County staff, and then reviewed by 

the District’s independent peer review consultants (see table below). The District’s 

Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) Advisory Group members (consultant and 

development community) were invited to attend the presentations of the floodplain information 

to the peer review consultants, and provided opportunities to review and comment on the 

watershed models and floodplain information. Public workshops were held in April 2011 for the 

Flemington, Hog Prairie, and Northwest Ocala watersheds and in June 2011 for the Gum 

Swamp and Big Jones Creek watersheds for the public to review and comment on the floodplain 

information. The floodplain information was also made available through the District’s website. 

For these five watersheds, approximately 6,136 affected property owners were notified of the 

workshops by mail, 122 attended, and 30 property owners contacted District staff by phone or 

email. 

WATERSHED ENGINEERING FIRM OF RECORD PEER REVIEW 

Flemington AECOM AMEC E&I, Inc. 

Hog Prairie AECOM AMEC E&I, Inc. 

NW Ocala AECOM AMEC E&I, Inc. 

Gum Swamp Jones Edmunds Associates The Balmoral Group 

Big Jones Creek Jones Edmunds Associates The Balmoral Group 


Authorize staff to submit the preliminary FIRMs for the Flemington, Hog Prairie, Northwest 

Ocala, Gum Swamp, and Big Jones Creek watersheds in Marion County to FEMA. 

Presenter: Mark A. Hammond, Division Director, Resource Management Division 

117





Sarasota County Watersheds – Whitaker Bayou and Alligator Creek 

Item 13.b. 

Purpose 

To request the Board authorize staff to submit the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

(FIRMs) for the Whitaker Bayou and Alligator Creek watersheds in Sarasota County to the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The one-day rainfall event was used for 

each watershed. The watershed models and floodplain information have gone through the 

District’s process, including internal review and external peer review by experienced licensed 

professional engineers. Preliminary floodplain information was presented for review and 

comment during public workshops held during December 2009 and January 2010. The 

preliminary floodplain information is ready to be formatted to meet FEMA’s mapping 

specifications and submitted to FEMA. Following submittal of the preliminary FIRMs, FEMA will 

conduct their own technical review, take public input, and allow for a 90-day appeals period 

during the adoption process. Depending on public input, the FEMA process can take one to two 

years. 


The floodplain information for the watersheds was prepared by the District’s consultants 

(Engineering Firm of Record) and reviewed by District and County staff, and then reviewed by 

the District’s independent peer review consultants (see table below). The District’s 

Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) Advisory Group members (consultant and 

development community) were invited to attend the presentations of the floodplain information 

to the peer review consultants, and provided opportunities to review and comment on the 

watershed models and floodplain information. Public workshops were held during December 

2009 and January 2010 for the Whitaker Bayou and Alligator Creek watersheds for the public to 

review and comment on the floodplain information. The floodplain information was also made 

available through the District’s website. For these two watersheds, approximately 14,498 

affected property owners were notified of the workshops by mail, 341 attended, and 94 property 

owners contacted District staff by phone or email. 

WATERSHED ENGINEERING FIRM OF RECORD PEER REVIEW 

Whitaker Bayou Singhofen & Associates The Balmoral Group 

Alligator Creek AMEC-BCI Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 


Authorize staff to submit the preliminary FIRMs for the Whitaker Bayou and Alligator Creek 

watersheds in Sarasota County to FEMA. 


118





Sumter County 

Item 13.c. 

Purpose 

To request the Board’s authorization to submit the preliminary Sumter County Flood Insurance 

Rate Maps (FIRMs) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA will then 

begin the FIRM adoption process in Sumter County. Following submittal of the preliminary 

FIRMs, FEMA will conduct their own technical review, take public input, and allow for a 90-day 

appeals period during the adoption process. Depending on public input, the FEMA process can 

take one to two years. 

Detailed watershed models were not developed for the FEMA process to update the FIRMs for 

Sumter County. The current effective FIRMs were updated to meet the FEMA specifications 

including adding FEMA approved Letters of Map Changes, and wetlands and water bodies. As 

detailed watershed models are developed for watersheds in Sumter County, the floodplain 

results will go through the District’s process and can be submitted to FEMA for adoption through 

a separate process. 


Authorize staff to submit the preliminary Sumter County FIRMs to FEMA. 


119




FARMS – American Citrus Products Corporation (H639) – Charlotte County 

Item 14.a. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to request approval for a Facilitating Agricultural Resource 

Management Systems (FARMS) project with American Citrus Products Corporation and 

approval to reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit of $319,048 (49 percent 

of total project costs). Of this amount, $159,524 is requested from the Peace River Basin and 

$159,524 from the Governing Board FARMS funds. Total project costs are estimated at 

$644,388. 

Project Proposal 

The District received a project proposal from American Citrus Products Corporation for a five 

acre reservoir to offset groundwater quantities associated with two wells (two separate Water 

Use Permits) servicing approximately 400 acres of citrus located approximately 20 miles east of 

Punta Gorda, in central Charlotte County, within Shell Creek of the Shell, Prairie, and Joshua 

Creek (SPJC) Watersheds. The property drains into Myrtle Slough. This project will collect and 

reuse water from the property and surrounding watershed. The primary goal of the project is to 

reduce the withdrawal of groundwater through the construction and operation of a five acre 

surface water irrigation reservoir. The reduction in groundwater use will benefit the Upper 

Floridan aquifer system by replacing withdrawals with recovered surface water and by more 

efficiently irrigating through the use of a weather station and automatic pump controls. FARMS 

project components consist of two surface water irrigation pump station(s), filtration, piping 

necessary to connect to the existing irrigation system, a weather station and two automated 

pump controls. 


The proposed project involves water quantity and water quality BMPs for supplemental irrigation 

and qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program as 

pursuant to Rule 40D-26.401(1)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code. However, only 49 percent of 

total project costs will actually be provided by District funds; the NRCS-EQIP will provide 26 

percent of funding and American Citrus products will provide 25 percent of funding. According 

to 40D-4.026 of the Florida Administrative Code, FARMS Program cooperators must fund a 

minimum of 25 percent of total project costs exclusive of any funding provided by other sources. 

The Water Use Permits (WUPs) for the two groves authorize a total annual average 

groundwater withdrawal of 3,361,500 gallons per day (gpd) to irrigate a total of approximately 

3,212 acres of citrus with low volume under tree spray. The two wells to be offset are allocated 

146,900 gpd and 156,500 gpd each, respectively. Using an estimated 75 percent savings of 

quantities for each, the total projected offset is 227,500 gpd. Using an offset amount of 227,500 

gpd and based on pond size, expected pond recharge rate and performance of similar systems, 

yields a daily cost of $1.53 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed sixyear 

contract term, and $0.54 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year 

term. This value is within the FARMS guidelines for the generally accepted average cost 

savings per thousand gallons for the implementation of alternative supplies and improved 

irrigation techniques for flatwood citrus operations. District reimbursement will be divided evenly 

between the Peace River Basin and the Governing Board FARMS reserves. Upon approval, 

the Peace River Basin and Governing Board will have $700,553 and $1,223,113, respectively, 

remaining in their FARMS Program budgets. 

120


Item 14.a. 

(1) Approve the American Citrus Products Corporation project for a not-to-exceed project 

reimbursement of $319,048 with $159,524 provided by the Peace River Basin and $159,524 

provided by the Governing Board; 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $159,524 from Fund 020 H017 Peace River Basin funds and 

$159,524 from Fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H639 American Citrus 

Products Corporation project fund; and 

(3) Authorize the Executive Director to execute the agreement. 

Presenter: Eric C. DeHaven, P.G., Director, Resource Data and Restoration Department 

121

Location Map 

American Citrus Products Neal Grove Reservoir 

FARMS Project - (H639) 

0 0.5 1 2 

Miles 

#* 

BERMONT RD 

WUP 3070 

DID 5 

WUP 3070 

SE SE HIGHWAY HIGHWAY 31 31 

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 

Miles 

UV 31 

BERMONT RD 

New Pipe to tie into 

Existing Irrigation Systems 

#* 

#* 

!( 

!( !( 

NEAL RD 

122 

WUP 2689 

DID 5 

WUP 2689 

Legend 

Project Area 

Pond Location 

^_ 

New Pipe Line 

#* Pond Service Area 

!( DID's 

Charlotte County 

μ 

JB 09/13/2011 

2010 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




FARMS – JWCD - Dr. Waters Grove - Amendment (H608) – DeSoto County 

Item 14.b. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to request approval for an amendment to an existing Facilitating 

Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) project with JWCD - Dr. Waters Grove 

and approval to increase the reimbursable FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit from 

$88,162 to $98,994 (74 percent of total project costs) for a net increase of $10,832. Of this 

amount, $5,416 is requested from State Appropriations, $2,708 from the Peace River Basin 

and $2,708 from the Governing Board FARMS funds. Total eligible project costs are estimated 

to increase by $10,832 (from $126,465 to $137,297). 


The District entered into a FARMS agreement with JWCD - Dr. Waters Grove in December 

2010, for a project involving a 110-acre citrus grove within the Joshua Water Control District 

(JWCD), in eastern DeSoto County, within the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) and 

the Joshua Creek Watershed. The goal of the original project is to reduce groundwater 

withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer by utilizing an existing grove ditch as a linear 

surface water irrigation reservoir for daily irrigation, whereby eligible FARMS project 

components consist of a single surface water irrigation pump station, filtration, and the piping 

necessary to connect to the existing irrigation system. The project amendment is to increase 

the pump capacity and power unit size to provide frost/freeze protection to the grove which will 

reduce the amount of groundwater withdrawn for daily use. Sufficient surface water from the 

ditch reservoir is available for both frost/freeze and daily irrigation uses. Dr. Waters completed 

a grove swap with another grove owner within the JWCD who has groundwater quantities 

assigned to a different Water Use Permit (WUP). While a modification to both WUPs will be 

needed to bring quantities assigned to Dr. Waters under one WUP, it is anticipated that Dr. 

Waters will be authorized an annual average groundwater withdrawal of 83,360 gallons per day 

(GPD) to irrigate the 110-acre grove with microjet and 4.32 million gpd for frost/freeze 

protection. Per FARMS rule 40D-26.101, no more than five percent of frost/freeze quantities 

authorized shall be used in calculating the groundwater offset outside of the Dover/Plant City 

Water Use Caution Area. This project is anticipated to offset 41,680 gpd for daily irrigation and 

5,616 gpd for cold protection for a total anticipated offset of 47,296 gpd. 


The proposed project involves water quantity and water quality BMPs that will reduce 

groundwater withdrawals within Joshua Creek of the Shell, Prairie, and Joshua Creek 

Watersheds and therefore qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the 

FARMS Program as pursuant to Rule 40D-26.401(1)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code. The 

amended total project costs divided by the amended total groundwater offset results in a daily 

cost of $1.87 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed five-year contract 

term and $0.56 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. Both 

values are within the FARMS guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings per 

thousand gallons for the implementation of alternative supplies and improved irrigation 

techniques for flatwood citrus operations. State Appropriations will be used for one-half of the 

reimbursement, with the remainder divided evenly between the Peace River Basin and the 

Governing Board. Upon approval, the Peace River Basin and Governing Board will have 

$700,553 and $1,223,113, respectively, remaining in their FARMS Program budgets. 

123


Item 14.b. 

(1) Approve the JWCD - Dr. Waters Grove project amendment for a not-to-exceed project 

reimbursement increase of $10,832 ($88,162 to $98,994) with $2,708 provided by the 

Peace River Basin $2,708 provided by the Governing Board, and $5,406 from State 

Appropriations allocated to fund 010 H017 FARMS funds; 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $2,708 from Fund 020 H017 Peace River Basin FARMS funds, 

$2,708 from Fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds, and $5,406 from State 

Appropriations to the H608 JWCD - Dr. Waters Grove project fund; and 



124

125




FARMS – Peace Valley Groves, Inc. (H648) – DeSoto County 

Item 14.c. 

Purpose 


Management Systems (FARMS) project with Peace Valley Groves, Inc., and approval to 

reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit of $243,330 (75 percent of total 

project costs). Of this amount, $48,130 is requested from State Appropriations, $97,600 from 

the Peace River Basin and $97,600 from the Governing Board FARMS funds. Total project 

costs are estimated at $335,830. 


The District received a project proposal from Peace Valley Groves, Inc. for their 940-acre citrus 

grove located 12 miles southeast of Arcadia, in southeastern DeSoto County, within the Prairie 

Creek watershed. The property drains into Prairie Creek. This project will collect tailwater and 

surface water from the property and surrounding watershed to offset groundwater irrigation and 

cold protection. The Water Use Permit (WUP) authorizes an annual average groundwater 

withdrawal of 648,300 gallons per day (gpd) and 25,200,000 gpd for cold protection to irrigate 

721 acres of citrus grove. Since October 2006, nearly all the permitted annual average 

withdrawals have been utilized to irrigate the grove. The primary goal of the project is to reduce 

the use of groundwater for irrigation and cold protection by construction of a 5-acre reservoir 

and operation of surface water control structures and a pump station to be connected to the 

existing grove irrigation system. Surface water will be used for irrigation and cold protection to 

the greatest extent practicable for approximately 500 acres of grove area surrounding the 

reservoir site. The reduction in groundwater use will benefit the Upper Floridan aquifer system 

by replacing withdrawals with recovered surface water. FARMS project components consist of 

reservoir control structures, a stationary surface water pump station with filtration, and mainline 

pipe to connect the surface water pump station to the existing irrigation system. 


The proposed project is located in the Shell, Prairie and Joshua Creek watersheds area of 

concern and involves both water quantity and water quality BMPs, and qualifies for a 75 percent 

cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program. Using an estimated 11 percent 

savings of permitted quantities for daily irrigation, plus five percent of cold protection quantities 

pursuant to 40D-26.101, F.A.C., will attain a 72,300 gpd offset, yielding a daily cost of $2.93 per 

thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed five-year contract term, and $0.88 

per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the 

FARMS guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for the 

implementation of alternative water supplies and improved irrigation techniques in flatwood 

citrus operations. State Appropriations will be used for a percentage of the reimbursement, with 

the remainder divided evenly between the Peace River Basin and the Governing Board. Upon 

approval, the Peace River Basin and Governing Board will have $700,553 and $1,223,113, 

respectively, remaining in their FARMS Program budgets. 


(1) Approve the Peace Valley Groves, Inc. project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of 

$243,330 with $97,600 provided by Peace River Basin, $97,600 provided by the Governing 

Board and $48,130 provided from State Appropriations; 

126

Item 14.c. 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $97,600 from Fund 020 H017 Peace River Basin FARMS funds, 


Appropriations allocated to Fund 010 H017 FARMS funds to the H648 Peace Valley Groves, 

Inc. project fund; and 



127

") 661 

DeSoto County 

Charlotte County 

0 1.25 2.5 5 

Miles 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 

Miles 

Location Map 

Peace Valley Groves 


SE COUNTY ROAD 763 

SE COUNTY ROAD 763 

SE HIGHWAY 31 

SE HIGHWAY 31 

Pine Island Rd 

UV 31 

Ditch Block 

Reservoir 

Pump Station 

& Main Pipelines 

128 

Legend 

^_ 

WUP 20009782.006 

Reservoir 

Pump Station 

Ditch Block 

Main Pipelines 

DeSoto County 

μ 

DB 09/08/2011 

2010 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




FARMS – Brookdale Farms, LLC - Amendment (H625) – Hillsborough County 

Item 14.d. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to request approval for an amendment to an existing Facilitating 

Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) project with Brookdale Farms, LLC and 

approval to increase the reimbursable FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit from 

$117,000 to $123,484 (75 percent of total project costs) for a net increase of $6,484. Of this 

amount, $3,242 is requested from the General Fund – Alafia River Funds and $3,242 from the 

Governing Board FARMS funds. Total project costs are estimated to increase by $8,646 (from 

$156,000 to $164,646). The project is located within the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution 

Area (DPCWUCA) and will result in a reduction in groundwater used for frost/freeze crop 

protection. 


The District originally received a project proposal from Brookdale Farms, LLC, for their 25-acre 

blueberry farm (Bugg Road Farm) located one mile south of Plant City and for their 20-acre 

blueberry farm (Henry George Farm) located five miles south of Plant City, both in the 

DPCWUCA in eastern Hillsborough County. Brookdale Farms, LLC has been under contract 

with the District since December 14, 2010 for a FARMS project which involves the use of wind 

machines to prevent blueberry freeze damage. This amendment is to increase the FARMS 

reimbursable amount due to the addition of one wind machine at the Bugg Road farm and 

upgrades to the previously approved weather stations at the Bugg Road and Henry George 

Farms. The additional wind machine is needed because a cold area has been identified at the 

Bugg Road farm where the current wind machines and cold drain are not able to move the air 

effectively to provide appropriate freeze protection, therefore avoiding the use of groundwater 

for freeze protection. The original frost/freeze quantities permitted for each farm is 1,955,100 

gallons per day (gpd) and 1,857,300 gpd, with a projected 75 percent offset yielding 1,466,325 

gpd and 1,392,975 gpd, respectively. Since wind machines and cold drains have been in use at 

the Henry George Farm, an estimated total of 3,075,000 gallons have been offset (seven cold 

events dated from January 22, 2011 to February 15, 2011). 


This amendment to the project is not expected to reduce the amount of groundwater withdrawn 

for frost freeze protection beyond that which was originally projected and approved in December 

2010. However, addition of the extra wind machine will allow for the frost/freeze protection 

coverage anticipated in the original project design over the entire 25 acre farm. Considering the 

revised project costs results in a daily cost of $1.40 per thousand gallons of groundwater 

(previously $1.32) reduced over the proposed five-year contract term, and 0.42 per thousand 

gallons of groundwater (previously $0.40) reduced over a thirty-year term. Both values are still 

within the FARMS guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings for the 

implementation of alternative frost/freeze methods. Reimbursement will be divided evenly 

between General Fund – Alafia River Funds and the Governing Board. Upon approval, the 

General Fund – Alafia River Funds and Governing Board will have $609,354 and $1,223,113, 


129


Item 14.d. 

(1) Approve the Brookdale Farms LLC - Amendment project for a not-to-exceed project 

reimbursement increase of $6,484 ($158,162 to $164,646) with $3,242 provided by the 

General Fund – Alafia River Funds and $3,242 provided by the Governing Board; 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $3,242 from Fund 111 H017 General Fund – Alafia River Funds 

FARMS funds and $3,242 from Fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H625 

project fund; and 



130

TURKEY CREEK RD 

TURKEY CREEK RD 

Location Map 

Brookdale Farms, LLC - Amendment 


0 0.45 0.9 1.8 

Miles 

") 39 

KEYSVILLE RD E 

W KEYSVILLE RD KEYSVILLE RD E 

0 0.3 0.6 1.2 

Miles 

WUP 20012437 

Bugg Road Farm 

") 39 

KEYSVILLE RD E 

W KEYSVILLE RD KEYSVILLE RD E 

UV 60 

131 

WUP 20006252 

Henry George Farm 

Legend 

μ 

^_ 

WUP 20006252 

WUP 20012437 

Hillsborough County 

GI 09/20/2011 

2010 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




FARMS – Loop Farms, LLC - Flowers Road (H647) – Hillsborough County 

Item 14.e. 

Purpose 


Management Systems (FARMS) project with Loop Farms, LLC - Flowers Road and approval to 

reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit of $381,850 (50 percent of total 

project costs). Of this amount, $7,043 is requested from State Appropriations, $187,404 from 

the General Fund – Alafia River Funds and $187,403 from the Governing Board FARMS funds. 

Total project costs are estimated at $763,700. 


The District received a project proposal from Loop Farms, LLC - Flowers Road, for their 160acre 

strawberry farm located 25 miles south of Plant City, in southern Hillsborough County, 

within the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA). The property drains into Little Manatee 

River. The current Water Use Permit (WUP) allows for an annual average quantity of 131,000 

gallons per day (gpd) and a cold protection quantity of 1,396,800 gpd for 150 acres of citrus 

using low volume under tree spray. The WUP is currently under review for modification and 

projected to authorize an annual average groundwater withdrawal of 281,000 gpd and an 

annual average surface water withdrawal of 105,000 gpd to irrigate 134 acres of strawberries 

with drip irrigation, followed by 50 acres of spring melons. The WUP modification is also 

projected to authorize a total of 21,831,800 gpd for cold protection, whereby 10,831,800 gpd of 

that cold protection value will be offset through the use of surface water. The primary purpose 

of this project is to reduce Upper Floridan aquifer groundwater withdrawals used for bed 

preparation, crop establishment, daily irrigation, and cold protection through the use of tailwater 

from two surface water reservoirs totaling approximately six acres. The surface water reservoirs 

will enable the collection of tailwater from the property and surrounding areas. The project is 

anticipated to offset a total of 191,900 gpd of permitted groundwater. Proposed project 

components include one pump station that will be used for daily irrigation, two pump stations 

that will be used for cold protection, connection to the mainline, filtration system, and surface 

water control structures. 


The proposed project involves water quantity BMPs for bed preparation, crop establishment, 

daily irrigation, and cold protection and qualifies for a 50 percent cost-share reimbursement rate 

under the FARMS Program. Using estimated savings of total permitted quantities for bed 

preparation, crop establishment, and daily irrigation, plus five percent of cold protection 

quantities pursuant to Rule 40D-26.101, Florida Administrative Code, will attain an 191,900 gpd 

offset, yielding a daily cost of $1.89 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the 

proposed seven-year contract term, and $0.75 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced 

over a thirty-year term. This value is within the FARMS guidelines for the generally accepted 

average cost savings per thousand gallons for the implementation of alternative supplies for 

strawberry operations. State Appropriations will be used for $7,043 of the reimbursement, with 

the remainder allocated between the General Fund – Alafia River Funds and the Governing 

Board. Upon approval, the General Fund – Alafia River Funds and Governing Board will have 


132


Item 14.e. 

(1) Approve the Loop Farms, LLC - Flowers Road project for a not-to-exceed project 

reimbursement of $381,850 with $187,404 provided by the General Fund – Alafia River 

Funds, $187,403 provided by the Governing Board, $4,993 provided from the 2005 State 

Appropriations and $2,050 provided from the 2009 State Appropriations; 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $187,404 from Fund 111 H017 General Fund – Alafia River 

FARMS funds, $187,403 from Fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds, and $7,043 

from State Appropriations allocated to Fund 010 H017 FARMS funds to the H647 Loop 

Farms, LLC - Flowers Rd project fund; and 



133

FLOWERS RD 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 

Miles 

FLOWERS RD 

HOBBS RD 

HOBBS RD 

0 0.1 0.2 0.4 

Miles 

Location Map 

Loop Farms LLC - Flowers Rd. 


HOBBS RD 

HOBBS RD 

7 

#* 

6 5 

#*!( 

LINDA SWEAT TRL 

GRANGE HALL LOOP 

KEENE RD 

KEENE RD 

WA LLISER RD 

LINDA SWEAT TRL 

134 

Legend 

!( 

^_ 

Irrigation Pump 

#* Crop Protection Pump 

12" Mainline 

Surface Water Pond 

WUP 20004261.004 


μ 

GI 06/23/2011 

2011 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




FARMS – GDK Land Trust (H652) – Hillsborough County 

Item 14.f. 

Purpose 


Management Systems (FARMS) project with GDK Land Trust and approval to reimburse 

FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit of $155,798 (75 percent of total project costs). 

Of this amount, $77,899 is requested from the Hillsborough River Basin, and $77,899 from the 

Governing Board FARMS funds. Total project costs are estimated at $207,730. The project is 

located within the proposed Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area (DPCWUCA) and will 

result in a reduction in groundwater used for frost/freeze crop protection. 


The District received a project proposal from GDK Land Trust, for their 84 acre nursery located 

in Plant City, in eastern Hillsborough County, within the DPCWUCA. The Water Use Permit 

(WUP) authorizes a total of 5,759,300 gpd to cold protect 39.35 acres of the nursery with 

overhead sprinkler. The remaining portion of the farm is a tree nursery that does not require 

frost/freeze protection. The primary goal of the project is to reduce the withdrawal of 

groundwater for cold protection through the addition of frost cloth to 25 acres of nursery. The 

reduction in groundwater use will benefit the Upper Floridan aquifer system by replacing Upper 

Floridan aquifer withdrawals with the use of frost cloth. FARMS project components consist of 

25 acres of frost cloth, frost cloth framing to keep the cloth from touching the plants, and sand 

bags to anchor the cloth from winds. 


The proposed project involves BMP alternatives to using groundwater for frost/freeze protection 

within the proposed DPCWUCA. Therefore, the project qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share 

reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program rule (40D-26, F.A.C.). The project is expected 

to offset 2.56 million gpd of the originally permitted frost/freeze quantities (permitted at the time 

of the January 2010 freeze event), yielding a cost of $2.07 per thousand gallons of groundwater 

reduced over the proposed five-year contract term, and $0.62 per thousand gallons of 

groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the FARMS guidelines for the 

generally accepted average cost savings for the implementation of alternative frost/freeze 

methods. Reimbursement will be divided evenly between the Hillsborough River Basin and the 

Governing Board. Upon approval, the Hillsborough River Basin and Governing Board will have 



(1) Approve the GDK Land Trust project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $155,798 

with $77,899 provided by Hillsborough River Basin and $77,899 provided by the Governing 

Board; 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $77,899 from Fund 013 H017 Hillsborough River Basin FARMS 

funds and $77,899 from Fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H652 GDK 

Land Trust project fund; and 



135

PAUL PAUL BUCHMAN BUCHMAN HWY HWY 

W BAKE R ST 

SAM ALLEN RD E 

PARK RD 

PARK RD 

0 0.4 0.8 1.6 

Miles 

0 0.05 0.1 0.2 

WILDER R 

WILDER R 

FRONTAGE R D N 

Miles 

Location Map 

GDK Land Trust 


WILDER RD N 

§¨¦ 4 

E BAKER BAKER ST 

§¨¦ 4 

EARL EARL YATES YATES LN 

136 

DELL DELL KEEN KEEN RD 

COUNTY COUNTY LINE LINE RD RD 

SWINDELL RD 

ELLIS RD 

ELLIS RD 

Legend 

μ 

^_ 

WUP 20007895.004 


GI 09/08/2011 

2010 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




FARMS – Circle G Farm and Ranch - Phase 2 (H653) – Hillsborough County 

Item 14.g. 

Purpose 


Management Systems (FARMS) project with Circle G Farm and Ranch - Phase 2 and approval 

to reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit of $150,130 (75 percent of total 

project costs). Of this amount, $75,065 is requested from the Hillsborough River Basin, and 

$75,065 from the Governing Board FARMS funds. Total project costs are estimated at 

$200,173. The project is located within the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area 

(DPCWUCA) and will result in a reduction in groundwater used for frost/freeze crop protection. 


The District received a project proposal from Circle G Farm and Ranch - Phase 2, for their 370acre 

strawberry farm located in Plant City, in northeastern Hillsborough County, within the 

DPCWUCA. Circle G Farm and Ranch – Phase 1 was fully reimbursed and it became 

operational in September 2011. The primary goal of the Phase 2 project is to reduce the 

withdrawal of groundwater through the construction and operation of three surface water 

irrigation reservoirs that will service 61 acres of farm field. The Water Use Permit (WUP) 

authorizes an annual average groundwater withdrawal of 141,100 gallons per day (gpd) and a 

frost freeze protection total of 4,745,000 gpd from three groundwater wells and 3,691,900 gpd 

from three surface water reservoirs. The three proposed surface water reservoirs have a total 

volume capacity of 7,961,000 gpd. Therefore, the surface water reservoirs will be used to 

provide the 3,691,900 gpd permitted for surface water plus 3,999,100 gpd of additional surface 

water to offset the permitted groundwater quantities. Therefore, the proposed FARMS project 

will offset a total of 84 percent of groundwater used for cold protection, and a total of 60 percent 

of groundwater used for bed preparation, crop establishment, and daily irrigation servicing the 

61 acres of Phase 2 strawberry fields. The reduction in groundwater use will benefit the Upper 

Floridan aquifer system by replacing withdrawals with recovered surface water. FARMS project 

components consist of three surface water irrigation pump station(s), three filtration systems, 

and the piping necessary to connect the surface water reservoirs to the existing irrigation 

system. 


The proposed project involves water quantity BMP’s for bed preparation, crop establishment, 

supplemental irrigation, and alternatives to using groundwater for frost/freeze protection within 

the DPCWUCA. Therefore, the project qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share reimbursement rate 

under the FARMS Program rule (40D-26, F.A.C.). The project is expected to offset 3,999,100 

gpd of the originally permitted frost/freeze quantities (permitted at the time of the January 2010 

freeze event), yielding a cost of $1.28 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the 

proposed five-year contract term, and $0.38 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over 

a thirty-year term. This value is within the guidelines for the generally accepted average cost 

savings for the implementation of alternative frost/freeze methods. In addition, this project will 

reduce withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer for bed preparation, crop plant 

establishment, and daily irrigation by 60 percent of permitted daily quantities. Using an 

estimated 60 percent savings of permitted quantities for bed preparation, crop plant 

establishment, and daily irrigation, or approximately 84,660 gpd, yields a daily cost of $1.49 per 

137

Item 14.g. 

thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed five-year contract term, and $0.45 

per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the 

FARMS guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for the 

implementation of alternative supplies for strawberry operations. Reimbursement will be divided 

evenly between Hillsborough River Basin and the Governing Board. Upon approval, the 

Hillsborough River Basin and Governing Board will have $943,976 and $1,223,113, 



(1) Approve the Circle G Farm and Ranch - Phase 2 project for a not-to-exceed project 

reimbursement of $150,130 with $75,065 provided by the Hillsborough River Basin and 

$75,065 provided by the Governing Board; 


funds and $75,065 from Fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H653 

Circle G Farm and Ranch - Phase 2 project fund; and 



138

MERRIN RD 

MERRIN RD 

VARN RD 

LAN IER RD 

SLEEPY SLEEPY HOLLOW HOLLOW LN 

MERRIN RD 

MERRIN RD 

MCLIN DR 

MCLIN DR 


N N CARLTON CARLTON RD RD 

HUNTER RD E 

HUNTER RD E 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 

Miles 


LAN IER RD 

¬« 39 

PEREGRINE PEREGRINE DR 

HUNTER RD E 

N N CARLTON CARLTON RD RD 

0 0.1 0.2 0.4 

Miles 

Location Map 

Circle G Farms and Ranch Phase 2 


! 

! 

SHIVER TRL TRL 

HALF MILE RD 

HALF MILE RD 

CROCKER LN LN 

! 

HALF MILE RD 

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD E 

SHIVER TRL 

SHIVER TRL 

! 

SHIVER TRL 

SHIVER TRL 

139 

FISH FISH FARM FARM RD RD 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RD RD 

FISH FARM RD 

FISH FARM RD 

BAILEY BAILEY RD RD 

Legend 

WUP 20002486 

μ 

^_ 

Proposed Surface Water Pond 

! Proposed Pump Station 


GI 09/08/2011 

2010 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




FARMS – Castillo Farms, LLC - Stafford Road (H654) – Hillsborough County 

Item 14.h. 

Purpose 


Management Systems (FARMS) project with Castillo Farms, LLC - Stafford Road and approval 

to reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit of $24,980 (75 percent of total 

project costs). Of this amount, $12,490 is requested from the Hillsborough River Basin and 

$12,490 from the Governing Board FARMS funds. Total project costs are estimated at $33,307. 

The project is located within the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area (DPCWUCA) and will 

result in a reduction in groundwater used for frost/freeze crop protection. 


The District received a project proposal from Castillo Farms, LLC - Stafford Road for their ten 

acre strawberry farm located two miles northwest of Plant City, in eastern Hillsborough County, 

within the DPCWUCA. The property drains into Pemberton Creek and Campbell Branch, which 

will eventually drain into the Hillsborough River. The Water Use Permit (WUP) is currently 

under review for modification and projected to authorize groundwater withdrawal for frost/freeze 

crop protection at 1,425,480 gallons per day (gpd) for ten acres of strawberry. The primary goal 

of the project is to reduce the withdrawal of groundwater for frost/freeze crop protection through 

the addition of frost cloth for ten acres of strawberry. The reduction in groundwater use will 

benefit the Upper Floridan aquifer system by replacing groundwater withdrawals with the use of 

frost cloth for cold protection. FARMS project components consist of ten acres of frost cloth and 

one shed to store the frost cloth. 


The proposed project involves alternatives to using groundwater for frost/freeze protection 

within the proposed DPCWUCA. Therefore, the project qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share 

reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program rule (40D-26, F.A.C.). The project is expected 

to offset 997,836 gpd of the originally permitted frost/freeze quantities (permitted at the time of 

the January 2010 freeze event), yielding a cost of $1.35 per thousand gallons of groundwater 

reduced over the proposed three-year contract term, and $0.26 per thousand gallons of 

groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the FARMS guidelines for the 

generally accepted average cost savings for the implementation of alternative frost/freeze 

methods. Reimbursement will be divided evenly between the Hillsborough River Basin and the 

Governing Board. Upon approval, the Hillsborough River Basin and Governing Board will have 



(1) Approve the Castillo Farms, LLC - Stafford Road project for a not-to-exceed project 

reimbursement of $24,980 with $12,490 provided by Hillsborough River Basin and $12,490 

provided by the Governing Board; 


funds and $12,490 from Fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H654 project 

fund; and 



140

BETHLEHEM BETHLEHEM RD RD NN 

STAFFORD RD 

FRESA WAY 

LEO CLEMONS LN 

LEO CLEMONS LN 

MILLARD MILLARD BOYD BOYD RD RD 

HARVEY TEW RD 

§¨¦ 4 

APPLING WOODS PL 

APPLING WOODS PL 

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 

Miles 

MILLARD MILLARD BOYD BOYD RD RD 

0 0.0250.05 

0.1 

Miles 

Location Map 

Castillo Farms, LLC Stafford Rd 


EDITH EDITH DELANEY DELANEY LN LN 

N N FORBES FORBES RD RD 

FLEMING RD 

SPEER AVE 

GABBY CT 

§¨¦ 4 

STAFFORD RD 

141 

THONOTOSASSA THONOTOSASSA RD 

BROCK RD 

BROCK RD 

EDITH EDITH DELANEY DELANEY LN LN 

HAWK HAWK GRIFFIN GRIFFIN RD RD 

Legend 

μ 

^_ 

WUP 20009888.001 

Frost Cloth 


GI 09/13/2011 

2010 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




FARMS – FLM, Inc. – Blossom Grove Phase 3 (H615), Manatee County 

Item 14.i. 

Purpose 


Management Systems (FARMS) project with FLM, Inc. and approval to reimburse FARMS 

eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit for Phase 3 at $312,825 (75 percent of total project 

costs). Of this amount, $1,544 is requested from State Appropriations, $155,641 from the 

Manasota Basin, and $155,640 from the Governing Board FARMS funds. Total project costs 

are estimated to increase by $417,100 to a total of $884,100 for all three phases of work. 


The District received a project proposal from FLM, Inc. for their 1,212-acre citrus grove located 

two miles west of Parrish, in eastern Manatee County, within the Most Impacted Area (MIA) of 

the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA). The property is bisected by, and drains into, 

Buffalo Creek, which flows into Terra Ceia Bay. This project will collect and reuse water from 

the property and surrounding watershed. The Water Use Permit (WUP) authorizes an annual 

average groundwater withdrawal of 835,000 gallons per day (gpd) to irrigate 1,016 acres of 

citrus. Since May 1991, an average 49 percent of the permitted quantities, or 409,000 gpd, 

were used to irrigate the grove. However, much of the grove was removed after citrus canker 

was discovered a number of years ago. The grower is in the process of replanting, and 

therefore will be using an increasing amount of the permitted quantity. 

There are three existing surface water reservoirs on this property. In October 2010, the 

Governing Board approved the initial project at this grove, which uses FARMS funding 

assistance for two pump stations on two of the three reservoirs for the irrigation of citrus. This 

project is complete. In April 2011, the Governing Board approved a project proposal from FLM, 

Inc. for a second phase of this project to include an additional pump station for the third 

reservoir. This pump station is also complete. The first phase of the project serves 381 acres 

and the second phase serves 254 acres of the grove. Permitted quantities for these portions of 

the grove are 417,600 gpd with an estimated FARMS project offset of 250,000 gpd. Surface 

water use from the first and second phases has offset nearly 350,000 gpd of groundwater to 

date. 

This project phase will serve an additional 254 acres of the grove not serviced by the previous 

phases surface water pump stations and will offset an additional 125,000 gpd. The goal of this 

project is to reduce the withdrawal of groundwater through the construction and operation of a 

new five acre surface water irrigation reservoir on the north side of Buffalo Creek. The 

reduction in groundwater use will benefit the Upper Floridan aquifer system by replacing 

withdrawals with recovered surface water. FARMS project components consist of one surface 

water irrigation pump station, filtration, and the piping necessary to connect to the existing 

irrigation system. 


The proposed project involves water quantity BMPs, but qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share 

reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program because Upper Floridan aquifer withdrawals will 

be reduced by more than 50 percent over the project area. The permitted quantity in the project 

area serviced by all three phases of this project is 626,400 gpd. Each phase has proposed to 

offset an estimated 60 percent savings of permitted quantities for daily irrigation within the 

project area, for a total estimated offset of 375,000 gpd. This offset yields a daily cost of $1.49 

142

Item 14.i. 

per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed five-year contract term, and 

$0.45 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within 

the FARMS guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for 

the implementation of alternative supplies for citrus operations. State Appropriations will be 

used for $1,544 of the reimbursement with the remaining reimbursement divided evenly 

between the Manasota Basin and the Governing Board. Upon approval, the Manasota Basin 

and Governing Board will have $49,390 and $1,223,113, respectively, remaining in their 

FARMS Program budgets. 


(1) Approve the FLM, Inc. - Blossom Grove - Phase 3 project for a not-to-exceed contractual 

project reimbursement of $312,825, using $1,544 from State Appropriations allocated to the 

Manasota Basin, $155,641 provided by the Manasota Basin, and $155,640 provided by the 

Governing Board. 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $155,641 from Fund 021 - H017 Manasota Basin FARMS funds, 


Appropriations from Fund 021 – H017 Manasota Basin to the H615 FLM, Inc. project fund; 

and 



143

§¨¦ 75 

69TH ST E 

MOCCASIN WALLOW RD 

ERIE RD 

0 0.45 0.9 1.8 

Miles 

! 

7 

Phase 3 - 

Proposed Northwest 

Reservoir and 

Pump Station 

Phase 1 - 

West Reservoir 

and Pump Station 

69TH ST E 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!( 

!( 

MOCCASIN WALLOW RD 

ERIE RD 

ERIE RD 

0 0.3 0.6 1.2 

Miles 

Location Map 

FLM, Inc. - Blossom Grove 


6 

10 

12 

9 5 

! ! 

!( 

! 

2 

! 

!( 

4 

3! 

! 8 

Phase 1 - 

North Reservoir 


! 

1 

97TH ST E 

£¤ 301 

97TH ST E 

Phase 2 - 

EastReservoir 


Note: The first amendments to the contract 

also provides for 13 culverts placed in the 

ditches on the property to direct water to 

the reservoirs. Exact locations of these 

culverts will be determind by the grower 

according to drainage requirements 

144 

Legend 

^_ 

Proposed Pump Station 

!( Pump Station 

Manatee County 

μ 

Proposed Reservoir 

WUP 20007724 

CE 09/02/2011 

2011 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




FARMS – Evans Ranch, LLC (H646) – Polk County 

Item 14.j. 

Purpose 


Management Systems (FARMS) project with Evans Ranch, LLC located within Polk County and 

the Green Swamp Basin, and approval to reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed 

limit of $90,174 (60 percent of total project costs). Of this amount, $90, 174 is requested from 

the Governing Board FARMS funds. Total project costs are estimated at $151,074. 


The District received a project proposal from Evans Ranch, LLC, for their 20-acre blueberry 

farm located seven miles northwest of Polk City, in eastern Polk County, within the former 

Green Swamp Basin. The property drains into the Upper Withlacoochee River. This project will 

collect and reuse surface water from the blueberry farm for irrigation to offset groundwater 

withdrawals. The Water Use Permit (WUP) authorizes an annual average groundwater 

withdrawal of 39,000 gallons per day (gpd) to irrigate 20 acres of blueberries with groundwater. 

There is no reported pumpage, as the permitted quantity is less than 100,000 gpd. The primary 

goal of the project is to reduce the withdrawal of groundwater through the construction and 

operation of a 1.1 acre surface water reservoir in conjunction with a connection to an existing 

0.8 acre surface water reservoir. The reduction in groundwater use will benefit the Floridan 

aquifer system by replacing groundwater withdrawals with recovered surface water. FARMS 

project components consist of one surface water pump station, filtration, pipe to connect the two 

surface water reservoirs and the piping necessary to connect the surface water reservoir to the 

existing irrigation system. 


The proposed project involves water quantity BMPs for supplemental irrigation and qualifies for 

a 75 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program since it is expected to 

offset the use of groundwater by 50 percent or more. Using an estimated 75 percent savings 

of permitted quantities for daily irrigation, or 29,250 gpd, yields a daily cost of $2.45 per 

thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed seven-year contract term, and 

$0.98 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within 

the FARMS guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for 

the implementation of alternative supplies for blueberry operations. Reimbursement will be 

provided by the Governing Board. Upon approval, the Governing Board will have $1,223,113 

remaining in the FARMS Program budget. 


(1) Approve the Evans Ranch, LLC project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of 

$90,174 provided by the Governing Board; 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $90,174 from Fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to 

the H646 Evans Ranch, LLC, project fund; and 



145

EVANS RANCH RD 

EVANS RANCH RD 

MOORE RD 

MOORE RD 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 

Miles 

0 0.05 0.1 0.2 

Miles 

Location Map 

Evans Ranch, LLC 


DEEN STILL RD 

#* DEEN STILL RD 

DEEN STILL RD 

BRAHMA RD 

BRAHMA RD 

146 

ANGUS RD 

ANGUS RD 

HEREFORD LN 

HEREFORD LN 

^_ 

Legend 

#* Proposed Pump 

Connection Pipe 

Constructed 

Proposed Pond 

WUP 200013342 

Polk County 

μ 

JB 09/06/2011 

2010 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




FARMS – Jeremy Scott Blueberries (H650) – Polk County 

Item 14.k. 

Purpose 


Management Systems (FARMS) project with Jeremy Scott, located within Polk County and the 

Green Swamp Basin, and approval to reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed 

limit of $34,611 (75 percent of total project costs). Of this amount, $34,611 is requested from 

the Governing Board FARMS funds. Total project costs are estimated at $46,148. 


The District received a project proposal from Jeremy Scott for his eight-acre blueberry farm in 

northwestern Polk County. The property drains into the Withlacoochee River. This project will 

collect and reuse surface water from the property and surrounding watershed to offset 

groundwater withdrawals. The Water Use Permit (WUP) authorizes an annual average 

groundwater withdrawal of 15,800 gallons per day (gpd) to irrigate eight acres of blueberries 

with drip irrigation. There is no reported pumpage, as the permitted quantity is less than 

100,000 gpd. The primary goal of the project is to reduce the withdrawal of groundwater 

through the addition of a surface water pump station to an approximately 0.33 acre surface 

water pond. The reduction in groundwater use will benefit the Floridan aquifer system by 

replacing groundwater withdrawals with recovered surface water. FARMS project components 

consist of one surface water irrigation pump station, filtration, and pipe to connect to the existing 

irrigation system. 


The proposed project involves water quantity BMPs for supplemental irrigation and qualifies for 

a 75 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program since it is expected to 

offset the use of groundwater by 50 percent or more. Using an estimated 65 percent savings 

of permitted quantities for daily irrigation, or 10,270 gpd, which is based on the expected 

production of surface water from the pond, yields a daily cost of $2.42 per thousand gallons of 

groundwater reduced over the proposed six-year contract term, and $0.85 per thousand gallons 

of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the FARMS guidelines for 

the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for the implementation of 

alternative supplies for blueberry operations. Reimbursement will be provided by the Governing 

Board. Upon approval, the Governing Board will have $1,223,113 remaining in the FARMS 

Program budget. 


(1) Approve the Jeremy Scott Blueberries project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of 

$34,611 with $34,611 provided by the Governing Board; 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $34,611 from Fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Funds to 

the H650 Jeremy Scott Blueberries project fund; and 



147

PINEBEND DR 

TOM COSTINE RD 

!( 

MOORE RD 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 

Miles 

0 0.015 0.03 0.06 

Miles 

PINETOP DR E 

Location Map 

Jeremy Scott Blueberries 


TRA IL IL WEST WEST 

!( 

148 

BRYANT RD 

BRYANT RD 

RED RED RIVER RIVER TRL TRL 

MOORE RD 

MOORE RD 

Le ge nd 

20020065.000 

Proposed Pond 

μ 

^_ 

Proposed Surface Water Pump Station 

!( Existing Well 

Polk County 

JB 09/15/2011 

2010 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ




Approve Governing Board Minutes 

a. September 13, 2011 Tentative Budget Hearing 

b. September 27, 2011 Monthly Meeting 

c. September 27, 2011 Final Budget Hearing 

Staff Recommendation: See Exhibits 

Approve the minutes as presented. 


149 

Item 15

MINUTES OF THE MEETING 

FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 2012 

MILLAGE RATE AND ANNUAL SERVICE BUDGET 

GOVERNING BOARD 


TAMPA,FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District met at 5:04 p.m. on 

September 13, 2011, at the Tampa Service Office. The following persons were present: 

Board Members Present 

H. Paul Senft, Chair 

Hugh Gramling, Vice Chair 

Albert G. Joerger, Treasurer 

Michael A. Babb, Member 

Jennifer E. Closshey, Member 

Board Members Teleconferencing 

Douglas B. Tharp, Secretary 

Jeffrey M. Adams, Member 

Bryan K. Beswick, Member 

Board Members Absent 

Carlos Beruff, Member 

Neil Combee, Member 

Todd Pressman, Member 

Judith C. Whitehead, Member 

Staff Members Present 

William S. Bilenky, Interim Executive Director 

Lou Kavouras, Deputy Executive Director 

Richard S. Owen, Deputy Executive Director 

Bruce C. Wirth, Deputy Executive Director 

Kurt Fritsch, Acting Deputy Executive Director 

Daryl F. Pokrana, Director, Finance Dept. 

Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Director, Finance Dept. 

Cathy A. Linsbeck, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Eloise M. Buzbee, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Alan J. Lynch, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Michael B. Cacioppo, Staff Budget Analyst, Finance 

Recorded by 

Randy Emberg, Video Production Spec. Supervisor 

Joyce Morra, Administrative Coordinator, Finance 

A list of others present who signed the attendance roster is filed in the permanent files of the 

District. This meeting was conducted using communications media technology in order to permit 

maximum participation of Governing Board members. 


Chair Senft called the meeting to order, and said it is time to proceed with the public hearing 

as scheduled and properly noticed for this date and time. Public comment will only be 

accepted here at the Tampa Service Office; however, there are numerous opportunities for 

the public to provide comment via correspondence, facsimile and electronic mail prior to the 

Board’s final hearing on September 27, 2011, at 5:01 p.m., at the District’s Tampa Service 

Office. 

Ms. Kavouras called the roll noting which Board members were present or teleconferencing 

(see above). A quorum was present with five members participating in person and three 

members participating via telephone. 

Chair Senft then led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 

Mr. Bilenky offered the invocation. 

2. Open Public Hearing 

Chair Senft said this hearing is for the purpose of adopting a tentative millage rate and 

budget for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Sections 373.536 

150

Minutes of the Meeting September 13, 2011 

Governing Board First Public Hearing Page 2 of 4 

and 200.065, Florida Statutes, as amended. If any member of the public would like to speak 

during this hearing, please fill out a blue card located at the desk outside the door and give 

the card to Ms. Kavouras who is seated at the table in front of the dais. Members of the 

public will be called on at the appropriate time during the meeting and will be limited to three 

minutes per speaker. 

Chair Senft relinquished the gavel to Mr. Joerger, Treasurer and Chair of the Finance and 

Administration Committee. (00:00/04:23) 

Mr. Joerger said the purpose of this first Truth in Millage (or TRIM) public hearing is to 

provide an opportunity for the public to speak and ask questions prior to the adoption of a 

tentative millage rate and budget for the District. A second public hearing will be held on 

September 27, 2011, prior to adoption of the final millage rate and budget, also to be held 

here, at the Tampa Service Office. This year, the Board and staff used the budget process 

to achieve substantial change in the organization. The budget development process began 

in January when the Governing Board approved the Budget Priorities and Assumptions for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. The process will end with the adoption of a final millage rate and 

budget by this Board at the second public hearing on September 27. 

Mr. Joerger said the District's combined FY2012 budget is $156 million, a decrease of $124 

million (a 44 percent reduction) from the current budget of $280 million. The budget was 

developed in compliance with Senate Bill 2142, which established a cap of $107,766,957, 

as the maximum amount of ad valorem taxes that may be levied by this District for FY2012. 

This represents a 36-percent reduction from FY2011, and has made the development of this 

year’s budget a challenge with an opportunity to clarify priorities. At its July meeting, the 

Governing Board adopted a District millage rate of 0.3928, and most citizens will see 

reduced taxes for FY2012. 

Mr. Joerger said, on August 24, 2011, the District received a letter from Governor Rick Scott 

who disapproved the District’s scheduled operating reserves in the amount of $2.4 million, 

and the District’s scheduled Salary and Benefits expenditure by $1.575 million (related to 

personnel reductions) and by $259,000 (related to compensation of senior level staff). The 

proposed FY2012 budget has been adjusted for these items. Importantly, Governor Scott 

expressed his appreciation for finding efficiencies and savings, thus enabling the submission 

of our budget at a savings of $124 million. The Governor also applauded the District’s 

forward thinking in meeting the region’s water supply needs into the future. Governor Scott 

recognized that the financial engine has allowed the District and its partners to construct 

vital infrastructure that has been instrumental in supporting the growth of the region over the 

last decade. 

Mr. Joerger noted that, on September 7, 2011, the Legislative Budget Commission reviewed 

the District’s FY2012 budget and voted to allow the District’s budget to move forward without 

any disallowances. 

Mr. Joerger said, in summary, he believes this budget reflects the District's goal of providing 

cost-effective quality services while protecting and enhancing the public's water resources. 

He thanked the staffs of the Executive Office of the Governor, Department of Environmental 

Protection and Legislature for their thoughtful involvement this year. He thanked Board 

members, staff, and all others involved in the process for their special efforts required to 

develop this budget and make desired changes. (04:23/08:35) 

151



3. Budget Overview 

Ms. Pilcher explained the changes to the proposed budget since the Board’s August 30, 

2011, meeting. She then reviewed the proposed FY2012 Revenue Budget; Expenditure 

Budget by Program Area; Expenditure Budget by Category; Budget Summary Comparison – 

All Funds Expenditures; Budget Summary Advertisement; Total Projected Resources 

Available October 1, 2011; and how the District allocates resources by six statutory program 

areas for tentative budget and tentative budget adjusted for projected carryover 

encumbrances (08:35/16:08) 

4. Public Announcement of the Name of the Taxing Authority, Rolled-Back Rate, 

Percentage Decrease, and Millage Rate to be Levied for FY2012 

Ms. Pilcher presented the required public announcement of the name of the taxing authority, 

the rolled-back rate, the percentage of tax decrease below the rolled-back rate, and the 

millage rate to be levied for FY2012, and read into the record as required for the District. 

TAXING AUTHORITY 

Southwest Florida Water 

Management District 

(16:08/16:42) 

5. Public Comments 

ROLLED-BACK 

RATE 

PERCENTAGE OF TAX 

DECREASE BELOW ROLLED- 

BACK RATE 

MILLAGE RATE 

0.6168 -36.32% 0.3928 

a. Letters/Resolutions Received 

Mr. Joerger noted the District has received no correspondence from taxpayers in 

response to receiving their 2011 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes. He said staff has 

received ten phone calls relating primarily to notice of proposed property taxes. 

b. Persons Wishing to Address the Board 

Mr. Joerger requested that anyone wishing to address the budget come forward, and 

state their name, address, and group affiliation, if any. 

Mr. David Gore, said he is an interested citizen who lives in Polk County and attended 

the budget hearing two years ago. He expressed his concerns with funding to protect 

water resources and provided information to Board members. 

Mr. Joerger thanked Mr. Gore for his comments. (16:42/24:00) 

6. Adopt Tentative Fiscal Year 2012 Millage Rate 


RESOLUTION NO. 11-16 

ADOPTION OF TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

This resolution is made a part of these minutes as if set forth in full but, for convenience, is 

filed in the permanent resolution files of the District. 

Following consideration, Ms. Closshey moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-16, Adoption 

of Tentative Millage Rate for Fiscal Year 2012, of 0.3928 mill. Mr. Gramling seconded 

the motion. The motion carried unanimously. (24:00/24:44) 

152



7. Adopt Tentative Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 



ADOPTION OF TENTATIVE BUDGET 




Following consideration, Ms. Closshey moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-17, Adoption 

of Tentative Budget for Fiscal Year 2012, in the amount of $155,543,897. Chair Senft 

seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. (24:44/25:20) 

8. Announcement of Second and Final Public Hearing 

Mr. Joerger announced the second public hearing will be held on September 27, 2011, 

5:01 p.m., at the District’s Tampa Service Office. Final action on the FY2012 budget will be 

taken at that time. 

Mr. Joerger relinquished the gavel to Chair Senft. 

Chair Senft noted that Board members will be contacted by the new Executive Director Blake 

Guillory in the next few weeks. 

Chair Senft suggested that next year’s Board chair consider changing the 5:01 p.m. meeting 

time next year so that the public may attend the budget hearings after their work day. 

9. Adjournment 

There being no further business to come before the Board, Ms. Closshey moved, seconded 

by Mr. Joerger, to adjourn the meeting. (25:20/27:56) 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:32 p.m. 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis of disability. This 

nondiscrimination policy involves every aspect of the District's functions, including access to and participation in the District's 

programs and activities. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act 

should contact the District's Human Resources Director, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899; telephone 

(352) 796-7211, ext. 4702, or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only), ext. 4702; TDD (FL only) 1-800-231-6103; or email to 

ADACoordinator@swfwmd.state.fl.us. 

153





The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) met for 

its regular meeting at 2:30 p.m. on September 27, 2011, at the District’s Tampa Service Office. 

The following persons were present: 













Board Member(s) Absent 


A list of others present who signed the attendance roster is filed in the permanent records of the 

District. This meeting was available for viewing through internet streaming. Approved minutes 

from previous meetings can be found on the District's Web site (www.WaterMatters.org). 

PUBLIC HEARING (Video A – 00:00) 

Staff Members 





Kurt P. Fritsch, Acting Deputy Executive Director 

Karen West, Deputy General Counsel 

Board’s Administrative Support 

LuAnne Stout, Administrative Coordinator 

Linda De Jonge, Senior Administrative Assistant 


Chair Senft called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing. Mr. Tharp noted a 

quorum was present. 


Chair Senft led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 

Mr. Bilenky offered the invocation. 

Public Hearing 

Chair Senft introduced each member of the Governing Board. He noted that the Board’s 

meeting was recorded for broadcast on government access channels, and public input was only 

taken during the meeting onsite. 

Chair Senft stated that anyone wishing to address the Governing Board concerning any item 

listed on the agenda or any item that does not appear on the agenda should fill out and submit a 

speaker's card. To assure that all participants have an opportunity to speak, a member of the 

public may submit a speaker’s card to comment on agenda items only during today's meeting. 

If the speaker wishes to address the Board on an issue not on today's agenda, a speaker’s card 

may be submitted for comment during "Public Input." Chair Senft stated that comments would 

be limited to three minutes per speaker, and, when appropriate, exceptions to the three-minute 

limit may be granted by the Chair. He also requested that several individuals wishing to speak 

on the same issue/topic designate a spokesperson. 

154


SWFWMD Governing Board Page 2 of 10 


Chair Senft noted for the record that there are no additions or deletions to today’s agenda. 

(Track 1 – 00:00/02:58) 

4. Employee Recognition 

Mr. Bilenky recognized the following four employees who have reached service 

milestones: 

MILESTONE EMPLOYEE NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT 

25 YEARS 

OFFICE 

LOCATION 

Mark Haberman Professional Geologist/Engineer Brooksville Regulation Brooksville 

Granville Kinsman Hydrologic Data Manager Operations Brooksville 

Mark Luchte Agricultural Reg Program Manager Sarasota Regulation Sarasota 

20 YEARS Chris Tomlinson Field Technician Supervisor Res Data & Restoration Tampa 

Mr. Michael Holtkamp, Director, Operations Department, presented Mr. Randy Hinkle with 

a retirement plaque recognizing his 31 years of service. (Track 1 – 02:58/19:30) 

Mr. Fritsch welcomed and congratulated Mr. Steve Dicks for his promotion to the District’s 

management team as Director of the Information Resources Department. (Track 1 – 

19:30/28:30) 

Chair Senft introduced Mr. Blake Guillory who begins next week as the District’s Executive 

Director. 

5. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda – None 

CONSENT AGENDA (Video 31:30) 

Chair Senft noted that a speaker request card was submitted for Item 12. 

Mr. Hilton Meadows of Jacksonville complimented Messr. Bilenky and Owen for communicating 

with him, and noted he wants to speak if opposition occurs for Item 12. (Track 1 – 28:30/30:37) 


6. Budget Transfer Report 

Staff recommended to approve the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers 

for August 2011. 

7. Board Encumbrances 

Staff recommended to approve prior year and current year funds encumbrances, without 

an agreement, for the projects listed below: 

� Construction of a Tie-back Berm at Structure S-353 (S012) - $150,000 

� Lake Panasoffkee Restoration (W481) - $51,477 

� Palm River Restoration Project (W367) - $499,310 

� Terra Ceia Restoration Project (W348) - $956,306 

� FARMS – Wells with Poor Water Quality in the SWUCA Back-Plugging Program 

(H015) - $40,000 

� Wetland Monitoring Network Expansion (P277) - $52,356 

� Districtwide Flow Meter Replacements - $50,000 

� Office of Inspector General – Consultant Services - $61,660 

8. General Services Department – Fleet Services – Replace Truck Lift 

Staff recommended to approve the replacement purchase of a four-post 30,000-pound lift 

which will accommodate heavier trucks and provide a safe working environment for 

Fleet Services Section technicians. 

155




9. Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022 – Consider Current and Projected 

Conditions 

Staff recommended to maintain the current Water Shortage Order. 

10. Approve Revised District Regulatory Plan for July 2011 – June 2012 

Staff recommended to approve submittal to the Governor’s Office of Fiscal 

Accountability and Regulatory Reform of the District’s Revised Annual Regulatory Plan for 

July 2011 – 2012. 

11. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to 40D-1.6105, 40D-1.659, 40D-2.091, 

40D-2.101 and 40D-2.801, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to Correct the Legal 

Descriptions and Maps and Figures of the Boundaries of the Southern Water Use 

Caution Area (SWUCA), the Most Impacted Area of the SWUCA and the Northern 

Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area 

Staff recommended to authorize initiation of rulemaking and approve amendments to rules 

40D-1.6105, 40D-1.659, 40D-2.091, 40D-2.101, 40D-2.351 and 40D-2.801, F.A.C., and 

Part B, Basis of Review, Water Use Permit Information Manual, including and maps and 

figures referenced or incorporated therein and in permit applications and forms to correct 

the legal description and related maps and figures of the boundaries of the SWUCA, the 

Most Impacted Area of the SWUCA and the Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution 

Area. 

12. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rules 40D-1.659, 40D-4.091, 40D-4.101, 

40D-4.331 and 40D-4.351, F.A.C.; Environmental Resource Permit Application Forms 

and Information Manual Part B, Basis of Review, to Clarify Submission of Permit- 

Related Documents by Licensed or Registered Professionals 

Staff recommended to approve the proposed amendments and authorize staff to proceed 

with rulemaking to amend Rules 40D-1.659, 40D-4.021, 40D-4.091, 40D-4.101, 40D-4.331 

and 40D-4.351, F.A.C., the Environmental Resource Permitting Manual Part B, Basis of 

Review, Joint Application for Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use State 

Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit, Statement of Completion and 

Request for Transfer to Operation Entity, Statement of Inspection for Proper Operation 

and Maintenance Form, Environmental Resource Permit Modification Short Form and 

General Environmental Resource Permit Application for Modification Related to Outparcel 

Construction Within Permitted Commercial/Industrial Projects Form and Petition for a 

Formal Determination of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, to 

clarify that such forms may be submitted by licensed or registered professionals when 

appropriate to their profession and as prescribed by law and make other clarifying 

changes to the forms. 

13. Individual Water Use Permit 20002981.017 - City of Clearwater / City of Clearwater – 

Pinellas County 

Staff recommended to approve the proposed permit as presented in the Board’s meeting 

materials. 


14. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend Rule 40D-9.230, F.A.C., to Conform 

to Legislation Preempting All Firearms Regulation 


with rulemaking to amend Rule 40D-9.230, F.A.C., to eliminate references to firearms or 

ammunition regulation. 

15. Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Regional Integrated Loop 

System Phase 2 Interconnect – First Amendment (H051) 

Staff recommended to approve the Authority’s request to amend the agreement’s effective 

start date; approve a no-cost change first amendment to the cooperative funding 

agreement with the Authority to amend the effective contract period start date from 

October 1, 2009 to June 1, 2007; and authorize the Interim Executive Director to execute 

the amendment. 

156



General Counsel’s Report 

16. Consent Order – Surface Water Activity - James A. Lanius and Lois A. Lanius 

(Lanius Warehouse) – Polk County 

Staff recommended to approve the proposed Consent Order and authorize the initiation of 

litigation against James A. Lanius, Lois A. Lanius, or other responsible parties to obtain 

compliance with the Consent Order if necessary. 

17. Settlement Agreement – SWFWMD v. Margrette Kennedy Satterfield & Lenore 

Crosland Stuart, et al, Case No. 2010-CA-009204, 10 th Judicial Circuit - Lake 

Hancock Project, SWF Parcel No. 20-503-123P – Polk County 

Staff recommended to approve the Settlement Agreement in the total amount of 

$267,193.28. 



a. August 29, 2011 Special Meeting 

b. August 30, 2011 Monthly Meeting 

Staff recommended to approve the minutes as presented. 

Mr. Gramling moved, seconded by Ms. Whitehead, to approve the Consent Agenda as 

presented. Motion carried unanimously. (Track 1 – 30:37/31:10) 

Chair Senft relinquished the gavel to Outreach and Planning Committee Chair Adams who 

called the Committee meeting to order. (Track 1 – 31:10/31:16) 

OUTREACH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE (Video 33:30) 

Discussion Items – None 


The following item was submitted for the Committee’s information, and no action was required. 

19. Legislative Overview 


The following items were provided for the Committee’s information, and no action was required. 

20. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews 

21. Development of Regional Impact Reviews 

22. Significant Activities 

� Ms. Kavouras said the Florida Water Star SM Program event at On Top of the World 

Development Company announced all future homes built in that community will be built to 

Florida Water Star SM standards. 

� Ms. Kavouras noted that the District has a team of landscape professionals who took first 

place in a recent challenge. The team consists of Jeff Toth, Roger Rutter, Chris Miller and 

Silas Rooker. 

Outreach and Planning Committee Chair Adams adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Regulation Committee Chair Beswick who called the Committee 

meeting to order. (Track 2 – 00:00/03:14, Track 3 – 00:00/00:12) 

REGULATION COMMITTEE (Video 36:45) 


23. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion – None 

24. Streamlined Permitting Discussion 

Mr. Owen said, several months ago, Mr. Pressman contacted staff to investigate a way 

some projects might be handled in a short-time period. He noted that several water 

management districts are looking at similar initiatives. Mr. Owen said it will necessitate a 

157



change in the District’s business process and staff perception of how to handle some of 

these applications. He said staff is facilitating that change now and this presentation is to 

inform the Board about how District staff are streamlining some projects. 

Ms. Alba Más, P.E., Director, Tampa Regulation Department, said Chapter 120 of the 

Florida Administrative Code sets out the maximum review times of permit applications for 

District staff. Staff has 30 days to notify an applicant of errors or omissions in the 

submittal. Once complete, staff has 90 days to issue a permit. The development of 

e-permitting and its wider use by applicants has afforded the District an opportunity to 

more readily expedite the review and issuance of permits. Select Environmental 

Resource Permits lend themselves to an expedited review process. The types of permits 

included are Minor Systems, Noticed Generals and exemptions that do not have wetland 

impacts, discharges to impaired waters, works within sovereign submerged lands or fill 

within the 100-year floodplain. Staff has begun to triage application submittals once 

received to assess if they qualify for the process. If the application is complete upon initial 

submittal, staff issues a permit within two work days or less. The process requires that a 

complete application be submitted for review. The District is encouraging pre-application 

meetings and submittal of the permit application on-line through the District’s ePermitting 

web interface. The requirement for a request for additional information to address errors 

and omissions excludes the project from the expedited review process. 

This item is presented for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 

Board members commended staff for their efforts. (Track 4 – 00:00/11:09) 

For Items 25, 26 and 27, Mr. Owen noted that the District’s Regulatory Plan for July 2011 – 

June 2012 identifies rulemaking initiatives that are intended to reduce regulatory burdens, 

eliminate duplication of statutory language, update or remove outdated rule provisions and 

otherwise help streamline permitting requirements. District staff is proposing to move forward 

with amendments to three rules regulating the construction of water wells, to expand allowable 

permit extensions and eliminate outdated rule provisions. A copy of the proposed rule 

amendments was included in the Board’s meeting materials. Mr. Owen noted that three items 

are unique to this water management district. 

25. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rules 40D-3.321, 40D-3.502 and 

40D-3.517, F.A.C., to Allow Well Construction Permit Extensions and Eliminate 

Outdated Provisions 

Currently, well construction permits are valid for 90 days unless extended pursuant to Rule 

40D-3.321, F.A.C., and may be extended only once for a period up to 90 days. An 

exception is well construction permits for public supply wells, which may be extended as 

needed for a total period of not more than one year, in 90-day increments. District staff 

proposes to amend Rule 40D-3.321, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to allow all well 

construction permits to be extended up to one year, in increments of 90 days, as is 

allowable for public supply wells. This will eliminate the necessity to reapply and pay an 

additional permit fee for those situations where a well requires a considerable length of 

time to complete construction due to unusual factors or due to the necessity to await 

issuance of a related water use permit. Amendments are also proposed to Rules 

40D-3.502 and 40D-3.517, F.A.C., to delete outdated references to soil borings and 

foundation holes. These construction activities, which involve activities similar to 

construction of a well hole, previously were regulated under the District’s well construction 

rules but are no longer intended to be included in such regulations. 


with rulemaking to amend Rules 40D-3.321, 40D-3.502 and 40D-3.517, F.A.C., to allow 

well construction permit extensions for all wells and to eliminate outdated rule provisions. 

158



26. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rules 40D-1.607, 40D-1.659, 40D-4.091 

and 40D-4.351, F.A.C., and Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual 

Part B, Basis of Review, to Eliminate Fees for and Simplify Transfers of 

Environmental Resource Permits and Clarify Fees for Resubmitted Applications 

District staff identified several initiatives for amending the Environmental Resource Permit 

(ERP) rules. One such initiative is to eliminate the $91 fee currently charged for 

transferring permits to new owners upon the sale or other conveyance of property on 

which a permitted system is located. Staff believes it would be beneficial to both the 

District and the regulated public to eliminate this fee and allow permit transfers at no cost. 

The current fee, while minimal, is a disincentive to transferring permits and results in 

compliance cases which are not cost-effective for the District to pursue. Rule language 

which limits permit transfers upon change in ownership to properties where the land use 

remains the same will also be eliminated as unnecessarily burdensome to new owners. 

Another initiative is to clarify the exemption from fees for withdrawn or denied permit 

applications and petitions for formal determinations of wetlands and other surface waters 

that are resubmitted within 12 months. Under the current rule language, resubmittals 

within 12 months are exempt from repayment of the fee, but only if the same type of 

application with a substantially similar design is submitted or a substantially similar petition 

is submitted. Amendments will eliminate these restrictions that may be unnecessarily 

burdensome for applicants. 

To accomplish these changes, staff is proposing amendments to Rules 40D-1.607, 

40D-1.659, 40D-4.091 and 40D-4.351, F.A.C., and the Notification and Request for 

Transfer of ERP form, to allow the transfer of ERPs to new owners of property on which a 

permitted system is located without payment of a fee and without restriction as to current 

land use. As to resubmitted applications, Rule 40D-1.607, F.A.C., is further amended to 

clarify that if resubmitted within 12 months, a withdrawn or denied application does not 

require repayment of the same fee. If the resubmitted application requires a larger fee than 

what was previously submitted, only the increase in fee will be required, if resubmitted 

within 12 months. A section of the ERP Basis of Review that refers to the Notification and 

Request for Transfer of ERP form and Rule 40D-4.091, F.A.C., which incorporates the 

Basis of Review by reference, will also be accordingly amended. 


with rulemaking to amend Rules 40D-1.607, 40D-1.659, 40D-4.091, and 40D-4.351, 

F.A.C., the Notification and Request for Transfer of Environmental Resource Permit Form, 

and the ERP Basis of Review, to eliminate the fee for transferring permits and the 

restriction that the land use remain the same, and to clarify the fee exemption for 

resubmitted permit applications and petitions for formal determination of wetlands and 

other surface waters. 

27. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to Rule 40D-4.331, F.A.C., to Authorize 

Reactivation of Expired Environmental Resource Permits 

Accordingly, staff proposes amendments to Rule 40D-4.331, F.A.C., to authorize the 

reactivation and extension of expired construction and conceptual ERPs for durations up 

to five years. Permit reauthorization and extension would be allowable provided the 

activities to be undertaken during the extended period will be in compliance with the 

District’s rules in effect at the time the application seeking reauthorization and extension is 

submitted. Application would be made using the existing ERP Modification Short Form, as 

this is the form used by permittees to obtain a permit extension, which does not require 

submittal of a fee. The amendments also eliminate the current language that prohibits 

permittees from submitting a permit extension request sooner than 180 days prior to the 

permit expiration date, as unnecessarily burdensome. 


with rulemaking to amend Rule 40D-4.331, F.A.C., to allow reauthorization and extension 

of expired Environmental Resource Permits. 

159



Following consideration, Ms. Closshey moved, seconded by Mr. Beswick, to approve Items 

25, 26 and 27 as presented. (Track 5 - 00:00/02:05) 

Chair Senft noted these changes are customer friendly and commended staff. In response to 

Mr. Tharp’s questions, Mr. Owen said excellent cooperation is occurring among the districts and 

Department of Environmental Protection, and progress is being made in collaboration efforts. 

Committee Chair Beswick called for the vote and the motion carried unanimously. 

(Track 5 - 02:05/04:10) 

28 Denials Referred to the Governing Board – None 




29. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities 

30. Overpumpage Report 

31. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications 

32. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff 

33. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives 

� Mr. Owen said that Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA), formerly known Aloha 

Utilities, has completed all infrastructure improvements needed to reduce pumpage. It 

will take some time for the 12-month average to come down within permitted quantities. 

Staff has a Consent Order to bring FGUA back into permitted pumpage quantities. 

FGUA has completed all treatment improvements needed and all interconnects with 

Pasco County; therefore, compliance should occur within the next six to twelve months. 

Resource Regulation Committee Chair Beswick adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Resource Management Committee Chair Gramling who called the 

Committee meeting to order. (Track 5 – 04:10/05:35) 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (Video 53:45) 



35. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report 

Mr. Granville Kinsman, Manager, Hydrologic Data Section, said regional rainfall totals for 

August, the third month of the four-month annual wet season, were normal to abovenormal 

throughout the District, with most hydrologic indicators showing improvement. 

Below-average rainfall for the previous four months resulted in a delayed hydrologic 

response and only moderate rainy season improvement to water levels and flow. The 

District-wide 12-month and 36-month cumulative rainfall deficits worsened in August, 

ending the month at 7.93 inches and 14.32 inches, respectively, below the long-term 

historic average, while the 24-month deficit improved, ending the month approximately 

5.56 inches below average. NOAA climate forecasts indicate above-normal rainfall 

conditions for September and uncertainty (i.e., equal chances for normal, above-normal or 

below-normal) regarding rainfall for October and November, based on the remainder of the 

previously forecast above-normal Hurricane Season and the on-going ENSO-neutral 

conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Forecasts also indicate the probability for a return to La 

Niña conditions during the winter and spring months, which could result in drier-thannormal 

conditions during those months. Below-average rainfall during the fall, winter or 

spring months would worsen existing hydrologic conditions. (Track 6 – 00:00/09:31) 

160



This item was presented for the Committee’s information, and no action was required. 

36. Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Update 

Martin H. Kelly, Ph.D., Minimum Flows and Levels Program Director, Resource Projects 

Department, noted that, pursuant to Sections 373.036(7) and 373.042(2), Florida Statutes, 

the District is required to annually update its priority list and schedule for the establishment 

of minimum flows and levels (MFLs), submit it to the Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) for review and approval, and include the approved list in the District's 

consolidated annual report. Although the proposed list incorporates a number of schedule 

changes, no new water body additions are being proposed. This list now projects out for 

four years instead of five as had previously been done, since all proposed MFLs are to be 

completed by 2015. 

Dr. Kelly presented a status of Current 2011 Priority List. As indicated in the "Proposed 

2012 Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule" (Priority List), the District has 

established minimum flows and levels on 9 freshwater river segments, 7 estuarine 

segments, 9 springs, 106 lakes, and 41 wetlands. Nine minimum aquifer levels have also 

been established for a number of well sites. As shown in the “Projected MFL Timeline and 

Budget,” MFLs remain to be set on 71 waterbodies; however, it is anticipated that 

contractual funding will only be needed on 23 waterbodies over the course of the next four 

years. Four public workshops (one in Lecanto and one at each of the District’s service 

offices) have been scheduled for early October to receive public comment and input on the 

proposed Priority List. Staff will distribute the draft "Proposed 2012 Minimum Flows and 

Levels Priority List and Schedule" for purposes of receiving public input prior to returning 

to the Governing Board in October for approval of the list that will be submitted to the DEP 

by November 15, 2011, as required by statute. (Track 6 – 09:31/17:38) 

This item was presented for the Committee's information, and no action was required. 

37. Surplus Lands Assessment Program Update 

Mr. Roy Mazur, Director, Planning Department, said the purpose of this item is to update 

the Governing Board on the District’s Surplus Lands Assessment Program. The proposed 

objectives are to identify lands which no longer meet original acquisition purpose, identify 

lands which do not provide conservation benefits as defined by statute (259.101, 259.105 

and 373.139, Florida Statutes), and provide the Governing Board with surplus options. The 

project strategies include use of the Suwannee River Water Management District as a 

model and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Surplus Checklist to 

focus the staff analysis, engaging public stakeholders, and review and recommendations 

by the Governing Board Surplus Lands Subcommittee. 

Mr. Mazur reviewed the proposed methodology for the program including the functionality 

of the Geographic Information System (GIS) based model. He said the process will begin 

with lands owned in fee and managed solely by the District (no partners or agreements). 

District staff will conduct analysis and create recommendations to Subcommittee. The 

Subcommittee will evaluate staff’s analysis, consider stakeholder input, and develop 

recommendations for the Governing Board to make final decisions on lands to surplus. 

The final step will be to market the surplus parcels. 

Mr. Mazur said first quarter actions are to initiate the analysis, outreach to stakeholders, 

and schedule the first Subcommittee meeting. Issues to consider are statutes and bond 

covenants versus state direction, partnerships, influence of public use/access, and market 

conditions. Discussion ensued regarding the intended function of the Subcommittee 

appointed at last month’s Board meeting, ensuring that it functions as intended, and that 

the entire District is represented by members of the Subcommittee. 

Discussion ensued regarding purpose for lands being acquired and determination that 

reason no longer exists, addressing stakeholder and public concerns, obligation to the 

161



public to review the inventory, purpose is not to liquidate lands to replace funds in the 

budget, and determination needed about where the money goes–whether back to the 

state or if available to purchase new or additional lands. It was requested that these 

meetings be held in various locations around the District, and former Basin Board 

members be invited in order to provide local input, as they are a valuable resource. 

Mr. Mazur indicated that meetings will be advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly 

so it would be publicly noticed. The Board requested a Subcommittee meeting be held 

before the stakeholder meetings to further review the process and methodology, and to 

assist in identifying stakeholders. Timing for the stakeholder meetings was discussed to 

coincide with Subcommittee members’ schedules so that the maximum number of 

Subcommittee members may attend. (Track 7 – 00:00/35:10, Video 01:46:36) 

Mr. Charles Lee, representing the Florida Audubon Society, addressed the Board, noting 

that most properties were purchased for conservation, and expressed his concerns. 

(Track 7 – 35:10/39:11) 




38. Florida Forever Funding 

39. Minimum Flows and Levels 

40. Structure Operations 

41. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map 

Modernization 

42. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects 

� In response to Mr. Wirth’s inquiry, the Board consensus was to post the Florida Forever 

Report to the District’s internet site and inform the Board if an issue occurs. 

Resource Management Committee Chair Gramling adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger who called the 

Committee meeting to order. (Track 7 – 39:11/43:44) 

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (Video 01:54:15) 






44. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register and Contingency Reserves 

45. Monthly Financial Statement 

46. Management Services Significant Activities 

Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Chair Senft. (Track 8 – 00:00/00:30) 

GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT (Video 01:55:40) 



162






48. Litigation Report 

� Ms. West provided an update on the Davis’ litigation regarding the Clam Bayou 

Restoration Project, noting the case has been dismissed. (Track 8 – 00:30/02:10) 

49. Rulemaking Update 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Video 01:57:12) 


� Mr. Bilenky requested Board concurrence for Mr. Fritsch to continue in his current 

capacity until the end of the calendar year. Mr. Gramling moved, seconded by 

Mr. Beruff, for Mr. Fritsch to continue as Deputy Executive Director on a month-tomonth 

basis as determined by the District’s Executive Director. Motion carried 

unanimously. (Track 8 – 02:10/03:30) 

� Mr. Bilenky provided an update on the status of Building 4 renovation activities due to 

the water damage that occurred on July 3, 2011. (Track 8 – 03:30/05:20) 

CHAIR'S REPORT (Video 01:58:00) 


a. Liaison Reports 

� Mr. Pressman provided a brief update on the topics of discussion during 

September’s Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council meeting. 

b. Other 

� Mr. Senft informed the Board that relationship changes will be occurring among the 

regional planning councils, water management districts and growth management at 

the state level. He suggested Board members read as much as possible and have 

staff forward any information about changes that are evolving as items are 

streamlined. (Track 8 – 05:20/06:28) 

Chair Senft recessed the public hearing at 4:35 p.m. to provide for a workshop session. 

WORKSHOP (Video 02:02:00) 

52. Property Insurance Overview 

Ms. Lucy Petruccelli, Manager, Human Resources and Risk Management Department, 

provided an overview of the District’s property insurance coverage. Discussion ensued 

regarding coverage of damage to Building 4 and reimbursements. (Track 8 – 06:28/25:00) 

53. Other – None 

Chair Senft recessed the workshop session to provide a break before the Final Fiscal Year 2012 

Budget Hearing begins at 5:01 p.m. Mr. Gramling moved, seconded by Mr. Adams, to 

adjourn the Board’s monthly meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m. (Track 8 – 25:00/25:40), Video 02:20:38) 







163


FINAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FINAL FISCAL YEAR 2012 

MILLAGE RATE AND ANNUAL SERVICE BUDGET 




The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District met at 5:05 p.m. on 

September 27, 2011, at the District’s Tampa Service Office. The following persons were 

present: 













Board Member(s) Absent 


Staff Members Present 





Kurt Fritsch, Acting Deputy Executive Director 

Daryl F. Pokrana, Director, Finance Dept. 

Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Director, Finance Dept. 

Cathy A. Linsbeck, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Eloise M. Buzbee, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Alan J. Lynch, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Michael B. Cacioppo, Staff Budget Analyst, Finance 

Board’s Recording Secretary 

Linda De Jonge, Senior Administrative Assistant 

A list of others present who signed the attendance roster is filed in the permanent records of the 

District. This meeting was available for viewing through internet streaming. Approved minutes 

from previous meetings can be found on the District's Web site (www.WaterMatters.org). 

1. Call to Order (Video 02:21:20) 

Chair Senft called the meeting to order, and said it is time to proceed with the public hearing 

as scheduled and properly noticed for this date and time. Public comment will only be 

accepted here at the Tampa Service Office. 

Mr. Tharp noted that a quorum was present. 

2. Open Public Hearing 

Chair Senft said this hearing is for the purpose of adopting a final millage rate and budget 

for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Sections 373.536 and 

200.065, Florida Statutes, as amended. If any member of the public would like to speak 

during this hearing, please fill out a blue card located at the desk outside the door and give 

the card to Ms. Kavouras who is seated at the table in front of the dais. Members of the 

public will be called on at the appropriate time during the meeting and will be limited to three 

minutes per speaker. 

Chair Senft introduced Mr. Joerger, Treasurer and Chair of the Finance and Administration 

Committee, and relinquished the gavel to him. (Track 10 – 00:00/01:22) 

Mr. Joerger said the purpose of this hearing is to provide the public an opportunity to speak 

and ask questions prior to the Governing Board taking any actions regarding the budget. 

164


Governing Board Final Public Hearing Page 2 of 4 

Following this, the Board will adopt a final millage rate and budget for fiscal year (FY) 2012. 

The development of the FY2012 budget began in January 2011, with this Board’s approval 

of the budget priorities and assumptions. Since then, the Board and staff have worked 

together to produce a balanced budget. This included balancing the budget with greatly 

reduced revenues; merging the Basins into the District; prioritizing projects and evaluating 

existing commitments; establishing new operating baselines; adopting a fund balance policy 

which is the basis for the District’s spend-down plan; and reductions in workforce. All of this 

was done while working closely with the staffs of the Governor’s Office, the Department of 

Environmental Protection, and the Legislature. 

Mr. Joerger said the budget was developed in compliance with Senate Bill 2142, which 

established a cap of $108 million as the maximum amount of ad valorem taxes that may be 

levied by this District for FY2012. This represents a 36 percent (or $57 million) revenue 

reduction from FY2011. Overall, the District's FY2012 budget is $156 million, a decrease of 

$124 million (or 44 percent) below the current year budget of $280 million. On August 24, 

the District received a letter from Governor Scott following his review of the District’s 

tentative budget submission. The Governor expressed his appreciation for the $120+ million 

in efficiencies and savings achieved by this District. Governor Scott also applauded our 

forward thinking in meeting the region’s water supply needs into the future. He recognized 

that the financial engine has allowed the District and its partners to construct vital 

infrastructure instrumental in supporting the growth of the region over the last decade. 

Mr. Joerger noted that, on September 7, the Legislative Budget Commission reviewed the 

District’s budget for the first time, and had no disapprovals. 

Mr. Joerger said, on September 13, at the first public hearing, the Governing Board adopted 

a FY2012 tentative millage rate of 0.3928 mill and tentative budget of $156 million. No 

changes have been made since that date. This budget will achieve the District’s statutory 

responsibilities to manage and protect the public’s water and related natural systems, on a 

pay-as-you-go basis, without bonded debt. 

Mr. Joerger personally thanked the Board, as well as District staff, for their participation and 

special efforts required to develop the budget. (Track 10 – 01:22/04:57) 

3. Budget Overview 

Ms. Pilcher presented the budget as it will be adopted, by Fund. (Track 10 – 04:57/06:20) 

4. Public Announcement of the Name of the Taxing Authority, Rolled-Back Rate, 

Percentage Decrease, and Millage Rate to be Levied for FY2012 

Ms. Pilcher presented the required public announcement of the name of the taxing authority, 

the rolled-back rate, the percentage of tax decrease below the rolled-back rate, and the 

millage rate to be levied for FY2012, and read into the record as required for the District. 

TAXING AUTHORITY 

Southwest Florida Water 

Management District 

(Track 10 - 06:20/06:43) 

ROLLED-BACK 

RATE 

PERCENTAGE OF TAX 

DECREASE BELOW ROLLED- 

BACK RATE 

MILLAGE RATE 

0.6168 -36.32% 0.3928 

165



5. Final Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 

a. Reconciliation of Tentative to Final Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 

Ms. Pilcher said there have been no changes to the budget since the tentative budget 

hearing, held September 13, 2011. 

b. TRIM Budget Summary 

Ms. Pilcher noted that this summary was used to prepare the newspaper advertisement 

and is provided for the Board’s information only. (Track 10 – 06:43/07:18) 

6. Public Comments 

a. Letters/Resolutions Received 

Mr. Joerger noted the District has received no correspondence or telephone calls from 

taxpayers since the September 13 tentative budget hearing. 

b. Persons Wishing to Address the Board 

Mr. Joerger requested that anyone wishing to address the budget come forward, and 

state their name, address, and group affiliation, if any. No one came forward. 

(Track 10 – 07:18/07:44) 

7. Adopt Final Fiscal Year 2012 Millage Rate 



ADOPTION OF FINAL MILLAGE RATE 




Following consideration, Mr. Combee moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-18, Adoption of 

Final Millage Rate for Fiscal Year 2012, of 0.3928 mill. Mr. Tharp seconded the 

motion. The motion carried unanimously. (Track 10 – 07:44/08:10) 

8. Adopt Final Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 



ADOPTION OF FINAL BUDGET 




Following consideration, Mr. Combee moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-19, Adoption of 

Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2012, in the amount of $155,543,897. Mr. Beruff 

seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. (Track 10 – 08:10/09:26) 

166



9. Introduce All Materials as Composite Exhibit 

Mr. Joerger introduced all budget materials as a composite exhibit. He stated that the 

record should reflect that all materials presented here this afternoon are part of the 

permanent record of the public hearing. 

Mr. Joerger relinquished the gavel to Chair Senft. 

10. Adjournment 

There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Joerger moved, seconded by 

Mr. Beruff, to adjourn the meeting. (Track 10 – 09:26/10:32, Video 02:33:39) 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:16 p.m. 







167



FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 




17. Office of Inspector General – Chemistry Laboratory Managerial Audit ............................. 2 


18. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Funds Report .......................... 3 

19. Monthly Financial Statement .............................................................................................. 8 

20. Management Services Significant Activities ...................................................................... 1�




Office of Inspector General – Chemistry Laboratory Managerial Audit 

Item 17 

Office of Inspector General conducted a managerial audit of the District chemistry laboratory’s 

quality system to verify that operations comply with requirements established under Chapters 

62-160.300 and 64E-1 FAC and the Federal Clean Water Act. The project is mandated under 

National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) Standard 5.5.3.2. 

NELAC requires this annual audit to ensure that Senior Management remains apprised of 

technical, operational, and budgetary issues involving chemistry laboratory operations. In 

addition to NELAC requirements, the Office of Inspector General designed the management 

review to: 

(1) Test the laboratory’s technical quality control procedures; 

(2) Update management on the laboratory’s market competitiveness with regards to cost; 

(3) Alert management if any budgetary issues exist that may affect the laboratory’s operational 

effectiveness; and 

(4) Report other significant items that come to our attention during the audit. 

Tests of quality control procedures -- No reportable issues 

The number of error free tests completed by the laboratory continues to meet industry 

performance standards. Lab measurements recorded since 2001 have been at least 96% or 

more accurate with 99% accuracy demonstrated during this audit period. Timeliness of District 

testing is at an appropriate level given the current staffing and the type of sampling services the 

District’s chemistry laboratory provides. 

Market competitiveness -- No statistically significant difference 

During the last six years, the District has contracted for a third party Rate Analysis of the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District Chemistry Laboratory. MGT of America was the 

contracted external auditor that performed the rate analysis. The rate analysis report lists full 

and direct costing detail for the types of analyte samples completed by the laboratory. This 

year, these prices were benchmarked with those from two external laboratories. 

1) Office of Inspector General performed statistical analyses on the benchmarked data. 

While an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) demonstrated that there was a statistical 

difference in the overall costs in the population sampled, a t-Test demonstrated that 

there is no statistically significant difference between the District’s Chemistry Laboratory 

costs and the population’s average cost for the 26 analytes benchmarked. 

Budgetary issues or other significant items -- No reportable issues 

There were no budgetary issues or other significant items found in the course of the audit that 

negatively affect laboratory’s operational effectiveness. 

Staff completed this project under the mandated assignments portion of the Annual Audit Plan. 

No six-month progress report is required for this audit. 


This item is submitted for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Julie D. Pickard, Associate Auditor 

2



Routine Report 

Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Funds Report 

Item 18 

Purpose 

Presentation of the Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Funds Report. 

Background 

In accordance with Board Policy 130-3, District Investment Policy, a monthly report on 

investments shall be provided to the Governing Board. Attached is a copy of the Treasurer's 

Report as of September 30, 2011, which reflects total cash and investments at a market value 

of $646,096,287. 

As reflected on the September 30, 2011, Treasurer's Report, the investment portfolio had 

$234.8 million or 37.3 percent invested with the State Board of Administration (SBA) of which 

$228.2 million is invested in the Florida PRIME (formerly the Local Government Investment 

Pool) and $6.6 million in the Fund B Surplus Funds Trust Fund (Fund B). The District has 

received $349.8 thousand of Pool A interest earnings for fiscal year (FY) 2011. Fund B is not 

distributing interest earnings. The District is managing its short-term and daily liquidity needs 

through the use of the Florida PRIME and the Federated Government Obligations #5 money 

market fund. Consistent with Board Policy 130-3, the maximum percent of the portfolio that will 

be invested in any one money market fund is 25 percent. 

Fund B consists of assets that had defaulted on a payment, paid more slowly than expected, or 

had any significant credit and liquidity risk. Fund B cash holdings are being distributed to 

participants as they become available monthly from maturities, sales and received income. The 

investment objective for Fund B is to maximize the present value of distributions. At 

September 30, 2011, the District's investment in Fund B was $6.6 million, down from the initial 

investment of $40.7 million. The market value of the Fund B investments is estimated at 

$5.1 million or approximately 76.7 percent of cost, reflecting $1.5 million at risk. District staff is 

not aware of any plans by the SBA to liquidate Fund B investments below cost. 

On October 5, 2011, the SBA released another $100 thousand from Fund B. Therefore, 

subsequent to September 30, 2011, the balance of $6.6 million has been reduced by $.1 million, 

leaving the District's balance in Fund B at $6.5 million, which further reduces the $1.5 million at 

risk. 

Staff will continue to monitor the SBA activities to determine how this will impact the District's 

current investment in the SBA Florida PRIME, and affect the District's investment strategy going 

forward. 

During the 12 months ended September 30, 2011, the District collected $161.5 million in 

ad valorem taxes, which is 100.4 percent of the annual budget. This compares favorably with 

100.5 percent in FY2010 and 100.1 percent in FY2009, for collections during this same period. 

In accordance with Board Policy 130-1, Disbursement of Funds, all general checks written 

during a period shall be reported to the Governing Board at its next regular meeting. The 

Payment Register listing disbursements since last month's report is available upon request. The 

Payment Register includes checks and electronic funds transfers (EFTs). 

3

The final FY2011 Contingency Funds Report (District only) follows: 

ORIGINAL BUDGET AMOUNT: $5,000,000 

Less Approved Transfers 

Item 18 

Date of 

Board Action 

Workload & Staffing Analysis 247,594 January 25, 2011 

District Total Compensation (Salary and Benefits) Review 32,000 February 22, 2011 

Flying Eagle Youth Conservation Center – Flying Eagle 

Preserve 

Brooksville Building 4 Restoration Costs – Transfer from 

Contingencies 

BALANCE: $3,800,406 

20,000 April 26, 2011 

900,000 August 30, 2011 

Effective October 1, 2011, the General Fund FY2012 annual contingency funds budget is 

$7,100,000. The FY2012 contingency funds budget will be reflected on the report next month, 

November 2011. 


These items are provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Daryl F. Pokrana, Director, Finance Department 

4


TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE GOVERNING BOARD 

September 30, 2011 

AGENCY SECURITIES 

EFFECTIVE 

CUSIP INTEREST CALLABLE/ PURCHASE MATURITY DURATION (YRS) DAYS TO PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF 

NUMBER RATE BULLET DATE DATE OF SECURITY MATURITY COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO 

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 

31331jns8 1.75 Callable 05/21/2010 05/21/2013 3.00 599 $10,000,000 $10,018,000 $63,194 

31331kgd6 1.43 Callable 04/07/2011 03/28/2014 2.98 910 19,970,000 20,106,600 2,292 

31331knt3 1.08 Callable 06/13/2011 06/13/2014 3.00 987 20,000,000 20,021,600 64,800 

31331kpn4 1.05 Callable 06/27/2011 06/27/2014 3.00 1001 20,000,000 20,060,600 54,833 

31331kqr4 1.10 Callable 07/07/2011 07/07/2014 3.00 1011 20,000,000 20,001,600 51,333 

31331kzm5 0.63 Callable 09/29/2011 09/29/2014 3.00 1095 20,000,000 19,967,400 700 

TOTAL FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 

$109,970,000 $110,175,800 $237,152 17.46 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 

313372wd2 1.31 Callable 03/23/2011 12/23/2013 2.76 815 $20,000,000 $20,044,000 $71,322 

313373fl1 1.57 Callable 04/28/2011 04/28/2014 3.00 941 20,000,000 20,018,400 133,450 

313373h54 1.50 Bullet 04/15/2011 05/15/2014 3.08 958 20,000,000 20,473,400 113,333 

313374cn8 1.00 Callable 06/27/2011 06/27/2014 3.00 1001 20,000,000 20,022,600 52,222 

313374cq1 1.00 Callable 06/30/2011 06/30/2014 3.00 1004 20,000,000 20,050,000 50,556 

313374rp7 1.00 Bullet 07/18/2011 07/18/2014 3.00 1022 20,000,000 20,206,800 40,556 

313375qz3 0.60 Callable 09/29/2011 09/29/2014 3.00 1095 20,000,000 19,949,000 667 

TOTAL FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 

$140,000,000 $140,764,200 $462,106 22.23 

5 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION 

3134g2dp4 1.59 Callable 04/18/2011 04/18/2014 3.00 931 $20,000,000 $20,123,000 $143,983 

3134g2h39 0.80 Callable 09/29/2011 09/29/2014 3.00 1095 20,000,000 19,944,000 889 

TOTAL FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION 

$40,000,000 $40,067,000 $144,872 6.35 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 

31398a4s8 1.05 Callable 12/08/2010 10/22/2013 2.87 753 $20,000,000 $20,210,600 $92,750 

3135g0bg7 1.55 Callable 04/18/2011 04/18/2014 3.00 931 19,970,000 20,121,000 135,833 

3136frta1 0.63 Callable 06/30/2011 06/30/2014 3.00 1004 20,000,000 20,006,800 31,597 

TOTAL FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 

$59,970,000 $60,338,400 $260,180 9.52 

TOTAL AGENCY SECURITIES $349,940,000 $351,345,400 $1,104,310 55.56




CASH EQUIVALENTS 

EFFECTIVE 

CUSIP INTEREST PURCHASE MATURITY DURATION (YRS) DAYS TO PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF 

NUMBER RATE DATE DATE OF SECURITY MATURITY COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO 

UNITED STATES TREASURY BILLS 

9127953u3 0.09 05/31/2011 11/25/2011 0.49 56 $19,991,100 $19,991,100 $6,150 

9127952t7 0.09 06/17/2011 12/15/2011 0.50 76 19,990,950 19,990,950 5,300 

TOTAL UNITED STATES TREASURY BILL 

$39,982,050 $39,982,050 $11,450 6.35 

STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (SBA) & OTHER INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS 

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT 

EFFECTIVE 

INTEREST PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION 

RATE COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO 

STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION 

6 

Florida PRIME (Formerly Local Government Investment Pool) 

271413 SBA General Investments 

0.24 $183,253,320 $183,253,320 

271411 SBA Workers' Compensation 

0.24 1,418,670 $ $1,418,670 

271414 SBA Land Resources 

0.24 7,072,283 $7,072,283 

271415 SBA Advanced State Funding (Eco System Trust Fund) 

0.24 7,873,779 $7,873,779 

271416 SBA Advanced State Funding (FDOT) 

0.24 12,944,950 $12,944,950 

271417 SBA Advanced State Funding (WRAP) 

0.24 10,699,048 $10,699,048 

271418 SBA Advanced State Funding (WPSTF AWS) 0.24 4,907,470 $4,907,470 

$228,169,520 $228,169,520 

Fund B Surplus Funds Trust Fund (1) 

271413 SBA General Investments 

0.00 $6,033,189 $4,626,250 

271415 SBA Advanced State Funding (Eco System Trust Fund) 

0.00 597,210 457,941 

$6,630,399 $5,084,191 

TOTAL STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (SBA) ACCOUNTS 

$234,799,919 $233,253,711 37.30 

(1) Fund B commingles investments from participants in a portfolio of securities with the objective to maximize the present value of distributions to participants, to the extent reasonable and prudent, 

net of fees. This objective emphasizes both the timeliness and extent of the recovery of participants' original principal. This is according to Investment Policy Guidelines, Local Government 

Investment Fund B, Part III. Investment Objective (effective 12/21/07). The District is not receiving interest earnings distributions from the SBA-Fund B accounts.




ACCOUNT ACCOUNT 

EFFECTIVE 

INTEREST PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION 

RATE COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO 

FEDERATED GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS FUND / INSTITUTIONAL 0.01 4,959,131 4,959,131 0.79 

Weighted average yield on portfolio at September 30, 2011 is 0.72%. 

TOTAL INVESTMENTS 

CASH, SUNTRUST DEMAND ACCOUNT 

TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS 

EQUITY - CASH AND INVESTMENTS 

DISTRICT AND BASINS 

District General Fund $295,772,855 45.77% 

Alafia River Basin 18 18,948,885 948 885 22.93% 93% 

Hillsborough River Basin 87,077,283 13.47% 

Coastal Rivers Basin 14,864,022 2.30% 

Pinellas-Anclote River Basin 126,135,575 19.52% 

Withlacoochee River Basin 13,258,409 2.05% 

Peace River Basin 27,567,318 4.27% 

Manasota Basin 45,485,436 7.04% 

FDOT Mitigation Program 12,483,746 1.93% 

Florida Forever Fund 4,643,566 0.72% 

TOTAL EQUITY IN CASH AND INVESTMENTS 

$646,237,095 100.00% 

7 

$629,681,100 $629,540,292 100.00 

16,555,995 16,555,995 

$646,237,095 $646,096,287




Monthly Financial Statement 

Purpose 

Presentation of the September 30, 2011, monthly financial statement. 

Item 19 

Background 

Senate Bill 2096, amending Sections 11.45 and 215.985, Florida Statutes, relating to state 

financial information with certain financial transparency requirements was approved by the 

Governor on May 26, 2011 to take effect July 1, 2011. In addition, Senate Bill 2142, amending 

Section 373.536, F.S., requiring each water management district to submit a monthly financial 

statement to its governing board and to post such statement to its website by September 1, 

2011, was also approved by the Governor on May 26, 2011, to take effect upon becoming a 

law. In accordance with these requirements, the District is submitting a “Preliminary Statement 

of Sources and Uses of Funds for the Year Ended September 30, 2011” to be posted to the 

District’s website following presentation to the Governing Board. This is a preliminary financial 

statement for fiscal year 2011. A full set of financial statements will be prepared and finalized 

as year-end processes are completed in preparation for the annual financial audit. 


This item is provided for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Daryl F. Pokrana, Director, Finance Department 

8

Preliminary Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2011 

The attached “Preliminary Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds” statement is provided for 

your review. This is a preliminary financial statement for fiscal year (FY) 2011. A full set of 

financial statements will be prepared and finalized as year-end processes are completed in 

preparation for the annual financial audit. This preliminary financial statement provides 

summary-level revenues (i.e., sources) and expenditures by program (i.e., uses). 

This financial statement compares revenues recognized and encumbrances/expenditures 

made against the District’s FY2011 available budget of $838.3 million. Encumbrances 

represent orders for goods and services which have not yet been received. 

Revenues (Sources) Status: 

Overall, as of September 30, 2011, 89 percent (including fund balance) of the District’s 

budgeted revenue has been recognized. 

As of September 30, 2011 the District has received $161.5 million of ad valorem tax 

revenue which represents just over 100 percent of the budget. The budget represents 

96 percent of the actual tax levy based on the historical collection rate. 

Intergovernmental Revenues are recognized at the time related expenditures are incurred. 

For FY2011, $22.9 million in revenues have been recognized, representing 19 percent of 

the budget. From year to year, the budgeted amount of intergovernmental revenue 

compared to the recognized amount can fluctuate for various reasons; projects can be in 

the planning stages and have not incurred a significant amount of expenditures, or 

anticipated projects may be canceled (i.e., a land acquisition, cooperative funding projects, 

etc.) 

The FY2011 interest earnings budget was based on a 0.75 percent expected rate of return. 

The District’s investment portfolio was generating 0.72 percent at September 30, 2011. 

Due to the higher than budgeted interest rate (for the first eleven months of the fiscal year) 

and varying cash balances related to project timing, interest earnings on invested funds are 

125 percent of the budget. The District historically budgets investment earnings 

conservatively. 

License and Permit Fees consist of revenue from water use permits, environmental 

resource permits, water well construction permits, and water well construction licenses. 

Revenue recognized is 110 percent of budget as of September 30, 2011. 

As of September 30, 2011, other revenue collected is 217 percent of budget. Each year, 

items that fall within the “Other” revenue category are budgeted conservatively due to the 

uncertainty of the amounts to be collected. For example, revenues from timber sales can 

vary year to year. In addition, unanticipated revenues may be collected, such as the 

revenue received ($341,493) from Blue Cross Blue Shield resulting from a claims incentive 

and retention agreement, and the insurance proceeds received ($500,000) from the 

Brooksville Building 4 water damage that were not included in the budget. 

9


For the Year Ended September 30, 2011 2 

Fund Balance represents funds carried over from prior years that are allocated for 

expenditures, or are reserved or designated to fund outstanding encumbrances or board 

designations that were re-appropriated for expenditure in FY2011. 

Expenditures (Uses) Status: 

Overall, as of September 30, 2011, at the time this report was prepared, the District had 

obligated 67 percent of its total budget. Most of the District’s major projects are in progress 

and will be accomplished as anticipated. During the month of September, encumbrances that 

represented reserves for future long-term projects were unencumbered, which substantially 

decreased the overall obligated percentage of the budget as compared to last month. The 

long-term project reserves will not be re-appropriated for the FY2012 budget. Instead, the 

reserves will remain in fund balance consistent with Governing Board Policy No. 130-9 until 

approved for use by the Governing Board. 

Summary of Expenditures by Program 

This financial statement illustrates the effort to date for each of the District’s six statutory 

program areas (Section 373.536(5)(d)4, Florida Statutes). Provided below is a discussion of 

the expenditures by program. 

The Water Resources Planning and Monitoring Program includes all water 

management planning, including water supply planning, development of minimum flows 

and levels, and other water resource planning; research, data collection, analysis, and 

monitoring; and technical assistance (including local and regional plan and program 

review). Of the $78 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 88 percent 

of the budget (46 percent expended and 42 percent encumbered). 

The Acquisition, Restoration and Public Works Program includes the development 

and construction of all capital projects (except for those contained within the Operation 

and Maintenance of Lands and Works Program), including water resource development 

projects/water supply development assistance, water control projects, and support and 

administrative facilities construction; land acquisition; and the restoration of lands and 

water bodies. Of the $640.2 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 

62 percent of the budget (12 percent expended and 50 percent encumbered). 

Of the $640.2 million budgeted, $197.1 million was budgeted for reserves for future water 

resource development, land acquisition, and flood protection projects that have not been 

expended or encumbered as of September 30, 2011. These reserve funds will remain in 

the District’s fund balance for future allocation by the Governing Board. 

In addition, there have been land acquisitions, water resource development, and other 

District projects that have been budgeted this year that have either been canceled, or 

are at the initial phase and no significant expenditures have been incurred as of 

September 30, 2011. 

The Operation and Maintenance of Lands and Works Program includes all operation 

and maintenance of facilities, flood control and water supply structures, lands, and other 

10


For the Year Ended September 30, 2011 3 

works authorized by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Of the $29.5 million budgeted for this 

program, the District has obligated 75 percent of the budget (49 percent expended and 

26 percent encumbered). 

The Regulation Program includes water use permitting, water well construction permitting, 

water well contractor licensing, environmental resource and surface water management 

permitting, permit administration and enforcement, and any delegated regulatory program. 

Of the $20.7 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 96 percent of the 

budget (82 percent expended and 14 percent encumbered). 

The Outreach Program includes all environmental education activities, such as water 

conservation campaigns and water resources education; public information activities; 

all lobbying activities relating to local, regional, state, and federal governmental affairs; 

and all public relations activities, including public service announcements and advertising 

in any media. Of the $8.6 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 

94 percent of the budget (56 percent expended and 38 percent encumbered). 

The Management and Administration Program includes all governing board support; 

executive support; management information systems; annual contingency funds; and 

general counsel, ombudsman, human resources, finance, audit, risk management, and 

administrative services. Of the $61.3 million budgeted for this program, the District has 

obligated 77 percent of the budget (67 percent expended and 10 percent encumbered). 

Of the $61.3 million budgeted, $10.85 million was budgeted as annual contingency funds. 

Of the contingency funds, $9.7 million has not been expended or encumbered as of 

September 30, 2011. 

In addition, the District made reductions in contractual services and staffing levels during 

FY2011 resulting in unexpended budget dollars. 

Based on the financial activities for the year ended September 30, 2011, the financial condition 

of the District is positive and budget variances are generally favorable. There are no reported 

or identified major trends, conditions or variances that warrant additional management 

attention. 

11

12 

Southwest�Florida�Water�Management�District 

Preliminary�Statement�of�Sources�and�Uses�of�Funds 

For�the�Year�Ended�September�30,�2011 

(Unaudited) 

Actuals Variance 

Available Through (under)/Over Actuals�As�A 

Budget 09/30/2011 Budget %�of�Budget 

Sources 

Ad�Valorem�Property�Taxes $� 160,880,206 $� 161,520,644 $��640,438 100% 

Intergovernmental�Revenues �� 120,430,599 �� 22,892,652 �� (97,537,947) 

19% 

Interest�on�Invested�Funds ��4,630,000 �� 5,778,490 ��1,148,490 125% 

License�and�Permit�Fees ��1,700,000 �� 1,862,728 �� 162,728 

110% 

Other ��1,211,273 �� 2,629,876 ��1,418,603 217% 

Fund�Balance �� 549,489,892 ��549,489,892 �� 100% 

Total�Sources $� 838,341,970 $� 744,174,282 $��(94,167,688) 89% 

Available 

Budget Expenditures Encumbrances� 1 

Available %Expended %Obligated� 2 

Uses 

Water�Resources�Planning�and�Monitoring $�� 78,021,133 $��36,038,749 $�� 32,998,046 $��8,984,338 46% 88% 

Acquisition,�Restoration�and�Public�Works �� 640,220,916 ��74,767,088 �� 320,456,478 �� 244,997,350 12% 62% 

Operation�and�Maintenance�of�Lands�and�Works ��29,541,077 ��14,500,383 ��7,548,572 ��7,492,122 49% 75% 

Regulation ��20,696,109 ��17,014,908 ��2,766,148 �� 915,053 82% 96% 

Outreach ��8,573,493 �� 4,794,493 ��3,243,682 �� 535,318 56% 94% 

Management�and�Administration ��61,289,242 ��40,816,845 ��6,579,816 ��13,892,581 67% 77% 

Total�Uses $� 838,341,970 $� 187,932,466 $��373,592,742 $� 276,816,762 22% 67% 

1 

�Encumbrances�represent�unexpended�balances�of�open�purchase�orders�and�contracts. 

2 

�Represents�the�sum�of�expenditures�and�encumbrances�as�a�percentage�of�the�annual�budget. 

This�unaudited�financial�statement�is�prepared�as�of�September�30,�2011,�and�covers�the�interim�period�since�the�most�recent�audited�financial 

statements�and�is�for�the�sole�purpose�of�management.��A�full�set�of�financial�statements�will�be�prepared�and�finalized�as�year�end�processes 

are�completed�in�preparation�for�the�annual�financial�audit.




Management Services Significant Activities 

Item 20 

Water Management Information System (WMIS) 

The vision for WMIS, as defined in the Governing Board approved 2005 Vision Statement and 

included in the IRD 2006-2010 Five-Year Technology Plan, is that it will enable the District's 

major resource management and planning activities by storing and retrieving all Scientific and 

Regulatory data as well as providing critical operational support to the District’s Water Use 

Permitting (WUP), Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP), Well Construction Permitting 

(WCP), and all regulatory compliance programs. Specifically, it will (1) provide for the entry, 

maintenance, analysis, and presentation of the District’s scientific and regulatory data; (2) be 

easy to use, robust, nimble, and enable appropriate decision-making through the consistent 

application of the District’s scientific, regulatory, and business processes: (3) reach the 

Executive performance goal for WMIS is to achieve at least 80% applicant online utilization for 

each permit type and 99% utilization by staff for processing and review by 2013 or earlier.(4) be 

a component of the District’s Strategic Information Systems architecture and (5) facilitate and 

allow for comprehensive demonstration of the District’s accomplishment of its mission and 

accountability for its performance in meeting its areas of responsibility. 

History: Because WMIS was planned to be developed over an extended period using the 

Rational Unified Process, components of the system have been developed and released in 

sequence. The most recent major release since the inception of WMIS was version 2.2 released 

in June 2011. It included: 

• Upgrading the Stellent document management and workflow program to reduce the incidence 

of document and workflow issues and the time taken for maintenance and support 

• Reprogramming of WMIS functionality to use the upgraded version of the Stellent document 

management and workflow program 

• Moving WMIS document images to a new storage location and configuration to improve the 

allocation of storage memory for documents uploaded into WMIS 

• Changes and fixes to the permitting and compliance modules of WMIS as requested by the 

Regulation Department staff 

Current Status: WMIS 2.2 was released to production on June 27, incorporating the changes 

and improvements described above. Performance status indicators of the completed releases 

are now being reported by the Regulatory Department. The WMIS Resource Data migration to 

the Oracle Real Application Cluster (RAC) environment was completed on July 30. Oracle RAC 

provides the option for scaling databases beyond the capability of a single server thereby 

improving reliability and recoverability. The full benefits of this technology will be realized once 

all WMIS databases and applications are moved to the RAC. Next Major Milestones: New 

milestones for WMIS have been developed based on internal user feedback and at the request 

of Project Sponsors. As a result, there are two major releases currently scheduled for FY2012. 

Version 2.2.1 planned for October is on schedule for implementation 10/7-9/2011 and will 

include splitting WMIS into components that will reside on multiple servers to enhance the 

speed and reliability of the system, along with the tasks necessary to decommission the Lotus 

Notes program. The original September release date was extended two weeks to improve 

installation procedures and to allow more time for user testing and training. Version 2.2.2 is 

scheduled for February 2012 and will focus on moving WMIS to a 64 bit server operating 

system, which will increase the speed and reliability of the program. 

Enterprise Content Management (ECM) 

ECM provides for the centralized management of all content and allows quick access to the 

information in a structured manner. It is critical to the District's business continuity that this 

information is safe, secured and easily retrievable on demand. The Information Resources 

Department (IRD) and Records Management share in this task of managing the District's critical 

13

Item 20 

information in this environment. Due to requirements listed in Florida Administrative Code 

(FAC) 1B-26.003, storage for electronic records is also a major concern addressed with an ECM 

infrastructure. The District has already implemented some components of content management 

such as imaging and workflow processing in the Water Management Information System 

(WMIS). South Florida and St. Johns Water Management Districts are in like stages of their 

ECM implementations. A Master Service Agreement was signed with Iknow, LLC for ECM 

services on December 31, 2008 and task orders were being created from this agreement to 

implement this project. Based on recommendations by Legal and Contracts, the District 

terminated the contract with IKnow, LLC effective September 7, 2010 based on poor 

performance and improper subcontractor management. A new ECM contractor, Acuity was 

hired on September 22, 2010. As seen in next two sections, Acuity has done an excellent job 

ensuring all project timelines are met. Current Status: The email integration components have 

been delivered, tested and available for use. District departmental staff have identified District 

projects and have incorporated them into ECM. IRD staff is coordinating required user training 

on a department by department basis. IRD staff are currently working with users who have 

Lotus Notes Archives to migrate all remaining project emails to the ECM solution. Migration is 

anticipated to be completed by December 31, 2011. The first phase of the taxonomy 

implementation began December 1, 2010 and was delivered on time and within budget. District 

staff are coordinating the testing, documentation and deployment of the taxonomy Phase 1 

tools. Phase 2 of the taxonomy implementation has begun and is anticipated to be completed 

by November 2011. The Finance Accounts Payable process improvement began in February 

2011 and is currently in User Acceptance Testing. The production deployment is dependent 

upon user acceptance testing. The migration of the current physical records management 

application, Fixed Records Management (FRM), began January 10, 2011 and is currently in 

User Acceptance Testing. The production deployment is dependent upon user acceptance 

testing. The Contract process improvement project began in late April 2011 and is anticipated 

to be completed in November 2011. Next Major Milestones: We will focus on the second 

phase of taxonomy along with Finance and Contracts process improvements. Phase two of the 

taxonomy includes Records and Document Management integration. 

Project Information Management System/Cooperative Funding Initiative (PIMS/CFI) 

The PIMS project was started in FY 2006 as a replacement for a limited function project 

management system written in Domino/Lotus Notes. The earlier project management solution 

was a critical resource used by the Governing Board and Basin Boards to evaluate the progress 

of existing projects. The PIMS solution provides an easier to use process for project definition, 

automates the integration with the financial systems and provides integration with other district 

applications including the WMIS, the Surface Water Improvement Management (SWIM) 

program and document management. It is designed to reduce the administrative effort to 

maintain the information, improve the accuracy of the information and provide more flexibility in 

how the information is reported. It also includes Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) online 

access. Current Status: This system is in production. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

performed a planned security audit on the PIMS application. Based on the results of this audit, 

a security certification was recommended. Achieving this certification required that the 

application be modified. Ninety percent of these changes were completed as part of the 

October 15, 2010 release and the remaining changes were implemented on February 3, 2011 

as planned. IRD completed pre-certification testing on February 4, 2011. The security audit 

was completed with official certification issued on May 27, 2011. PIMS is the first District 

developed application to receive a security certification. PIMS v2.14 release was completed on 

May19, 2011. It included a web service supporting the online display of District projects and 

budget information. CFI v2.12 was also released on May 19, 2011. This CFI release included 

enhancements and a database move to the Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) 

environment resulting in improved database performance. PIMS v2.15 was released to 

production on July 27, 2011 including the PIMS database move to the Oracle RAC. The 

Reuse and Conservation component of PIMS was completed and released to production on 

Sept 28 th , 2011. Both PIMS & CFI application framework have been upgraded to MS .Net 

version 4 to improve performance and leverage 64-bit technologies. Next Major Milestones: 

The PIMS Communications component analysis and development has begun. Following the 

direction of the PITT, other top priority enhancements are being evaluated to determine the 

14

Item 20 

required level of effort and return on investment with development scheduled to start in 

December 2011. 

Human Resources Information System (HRIS) 

The purpose of HRIS is to integrate current and planned payroll and human resource software 

and processes into a usable decision support system. As originally identified in the Information 

Resources Department Five-Year Technology Plan, FY2008 – FY2012, the District purchased 

the NuView System in August 2007 via a Request for Proposal (RFP) to replace the existing 

application, Hewitt CYBORG Human Resource and Payroll system, which was removed from 

the IBM Mainframe on September 30, 2009. The HRIS consists of the NuView Human 

Resources (HR) software, the CORT payroll software and Interface Utility (IU) which connects 

them. Current Status: NuView version 4.12, CORT version 8.2 and IU version 2 are the 

current HRIS production systems for the District. A recent meeting of the HRIS sponsors has 

produced a change in the planned activities for remediating the remaining NSA09 security audit 

findings. The District recently learned that only a portion of the items from the audit would be 

remediated by upgrading to the 4.14 release of NuView. Working with the Office of Inspector 

General, a recommendation was presented to the HRIS Sponsors to lower the priority of the 

NuView 4.14 upgrade. This will allow the District to pursue the Learning Management and E- 

Recruiting modules and concentrate on Year End Processing and Open Enrollment activities 

which are resource intensive during the end of the calendar year. Mitigating controls are in place 

for the remaining items in the audit and the Sponsors agree that the low likelihood of occurrence 

for these findings make this the right choice. Next Major Milestones: We have completed the 

Contract process and have begun implementation. In addition, due to the results of the North 

Highlands Workload and Staffing study and District staff’s experience with the NuView 4.14 

upgrade (initiated in February), staff is beginning the research to acquire a cloud based 

HRIS/Payroll system. 

Unified Communication Process Improvement 

As first identified in the IRD Five-Year Technology Plan, Fiscal Year 2009-2013, the District has 

the need for Unified Communications (UC) to improve staff communication during significant 

storm events, field operations, and daily work. UC includes, but is not limited to, voice, video, 

data and two-way radio frequency (RF) communications. According to the IRD Technology 

Plan, the major milestones are communications support consolidation in fiscal year 2008-2009 

(completed), Networking Infrastructure and telecommunications upgrades in fiscal year 

2009-2010 (completed), Voice over IP (VoIP) in fiscal year 2010-2011 (to be completed August 

2011), Unified Messaging in fiscal year 2012-2013 and UC in fiscal year 2013-2014. Changes 

in the timeline are due to staffing and budgetary reductions. This project includes implementing 

this process improvement effort by focusing on the interoperability of various communications 

technologies and their phased implementation from fiscal year 2009-2010 through fiscal year 

2013-2014. The integration of the District’s radio and wireless technology previously scheduled 

for fiscal year 2012-2013 will be deferred until further notice based upon fiscal and resource 

constraints. Once the remaining project milestones are completed, the infrastructure must be 

maintained and the technology refreshed to meet current and future operational requirements. 

The goals of this project are to: 

• Create a common understanding of communications interoperability at the District to all 

business units throughout the organization. 

• Integrate existing and future communications systems 

• Establish a process for the acquisition, implementation, ongoing support, and maintenance of 

this communications infrastructure. 

• Facilitate training to enhance the efforts of a unified communications strategy. 

• Ensure close coordination between Finance, Information Resources, Land Resources, 

Operations and General Services during all phases of the Unified Communications project. 

Current Status: Phase one has been closed out. We have begun Phase II and are currently 

deploying the phones throughout the District. Brooksville was completed in May. Tampa was 

competed in June. Sarasota was completed in July. Bartow installation was completed in 

August. Monitoring and remote management responsibilities for the generators has been 

transferred to GSD. The 2011 and 2012 scheduled initiatives were re-evaluated and 

rescheduled due to the postponement of the Exchange 2010 upgrade, personnel turnover and 

15

Item 20 

projected budget reductions. Next Major Milestones: Deployment of VoIP (Phase Two) to 

District staff will be completed in the first quarter of FY2012. 

Employee Turnover 

Employee turnover is widely viewed as a key indicator of an employer's ability to attract and 

retain the critical talent required to carry out the mission and strategic priorities of the enterprise. 

As a public sector employer, the District has historically achieved turnover relatively low 

compared to the private sector and, generally, to other public sector organizations in its 

geographic area. In these uncertain times, the District has experienced an increase in voluntary 

separations in comparison to recent years. However; overall turnover remains within an 

acceptable threshold. The District recently separated 32 employees under a separation 

incentive plan, in accordance with Governor Scott’s budget letter disapproving a portion of the 

District’s budgeted salary dollars. Although these positions will be eliminated from the budget 

and not refilled, this reduction in force will contribute to a significant increase in turnover for the 

first quarter of Fiscal Year 2012. 

14.0% 

12.0% 

10.0% 

8.0% 

6.0% 

4.0% 

2.0% 

0.0% 

7.7% 

5.0% 

0.4% 

Turnover Percent per Fiscal Year 

9.2% 

6.2% 

0.4% 

11.4% 

9.0% 

6.3% 

3.7% 

0.3% 0.7% 

2.3% 2.5% 2.2% 2.0% 2.8% 2.5% 3.2% 2.9% 

Current Status: 

• For FY2011, employee turnover (regular, board-authorized positions) was 8.2% 

(4.9% voluntary, 2.9% retirement and 0.4% involuntary) compared to 7.4% for FY2010. 

• Retirements account for approximately 36% of the separations. 

• The number of vacant positions as of September 30, 2011 was 24. Of the 24 vacant 

positions, 8 positions are on-hold and will not be filled at this time. 

Human Resources staff will continue to track and report to management on turnover trends to 

ensure that we are prepared to respond to any unusual trends that may occur in the future. 

Financial Systems 

The Financial Information Technology team is responsible for supporting the District’s software 

applications critical to the District’s financial operations. These software applications currently 

include the ADVANTAGE Financial software, the Performance Budgeting (PB) software and the 

Business Objects reporting solution, as well as other internally developed applications. The 

6.9% 

3.4% 

0.7% 

5.8% 

2.6% 

0.7% 

7.4% 

2.2% 

2.0% 

8.2% 

4.9% 

0.4% 

FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 

Retirement (includes death) Involuntary (disciplinary, disability) Voluntary Total 

16

Item 20 

Payroll Section coordinates with Human Resources and Information Resources staff to ensure 

continuous support to meet mission critical payroll data processing requirements. The primary 

software applications used to meet these requirements are the NuView Payroll system and the 

Kronos Workforce Central system. Current Status: The agreement for the upgrades of the 

ADVANTAGE Financial System and PB System has been finalized. Financial Systems staff 

has begun conducting system configuration discussions with the software vendor, including 

planning for the conversion from the Oracle database to the Microsoft SQL server database. 

Financial Systems and Payroll staff continue to work on fiscal year end processes. Successful 

completion of these processes is critical to staff’s ability to ensure accurate reporting of the 

District’s financial condition. Next Major Milestones: Staff will begin the process of testing the 

upgrade to the ADVANTAGE Financial System in January, 2012. This phase of the project is 

expected to be completed in September, 2012. The PB System upgrade phase of the project 

will commence upon completion of the ADVANTAGE upgrade. 



Presenter: Kurt P. Fritsch, Division Director, Administrative & Management Services 

17



OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE 

Discussion Items – None 

21. Legislative Preview ............................................................................................................ 2 

(Strategic Plan: Mission Support) 

22. Fiscal Year 2013 Cooperative Funding Initiative Update .................................................. 3 

(Strategic Plan: Mission Support) 



23. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report ..................................... 4 

24. Development of Regional Impact Activity Report .............................................................. 9 

25. Significant Activities ........................................................................................................... 13

Outreach and Planning Committee 


Discussion Item 

Legislative Preview 

Item 21 

In preparation for the 2012 Legislative Session, staff has been meeting with legislators and staff 

and providing information on the District’s programs and priorities, as well as the budget. 

Committee meetings are underway and thus far the District has presented its 2011-2012 

adopted budget to the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee 

and the Senate Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee. 

The District, in coordination with the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget, Department of 

Environmental Protection, and the other water management districts, has begun discussion 

regarding the 2013 budget development process. 

Community and Legislative Affairs (CLA) staff will provide a preview on the 2012 Legislative 

Session. The regular session begins January 10, 2012 due to legislative and congressional 

redistricting requirements. Legislators are in the process of filing legislation for consideration 

during the upcoming session. In addition to the budget, there are a number of policy issues 

related to water and natural resources that may be considered this session that could have an 

impact on the District. The Legislature has indicated they will revisit the legislation (Senate 

Bill 2142) that placed a cap on water management district ad valorem revenue because of the 

potential financial challenges associated with the development of sustainable water supplies 

over the long-term. Additional legislation that may be considered this coming session includes 

urban redevelopment, streamlining of environmental resource permitting through rulemaking, 

longer duration permits, reclaimed water, and interagency coordination. Additionally, there are a 

number of Governing Board positions from each of the districts as well as the Executive 

Directors that will be considered for confirmation during the regular session. 



Presenter: Colleen Thayer, Director, Community and Legislative Affairs Department 

2




Fiscal Year 2013 Cooperative Funding Initiative Update 

Item 22 

The District has started accepting applications for the Fiscal Year 2013 Cooperative Funding 

Initiative (CFI). Applicants can apply for funding via the District’s online application program 

available on the CFI page of the website: www.watermatters.org/cfi. The application deadline is 

Friday, December 2, at 5:00 p.m. 

Community and Legislative Affairs (CLA) staff will host a Cooperative Funding Workshop on 

Wednesday, October 26 from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. in the Tampa Service Office. If a 

cooperator is unable to make the meeting, they will have an opportunity to participate with a live 

webinar or watch a live stream of the meeting from the District’s website. The workshop will also 

be recorded and available for future viewing from the CFI webpage. 

During the workshop, CLA staff will answer questions about the CFI process and Project 

Managers will be available to answer project specific questions from their respective 

departments. 



Presenter: Terri Behling, Senior Community Affairs Program Manager, Community 

and Legislative Affairs Department 

3




Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report 

Item 23 

Purpose 

This report is provided for the Committee’s information and shows District activity in the review 

of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Amendments. Staff updates the report 

monthly. 


The District provides technical and policy information on water resources and water resource 

management to local governments as they prepare amendments to their local government 

comprehensive plans. This information encompasses all aspects of water resource 

management, including water supply, flood protection, water quality and natural systems, and is 

intended to support sound land use decisions. A number of statutory provisions direct the 

District in the provision of this assistance, particularly Section 373.0391, Florida Statutes (F.S.), 

Technical Assistance to Local Governments. As a part of the District's efforts to ensure that 

appropriate water resource information and policy direction is reflected in local government 

comprehensive plans, the District conducts reviews of local government proposed plan 

amendments. The state land planning agency, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), 

administers this review process. Comments submitted by the District typically become a part of 

DCA's "objections, recommendations, and comments" report to the local government. In 

addition, the District will often perform informal reviews of draft plan updates working directly 

with local governments. 


The benefits of the District's local government technical assistance program are to ensure local 

government elected officials has sound water resource technical and policy information as they 

amend their local government comprehensive plans. This helps to ensure local plans are 

compatible with the District's plans, programs and statutory direction. Costs for this program 

primarily include staff time and are budgeted in Fund 10 (Governing Board). 


This item is provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Roy A. Mazur, P.E., AICP, Director, Planning Department 

4

5 

Local Government 

Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report As of September 30, 2011 

Project Amendment Type Assigned Completed Description 10YWSFWP 

Auburndale 11-1ACSC Regular 8/24/2011 9/6/2011 Text amendment to make EAR process consistent with recent 

legislative changes. No comment letter. 

Avon Park 10-IER EAR-based 9/7/2010 9/9/2010 No water-related issues of concern. 

Bowling Green 11-1ER EAR-based 8/26/2011 9/22/2011 Various text amendments identified in EAR. 

Bradenton 11-1 Regular 1/6/2011 1/28/2011 Two plan amendments. 

Bronson EAR EAR 1/13/2011 2/15/2011 Review of proposed EAR, provided comments on watershed 

modeling, LID, water shortage enforcement & water conservation 

practices; FDCA request for review of adopted EAR received 

04/05/2011, comments sent 05/03/2011 reiterating previous 

recommendations. 

Charlotte 11-1 Regular 3/2/2011 3/22/2011 2 FLUM amendments. 

Charlotte 11-2ESR ESR 9/2/2011 9/22/2011 FLUM change 13.07 acres Low Density Residential to Commercial. 

Charlotte County EAR EAR 12/2/2010 1/7/2011 EAR Checklist and comments. 

Citrus 11-1ESR ESR 6/7/2011 6/30/2011 Proposed FLUM change from Agricultural to Recreation for a 40acre 

site to accommodate church recreational facilities. 

Citrus 11-2ESR Regular 8/4/2011 8/31/2011 

Citrus 11-3ESR CIE 9/29/2011 Text amendments to remove concurrency language from 

Transportation, Future Land Use and Capital Improvements 

Elements; annual update of Capital Improvements Element. 

Citrus County 11-2ESR ESR 8/1/2011 Proposed FLUM change for an approximately 200-acre site from 

Coastal and Lakes to RV Park to accommodate 439 lot RV park 

facility. 

City of Anna Maria 11-1 Regular 12/7/2010 1/6/2011 Amendment proposed changes to conservation category. 

Commented on storm surge and flooding concerns and encouraged 

the implementation of strategies for management of coastal 

resources. 

City of Plant City 11-1 Regular 12/16/2010 1/12/2011 Two map and two text amendments. 

City of Temple Terrace 11-1 Regular 12/7/2010 1/4/2011 Transmittal of 5 proposed plan amendments.

6 


Clearwater 11-1ESR AR 5/23/2011 6/23/2011 The City of Clearwater proposed Amendments to the Future Land 

Use Map and the Conservation and Capital improvements Elements 

of the Comprehensive Plan under the Expedited State Review 

Process. 

Clearwater 11-2ESR ESR 9/21/2011 This city is proposing to amend the present Future Land Use Map 

designations from Residential Medium (RM) and 

Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) to Residential/Office Limited 

(R/OL) on 39.79 acres. 

Dade City 11-1 Regular 12/30/2010 2/2/2011 Proposed FLUM change. 56.5 acres. RES-6 and GC to ROR. West of 

US 301. Drains to Tank Lake. Adopted amendment received on 

4/21/11. NOI on 6/2/11. 

Davenport 10RWSP1 WSFWP 9/1/2010 10/15/2010 Comments included appropriate water supply level of service 

standard, the City's location within the CFCA but outside the 

SWUCA, and lack of specifics on planned future water supply 

sources. 

Dunnellon 11-1ESR ESR 6/10/2011 7/12/2011 Proposed FLUM change for 986 acre site from Agricultural to 

Residential. 

Eagle Lake 11-1ER EAR-based 1/6/2011 2/3/2011 Text and map amendments; minor comments. 

Hernando 11-1ESR Regular 7/26/2011 8/10/2011 FLUM land use designation amendment. 

Hillcrest Heights 11-1ER EAR-based 7/21/2011 8/17/2011 Text amendments. No 10YWSFWP adopted. Proposed potable water 

LOS 210 gpcd. 

Hillsborough 11-1 Regular 3/15/2011 4/12/2011 Proposed plan amendments. DCA decided not to review on 4/18/11. 

Hillsborough 11-2ESR Regular 8/9/2011 9/2/2011 Plan amendment for Lutz community plan update. Amendment 

included a number of text changes. No substantive comments were 

made. 

Holmes Beach 11-1 Regular 5/20/2011 6/10/2011 Review plan amendment material. No substantive review 

comments. Adopted amendment received 09/27/11. 

Indian Rocks Beach 11-1AR AR 2/18/2011 3/9/2011 City of Indian Rocks Beach CPA #11-1 Capital Improvement 

Element Update. 

Kenneth City 11-1AR AR 2/22/2011 3/17/2011 The City of Kenneth City is proposing to amend the Future Land 

Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 

Lake Hamilton 11-1ER EAR-based 5/2/2011 6/6/2011 EAR-based - FLUM and text amendments and CIP annual update.

7 


Lake Wales 11-1 Regular 4/13/2011 5/12/2011 Future Land Use Map Amendments. 

Lakeland 11-1CPA Regular 4/29/2011 5/25/2011 Certified community, no comment. 

Largo 11-1AR AR 4/21/2011 5/19/2011 The City is updating several elements of the Comprehensive Plan to 

create Multimodal Activity Centers. 

Largo 11-2ESR ESR 7/7/2011 8/3/2011 The City of Largo proposes to amend their comprehensive plan by 

updating 4 school facilities maps. 

Levy 11-1 Regular 3/18/2011 4/21/2011 Proposed change to FLUM from Commercial to Urban Low Density 

Residential for a 14 acre site; no District comments required. 

Longboat Key 11-1 Regular 12/6/2010 1/7/2011 FLUM amendment to increase open and rec space. 

Longboat Key 11-2 Regular 3/24/2011 4/6/2011 FLUM and text amendments. 

Manatee 11-1 Regular 5/25/2011 6/20/2011 Material includes map/text amendments for coastal planning areas. 

Response letter complimented Manatee on its coastal planning. 

North Port CIE 11/29/2010 

Ocala EAR EAR 2/11/2011 3/15/2011 Preliminary City-identified issues of economic development, 

mobility/community connectivity, and water use and conservation; 

District comments provided on water supply planning and water 

conservation. 

Pasco 10D3 DRI 9/23/2010 10/8/2010 Proposed FLUM RES-6 to PD (Beacon Woods DRI). 

Pasco 11-1 Regular 4/7/2011 4/21/2011 Proposed FLUM change for the Pasco County Government Complex 

from ROR to Public/Semi-Public. Category 1 wetlands on site are 

protected. 

Pinellas County 11-1AR AR 12/16/2010 1/14/2011 Future Land Use Map and Quality Communities Element change. 

Polk 11-2ESR ESR 8/19/2011 9/6/2011 CF Industries FLUM change from PM to IND. Text amendments 

relating to solar power generation, transit supportive development 

area and scenic highways. 

Polk 11-3ACSC Regular 8/19/2011 9/6/2011 FLUM change from Ag-Rural to Commercial Enclave on 2.53 acres 

in the Green Swamp to correct non-conforming land use for an 

existing structure. 

Polk County 11-1 Regular 3/3/2011 4/1/2011 

Punta Gorda EAR EAR 5/9/2011 6/3/2011

8 


Sarasota 10-2A CIE 10/4/2010 

Seminole 11-1AR AR 1/21/2011 2/17/2011 Revise 59.79 acres of the City of Seminole’s Future Land Use Map 

from Residential Medium, Water/Drainage Feature and Commercial 

General to Residential/Office/Retail. 

Seminole 11-2ER EAR-based 4/22/2011 5/19/2011 The City of Seminole proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report 

(EAR) and Growth Management Legislation based amendments. 

St. Petersburg 11-1AR AR 4/25/2011 5/10/2011 The City is updating text in several elements of their Comp Plan. 

St. Petersburg 11-1ESR ESR 6/17/2011 7/17/2011 This comprehensive plan amendment proposes to update the Future 

Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map. 

Sumter EAR EAR 9/7/2010 10/4/2010 Population projections exceed RWSP; need for enhanced wetlands 

protection. DCA request for review of adopted EAR received 

11/30/2010; comments sent 12/20/2010. 

Tarpon Springs 11-1AR AR 10/27/2010 11/23/2010 Proposing to designate approximately 248 acres on the FLUM as a 

Community Redevelopment District. 

Wauchula 11-1ER EAR-based 2/2/2011 3/7/2011 Text and FLUM amendments. No comments. 

Wildwood EAR EAR 3/21/2011 4/15/2011 Limited proposed changes due to the recently adopted 2035 

Wildwood Comprehensive Plan; recognizes need for incorporation 

of recent joint planning agreement with Sumter County and water 

supply planning. 

Williston 11-1ESR Regular 9/19/2011 Proposed FLUM change from COM, MDR and R/OS to HDR and 

R/OS for RV park expansion. 

Winter Haven 11-1ER EAR-based 5/16/2011 6/9/2011 EAR-based amendments. 

Yankeetown EAR EAR 9/10/2010 11/8/2010 District comments provided as part of EAR review related to 

watershed management, water supply planning, water conservation 

and water quality monitoring. 

Zolfo Springs 11-1ER EAR-based 9/27/2011 Various text amendments and map series update based upon 2009 

EAR. 

AR Alternative 

ACSC Area of Critical State Concern 

CIE Capital Improvement Element 

DRI Development of Regional Impact 

EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report 

ESR Expedited State Review 

PSFE Public School Facilities Element 

Remedial NOI-Not In Compliance 

WSFWP Water Supply Facilities Work Plan




Development of Regional Impact Activity Report 

Item 24 

Purpose 

This report is provided for the Committee's information and shows District activity in the review 

of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). Staff updates the report monthly. 


The District participates in the review of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) pursuant to 

Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. DRI's are large-scale development projects that exceed 

statutorily specified thresholds such that the project is assumed to have potential impacts that 

transcend multiple local government jurisdictions. The District is one of several agencies that 

are required to participate in the review process, which is administered by the regional planning 

councils. The District has also entered into memoranda of agreement with the Central Florida, 

Southwest Florida, Tampa Bay and Withlacoochee regional planning councils to more 

specifically outline the District's DRI review responsibilities. The District provides water 

resource management technical and policy information to the regional planning councils and 

local governments to assist them in making well-informed growth management decisions. 


The benefits of the District's DRI review program are to ensure regional planning councils and 

local government elected officials have sound water resource technical and policy information 

as they consider large scale development proposals. This helps to ensure these developments 

are compatible with the District's plans, programs and statutory directives. Costs for this 

program primarily include staff time and are budgeted in Fund 10 (Governing Board). 



Presenter: Roy A. Mazur, P.E., AICP, Director, Planning Department 

9

10 

DRI Activity Report As of Sept. 30, 2011 

Project DRI Location DRI App Type Date Assigned Date Completed Description 

Bayonet Point Shopping Mall Pasco NOPC 5/1/2009 11/2/2009 Mixed Use. Add 3.96 acres, establish land use 

equivalency matrix, exchange for 500 residential 

units. 

Bexley Ranch Pasco NOPC 1/5/2009 Mixed Use. Extension request, Transportation 

analysis changes. 

Big Bend Transfer Co. Sulfur Handling 

Facility 

CF Industries South Pasture Mine Extension Hardee SD - 1st 

Sufficiency 

Hillsborough NOPC 5/11/2009 6/9/2009 Industrial. Proposes combining several DRIs, 

extend construction date and revise concept 

development plan. 

5/20/2011 7,513 acre addition to existing phosphate mine. 

CF South Pasture Mine Extension Hardee SD 8/20/2010 4/14/2011 Additional land to be added to CF Industries' 

existing South Pasture Phosphate Mine in Hardee 

County. 7,513 acres. 

Cooper Creek Manatee County NOPC 8/30/2011 9/27/2011 Application proposes several changes to the 

existing development scenario. No substantive 

issues were identified made due to close 

coordination with developer during the 

development review process. 

Equity Southbend Hillsborough NOPC 4/27/2010 5/19/2011 Mixed Use. Proposal includes the addition of land 

for surface water management, build-out 

extension and changes to the location of office 

development. 

Four Corners Mine Addition S/D (aka 

G&D Farms) 

Four Corners Mine Addition S/D (aka 

G&D Farms) 

Manatee County ADA - 1st 

Sufficiency 

Manatee County ADA - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

Heron Creek North Port NOPC - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

2/2/2011 3/3/2011 Application review. 

8/1/2011 8/26/2011 Examined materials. Review completed 8/26/11. 

No substantive comments made. 

3/11/2010 8/5/2010 Mixed Use. Conversion matrix changes - housing 

trade offs - no comments. Formerly Marsh Creek. 

2nd suff - conversion matrix changes - housing 

trade offs.

11 


Lake Hutto Hillsborough 

County 


County 


County 

Mosaic Fertilizer Hillsborough County 

Mines 

NOPC - 1st 

Sufficiency 

NOPC - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

NOPC - 3rd 

Sufficiency 

11/10/2010 12/7/2010 Mixed Use Development: 1,856 residential units; 

207,500 sf retail; 219,000 sf office; 36,000 sf 

medical and school. 

4/7/2011 4/21/2011 No substantive comments. 

7/22/2011 8/12/2011 No substantive comments made. Made earlier 

comment re: reclaimed water availability. 

Hillsborough NOPC 9/25/2009 10/20/2009 Mining. Proposes addition of 77 acres to existing 

DRI. 

Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate (DRI 273) Manatee County ADA 2/9/2011 3/10/2011 Initial review of material, processing for submittal 

to review team. Application proposes to reclassify 

705 acres within the existing mine to 

"approved for mining." 

Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate Creek Mine Manatee County ADA - 1st 

Sufficiency 

Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate Extension (DRI 

272) 

Mosaic Riverview Phosphogypsum Stack 

Expansion 

7/15/2011 8/3/2011 No substantive comments. 

Manatee County ADA 2/9/2011 3/10/2011 Initial review of material, processing for submittal 

to review team. Application proposes the 

addition of 661 acres to existing mine. 

Hillsborough NOPC 10/14/2009 10/29/2009 Mining. Proposes construction of a process-water 

loading station and transport of process water to 

Polk County facility. 

Murdock Center Charlotte NOPC 9/9/2008 10/21/2008 Mixed Use. 

Old Florida Plantation Bartow NOPC 6/14/2010 6/14/2010 District Project/Not Reviewed. 

Ona Mine Hardee Pre App 10/16/2009 Phosphate Mining. 20,676 acres. Re-submittal of 

previous DRI in Hardee County. Next major 

project for Mosaic. Still no application submittal 

as of 4-6-11. 

Paddock Park Ocala Abandonment 8/13/2010 9/2/2010 Abandonment of substantially completed 

commercial/office/residential mixed use project. 

272 acres. 

Palmer Ranch Isles of Sarasota Phase 3 Sarasota County NOPC 7/11/2011 Increment XVII NOPC to add 38.4 acres with no 

increase in density.

12 


Parrish Lakes Manatee County Final DRI 

Review 

Parrish Lakes Manatee County ADA - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

2/28/2011 3/22/2011 Final Recommended Comments for 

development - Mixed Use - 1,155 acres. Proposes 

3300 residential units, 400,000 sf of retail and 

office and a mixed-use town center. 

1/7/2011 2/8/2011 No substantive comments made. 

Payne Creek Hardee ADA 10/15/2008 12/4/2008 Mixed Use. 1,204 acres. Project still active but no 

recent activity. 

Robinson Gateway Manatee County ADA - Initial 

Review 

Robinson Gateway Manatee County ADA - 1st 

Sufficiency 

12/29/2010 1/21/2011 Conducting ADA review. 

7/11/2011 Packet incomplete; waiting for additional 

materials. This was the first review of materials 

on file to date. 

Southbend Hillsborough NOPC 5/4/2010 6/1/2011 Mixed use. 

Tampa Bay Center Hillsborough NOPC 5/13/2010 6/9/2011 Commercial. 

The Villages of Sumter Sumter NOPC 9/12/2010 1/5/2010 Mixed Use. 13,489 acres. Reduction in retail and 

office uses; increase in residential based on land 

use matrix exchange. 

The Villages of Wildwood Sumter NOPC 9/15/2010 10/8/2010 Mixed Use. 13,477 acres. Addition of 4.71 acres to 

Town Center. 

Villages Lakewood Ranch South Sarasota ADA 11/10/2008 5/18/2009 Mixed Use. 2,156 acres. Villages type 

development under Sarasota 2050 overlay, 2nd 

sufficiency. Comments sent on 12/9/08 and 

5/18/09. 

Villages of Wildwood - 3rd NOPC Sumter County NOPC 5/3/2011 Several proposed changes to Map H and Map H-1 

regarding land use types and intensities. 

ADA Application for Development Approval 

DRI Development of Regional Impact 

NOPC Notice of Proposed Change 

Pre-App Pre-Application Meeting 

SD Substantial Deviation




Significant Activities 

Item 25 

Water Conservation Activities 

The District promotes water conservation and protection year-round using a variety of methods 

including public service advertising, news media outreach, the District’s website, special events, 

utility bill stuffers, outreach to existing partners and social media efforts such as the online 

WaterMatters.org Newsletter, Facebook and Twitter. New Activities Since Last Meeting — 

Watch the Weather, Wait to Water: Staff completed the District’s annual summer campaign, 

which encourages residents to watch the weather and turn off their irrigation systems during the 

summer months of June, July, August and September if their lawns have received enough water 

from rainfall. The campaign was promoted through the District’s website, a tip card, social media 

posts, a news release and an article and web banner provided to cooperators. The “Watch the 

Weather, Wait to Water” webpage featured a rain barrel quiz. Anyone who answered the 

question correctly could register for a chance to win one of four free rain barrels. College 

Conservation Program: This pilot water conservation education program for college students at 

the University of South Florida (USF) ran from January through April 2011. As a follow-up to the 

pilot program, USF has installed low-flow showerheads and aerators in two of its residence 

buildings and is comparing water use in the retrofitted residence buildings to water use in two 

residence buildings that have not been retrofitted. The District has supplied education materials 

to USF to place in all residence buildings. District staff will continue to follow the project’s 

progress. Water Conservation Month: Staff is producing four “Fix It for Less” indoor water 

conservation videos to be used during the promotion of Water Conservation Month in April and 

throughout the dry season. The videos were designed to be part of an integrated education 

campaign. Other campaign components will include a new water conservation webpage, a “Fix 

It for Less” how-to brochure, Facebook and Twitter messaging, email blasts, utility bill stuffers, 

web banners and cooperator outreach. 

Research 

The Communications Department uses research to enhance education program design, plan 

communications strategies and evaluate programs. For example, focus groups have been used 

in the development of campaigns and public opinion surveys have been used to evaluate these 

campaigns. A database of the District’s social research is available at 

WaterMatters.org/SocialResearch/. New Activities Since Last Meeting — Florida-Friendly 

Citrus County Water Conservation Education Program: The District will partner with the Citrus 

County Utilities Department to conduct a community-based social marketing project to help 

reduce the amount of potable water used outdoors by residents of the Sugarmill Woods 

development and the Citrus Springs/Pine Ridge communities. The project will be part of a larger 

ongoing District effort to reduce water use in Citrus County communities that have high water 

use. Communications Department staff will coordinate the education outreach in cooperation 

with the Resource Projects, Community & Legislative Affairs and Regulation departments. 

District staff will coordinate 12 focus groups for the project in October 2011. Six groups will be 

made up of Sugarmill Woods residents and six groups of Citrus Springs and Pine Ridge 

residents. The focus groups will be led by the District’s research consultants. The focus group 

script has been developed and focus group members have been recruited. Staff will use the 

information gathered from the focus groups to plan water conservation education efforts. 

Water Conservation Hotel and Motel Program (Water CHAMP SM ) and Water Program for 

Restaurant Outreach (Water PRO SM ) 

Water CHAMP SM promotes water conservation in hotels and motels by encouraging guests to 

use their towels and linens more than once during their stay. Participating hotels and motels 

receive program materials free of charge. In 2008, the Districtwide five-year water audit 

13

Item 25 

confirmed Water CHAMP participants saved an average of 17 gallons of water per occupied 

room per day. Based on these audit findings, the cost benefit for the program, using the total 

cost amortized over five years, is $0.47 per thousand gallons of water saved. Water PRO SM 

educates both restaurateurs and guests through free materials such as table tents, children’s 

coloring sheets, coasters and self-audit checklists. “We serve water only upon request” buttons 

are also available for wait staff. The program is being promoted through one-on-one visits with 

restaurant managers, partnerships with utility companies, networking at industry meetings and 

direct mail. New Activities Since Last Meeting — (1) Water CHAMP currently has 457 

participants, or 49 percent of all hotels and motels in the District. Of the 474 hotels/motels within 

the District with 50 or more rooms, 70 percent are Water CHAMP properties. (2) Water PRO 

has 284 restaurants in the District participating. (3) Scrolling web banners were placed on 

Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce website to direct tourists to the websites of Water 

CHAMP and Water PRO and promote the efforts of program participants to conserve Florida’s 

fresh water resources. 

Florida Water Star SM (FWS) Certification Program 

FWS is a voluntary certification program for builders that encourages water efficiency in 

appliances, plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems and landscapes, as well as water quality 

benefits from best management practices (BMPs) in landscapes. The program includes 

certifications for new homes, existing homes, commercial properties and communities. This is 

the program’s third year in the District; the first house was certified March 25, 2009. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting — Agreements: Builders who intend to incorporate FWS criteria 

in current or future projects sign nonbinding participation agreements with the District. To date, 

26 agreements have been signed, representing approximately 527 homes and three 

commercial properties. Certifications: As of Sept. 23, this District has certified 117 properties. 

Events: At On Top of the World (OTOW) Communities’ conservation expo held Sept. 20, 

Governing Board Member Doug Tharp presented a certificate to Ken Colen, president of OTOW 

Communities, for past commitment to the FWS program. Thanking the District for its 

recognition, Mr. Colen announced that all future OTOW homes will be built to the FWS 

residential silver criteria. 

Florida-Friendly Landscaping 

Recognizing the potential of water conservation and water quality protection through promotion 

of Florida-Friendly Landscaping (FFL) practices, the District began partnering with the 

University of Florida in FY2001 to support FFL education. Education on landscaping BMPs is 

provided to homeowners; students; builders, landscape and irrigation professionals; property 

managers; and members and boards of community associations in 11 counties. New Activities 

Since Last Meeting — FFL State Office: University of Florida FFL Program Director Esen 

Momol announced recently that UF has become authorized to provide continuing education 

units (CEU) for FFL education and is currently creating two trainings on FFL, one for landscape 

architects and one for community association managers. Charlotte County: The FFL coordinator 

is partnering with the Charlotte-DeSoto Building Industry Association to present rain barrel 

workshops. The association will purchase the barrels and paints for decorating the barrels. 

Hernando County: The FFL coordinator will work with the Hernando County government 

television crew to create 12 short videos on stormwater runoff and pollution. Sumter County/The 

Villages: At the Sept. 15 Sharing Day for FFL coordinators, the Sumter County/The Villages FFL 

coordinator reported providing FFL education to 25 new residents per month. He also noted that 

by 2014, The Villages is projected to have a higher population than the city of Ocala. 

Watershed/Water Quality Education 

The District’s watershed education efforts focus on water quality, stormwater runoff, water 

conservation and natural systems. Through these efforts, the District encourages specific 

behaviors such as reducing fertilizer and pesticide use, maintaining septic systems, conserving 

water, disposing of trash appropriately and picking up and properly disposing of pet waste. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting — The District’s Springs Awareness Week took place 

Sept. 16 - 24. A variety of events in Citrus and Marion counties provided springs protection 

information to approximately 2,000 residents. Events included lake and shoreline cleanups, 

guided hikes, boat tours, water education workshops, festivals and a springshed tour. The 

14

Item 25 

District led two of the events: the Springs Neighborhood Challenge and the Landscape 

Challenge. The Sept. 21 Springs Neighborhood Challenge educated approximately 60 residents 

about springs issues and protection. The event included presentations by springs experts, 

hands-on activities about watershed protection, boat rides on the Withlacoochee and Rainbow 

rivers and a Jeopardy game testing participants’ knowledge about local springs. The Sept. 22 

Landscape Challenge reached 20 landscape and horticulture industry professionals. Four teams 

competed in a circuit of challenges testing their knowledge and skill about landscaping best 

management practices that help protect water quality in springs. Competition areas included 

“Sizing It Up” for fertilization methods, “Right Plant, Right Place” for plant selection, “Aim on 

Fertilizer” for fertilization facts and “Water It Right” for irrigation. After placing second and third in 

two previous Landscape Challenge events, the District’s team won first place, earning the title of 

“Ruling Water Champion and Springs Protector.” 

Community Education Grant Program 

The Community Education Grant (CEG) program is in its fifteenth year and is funded through 

Initiatives for Public Education (P268). The CEG program provides reimbursement up to $5,000 

per project for individuals, service groups, community associations and others to implement a 

water resources education project. Projects take place between March and July each year. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting — The deadline for FY2012 applications was Aug. 19. Staff is 

reviewing the 32 applications that were received. 

Youth Education 

Nearly half the students and teachers in the District are reached through the Youth Water 

Resources Education program in a typical year. The program offers Splash! school grants, field 

trip programs, educational resources for students and educators, and teacher training to county 

school districts, charter schools, private schools, homeschool groups and nonformal educators. 

Several types of teacher training workshops are coordinated by staff throughout the District’s 

16 counties: Project WET (Water Education for Teachers), The Great Water Odyssey SM and 

Healthy Water, Healthy People. Kindergarten through twelfth-grade educators attending 

workshops receive curricula as well as District materials. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting — Direct Education: (1) On Sept. 29, Youth Education staff provided a presentation for 

25 Pinellas County elementary school teachers at Campbell Park Elementary in St. Petersburg. 

Staff presented information about the District, the Splash! school grant program and free 

educational resources for students and teachers. (2) Staff presented hands-on learning 

activities, including a watershed model demonstration and a Project WET lesson, for an 

estimated 50 adults and youth at the Sept. 21 Springs Neighborhood Challenge in Dunnellon. 

This community event was part of the District’s Springs Awareness Week in Citrus and Marion 

counties. (3) Youth Education staff provided presentations regarding District educational 

resources at the five District teacher training events in September. Details about each workshop 

are included in the Teacher Training update below. Splash! School Grants: This competitive 

grant program provides funding up to $3,000 per school to enhance student knowledge of 

freshwater resources issues. Information on the program is available at 

WaterMatters.org/schoolgrants. The grant application deadline for school year 2011–2012 was 

Sept. 2. Staff received 170 applications, which are currently under review. Notification of Splash! 

grants awarded for the school year is scheduled to be completed by Oct. 11. The District will 

fund Splash! school grant projects in Charlotte, Citrus, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, 

Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota and Sumter counties. Teacher Training: (1) A 

Sept. 2 Project WET workshop was held for nine homeschool educators at the City of Plant City 

Education building. The workshop was requested by the City of Plant City environmental 

coordinator. These educators learned about groundwater, the Floridan aquifer system, water 

supply, water conservation and the water cycle. (2) On Sept. 21 and 22 a Watershed 

Ambassador training workshop was held for 31 seventh-grade teachers from the District School 

Board of Pasco County. The workshop was held at Starkey Environmental Education Center, 

which is part of the District’s Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Preserve. Participating teachers 

received District curriculum materials and were trained in Project WET, Discover a Watershed 

and Healthy Water, Healthy People activities. (3) An advanced water resources teacher 

workshop for 20 Pinellas County high school teachers was held on Sept. 23 at Weedon Island 

Preserve in St. Petersburg. Participants received hands-on training in the use of Project WET, 

15

Item 25 

Discover a Watershed and Healthy Water, Healthy People curriculum guides. (4) The Polk 

County School District requested two Project WET workshops for fourth- and fifth-grade 

teachers at Polk’s Nature Discovery Center in Lakeland. On Sept. 27, 30 fourth-grade teachers 

were instructed in the use of the Project WET curriculum guide. The second Project WET 

workshop was held on Sept. 28 for 30 fifth-grade teachers. Teachers learned about 

groundwater, the Floridan aquifer system, water supply, water conservation and the water cycle. 

(5) At the request of the Polk County School District, planning is under way for additional Polk 

County Project WET workshops in October. (6) Planning is under way for two upcoming Project 

WET workshops on Nov. 4 and 5 for approximately 120 education majors at the University of 

South Florida. The workshop will be facilitated by Youth Education staff and offered as part of 

the Suncoast Area Teacher Training Honors Program. (7) During fiscal year 2011, 352 

educators and 64 preservice teachers were trained through 18 workshops. School District 

Coordination: The District will provide funding through school board agreements to implement 

water resources education programs for K–12 students and educators during the 2011–2012 

school year. Agreements are in place for Charlotte, Citrus, DeSoto, Hernando, Highlands, 

Hillsborough, Levy, Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota and Sumter school 

districts. Publications: Approximately 611,672 youth education publications have been 

distributed during fiscal year 2011. More than 453,057 youth materials have been distributed 

this calendar year. 

Strategic Communications Planning 

The Media & Outreach Section works with staff from various departments to plan outreach 

efforts related to projects and programs that directly impact residents. This is done by analyzing 

any communications challenges that may exist and creating plans to address those challenges. 

Media & Outreach staff assist with the planning, execution and evaluation of these efforts. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting — (1) Staff continues to work with members of the Ecologic 

Evaluation Section of the Resource Projects Department to plan a series of public workshops 

for residents and other key stakeholders in the Springs Coast MFLs development process. Staff 

assisted with the planning, preparation and execution of the June, July and September 

workshops. Staff also developed a webpage for the program and a frequently asked questions 

document for distribution to residents. Staff continues to update the webpage with new 

information. (2) Staff is working with the Operations Department to plan public outreach to Citrus 

County residents who live near the proposed S-353 Tie-Back Berm. A draft communications 

plan is currently being circulated among staff. Planned outreach includes a public meeting, fact 

sheet, FAQ document, outreach to elected officials and special interest groups, and traditional 

media engagement. (3) Staff is working with the Resource Projects Department to plan public 

outreach to residents living in Polk, Pasco and Hillsborough counties and the cities of Winter 

Haven and Clearwater in response to the six planned reclaimed water aquifer recharge projects. 

A draft communications plan is currently being circulated among staff. Planned outreach 

includes a public survey, internal and external stakeholder toolkit, and social media and 

traditional media engagement. (4) Staff continues to assist the Land Resources Department 

with messaging for kiosks on District lands. A series of seven posters describing the District’s 

mission and its land management goals and techniques are being developed. Once complete, 

they will be on display at the entrances to all lands owned and managed by the District. 

Visual Communications — Print 

Print team supports layout, illustration and design of publications for the Communications 

Department. New Activities Since Last Meeting — Development of materials for “Fix It for 

Less” how-to videos and brochures; Save Our Waters Week signage and brochure for Springs 

Awareness Week events in Marion and Citrus counties; updates to Prescribed Fire, Mini- 

FARMS and Cooperative Funding Initiative brochures and mailers. 

Visual Communications — Web 

Web team designs and develops website content and code. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting — New and updated web content for the month of September 2011 includes: 2011– 

2012 Feral Hog Hunts, Lake Panasoffkee Environmental Conditions, FY2012 Program Budget, 

Splash! school grants final application submissions, Intranet Workload and Staffing Analysis 

Q&A, and the Español page. Web banners were produced for distribution to partners to promote 

16

Item 25 

Water PRO and Water CHAMP on the web. Web Trends: Most-visited pages were Recreation 

on District-Owned Lands (28,405 page views — up 26% from last year); Education (18,026 

page views — down 5% from last year); ePermitting (14,919 page views — down 2% from last 

year). Routing traffic directly through ePermitting increased awareness of the online process by 

382% from last year. 

Surplus Lands Assessment 

In March 2011 the Governing Board instructed Staff to conduct an assessment of District owned 

lands with the goal of identifying lands which could be surplused. Since the March meeting, Land 

and Planning staff have created a project scope and timeline. Staff has also conducted meetings 

with District subject matter experts to identify review criteria to identify potential surplus 

candidates. Staff has met with representatives from the Suwannee River Water Management 

District who have a land surplus program currently functioning. Staff has developed a draft GIS 

model that selects parcels which contain the hydrologic criteria initially identified by project 

subject matter experts. The model is currently being tested for functionality and accuracy. Staff 

has finalized the GIS model and has done calibration tests. Pending Governing Board approval 

of the project methodology, stakeholder meetings will be scheduled to receive public feedback on 

the project and its proposed implementation. New Activities Since Last Meeting – The 

Governing Board appointed a Board composed Subcommittee to review staff methodology, hear 

staff recommendations for parcels for potential surplus and approve parcels for consideration by 

the greater Governing Board. Staff is currently coordinating the initial dates for the Board 

Subcommittee and subsequent Public Information meetings. 

Regional Water Supply Plan Community Planning Technical Assistance 

The adoption of the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) by the Governing Board activates a 

statutory requirement for all counties and municipalities to develop a 10-Year Water Supply 

Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan) and adopt the Work Plan into their Comprehensive Plan within 

18 months (24 months for counties split by two water management districts). The intent of RWSP 

Community Technical Assistance Program is to assist counties and municipalities in producing 

their Work Plans by providing the required data in a concise format which can be transcribed into 

the Work Plan. Communities are not obligated by statute or rule to use these data; however, the 

pages reflect the data SWFWMD staff will use to evaluate the Work Plans when submitted. Staff, 

along with partners from the regional planning councils, will be facilitating workshops throughout 

the District to further assist local government planners’ use of the data to complete their Work 

Plans. Staff will begin the statutorily mandated RWSP notification process in October. 

Workshops are being scheduled in association with the regional planning councils beginning in 

the first quarter of FY 2012. New Activities Since Last Meeting – The RWSP notification for 

local governments and municipalities has been completed. Staff is coordinating with the 

respective Regional Planning Councils to assist with the Technical Assistance Workshops. 

Regional Planning Council Update 

� Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (September 12, 2011) - While there were no water 

resource discussions, Richard Gehring and David Goldstein, Pasco County; and Greg 

Horwedel, Plant City discussed their respective Mobility Fees program. Pasco County and 

Plant City are among the first local governments in Florida to replace road impact fees with 

mobility fees. This fee provides funding for several transportation modes, including roads, 

transit and bicycle/pedestrian amenities, as opposed to the impact fee that only addressed 

roads. The Pasco County speakers indicated the fee structure supports both its growth 

management and economic development goals by offering lower fees for certain areas and 

preferential rates for certain types of land uses, respectively. Council discussion included 

mention that Pinellas County has work underway in this area, and questions regarding the 

fee structure for preferential land uses and on I-4 transportation issues. 

� Central Florida Regional Planning Council (September 14, 2011) - While there was no water 

resource discussion, the Council handled several administrative matters, including the 

approval of a contract to perform a hazardous materials emergency preparedness plan, the 

selection of a consultant to prepare an energy baseline inventory. The Council also heard a 

presentation about FDOT’s Transportation Vision for the 21 st Century, which highlighted 

several key projects in Polk County and the Heartland. 

17

Item 25 

� Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (September 15, 2011) - While there was no 

water resource discussion, the Council is seeking a 2011 HUD Sustainable Communities 

Planning Grant to fund a Regional Plan for Sustainable Development, an innovative plan 

developed through collaboration to support and enhance ongoing local and regional efforts. 

Three coastal counties (Charlotte, Collier and Lee) will be the primary focus with Glades, 

Hendry and Sarasota providing support and expertise. The purpose of the program is to 

support metropolitan and multijurisdictional planning efforts that integrate housing, land use, 

economic and workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure plans. This 

empowers jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of economic growth and 

revitalization, social equity, access to opportunity, public health, and environmental impact 

simultaneously. SWFWMD staff announced the new Executive Director, Blake Guillory will 

begin on October 3 rd and the press release would be sent from the District for the Council 

members’ information. Jon Inglehart from FDEP announced that the South District office 

has begun a new community outreach program to help communities attract new businesses. 

FDEP staff meets with staff from the local governments and economic development 

agencies and inform them about FDEP’s resources that are available to help bring in new 

business. 

� Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council (September 15, 2011) - While there was no water 

resource discussion, the Council voted to transmit the updated 2011 Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Plan. Economic development projects listed in the 

CEDS make them eligible for federal funding. The Council also voted to participate in 

developing a statewide energy resiliency strategy with the other 10 regional planning 

councils was approved. The project will capitalize on an Economic Development 

Administration grant secured through the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Staff will 

be participating in the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) exercise. The exercise 

will be held in conjunction with the SWFWMD and the Emergency Management staff of 

Citrus County, Levy County and other regional municipalities. The geographic extent of the 

exercise will include the Inglis Spillway, US 19 and lower Withlacoochee River area. 

Local Government Outreach 

As part of the District’s community and legislative affairs program, the Community and 

Legislative Affairs (CLA) Department is responsible for (1) developing effective relationships 

with local elected and public officials and their staff, (2) serving as the District’s day-to-day 

liaison with local officials, (3) facilitating coordination of District programs to assist local 

government entities, (4) promoting the mission of the District and (5) helping to develop and 

foster sound public policy on water resource related issues. To meet these responsibilities, CLA 

has developed long-standing programs and tactics, including but not limited to, project tours, the 

e-Resource newsletter, e-mail alerts and one-on-one meetings. New Activities since Last 

Meeting: 

� Bradenton Riverwalk Groundbreaking - Elected officials and community leaders from the 

City of Bradenton and Manatee County gathered the morning of September 19 for the official 

groundbreaking ceremony of the Riverwalk project. The Riverwalk will have expanded, 

shaded lawn and play areas; a botanical walk and discovery marsh, space for festivals and 

concerts, a skate park, beach volleyball courts, launching area for kayaks, canoes and 

regattas and public art displayed throughout the approximately 1.5 mile river front property. 

The City of Bradenton qualified for an ERP exemption for this project and will receive 

approximately $612,085 in District funding. The funding will be for water quality and 

restoration efforts associated with a Wetland and Bioswale to Tidal Marsh project. The project 

will include expanding existing stormwater facilities while creating an opportunity to educate 

visitors about stormwater and water conservation. Dale Weidemiller, Riverwalk’s volunteer 

project manager, publicly thanked the District for expedited permitting assistance. 

� Citrus County Economic Development Council - CLA staff attended the Citrus County 

EDC meeting where Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam was the guest speaker. 

Commissioner Putnam drew a crowd of over 100 attendees, including Rep. Jimmie Smith, 

Citrus County Commissioners Bays, Webb, Cheek and Kenney. Commissioner Putnam 

highlighted three main focuses of his administration, including water, energy, and nutrition. 

He discussed the importance of balancing water needs of Floridians with the environment and 

talked about the EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria as an unfair policy to Florida. 

18

Item 25 

� Citrus County Task Force - The Citrus County Task Force outlined what they would like to 

see in the Citrus County Task Force 2011 Annual Report to the Legislature. Kings 

Bay/Crystal River restoration was discussed and Task Force member Michael Czerwinski 

provided a written proposal for Kings Bay restoration which he distributed to the other 

members. The Task Force agreed to use Mr. Czerwinski’s proposal in the report. 

� City of Arcadia Election Results - Two new council members were recently elected to the 

Arcadia City Council, Alice Frierson and Joe Fink. Councilwoman Sharon Goodman also has 

recently resigned and the Council is deciding whether to make an appointment or hold a 

special election. There were two years left on her term. 

� City of Tampa/Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority - Resource Projects and CLA 

staff met with the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County and HART staff to discuss possible 

intergovernmental partnerships and a CFI application to address flooding concerns in the 43 rd 

street stormwater basin (Ybor area.) HART’s Ybor bus terminal and the surrounding 

neighborhood experienced increased flooding following the completion of the I-4 expansion. 

The study will evaluate flood protection with possible water quality improvements. Upon 

completion of the study, the City and HART may apply for cooperative funding construction 

dollars. 

� DeSoto County/City of Arcadia FEMA meeting - District staff met with the city administrator, 

county administrator and county staff regarding the preliminary floodplain map project in 

DeSoto County. Both Thornton Branch and Deep Creek Watersheds have been completed 

with draft maps, peer reviews and public workshops and been approved by the Governing 

Board to be sent to FEMA. The next steps will be hosting a Preliminary DFIRM and 

Community Coordination meeting and release the maps to the FEMA process in December. 

� Hillsborough County Agriculture Economic Development Council - Executive and CLA 

staff participated in the AEDC meeting chaired by Hugh Gramling. The agenda included an 

update and discussion on the Dover freeze rule implementation, the new agriculture wetlands 

exemption and the Hillsborough County agriculture reservoir land development code proposed 

amendments. 

� Hillsborough County Commission - CLA staff attended the first public hearing for the 

Hillsborough BOCC Land Development Code Text Amendment. The proposed amendment 

would streamline the county’s permitting of agricultural reservoirs. District FARMS, REG and 

CLA staff have been working with the county’s Agriculture Economic Development Council, 

Planning and Growth Management Department, Environmental Protection Commission and 

DACS to amend the county’s Land Excavation code to recognize agriculture reservoirs 

authorized by the FDEP or the District as meeting the county’s excavation permit 

requirements. The amendment also now includes language that specifies that provisions in 

the code related to the District and FDEP shall cease to be in effect in the event either agency 

no longer issues the authorizations referenced. 

� Manasota League of Cities - The Manasota League of Cities held a brief meeting before 

they adjourned for an advocacy training session with the Florida League of Cities. During their 

meeting, they briefly discussed legislative priorities. The Town of Longboat Key and City of 

Sarasota oppose oil drilling off the West coast of Florida and support beach renourishment 

funding by the State and protection of the bays and beaches to sustain environmental quality 

and economic prosperity. While at the meeting, CLA staff had an opportunity to talk to elected 

officials from North Port, Anna Maria Island, Holmes Beach, and City of Venice. 

� Manatee County Wares Creek - CLA and other District staff met with Manatee County staff 

to discuss the progress of the Wares Creek project. To date, the District has reimbursed the 

County $8.319 million of the $10.9 million set aside for the project which includes dredging, 

implementation of best management practices, bank stabilization and channel widening. The 

project will improve flood protection. County staff provided an overview of the status of land 

acquisition including the status of the utility relocations for the City of Bradenton. The City is 

currently pursuing the necessary easements to complete this portion of the project. They have 

100% design and the permits for their portion of the overall Wares Creek project. There will 

be a community meeting regarding Wares Creek on October 25 th and a groundbreaking 

ceremony on November 14 th . Congressman Vern Buchanan and Senator Bill Nelson, as well 

as several other elected officials, are scheduled to attend the groundbreaking event. 

� Marion County Legislative Delegation Meeting - CLA staff attended the Marion County 

Legislative Delegation Meeting. Marion County BOCC Chair Stan McClain spoke to the 

19

Item 25 

delegation regarding Marion County’s legislative priorities which included an equitable 

distribution of funding from water management districts. Chair McClain stated that over a 5year 

period, Marion County contributed upwards of $40,000,000 in ad valorem taxes to both 

SWFWMD and SJRWMD, but in that same 5-year period, only received approximately 

$9,000,000 in funding for projects. Sen. Baxley commented that the delegation is looking at 

those issues. 

� Natural Resources Committee (Formerly Water Alternatives Committee) Manatee 

Chamber - The Committee discussed Manatee County’s proposed wetland policies. 

Commissioners are considering three options: adopting an ordinance proposed by its staff; 

allowing the state to regulate wetlands or leaving things the way they are currently. One 

reason for the proposed changes is a lack of consistency and loose interpretation of the 

County’s current wetland policies. The Commission will be voting on this issue in upcoming 

months. The District’s budget was discussed as well as the decrease in the cooperative 

funding initiative. CLA staff reported that the District will have about $40 million available for 

cooperative funding for the entire 16 counties. A retired environmental consultant said he was 

really disappointed to hear about the loss of the Basin Boards. He said that out of the four 

WMDs he dealt with in his career, the SWFWMD had the best system in place to return local 

dollars to the communities for important projects. Manatee County Commissioner John 

Chappie said his Commission would like to see the Basin Boards reinstated, but at a minimum 

would like local/regional advisory committees set up to vet the cooperative funding 

applications as we move forward. 

The Chamber’s legislative platform was mentioned and they have included wanting to retain a 

designated Manatee County seat if there are any structural changes to the District’s 

Governing Board such as reducing the Board from 13 to 9 members. 

� Polk County Extension “2012 Water School Committee” - Shannon McGee, Natural 

Resource Extension Agent convened the first meeting of the committee for the 2012 Water 

School. Participants in Water School include, elected and potential elected officials, county 

and municipal staff, the general public and those seeking to receive CEU’s for their 

profession. At the September 21 st meeting the chair and secretary of the committee were 

elected and CLA staff member, Danny Kushmer was elected Chair 

� Sarasota Chamber Legislative Priorities Meeting - CLA staff provided an update on the 

District’s budget and briefly discussed cooperative funding and the budgetary impacts facing 

that program for the next few years. The Chamber was asked to support the Water 

Management Districts’ current structure in the state which allows local governance and 

provides assistance to local businesses and government in responsibly balancing sustainable 

development and water resource interests. The Chamber is strategizing to determine their 

best approach and top two to three issues they would like to take to Tallahassee this year. 

� Sarasota County/Town of Longboat Key - Assistant County Administrator Dave Bullock 

from Sarasota County has accepted a one-year position with the Town of Longboat Key as 

Interim Town Manager. At the end of the year, the Town Commission will either release Mr. 

Bullock from the position or continue his contract. In the meantime, the search for a 

permanent Sarasota County Administrator continues, as does the search for a permanent 

DeSoto County Administrator. District staff often works with the people in these positions and 

county administrators are important in helping shape the policies and direction of the Peace 

River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority. 

� Sumter County Board of County Commissioners - District staff along with staff from 

Dewberry consultants presented an update of the FEMA mapping process to the Sumter 

County BOCC. Commissioner Randy Mask had questions concerning the public notice to 

affected residents. Sumter County staff assured commissioners that once they knew what 

properties were affected they would be able to plan for a method of notification. In other 

business, the commissioners discussed their priority list for the Sumter County Legislative 

Delegation Meeting (tentatively scheduled for Oct. 13, 2011). The county will be asking for 

appropriation dollars and grant/loan assistance to aid in converting residents and businesses 

from septic to sewer. 

� Tampa Bay Water (TBW) - TBW & District staff from Resource Projects, Land Management, 

Resource Regulation and CLA met to review the status of the Regional Reservoir renovation 

and expansion. This meeting focused on the construction plans, scheduling and funding. The 

20

Item 25 

project is still on schedule with the start date anticipated to be Sept. 1, 2012 and completion in 

November of 2014. TBW confirmed they will be submitting a CFI request this fall for 

approximately $28 million dollars which is half of the cost for the reservoir expansion. 

� Winter Haven Economic Development Council - The City of Winter Haven has created an 

EDC and in an effort to reach-out to this new organization CLA staff met with one of the board 

members and centered on ways the District can work with an applicant to streamline the 

permitting process and in order to be successful in this endeavor the applicant needs to 

conduct a pre-application meeting. CLA staff informed the member how, once they have a 

strong commitment for a new business, development, etc., that is important to get the District 

in the loop, ensuring the District’s time constraints do not hinder a potential economic 

improvement. As a result of the meeting, the newly formed EDC has included the District on 

its email distribution and will request speakers when appropriate. 

Legislation and Policy 

The Community and Legislative Affairs Department (CLA) acts as the District’s day-to-day 

representatives before the Florida Legislature and U.S. Congress. This includes educating 

officials and staff regarding the mission of the District, providing information on issues and 

legislation, and coordinating our legislative program with other state and federal agencies. The 

department recommends, develops and executes the District’s legislative program based on 

Governing Board and executive staff direction. CLA staff works with Executive, Legal and other 

departments to develop and manage internal District legislative procedures and policies. 

New Activities since Last Meeting: CLA staff continues to: 

� Maintain preliminary coordination with the Office of the Governor, the Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Legislature regarding the District's 2013 budget 

process. 

� Communicate with legislators and staff regarding the District's adopted 2011-12 budget, 

District programs and projects through legislative delegation meetings and select 

presentations for legislative committees. 

� Conduct meetings and tours of District projects with legislators and staff. 

� Assure staff is reviewing filed legislation as well as proposed legislation for the upcoming 

legislative session. Some of the key areas of discussion including mitigation banking, 

environmental resource permitting, and longer duration permits. 

Community Outreach 

In addition to acting as the District’s liaison to local government, the Community and Legislative 

Affairs Department (CLA) is responsible for the primary “grassroots and grasstops” outreach to 

local community organization and groups. These include the agricultural community, 

environmental groups, business associations and others. These relationships provide a pivotal 

component of the District’s legislative program and allow for opportunities to communicate the 

District’s mission, policies and the goals. New Activities Since Last Meeting: 

� Dick Pope/Polk County Chapter of the Florida Public Relations Association - At the 

September 21st meeting, Danny Kushmer was installed as the 41 st president of the chapter 

for the 2011-2012 year. The state president of the Florida Public Relations Association 

presented Mr. Kushmer with the Dick Pope/Polk County Chapter of FPRA “2011 Rising 

Leader Award.” 

� Leadership Hernando - As part of the Leadership Hernando’s Water Matters Day, Land 

Resources, Resource Projects and CLA staff made presentations that included an overview of 

the District, prescribed burning and land management, and the Weeki Wachee restoration 

project. There are 22 class members in Leadership Hernando this year. 

� On Top of the World Water (OTOW) Conservation Expo - Approximately 50 members of 

the public attended the OTOW Water Conservation Expo where the District had an 

informational booth and provided speakers. District staff provided a water conservation 

presentation and a Florida geology discussion. The residents and OTOW staff expressed 

their appreciation of the District’s support of the event as the majority of the residents are new 

to Florida and they felt the information the District presented was very educational. A District 

Governing Board member also attended and presented OTOW executives with a Water Star 

Gold certificate. 

21

Item 25 

� Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Board Meeting - The Board 

discussed their legislative and regulatory priorities for 2011/2012. The following priorities were 

approved by the Board: 

� Working with DEP and EPA on a regulatory fix for arsenic issues in ASR systems 

� WUP permit duration – Board supportive of longer duration beyond 20 years 

� SWFWMD Basin Boards 

� Support securing and preserving basin boundaries and create mechanism for local input 

on cooperative funding decisions and find way to keep ad valorem tax collected within the 

basin boundaries 

� TMDL 

� Support DEP development of Florida water quality standards and TMDLs in lieu of EPA 

implementation of Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

� Multi-Source Water Use Permit 

� Allow for integrated water supply system using multiple sources to utilize the ‘right water at 

the right time’ 

� Promote the idea that all Districts do it as SWFWMD does for consistency 

� Definition of “harm” 

� Support finding a baseline definition for harm that is applied consistently throughout the 

State in permitting situations 

� WMD Governing Boards 

� Of the five WMDs in the state, four have governing boards of 9 members; SWFWMD has 

13 members; support SWFWMD having 9 members and provide input on equitable 

representation. 

� Peace River Valley Citrus Growers’ Association Board Meeting - Barbara Carlton, 

executive director of the Peace River Valley Citrus Growers’ Association, asked Sarasota 

Regulation and CLA staff to attend their monthly Board meeting and provide an update on 

District activities. Sarasota staff discussed the role of the Regional Agricultural team and the 

difference between the local agricultural teams and the regional team. Also discussed were 

the District’s FARMS program and the newly passed Agricultural Exemption Bill (HB 421). 

Sarasota staff briefly talked about the District’s ePermitting program. 

� Tsala Apopka Watershed Open House - Approximately 150 people attended the public 

meeting including former Basin Board members Bo Rooks and Al Grubman. Sen. Charlie 

Dean also attended and was complimentary of the Kings Bay meeting (described above) and 

was encouraged with the district's participation. 

� Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Board Meeting - District staff attended 

the WRWSA Board Meeting. Ken Herd provided the board with an update on the District’s 

Utility Outreach Program and conservation model. The board approved a contract with Nancy 

Smith as part-time administration support for the Authority. Executive Director Jack Sullivan 

also brought three proposals to the board for new office space. The board also approved a nocost 

contract extension until Dec. 31, 2011 with Water Resource Associates for assistance to 

WRWSA members within SJRWMD in developing water conservation and reclaimed water 

programs. 



Presenter: David T. Rathke, Chief of Staff 

22

NOVEMBER 2011 

Special Events 

NOVEMBER –DECEMBER 2011 

Event Title: Estuary Wading Trip 

Date: November 9 

Time: 9 a.m. 

Location: Cedar Point Park, 2300 Placida Rd., Englewood 

Sponsoring Organizations: Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center, District 

Attendees: General public 

Event Description: Educational wading trip into the Charlotte Harbor watershed will 

demonstrate the importance of good water resource management in maintaining healthy 

estuarine systems. For information, contact Monica Dorken at the Charlotte Harbor 

Environmental Center at (941) 475-0769 or chec@sunline.net. 

District Contact Information 

Virginia Sternberger, (352) 796-7211, ext. 4753; Virginia.Sternberger@WaterMatters.org 

Item 25 

Event Title: Charlotte Harbor Nature Fest 

Date: November 19 

Time: 10 a.m.–3 p.m. 

Location: Charlotte County Sports Complex, 2300 El Jobean Rd./SR 776, Port Charlotte 

Sponsoring Organizations: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, various 


Event Description: Attendees will have the opportunity to visit the environmental exhibits and 

participate in activities and workshops. 


Melissa Gulvin, (352) 796-7211, ext. 4782; Melissa.Gulvin@WaterMatters.org 

DECEMBER 2011 

Event Title: Estuary Wading Trips 

Dates: December 7 and 21 

Time: 9 a.m. 

Location: Cedar Point Park, 2300 Placida Rd., Englewood 

Sponsoring Organizations: Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center, District 


Event Description: Educational wading trips into the Charlotte Harbor watershed will 

demonstrate the importance of good water resource management in maintaining healthy 

estuarine systems. For information, contact Monica Dorken at the Charlotte Harbor 

Environmental Center at (941) 475-0769 or chec@sunline.net. 


Virginia Sternberger, (352) 796-7211, ext. 4753; Virginia.Sternberger@WaterMatters.org 

23



REGULATION COMMITTEE 



27. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report .................................................................................. 2 

28. Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022 – Consider Current and 

Projected Conditions........................................................................................................... 4 

(Strategic Plan: Water Supply – Conservation) 

29. Approve Revisions to Previously-Approved Amendments to 40D-21, Florida 

Administrative Code, Water Shortage Plan, to Reduce Regulatory Costs ........................ 10 

(Strategic Plan: Water Supply – Conservation) 

30. Denial(s) Referred to the Governing Board ....................................................................... 58 

Submit & File Reports 

31. Permits with Five-Year Compliance Reports ..................................................................... 59 

32. Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Update ............................................................ 60 


33. Public Supply Report .......................................................................................................... 61 

34. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities ................................................................... 77 

35. Overpumpage Report ........................................................................................................ 78 

36. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications ......................................................... 81 

37. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff .......................................................................... 82 

38. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives Report ........................................................... 84




Hydrologic Conditions Status Report 

Item 27 

This routine report provides information on the general state of the District's hydrologic 

conditions, by comparing rainfall, surface water, and groundwater levels for the current month to 

comparable data from the historical record. The data shown are typically considered final, fully 

verified monthly values, but occasionally, due to timing of publication, some data are identified 

as "provisional," meaning that the values shown are best estimates based on incomplete data. 

The information presented below is a summary of data presented in much greater detail in the 

Hydrologic Conditions Report published the week before the Governing Board meeting, which 

also includes an updated provisional summary of hydrologic conditions as of the date of 

publication. It is available at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/waterres/hydro/hydro.htm. 

Rainfall 

Provisional rainfall totals for September were in the low-end of the normal range in all three 

regions of the District. The normal range is defined as rainfall totals that fall on or between the 

25 th to 75 th percentiles derived from the historical data for each month. 

• The northern region received an average of 4.80 inches of rainfall, equivalent to the 

33 rd percentile. 

• The central region received an average of 5.34 inches of rainfall, equivalent to the 

30 th percentile. 

• The southern region recorded an average of 5.52 inches of rain, equivalent to the 


• District-wide, average rainfall was 5.26 inches, equivalent to the 26 th percentile. 

Streamflow 

September streamflow data indicates that flow in regional index rivers increased in the northern 

region, while it decreased in the central and southern regions, compared to the previous month. 

Streamflow conditions ended the month below-normal in the northern and southern regions, 

while it was at the low-end of the normal range in the central region, based on flow conditions in 

regional index rivers. Normal streamflow is defined as falling on or between the 25 th and 75 th 

percentiles. 

• The monthly average streamflow in the Withlacoochee River near Holder in the northern 

region was in the 9 th percentile. 

• The monthly average streamflow measured in the Hillsborough River near Zephyrhills in the 

central region was in the 26 th percentile. 

• The monthly average streamflow measured in the Peace River at Arcadia in the southern 

region was in the 22 nd percentile. 

Groundwater Levels 

September groundwater data indicate levels in the Floridan/Intermediate aquifer increased and 

ended the month at the base of the normal range in the northern region, within the normal range 

in the central region and at the low-end of the normal range in the southern region, compared to 

last month. Normal groundwater levels are defined as those falling on or between the 25 th and 

75 th percentiles. 

• The average groundwater level in the northern counties was in the 25 th percentile. 

• The average groundwater level in the central counties was in the 54 th percentile. 

• The average groundwater level in the southern counties was in the 32 nd percentile. 

2

Item 27 

Lake Levels 

Provisional water-level data for September indicates average lake levels increased in all regions 

of the District. The Northern, Polk Uplands, and Lake Wales Ridge regions ended the month 

below the base of the annual normal range, while the Tampa Bay region ended the month 

above the base of the annual normal range. Normal lake levels are generally considered to be 

levels that fall between the minimum low management level and the minimum flood level. 

• Average levels in the Northern region increased 0.17 foot and were 3.59 feet below the base 

of the annual normal range. 

• Average lake levels in the Tampa Bay region increased 0.24 foot and were 1.41 feet above 

the base of the annual normal range. 

• Average lake levels in the Polk Uplands region increased 0.23 foot and were 1.07 feet below 

the base of the annual normal range. 

• Average lake levels in the Lake Wales Ridge region increased 0.17 foot and were 3.94 feet 

below the base of the annual normal range. 

Issues of Significance 

September historically marks the last month of the rainy season and this year’s September 

rainfall totals were less than expected and at the lower-end of the normal range. Rainfall during 

the month was scattered, regionally variable, and associated with tropical moisture from the Gulf 

or Atlantic Ocean moving over the Florida peninsula interacting with lessening convective 

(afternoon/evening) rain showers. Rainfall during the 2011 rainy season (June through 

September) was disappointing, falling within the low-normal to normal range, and did not bring 

the above-normal rainfall conditions that national weather forecasts had predicted. Although 

falling within the normal range, the District-wide rainy season totals were approximately 

3.5 inches below the long-term mean. District-wide, the provisional 12-month rainfall deficit is 

6.4 inches, while the 24- and 36-month cumulative rainfall deficits are approximately 6.0 and 

11.2 inches, respectively. 

NOAA climate forecasts indicate uncertainty (i.e., equal chances for normal, above-normal or 

below-normal) for rainfall in October, while they predict below-normal rainfall conditions for the 

remaining fall and coming winter/spring months, due to existing and projected La Niña 

conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Extended drier-than-normal rainfall conditions during the 

fall/winter/spring months would worsen already lagging hydrologic conditions. 

Updated weather forecasts will be available in mid-November. Staff will continue to closely 

monitor conditions in accordance with the District's updated Water Shortage Plan, including any 

necessary supplemental analysis of pertinent data. 


This item is presented for the Committee's information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Granville Kinsman, Manager, Hydrologic Data Section 

3




Item 28 

Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022 – Consider Current and Projected Conditions 

The Governing Board approved Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022 (a Modified Phase I 

or Moderate Water Shortage declaration) during its November 16, 2010 meeting. This Order 

was originally scheduled to expire at the end of July; however, the Governing Board extended 

the expiration date to the end of October during its July 28, 2011 meeting. 

Based on data available as of September 29, 2011, the rainy season has been characterized as 

generally disappointing. As a result, it appears prudent to continue the current phase of water 

shortage restrictions, which strike a balance between acknowledging below-normal water 

resource conditions that could deteriorate further and the fact that public supplies and demand 

for these supplies are currently in good shape. A Board Order modifying the expiration of the 

current restrictions is included as an exhibit, for the Governing Board’s consideration. 

Staff will continue to monitor resource conditions and other pertinent factors, including the status 

of key public supply water systems, in accordance with the District’s Water Shortage Plan 

(Chapter 40D-21, Florida Administrative Code). If staff determines that it would be prudent for 

the Governing Board to implement more or less stringent restrictions in any portion of the 

District, a summary of then-current information will be provided as part of another Water 

Shortage Order that staff would prepare for the Board’s consideration on October 25, 2011. 


Approve the Second Modification to Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-2022 to extend the 

current Modified Phase I restrictions through February 28, 2012, unless staff presents an 

alternative recommendation at the Governing Board meeting. 

Presenter: Lois Ann Sorensen, M.B.A., Demand Management Program Manager 

4

IN RE: 


DECLARATION OF WATER SHORTAGE 

_________________________________ 

SECOND BOARD ORDER 

MODIFYING WATER SHORTAGE ORDER NO. SWF 2010-022 

The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(District), during a public hearing held at its regularly schedule monthly meeting on 

October 25, 2011, at the District’s Tampa Service Office in Temple Terrace, Florida, 

received data and recommendations from District staff, and comment from the public, 

regarding hydrologic conditions and other pertinent facts regarding the existence of an 

ongoing water shortage within the District. Based upon the testimony, data, staff 

recommendations and public comment, the Governing Board makes the following 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. At its November 16, 2010 meeting, in accordance with Chapter 40D-21, Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the District's Water Shortage Plan ("Plan"), the 

Governing Board considered then-current water resource and water supply 

information, staff recommendations and public input and, upon careful consideration, 

issued Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022. 

2. The Plan specifies that the District will monitor certain Drought Indicators, including 

rainfall, groundwater levels and stream flows. 

3. Pertinent current Drought Indicators are summarized as follows: 

a. Rainfall 

i. As of September 20, 2011, the northern region of the District is 

experiencing a 12-month moving sum of rainfall registering below the 

20 th percentile, which is classified as “severely abnormal” in 

accordance with Table 21-1 in the Plan, as modified. This region 

includes the following counties: Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Lake, Levy 

and Sumter. 

5

ii. As of September 20, 2011, the southern region of the District is 

experiencing a 12-month moving sum of rainfall registering below the 

20 th percentile, which is classified as “severely abnormal” in 

accordance with Table 21-1 in the Plan, as modified. This region 

includes the following counties: Charlotte, DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, 

Manatee and Sarasota. 

iii. As of September 20, 2011, both the northern and southern regions of 

the District are also experiencing a 24-month moving sum of rainfall 

registering below the 25th percentile, which is classified as “moderately 

abnormal” in accordance with Table 21-1 in the Plan. 

iv. Although the four-county central region of the District is not, as a 

whole, experiencing abnormal rainfall conditions as specified in the 

Plan, Tampa Bay Water has reported below-normal conditions for the 

combination of weather stations it uses to monitor rainfall in its service 

area, which constitutes three of the four counties in the region. 

b. Groundwater Levels 

As of September 20, 2011, the Aquifer Resource Indicator for the northern 

region is below the 25 th percentile, a status which is classified as 

“moderately abnormal” by the Plan. 

c. Stream Flows 

i. As of September 20, 2011, the 7-day moving average stream flow for 

the Withlacoochee River, as measured at the gage at Holder, was 

below the 5 th percentile, which is classified as “critically abnormal” by 

the Plan. 

ii. As of September 20, 2011, the 8-week moving average stream flow for 

the Withlacoochee River, as measured at the gage at Holder, was 

below the 10 th percentile, which is classified as “extremely abnormal” 

by the Plan. 

iii. As of September 20, 2011, the 8-week and 7-day moving average 

stream flows for the Alafia River, as measured at the gage at Lithia, 

and the 7-day moving average stream flow for the Hillsborough River, 

as measured at the gage at Zephyrhills, were all registering below the 

20 th percentile. This means all three are classified as “severely 

abnormal” by the Plan. 

iv. As of September 20, 2011, the 8-week moving average stream flows 

for the Hillsborough River, as measured at the gage at Zephryhills, the 

Peace River, as measured at the gage at Bartow, and the Peace River, 

2 

6

as measured at the gage at Arcadia, were all below the 25 th percentile, 

which is classified as “moderately abnormal” by the Plan. 

4. The Plan also specifies that the District will consider additional factors when 

determining whether to declare or modify a water shortage and which phase of 

restrictions and other required actions should be implemented to respond to a declared 

or continuing water shortage event. 

5. Pertinent additional factors include: 

a. The Climate Prediction Center’s current forecasts indicate that rainfall will be 

below normal from November 2011 through May 2012, but then conditions will be 

uncertain for several months. 

b. Public suppliers are currently experiencing modest increases in demand when 

there is an absence of rain; however, there no known drought-related public 

supply concerns at this time. 

c. The District and the adjacent St. Johns River Water Management District have 

an Interagency Agreement which currently stipulates that all of Marion County, 

including the city of Ocala but excluding The Villages and the city of Dunnellon, 

will follow restrictions established by the St. Johns River Water Management 

District. 

6. All groundwater and surface water sources throughout the District are currently 

affected by this water shortage event, to varying degrees. At this time the same phase 

of water shortage is advisable for all categories of water users in all parts of the District 

because all users are impacting the available sources and contributing to the potential 

for harm to the natural systems. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

7. The Governing Board of the District is duly authorized by Section 373.246(2), Florida 

Statutes (F.S.), and Chapter 40D-21, F.A.C., to issue Orders declaring the existence of 

a water shortage within all or part of the District and to impose such measures, 

restrictions and other required actions as may be necessary to reduce demand on 

available water supplies. 

8. County and city officials and all law enforcement authorities are required to enforce 

orders lawfully issued by the Executive Director pursuant to the Plan and Section 

373.609, F.S. 

3 

7

ORDERED 

THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is 

hereby ORDERED: 

9. Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022, as written, is hereby extended through 

February 28, 2012 unless further extended, modified or rescinded by Governing Board 

action prior to that date. 

10.Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of Water Shortage 

Order No. SWF 2010-022 shall remain in full force and effect. This specifically includes 

The Villages and the city of Dunnellon in Marion County. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Hillsborough County, Florida, on this 25 th day of 

October 2011. 

Attest: 

By: _______________________ 

Douglas B. Tharp 

Governing Board Secretary 

4 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER 

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

By: _______________________ 

H. Paul Senft 

Governing Board Chair Director 

Filed this ____ day Approved as to Legal Form and Content 

of October, 2011 

_____________________________________ 

Attorney 

________________ 

Agency Clerk 

8

NOTICE OF RIGHTS 

Persons to whom this Order is directed, or whose substantial interests are affected, may 

petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, 

F.S., and Chapter 28-106, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). A request for a hearing 

must: 1) explain how the petitioner’s or other person’s substantial interests will be 

affected by the District’s action; 2) state all material facts disputed by the petitioner or 

other person, or state that there are no disputed facts; and 3) otherwise comply with 

Chapter 28-106, F.A.C. 

A request for hearing must be filed with and received by the Agency Clerk of the District 

at District Headquarters, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 within 

twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this notice. Receipt is deemed to be the fifth day after 

the date on which this notice is deposited in the United States mail. Failure to file a 

request for hearing within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right you or 

any other person may have to request a hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, 

F.S. 

Mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, F.S., and Rule 28-106.111, F.A.C., to settle an 

administrative dispute regarding the District’s action in this matter is not available prior 

to the filing of a request for hearing. 

In accordance with subsection 120.569(1), F.S., the following additional administrative 

or judicial review may be available. 

A party who is adversely affected by final agency action may seek review of the action 

in the appropriate District Court of Appeal pursuant to Section 120.68, F.S., by filing a 

Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, within 

thirty (30) days after the rendering of the final action by the District. 

5 

9




Item 29 

Approve Revisions to Previously-Approved Amendments to 40D-21, F.A.C., Water 

Shortage Plan, to Reduce Regulatory Costs 

Background 

Each water management district is required, by state law, to have and implement a Water 

Shortage Plan which guides its responses to drought and other water shortage events. The 

District’s Water Shortage Plan (Chapter 40D-21, F.A.C.) was first developed in 1984. 

Needed modifications to the Plan were identified during the 1999–2001 drought and were 

addressed in a substantive rule update that ended in 2006. That update was part of a 

multi-year, multi-rule revision process which also involved major revisions to the District’s Year- 

Round Water Conservation Measures (Chapter 40D-22, F.A.C.). The revised year-round 

measures include a twice-per-week limit on lawn watering and other baseline demand 

management requirements upon which more stringent water shortage restrictions can be 

temporarily added, when needed, in accordance with the Plan. Further modifications to the 

Plan occurred in 2008 to clarify public supply water shortage mitigation provisions. 

Current Rulemaking 

In September 2009, the Governing Board authorized initiation of rulemaking to incorporate 

additional rule modifications that were identified as a result of the District’s experience during 

the 2007-2010 droughts. Staff held two focus group meetings on November 5, 2009 and 

January 14, 2010, two public workshops on November 20, 2009 and April 29, 2010, and one 

special joint meeting of the Green Industry and Agricultural Advisory Committees on July 8, 

2010 in order to develop and refine appropriate amendment language. Participants in these 

forums included: the air conditioning industry, University of Florida - Institute of Food and 

Agricultural Sciences extension agents, public supply water conservation specialists, sod 

farmers, local government attorneys, plant nursery representatives, and other subject matter 

experts. 

On October 26, 2010, the Governing Board approved the proposed rule amendments, including 

staff suggested changes to resolve concerns from the Peace River Manasota Regional Water 

Supply Authority and other parties received just prior to that Board meeting. However, 

publication for adoption and other final rulemaking steps needed to formally implement the 

Board-approved amendments were subsequently postponed. Postponement was needed to 

provide staff additional time to update the corresponding Statement of Estimated Regulatory 

Costs (SERC) in accordance with new provisions of Section 120.541(1), F.S., which was 

enacted as a result of HB 1565 from the Florida Legislature’s 2010 session. 

The vast majority of the Board-approved rule amendments were ultimately determined to be 

consistent with the legislation and the regulatory streamlining and job protection goals of the 

statutory provisions and Executive Order 11-01. However, costs associated with four specific 

categories of Board-approved amendments (strengthening utility reporting requirements, 

strengthening utility messaging requirements, adding a new requirement for properties to test 

lawn and landscape irrigation systems which would need to be enforced, and clarifying the 

District’s expectations regarding local enforcement) were determined to have potentially 

disproportionate impacts and were re-examined . 

Staff presented these findings to the District’s advisory committees for feedback earlier this 

year. Committee feedback and additional analysis of each of the four categories of rules listed 

above were used to identify potential revisions to the Board-approved amendments. The 

proposed revisions retain the most critical benefits while substantially reducing the regulatory 

10

Item 29 

costs. The proposed revisions do not require ratification by the Florida Legislature in 

accordance with Section 120.541(1), F.S. 

The potential revisions were transmitted to advisory committee members for final review 

and input. The proposed revisions were also posted to the District’s website, providing 

another opportunity for interested parties to provide input. Input received as of the 

September 30, 2011 deadline has been addressed in the revised amendment language that 

has been included as an exhibit to this agenda item. The SERC has also been refined 

in response to these revisions and is posted on the District’s website at 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/conservation/restrictions/swfwmd.phpcopies. A copy may be 

obtained upon request to the District. The Executive Summary of the SERC is included in the 

Board’s meeting materials as an exhibit to this item. Staff will present a summary of the input 

received and the current regulatory cost data. 

If the Governing Board approves the revised amendment language, staff will proceed with the 

additional rulemaking steps needed to fully implement the amendments, including publication for 

adoption in Florida Administrative Weekly. If feedback from this publication, review by the Joint 

Administrative Procedures Commission or supplemental review by the Governor’s Office of 

Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform (OFARR) results in any substantive changes, the 

changes would be brought back to the Governing Board for consideration prior to filing final 

language with the Department of State. 

BEST CASE 

� 65 days 

� Board approves 

rule language 

during “Initiate 

Rulemaking” 

meeting 

� No workshops 

necessary 

� No hearings or 

SERC requested 

Seek Board Approval to Initiate Rulemaking (and approve rule language) 

Notify OFARR & Publish Notice of Rule 

Development p 

Publish Workshops Held, If Necessary 

Board Approval of Rule Language 

Notify OFARR & Publish Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Hearing, If Requested 

Board Discussion & Approval of Any Changes 

From Hearing, OFARR or JAPC; Publish Notice of 

Change han an ange an ange 

Notify OFARR & File Rule With Department of 

State 

Rule Is Final 20 Days After Filing With Department of State 

WORST CASE 

For more complex 

rulemaking, many 

factors could cause 

the length of the 

rulemaking process 

timeframe to vary. 

The process could last 

up to a year or more. 

These factors include: 

� Public workshops 

are necessary 

� Public hearing 

before Board or 

DOAH hearing is 

requested 

� SERC requested 

� JAPC comments 

requiring 

publication of 

Notice of Change 

� Legislative 

ratification 


(1) Approve revisions to previously-approved amendments to 40D-21, F.A.C., Water Shortage 

Plan, to reduce regulatory costs, as presented; and 

(2) Authorize staff to proceed with all remaining rulemaking steps, subject to substantive 

changes requiring Governing Board consideration. 

Presenter: Lois Ann Sorensen, M.B.A., Demand Management Program Manager 

11

DRAFT with Amendments WATER SHORTAGE PLAN CHAPTER 21 

RULES OF THE 


CHAPTER 40D-21 

WATER SHORTAGE PLAN 

AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD 10/26/2010 

ONLY PROPOSED ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS IN STRIKE-THROUGH/UNDERLINE 

*** 10/04/2011 draft *** 

PART I. GENERAL 

40D-21.011 Policy and Purpose. 

40D-21.031 Elements of the Plan. 

40D-21.051 Definitions. 

PART II. DECLARING AND IMPLEMENTING A WATER SHORTAGE 

40D-21.211 Monitoring Conditions. 

40D-21.221 Evaluating Water Conditions. 

40D-21.231 Declaring a Water Shortage. 

40D-21.251 Water Shortage Phases. 

40D-21.275 Implementing a Water Shortage Declaration. 

40D-21.281 Modifying or Rescinding a Water Shortage Declaration. 

PART III. EMERGENCY PROVISIONS 

40D-21.331 Declaring a Water Shortage Emergency. 

40D-21.371 Actions During a Water Shortage Emergency. 

40D-21.391 Implementing a Water Shortage Emergency Declaration. 

PART IV. ENFORCEMENT 

40D-21.421 Enforcement. 

40D-21.441 Public Supply Water Shortage Mitigation Plans. (Repealed) 

PART V. THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 

40D-21.511 General. 

40D-21.531 Source Classifications. 

40D-21.541 Use Classifications. 

40D-21.571 Method of Withdrawal Classifications. 

PART VI. SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS AND OTHER REQUIRED ACTIONS 


40D-21.621 Phase I: Moderate Water Shortage. 

40D-21.631 Phase II: Severe Water Shortage. 

40D-21.641 Phase III: Extreme Water Shortage. 

40D-21.651 Phase IV: Critical Water Shortage. 

21-1 

12


PART I. GENERAL 

40D-21.011 Policy and Purpose. 

(1) The provisions of this chapter comprise the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District’s (District) Water Shortage Plan required under Section 373.246(1), F.S., and include 

restrictions pursuant to Section 373.175, F.S. The purposes of the plan are to protect waters of 

the District from serious harm; to establish procedures and responses that prevent undue hardship 

and ensure equitable distribution of available water resources during times of shortage and, to 

provide advance knowledge of the means by which water apportionments and reductions will be 

made during times of shortage as a means of promoting greater security for Water Use 

Permittees. 

(2) These provisions apply to all water users, including those not subject to permitting 

pursuant to Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C. 

(3) This chapter is designed to be an integral part of the District’s continuing effort to 

promote conservation of the waters of the District. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113 FS. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246 FS. History–New 11-19-84, Amended 4-9-06. 

40D-21.031 Elements of the Plan. 

The Water Shortage Plan consists of the following elements: 

(1) Part I. General. Part I provides the policy and purposes of the District in establishing the 

Water Shortage Plan. The various elements of the plan are described, and key terms utilized 

within the Plan are defined. 

(2) Part II. Declaring and Implementing a Water Shortage. Part II describes the District’s 

overall program of monitoring conditions in anticipation of and during a Water Shortage event. 

In addition, Part II describes the factors that the District will consider in declaring a Water 

Shortage, a method for expressing the severity of a Water Shortage in terms of four Water 

Shortage phases and procedures for implementing a Water Shortage declaration. 

(3) Part III. Emergency Provisions. Part III establishes the procedures for declaring and 

implementing a Water Shortage emergency when the provisions of Part II are not sufficient to 

protect the water resource and its users. 

(4) Part IV. Enforcement. Part IV describes how the District, in conjunction with local 

governmental entities and law enforcement officials, will enforce the provisions of a declared 

Water Shortage or Water Shortage emergency. 

(5) Part V. The Classification System. Part V classifies each user according to the source of 

water supply, type of water use and method of withdrawal. These classifications are utilized in 

conjunction with Parts I, II, III and VI. 

(6) Part VI. Specific Restrictions and Other Required Actions. Part VI presents water use 

restrictions and other required actions for each Water Shortage phase and Water Use Class. 

Various combinations of these actions may be employed by the District to achieve the desired 

effect during any phase of a Water Shortage or a Water Shortage Emergency. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113 FS. Law Implemented 373.246 FS. History–New 11-19-84, Amended 4-9-06., 

Repealed__-__-11. 

21-2 

13


40D-21.051 Definitions. 

(1) Except as otherwise noted below, all terms used herein shall have the same meaning as 

defined in Rule 40D-22.101, F.A.C. 

(2) “Agricultural Uses” are water uses associated with Agriculture as defined in Rule 40D- 

22.101, F.A.C. This specifically includes the irrigation of vegetables, fruits and other plants 

grown for human consumption at a residence or community garden, provided the plants are 

irrigated separately from any lawn or other landscape plant material. In order for irrigation of a 

fruit tree at a residence or community garden to be considered an Agricultural Use, the irrigation 

shall be under the tree’s canopy and shall not be applied to any lawn or other landscape plant 

material. 

(3) “Commercial and Industrial Uses” are water uses integral to the production of goods and 

services, including power generation and cogeneration; phosphate mining and benefication; 

chemical manufacturing; limestone, sand and gravel mining; cement, concrete and other 

aggregate products manufacturing; perishable foods processing and packing; restaurants, hotels 

and other hospitality businesses; retail and wholesale establishments; and educational 

institutions. 

(4) “Critical Water Shortage” is the alternative name for a Phase IV Water Shortage. 

(5) "Drought Indicator" is a quantified assessment of the condition of a water supply or 

resource. 

(6)"Drought Condition Level" is the level of drought or other water shortage being 

experienced, based on the status of Drought Indicators. There are four levels: Moderate, Severe, 

Extreme and Critical. 

(7)“Essential Uses” is the classification category for water uses associated with maintaining 

public health, safety, or welfare, including the operation of public water supply systems, public 

waste water systems, sanitation facilities, military facilities, power generation facilities, hospitals 

and other medical facilities, medical equipment and fire suppression equipment. 

(8) “Extreme Water Shortage” is the alternative name for a Phase III Water Shortage. 

(9) “High-Use Single Family” means a single-family residential potable water customer that 

uses 15,000 gallons per month or more unless an alternative threshold is approved pursuant to 

40D-21.631(3)(b)2.c. 

(10) “Indoor Uses” are water uses associated with domestic and similar non-domestic needs. 

Domestic needs include drinking, bathing, cooking, cleaning and necessary sanitary purposes in 

a household environment. Similar non-domestic needs include drinking, bathing and necessary 

sanitary activities outside of the household environment, such as in customer or employee 

restrooms. 

(11) “Landscape Uses” are water uses related to the establishment and maintenance of 

Turfgrass, trees and other plant material. This specifically includes all Lawns and Landscape at 

homes and other residences, commercial or industrial buildings, parks, recreational areas, public 

rights-of-way, medians and other public and private properties. Within this classification, the 

District maintains the subclassifications of Cemeteries, Golf Courses, Driving Ranges and Other 

Athletic Play Areas as defined in Rule 40D-22.101, F.A.C., to address the unique Turfgrass 

needs associated with these uses. 

(12) “Mobile Equipment” means any public, private or commercial automobile, truck, trailer, 

railroad car, camper, boat, tractor, or any other type of similar equipment. 

(13) “Moderate Water Shortage” is the alternative name for a Phase I Water Shortage. 

21-3 

14


(14) “Other Uses” are all other water uses not specifically included in other Use Classes, 

including augmentation of natural or man-made surface water bodies for aesthetic, recreational 

or habitat value; ornamental ponds, water fountains and other aesthetic water features; 

environmental restoration or enhancement; swimming pools and other water-based noncommercial 

recreation; cleaning or Pressure Washing of structures, driveways, sidewalks and 

other impervious surfaces; and wetting roads and other surfaces for dust control or fire 

suppression when required by federal, state or local standards. 

(15) "Permittee" is the holder of a Water Use Permit issued pursuant to Chapter 40D-2, 

F.A.C. 

(16) “Phase I Water Shortage” is also referred to as “Moderate Water Shortage” and is 

described in Rule 40D-21.621, F.A.C. 

(17) “Phase II Water Shortage” is also referred to as “Severe Water Shortage” and is 


(18) “Phase III Water Shortage” is also referred to as “Extreme Water Shortage” and is 


(19) “Phase IV Water Shortage” is also referred to as “Critical Water Shortage” and is 


(20) “Plan” means the plan set forth in this Chapter, including restrictions and other required 

actions as authorized by sections 373.246 and 373.175, F.S. 

(21) “Pressure Washing” means the use of pressurized water for cleaning purposes, by means 

of equipment accepted by industry standards. Industry standards specifically include a selfcanceling 

or automatic nozzle, water pressure at a minimum of 1,000 p.s.i. (pounds per square 

inch) and water volume at a maximum of five (5) gallons per minute. Professional-grade 

equipment operates at a water pressure of at least 2,900 p.s.i. 

(22) “Public Supply Water System” and “public supply water system” for the purpose of this 

rule means either a “community water system” or a “wholesale system” as those terms are 

defined by Rule 62-550.200, Florida Administrative Code, whether a particular system is 

managed by a water supply authority, local government (municipality, county, or division or 

enterprise of a municipality or county) or nongovernmental entity (such as a developmentspecific, 

investor-owned, non-profit or special district facility). For the purpose of this rule, an 

entity which submeters a master-metered connection to a public supply water system (such as a 

third party submetering units in an apartment complex) is not considered to be a public supply 

water system. 

(23) “Severe Water Shortage” is the alternative name for a Phase II Water Shortage. 

(24) “Small Water Utility” and “small water utility” means a “Public Supply Water System” 

(defined above) or “Water Utility” (defined below) that makes no water withdrawals and 

receives less than 100,000 gallons per day on an annual average basis from another public supply 

utility, or that has a combined annual average daily water demand (withdrawals plus imports 

minus exports) of less than 100,000 gallons per day and is required to have a water use permit 

pursuant to Rule 40D-2.041, F.A.C. 

(25)(24) “Source Class” means the specified water resource from which a user is obtaining 

water either directly or indirectly. Source Classes within the District are identified in Rule 40D- 

21.531, F.A.C. 

(26)(25) "Supplemental Irrigation" is the water applied to established plant material to satisfy 

water needs not met by rainfall. 

21-4 

15


(27)(26) “Use Class” means the category describing the purpose for which the user is 

utilizing water. Use Classes within the District are identified in Rule 40D-21.541, F.A.C. 

(28)(27) “Water Shortage” means a drought or other situation within all or part of the 

District, for which the Governing Board has determined that there is insufficient water to meet 

the present and anticipated needs of users, or conditions are such that there is a need to require 

temporary reduction in water use within a particular area to protect one or more Source Class or 

the water resource from serious harm. 

(29)(28) “Water Shortage Emergency” means a Water Shortage for which a determination 

has been made that the powers exercised under Part II of this Plan are not sufficient to protect the 

public health, safety, or welfare; the health of livestock and other animals, fish or aquatic life; or 

other Essential Uses. 

(30)(29) “Water Supply Authority” and “water supply authority” for the purpose of this rule 

is the term defined and described in Section 373.713, Florida Statutes. 

(31)(30) “Water Utility” and “water utility” for the purpose of this rule means the same thing 

as “Public Supply Water System” (defined above). 

(32)(31) “Water Utility Uses” are water uses associated with maintaining and operating a 

public water supply system, whether the system is managed by a regional water supply authority, 

local government agency, or private entity. These uses include water utility activities such as 

flushing lines and maintenance of treatment processes but do not include water distributed by the 

system for customer use. 

(33)(32) “Wholesale-Only System” or “wholesale-only system” for the purpose of this rule is 

a “wholesale system” that is not also a “community water system” as those terms are defined by 

Rule 62-550.200, F.A.C. In other words, it is a water supply authority or other “wholesale 

system” which only delivers water to another public water supply system. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113 FS. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246 FS. History–New 11-19-84, Amended 7-2-86, 

4-9-06, __-__-1110. 

PART II. DECLARING AND IMPLEMENTING A WATER SHORTAGE 

40D-21.211 Monitoring Conditions. 

(1) Purpose – This part of the chapter generally describes the data collection and analyses 

that the District continuously undertakes in anticipation of and during a declared Water Shortage 

or Water Shortage Emergency. 

(2) Condition monitoring – Water resource data and water demand data will be obtained 

from any source of information needed to evaluate the following: 

(a) Drought Indicators shown in Table 21-1. 

(b) Current regional lake levels and their relationship to low normal values. 

(c) Current and recent values of the U.S. Drought Monitor from the National Drought 

Mitigation Center. 

(d) Current precipitation outlooks from the Climate Prediction Center of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service. 

(e) Public supply storage status. 

(3) Minimum monitoring standards – At a minimum, the District will monitor the Drought 

Indicators specified in Table 21-1. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113 FS. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246 FS. History–New 4-9-06, Amended __-__-1110. 

21-5 

16


40D-21.221 Evaluating Water Conditions. 

(1) The District shall consider the data collected by the District as described in Rule 40D- 

21.211, F.A.C., in determining: 

(a) Whether a Water Shortage or Water Shortage Emergency should be declared in light of 

existing or projected conditions and anticipated durations thereof; 

(b) Whether the restrictions and other response mechanisms in effect are being adequately 

enforced; and 

(c) Whether an existing order issued pursuant to this chapter should be modified or rescinded 

in light of existing and/or anticipated conditions. 

(2) Regional condition data may represent the entire District or any portion thereof. 

Individual Drought Indicators and Drought Condition Levels shall be decision-making tools, not 

values that will automatically trigger a District response. 

(3) In evaluating whether or not a Water Shortage or Water Shortage Emergency should be 

declared, the following evaluation process is followed: 

(a) The District will compare current data to predetermined values for specific Drought 

Indicators as shown in Table 21-1. 

(b) The District will compile these comparisons to determine the appropriate Drought 

Condition Level. Specifically, the combination of values for regional Drought Indicators shall 

be assessed in relation to the matrix shown in Table 21-2. 

(c) This evaluation will occur on at least a monthly basis. 

(d) Results of this evaluation will be reported to the Board and the Executive Director as 

needed. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113 FS. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246 FS. History–New 4-9-06, Amended __-__-1110. 

TABLE 21-1: 

Drought Indicators 

Drought 

Indicator 

Value 

Moderately 

Abnormal 

Severely 

Abnormal 

REGIONAL 

RAINFALL 

(12-Month 

Moving Sum) 

21 st to 25 th 

percentile 

11 th to 20 th 

percentile 

REGIONAL 

RAINFALL 

(24-Month 

Moving Sum) 


percentile 


percentile 

21-6 

17 

CURRENT 

STREAM- 

FLOW 

(7-Day 

Moving 

Average) 


percentile 


percentile 

AVERAGE 

STREAM- 

FLOW 

(8-Week 

Moving 

Average) 


percentile 


percentile 

AQUIFER 

RESOURCE 

INDICATOR 


percentile 


percentile 

for 4 weeks 

*or* below the 

16 th percentile


Extremely 

Abnormal 

Critically 

Abnormal 

6 th to 10 th 

percentile 

5 th percentile 

or less 

6 th to 10 th 

Percentile 


or less 

21-7 

18 

6 th to 10 th 

percentile 


or less 

6 th to 10 th 

percentile 


or less 

Below the 


for 4 weeks 

Below the 


for 8 weeks


TABLE 21-2: Drought Condition Levels 

Drought 

Condition Level If this is true … 

Moderate At least one Drought Indicator is Moderately Abnormal 

Severe Multiple Drought Indicators are Moderately Abnormal or one is Severely 

Abnormal 

Extreme Multiple Drought Indicators are Severely Abnormal or one is Extremely 

Abnormal 

Critical Multiple Drought Indicators are Extremely Abnormal or at least one is 

Critically Abnormal 

40D-21.231 Declaring a Water Shortage. 

(1) The Board will declare Water Shortages and issue water use restrictions and other 

required actions as set forth in this Chapter. The geographic area covered by a Water Shortage 

declaration will include all or part of the ground or surface water basin(s) within which the 

affected source of water lies, as well as areas that are supplied water from the affected source. 

The Board will simplify the boundaries of the area subject to a Water Shortage declaration by 

using a major road or local government boundary so long as it is significantly consistent with the 

actual affected area. 

(2) In considering whether to declare a Water Shortage, the Board shall consider the effect of 

any local responses to local water supply concerns, including: implementation of local water 

shortage management actions, use of any applicable system-to-system interconnection and the 

actions of any applicable Water Supply Authority. 

(3) The Board will declare a Water Shortage for a source or Source Class not presently 

experiencing a Water Shortage if usage from such a source or Source Class can be reasonably 

expected to impact the present and anticipated available water supply from the source or Source 

Class currently experiencing a shortage. 

(4) The Board will declare a Water Shortage for geographic areas not presently experiencing 

a Water Shortage if usage in such areas can be reasonably expected to impact the present and 

anticipated available water supply for an affected area. For example, a Water Shortage may be 

declared for an otherwise unaffected area that contains the alternative supply or emergency 

supplementation source for an affected area. 

(5)When considering whether to declare a Water Shortage which would encompass a 

specific geographic area that includes less than all of a local government's jurisdiction because it 

which is only partially within the District’s boundaries, the District will coordinate Water 

Shortage declarations with the applicable adjacent water management district so that, where 

practical, only one set of Lawn and Landscape irrigation restrictions will be in effect within the 

boundaries of that local government. 

(6) When considering whether to declare a Water Shortage which would be limited to either 

a specific geographic area or a specific water source such that local governments within a 

particular county or Water Supply Authority would be affected differently by the declaration, the 

District will consult with the applicable local governments and Water Supply Authority to the 

extent practical. The purpose of this consultation is to help determine whether to simplify, 

21-8 

19


reduce or broaden the Water Shortage declaration boundaries in accordance with 40D-21.231 

(1)-(4). 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113 FS. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246 FS. History–New 11-19-84, Amended 7-2-86, 4- 

9-06, 1-8-0, __-__-1110. 

40D-21.251 Water Shortage Phases. 

(1) This Water Shortage Plan establishes four phases of Water Shortage severity with 

associated water use restrictions and other required actions. 

(2) The following Water Shortage phases are established in accordance with Chapter 62-40, 

F.A.C.: 

(a) Moderate 

(b) Severe 

(c) Extreme 

(d) Critical 

(3) The District shall assign a specific Water Shortage phase to each Source Class for which 

a Water Shortage has been declared. A Water Shortage declaration may or may not assign the 

same phase to all affected Source Classes. 

(4) The District shall consider the following when assigning a specific Water Shortage phase 

to each Source Class or combination of Source Classes: 

(a) Information generated as a result of the evaluation process described in Rules 40D- 

21.221 and 40D-21.231, F.A.C. and the corresponding The selected Drought Condition Level 

shall serve as the basis for selecting the preliminary Water Shortage phase declaration to be 

considered. 

(b) Information collected relating to the factors described in Rule 40D-21.211, F.A.C. 

(c) Seasonal characterizations of the information generated or collected, such as whether a 

value is being seen at the beginning of the annual dry season that is normally not expected until 

the end of the annual dry season. 

(d) The relative impact of withdrawals used to supply various categories of water users on 

the affected Source Class(es) and any specific water body for which the shortage is declared. 

(e) The availability and practicality of alternative sources for each category of water user. 

(f) To the degree practical, how the District can implement phased restrictions and other 

required actions in a manner that distributes the burden of the required actions equitably among 

water users, relative to their impact on the affected Source Class(es) and specific water bodies 

experiencing the Water Shortage.; 

(g) The potential for serious harm to natural systems as a result of the drought or other Water 

Shortage. 

(h) The appropriate geographic scope of potential water use restrictions and other required 

actions relative to the affected source. 

(i) The effectiveness of current and potential water use restrictions and other required 

actions in containing or reducing water use to protect the affected source. 

(j) Any adverse impact of current and potential water use restrictions and other required 

actions on public health, safety and welfare. 


4-9-06, __-__-1110. 

21-9 

20


40D-21.275 Implementing a Water Shortage Declaration. 

(1) Affected water users and Permittees shall be afforded the opportunity to comment to the 

Board concerning a proposed Water Shortage declaration, including proposed water use 

restrictions and other required actions, at a scheduled public hearing. 

(a) At least one public hearing will be scheduled to afford the public the opportunity to 

comment. 

(b) The public shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity to participate during the public 

hearing in order to present non-repetitive testimony about current conditions and impacts of a 

proposed Water Shortage declaration. Such participation shall be subject to the control of the 

Governing Board and may be limited as necessary to facilitate reasonable progress of the 

hearing. 

(2) When a Water Shortage is initially declared, the District will issue a news release and 

publish an advertisement within newspapers of general circulation in the affected area. The 

news release and newspaper ad shall serve as notice to all users and local government officials in 

the affected area as to the declaration of Water Shortage, including identification of the phase 

and a summary of water use restrictions and other required actions. The District will issue a 

news release for any subsequent extension or other modification of that declaration. 

(3) The District shall send a Notice of Water Shortage by regular mail to each affected 

Permittee located in the affected area. 

(4) An order declaring a Water Shortage or modifying an existing declaration shall become 

effective on the day after the newspaper ad required in subsection (2) above is published or any 

subsequent effective date stated in the order. An order declaring a Water Shortage or modifying 

an existing declaration shall remain in effect for the period of time established in the order; or, if 

no period of time is established, until the order is modified or rescinded by the Board. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113 FS. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246 FS. History–New 11-19-84, Amended 4-9- 

06, __-__-1110. 

40D-21.281 Modifying or Rescinding a Water Shortage Declaration. 

(1) During a declared Water Shortage, the District shall continue to monitor and evaluate 

conditions in accordance with Rules 40D-21.211 and 40D-21.221, F.A.C. 

(2) When the data and evaluations set forth in Rules 40D-21.211, 40D-21.221 and 40D- 

21.251, F.A.C., indicate that conditions have changed sufficiently to warrant the declaration and 

implementation of a different set of water use restrictions and other required actions, an order 

amending or superseding an existing Water Shortage declaration shall be issued and 

implemented in accordance with Rules 40D-21.231, 40D-21.251, and 40D-21.275, F.A.C. 

(3) When, after considering the data and factors described in Rules 40D-21.221 and 40D- 

21.231, F.A.C., conditions have changed sufficiently to no longer warrant the existence of a 

specific Water Shortage declaration, an order amending or rescinding the declaration shall be 

issued with the notification of the order being the same as specified in Rules 40D-21.231 and 

40D-21.275, F.A.C. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113 FS. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246 FS. History–New 4-9-06, . Amended __-__- 

1110. 

21-10 

21


PART III. EMERGENCY PROVISIONS 

40D-21.331 Declaring a Water Shortage Emergency. 

(1) Purpose - This part of the Chapter sets forth the steps the District will take to evaluate 

conditions within the District to determine whether a Water Shortage Emergency exists. 

(2) The District shall monitor and evaluate conditions as provided in Rules 40D-21.211 and 

40D-21.221, F.A.C. 

(3) If the monitoring and evaluation process indicates that conditions are rapidly 

deteriorating, or if the District receives a request for emergency assistance related to an ongoing 

drought or other Water Shortage event, District staff shall ascertain whether the provisions of 

Part II of this Rule are sufficient to protect public health, safety or welfare and Essential Uses, or 

the health of livestock and other animals, fish or aquatic life in the affected area. This shall be 

accomplished by considering the following: 

(a) Factors related to the present and anticipated water supply for affected users, including: 

1. Pertinent factors listed in subsection 40D-21.251(4), F.A.C.; 

2. The ability of affected users to obtain water from other users on a temporary basis; 

3. The ability of affected users to obtain water from another Source Class on a temporary 

basis; and 

4. Other factors affecting the present and anticipated water supply, such as the availability of 

temporary treatment equipment that would allow affected users to obtain suitable water quality 

from an otherwise unsuitable source. 

(b) Factors related to the potential adverse impacts on public health, safety, or welfare or 

Essential Uses; health of livestock and other animals, fish, or aquatic life; including: 

1. Pertinent factors listed in subsection 40D-21.251(4), F.A.C.; 

2. The extent to which potential adverse impacts can be reduced by imposing additional 

water use restrictions and other required actions upon other uses obtaining water from the same 

source class; 

3. The extent to which imposing additional water use restrictions and other required actions 

upon other users obtaining water from the same source class will create additional, unintended 

adverse impacts; and 

4. Other factors relating to potential adverse impacts, such as the availability of state or 

federal emergency resources to ameliorate these impacts. 

(c) Information and requests by a local government in the affected area. 

(4) If it is ascertained that the provisions of Part II are not sufficient to protect the public 

health, safety, or welfare, the health of animals, fish, or aquatic life, a public water supply, or 

commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other reasonable-beneficial uses, the 

Executive Director, with the concurrence of the Board, may declare a Water Shortage 

Emergency. 


4-9-06, 1-8-08, __-__-1110. 

40D-21.371 Actions During a Water Shortage Emergency. 

(1) When the need for a Water Shortage Emergency has been identified, the Executive 

Director will issue orders containing water use restrictions and other required or authorized 

21-11 

22


actions deemed necessary to address the emergency. Examples of the required or allowed 

actions include: authorizations to temporarily withdraw from a permitted source in a manner or 

for a purpose not expressly granted by the applicable Water Use Permit; authorizations to 

temporarily augment a public water supply system with water from an unpermitted source; and 

restrictions that involve apportioning, rotating, limiting, or prohibiting the use of water. 

(2) All actions required or authorized pursuant to the declaration of a Water Shortage 

Emergency shall be in addition to, and enforced in combination with, any and all restrictions and 

other actions imposed under Part II of this Chapter 40D-21, F.A.C. unless specifically stated 

otherwise within a Water Shortage Order. If there is a conflict between Part II and a Water 

Shortage Emergency order, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. 


_-_-1110. 

40D-21.391 Implementing a Water Shortage Emergency Declaration. 

(1) When the need for a Water Shortage Emergency has been identified pursuant to Rule 

40D-21.331, F.A.C, the Executive Director may, without prior notice, issue orders pursuant to 

the emergency provision of Section 373.119, F.S. 

(a) Water Shortage Emergency orders shall recite information related to the existence of such 

an emergency and identify water use restrictions and other required or allowed actions deemed 

necessary by the Executive Director, with the subsequent concurrence of the Board, to address 

the emergency. 

(b) All users, local governments, water utilities, Water Supply Authorities and other parties 

to whom an emergency order is directed shall comply immediately, but may petition the Board 

for a hearing as set forth in Section 373.119, F.S. 

(2) The District shall inform all users, local governments, water utilities, Water Supply 

Authorities and other parties to whom an emergency order is directed of the existence of such 

order, and all associated water use restrictions and other required or authorized actions, by the 

best practical means available under the circumstances of the specific Water Shortage 

Emergency. 


__-__-1110. 

PART IV. ENFORCEMENT AND WATER SHORTAGE MITIGATION 

40D-21.421 Enforcement. 

(1) It is the policy of the District to seek the cooperation and assistance of state, county and 

municipal governmental officials, law enforcement officials, and police officers in accordance 

with Section 373.609, F.S., to facilitate the enforcement of this chapter and any order issued 

pursuant to this chapter, including any variance or waiver from this chapter. This cooperation 

and assistance is generally sought for violations of this chapter which do not directly involve a 

Permittee. 

(2) Counties and municipalities throughout the jurisdiction of the District are authorized and 

encouraged to adopt ordinances, which provide specific local processes for local enforcement of 

21-12 

23


the provisions of this chapter and any order or variance or waiver issued pursuant thereto. A 

“sample ordinance” is available from the District and will be provided for use by local 

governments, upon request. 

(3) In enforcing the provisions of this Chapter, any order issued pursuant to this Chapter or 

40D-1, F.A.C., or any variance or waiver approved by the District pursuant to provisions of this 

Chapter, the District will utilize any of the enforcement remedies available pursuant to Chapters 

120 or 373, F.S., or Chapter 40D, F.A.C., as appropriate. District enforcement will focus on 

violations which directly involve a Permittee. 

(4) Enforcement may be initiated by the District as provided in Section 373.603, F.S. 

(5) The Executive Director may assign District personnel for the purpose of initiating 

enforcement pursuant to Section 373.603, F.S. 

(6) The Executive Director may take appropriate action pursuant to Sections 373.119 and 

373.246(7), F.S., and Rule 40D-21.331, F.A.C., to enforce the provisions of this chapter and any 

order or variance or waiver issued pursuant thereto, or pursuant to Chapter 40D-1, F.A.C., or to 

alleviate any emergency conditions which might occur. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113 FS. Law Implemented 373.119, 373.129, 373.136, 373.603, 373.609 FS. History–New 

11-19-84, Amended 7-2-86, 5-4-87, 4-9-06, __-__-1110. 

40D-21.441 Public Supply Water Shortage Mitigation Plans. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, F.S. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246, FS., History – New 4-9-06, Amended 1-8-08. 

Repealed __-__-1110. 

PART V. THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 


Purpose – This part of the chapter establishes the basis for distinguishing among different users 

of the water resource according to major classes. Under this system, each water user may be 

classified according to source, use and method of withdrawal. Each of these classes is described 

herein. 


40D-21.531 Source Classifications. 

Each water user may be classified according to one or more of the following sources of water: 

(1) Groundwater sources. 

(a) Water table aquifers; 

(b) Confined and semi-confined aquifers. 

(2) Surface water sources. 

(a) Streams or other watercourses; 

(b) Lakes or other impoundments. 


40D-21.541 Use Classifications. 

Each water user may be classified according to one or more of the following uses of water, as 

21-13 

24


defined in Part I of this rule: 

(1) Indoor Uses. 

(2) Essential Uses, including a subclassification for Water Utility Use. 

(3) Commercial and Industrial Uses. 

(4) Agricultural Uses. 

(5) Landscape Uses is further classified as set forth below. Within each of the Landscape Use 

subclassifications there is a further subclassification of Existing or New Plant Material: 

(a) Lawn and Landscaping. 

(b) Cemeteries. 

(c) Golf Courses. 

(d) Driving Ranges. 

(e) Other Athletic Play Areas. 


4-87, 4-9-06. 

40D-21.571 Method of Withdrawal Classifications. 

Each water user may be classified by one or more of the following methods of withdrawal 

classes: 

(1) Surface Waters: 

(a) Pump, 

(b) Gravity Flow; 

(2) Ground Waters: 

(a) Artesian Well, 

(b) Pumped Well. 


9-06. 

PART VI. SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS AND OTHER REQUIRED ACTIONS 


(1) Purpose – this Part sets forth specific water use restrictions and other required 

actions available to the District for implementation upon a declaration of a Water Shortage or 

Water Shortage Emergency. 

(2) The water use restrictions and other required actions specified within this Plan may be 

modified by the Board or Executive Director to address the specific Water Shortage or Water 

Shortage Emergency event. The selected combination of water use restrictions and other 

required actions shall be summarized in the notice(s) of the water shortage declaration, as 

specified above in Rule 40D-21.275, F.A.C. for a Water Shortage or Rule 40D-21.391, F.A.C. 

for a Water Shortage Emergency. 

(3) Water use restrictions and other required actions may be established for each Use Class 

and various subcategories, as appropriate. All water users have a duty to keep informed about the 

water use restrictions and other required actions applicable to them. 

(4) In addition to the restrictions specified in this part, all wasteful and unnecessary water use 

21-14 

25


is prohibited regardless of the phase of Water Shortage. Wasteful and unnecessary water use 

includes the water use activities listed in Rule 40D-22.201(2), F.A.C., and any of the following: 

(a) Allowing water to be dispersed without any practical purpose to the water user; 

(b) Allowing water to be dispersed in a grossly inefficient manner, regardless of the type of 

water use; and 

(c) Allowing water to be dispersed to accomplish a purpose for which water use is 

unnecessary or which can be readily accomplished through alternative methods without water 

use. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, F.S. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246, F.S. History – New 11-19-84, Amended 7-2- 

86, 4-9-06, __-__-1110. 

40D-21.621 Phase I: Moderate Water Shortage. 

(1) A Phase I Water Shortage is a hydrologic or climatic condition in which at least one 

regional or local Drought Indicator has a moderately abnormal value, such that conditions 

warrant the District alerting the general public and the District ordering water utilities and other 

water users to review and implement internal procedures needed to fully implement restrictions 

and other required actions during a Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV or emergency declaration. The 

following measures shall remain in effect during a Phase I Water Shortage unless otherwise 

provided in an order implementing a Phase I Water Shortage. Except as set forth in this Rule 

40D-21.621, F.A.C., lawn irrigation and other uses of water remain subject to applicable 

provisions of Rule 40D-22, F.A.C. (the District’s Year-Round Water Conservation Measures) 

and any applicable variances thereto issued by the District. 

(2) Indoor Uses. Indoor Uses should be voluntarily reduced. 

(3) Essential Uses 

(a) Fire Fighting & Other First-Responder Activities 

1. Fire hydrant testing shall not be restricted. Each fire hydrant testing agency, whether a 

local government unit or other entity, shall review and update existing procedures or develop 

procedures through which it can address inquiries from the District and citizens about specific 

testing activity. At a minimum, these procedures shall include either the use of an on-site sign 

containing the name and telephone number of the hydrant testing agency or the establishment 

and promotion of a telephone number of a hotline that the District and citizens can call to 

question testing activity at a specific location. A marked vehicle remaining on-site during the 

activity may be used in lieu of a free-standing sign. 

2. Fire suppression and fire prevention activities shall not be restricted. Each fire fighting 

agency shall, and each local government shall direct its fire department to, review and revise as 

necessary its inventory of primary and back-up water sources. 

3. Maintenance of fire fighting facilities and other emergency equipment is allowed as 

needed. This maintenance specifically includes the washing of fire engines, law enforcement 

vehicles and other emergency Mobile Equipment. This maintenance specifically requires the use 

of a trigger (self-canceling) nozzle when a on any garden-type hose is used for cleaning or other 

maintenance purposes in accordance with Rule 40D-21.601(4). 

(b) Water Utility Use 

The following water use restrictions or other required actions shall apply to all Water Utility 

Uses, as indicated: 

21-15 

26


1. Each public supply water system with residential, commercial, industrial, or irrigation 

customers, working with local code enforcement and local law enforcement agencies as 

necessary, shall review and update or develop, then implement, local enforcement procedures for 

year-round water conservation measures and Water Shortage restrictions, including but not 

limited to mechanisms to provide the enforcement assistance required by Rule 40D- 

21.621(3)(b)2, F.A.C., in accordance with Section 373.609, F.S. These procedures shall also 

specifically include an ability to issue a citation without first needing to issue a warning, should 

the District declare a Phase III or Phase IV water shortage. If the water utility is a 

nongovernmental entity, or if a governmental agency other than the water utility has 

responsibility for enforcement of year-round water conservation measures and the District's 

Water Shortage orders, the procedures shall, at a minimum, specifically include a mechanism for 

the public supply water system to coordinate with the applicable local enforcement agency to 

provide the required assistance. 

2. Each public supply water system with residential, commercial, industrial or irrigation 

customers shall provide, directly or through the applicable local enforcement agency, the 

following enforcement assistance to the District: 

a. Timely reporting of Immediate information regarding possible violations involving a 

Permittee, so that District staff can take the lead on such investigations. 

b. Response, as appropriate based on the quantity and quality of details provided to the 

water utility, to enforcement referrals made by the District regarding address-specific or location 

specific violation complaints in accordance with Rule 40D-22.401(2). This shall involve, where 

necessary, a site investigation on the day of week and at the time of day indicated for each 

referral. This shall also include having the legal mechanisms necessary to issue warnings, 

citations, and post-citation proceedings to recover unpaid penalties and associated costs. 

c. Excluding Small Water Utilities, monthlyMonthly transmittal of enforcement activity 

data, such as the number of warnings and citations issued, in a reporting format provided by 


d. Within 60 days of the Water Shortage declaration and if subsequently requested by the 

District, contact information for the District’s use in providing enforcement referrals and 

soliciting required enforcement data. 

3. Each public supply water system shall institute or accelerate other water conservation 

efforts which can help manage demand during the Water Shortage declaration. These efforts 

shall include: 

a. Excluding Small Water Utilities, customerCustomer messaging for all customers, 

including wholesale users (other water utilities), informing those customers about the current 

Water Shortage declaration, describing how the water utility’s primary and back-up water 

supplies are affected, and promoting any ongoing water conservation projects offered by the 

water utility (such as appliance rebates or irrigation inspections) that will assist customers in 

their efforts to immediately reduce water consumption. If a water supply authority or other 

public supply water system serves only wholesale users (other water utilities), then 

communication with all wholesale users satisfies this requirement. The messaging method(s) 

shall be determined by the public supply water system. 

b. Water utility operational practices. At a minimum, these practices shall address line 

flushing and disinfection. Potable water, sanitary sewer and reclaimed water line flushing and 

disinfection shall not be restricted. However, each water utility shall develop and implement 

procedures through which it can address inquiries from the District and citizens about specific 

21-16 

27


flushing and disinfection activity. At a minimum, these procedures shall include the use of either 

an on-site sign containing the name and telephone number of the agency conducting the flushing 

activity or establishment and promotion of a telephone hotline that customers and other 

concerned citizens can call to question activity at a specific location. A marked vehicle 

remaining on–site during the activity may be used in lieu of a sign. If the water utility is also 

responsible for fire hydrant testing, these processes will also satisfy the requirement in Rule 

40D-21.621(3)(a). 

4. The notice specified in Rule 40D-21.275 (3), F.A.C., that is sent to public supply 

Permittees will summarize the requirements listed above. 

(c) Medical and Health Use 

The use of water for medical purposes and protection of public health, safety and welfare 

shall not be restricted. 

(4) Commercial and Industrial Use 

In addition to the requirements of any applicable Water Use Permit, the following restrictions 

and other response mechanisms shall apply to all Commercial and Industrial Use, as appropriate: 

(a) All commercial and industrial Permittees shall review current water conservation 

programs to assure that permit-required elements have been fully implemented and to determine 

what additional demand management measures could be reasonably employed, should resource 

conditions further deteriorate. 

(b) Commercial and industrial use shall continue to be restricted by any applicable Water 

Use Permit. 

(5) Agricultural Use 

(a) All Agricultural Permittees shall review current water conservation programs to assure 

that permit-required elements have been fully implemented and to determine what additional 

demand management measures could be temporarily employed, should resource conditions 

further deteriorate. 

(b) The following restrictions on water use shall apply, as appropriate: 

1. Agriculture shall comply with the allowable watering hours, exemptions from those hours 

and other provisions specified in Rule 40D-22, F.A.C. These provisions expressly include 

exemptions for irrigation needed for plant protection, including prevention of frost and freeze or 

heat damage and to water-in chemicals. Additionally, any Agricultural water user with a 

variance from Rule 40D-22, F.A.C., to follow a published BMPs document, shall continue to 

comply with the variance. In the context of allowable watering hours, Agricultural Uses of 

center pivot and traveling gun technologies shall have the same exemptions as Low-Volume 

Irrigation. 

2. Agricultural Use shall continue to be restricted by any applicable Water Use Permit. 

(6) Landscape Use 

(a) All Permittees authorized to use water for Landscape Use shall review current water 

conservation programs to assure that permit-required elements have been fully implemented and 

to determine what additional demand management measures could be temporarily employed, 

should resource conditions further deteriorate. 

(b) Lawn and Landscaping, Golf Course, Driving Range and Other Athletic Play Area use 

shall continue to comply with all applicable provisions of Rule 40D-22. These provisions 

include an establishment period of allowable extra water applications for new plant material and 

a separate day-of-week exemption for Low-Volume Irrigation technology (such as 

21-17 

28


microirrigation or handwatering) to be used on any plant material other than turfgrass which 

requires frequent irrigation beyond the standard establishment period. 

(c) Each property owner or manager shall voluntarily reduce water use and prepare for 

possible worsening conditions. At a minimum, each irrigation system shall be tested and 

repaired or adjusted as necessary in accordance with Rule 40D-22.201(3)(b) to address leaks, 

sprinkler misalignment, inappropriately mixed heads, needed controller adjustments and other 

sources of irrigation inefficiencies. 

(d) An example copy of the notice specified in Rule 40D-21.275(3), F.A.C., shall be sent to 

the Florida Department of Financial Services – Bureau of Cemetery Services and will include a 

summary of the requirements listed above. 

(7) Other Uses 

(a) All Permittees authorized to use water for purposes not described above shall review 

current water conservation programs to assure that permit-required elements have been fully 

implemented and to determine what additional demand management measures could be 

temporarily employed, should resource conditions further deteriorate. 

(b) The following restrictions on water use shall apply to each other water use activity, as 

appropriate: 

1. Lawn and Landscaping Use associated with any activity shall comply with applicable 

provisions of Rule 40D-22. This specifically includes an allowance for the operation of an 

irrigation system during otherwise restricted days or hours for the discharge of water from air 

conditioning units or similar water-dependent devices. 

2. Recycling or secondary use of water shall occur, to the maximum extent practicable. For 

example, a child's water slide or other recreational water device can be positioned so that it 

discharges onto a turfgrass area that requires irrigation. 

3. Water use necessary to the activity, such as rinsing as part of the process of Mobile 

Equipment cleaning is restricted only as provided in Rule 40D-21.601(2). For example, this 

means that rinsing is allowed if done with the use of a trigger (self-canceling) nozzle on any 

garden-type hose used for cleaning or other maintenance purposes. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, F.S. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.246, F.S. History – New 11-19-84, Amended 7-2- 

86, 5-30-93, 4-9-06, __-__-1110. 

40D-21.631 Phase II: Severe Water Shortage. 

(1) A Phase II Water Shortage is a hydrologic or climatic condition in which multiple 

regional Drought Indicators have moderately abnormal values, or a local Drought Indicator for a 

specific public supply has a severely abnormal value, such that conditions warrant prudent 

actions to further assure only reasonable water uses occur in the affected area. The following 

shall be in effect during a Phase II Water Shortage unless otherwise provided in the order 

implementing a Phase II Water Shortage. 




1. Fire hydrant testing is allowed for the protection of human health, safety and welfare. 

Each hydrant testing agency, whether a local government unit or an independent entity, shall 

implement procedures through which it addresses inquiries about testing activity as specified in 

Rule 40D-21.621(3). 

21-18 

29


2. Fire suppression and fire prevention activities shall not be restricted. However, each firefighting 

agency shall and each local government shall direct its fire department to review and 

revise, as necessary, its list of primary and back-up water sources, especially in areas where 

potable water is not available for fire-fighting purposes. 

3. Maintenance of fire fighting facilities and other emergency equipment is allowed as 

needed. This maintenance specifically includes the washing of fire engines, law enforcement 

vehicles and other emergency Mobile Equipment. This maintenance specifically requires the use 

of a trigger (self-canceling) nozzle on any garden-type hose used for cleaning or other 

maintenance purposes in accordance with Rule 40D-21.601(4). 


The following water use restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all Water 

Utility Uses, as indicated: 

1. Each public supply water system with residential, commercial, industrial or irrigation 

customers shall provide, directly or through the applicable local enforcement agency: 

a. Continued implementation of the enforcement procedures and enforcement assistance 

specified in Rule 40D-21.621 (3)(b). 

b. Response, as appropriate based on the quantity and quality of details provided, to 

violation complaints made by concerned citizens in addition to enforcement referrals made by 

the District as specified in Rule 40D-21.621 (3)(b). 

c. [MODIFIED version of 40D-21.631 (3)(b)2.b, CIRCA 2008>>>] Information regarding 

possible violations involving a Permittee, so that District staff can take the lead on such 

investigations. 

d. [MODIFIED version of 40D-21.631 (3)(b)2.c, CIRCA 2008>>>] Excluding Small Water 

Utilities, monthly transmittal of local enforcement data, including the number of warnings and 

citations issued, and as specified by the water shortage order in a report format provided by the 


e. [MODIFIED version of 40D-21.631 (3)(b)2.d, CIRCA 2008>>>] Within 60 days of the 

Water Shortage declaration and if subsequently requested by the District, contact information for 

the District’s use in providing enforcement referrals and soliciting required enforcement data. 

2. Within 30 days of the Water Shortage declaration and then each subsequent month during 

which the declaration remains in effect, each water utility shall provide a concise monthly 

system status report to the District. This report shall include the following: 

a. Enforcement activity information required in accordance with Rule 40D-21.631 (3)(b)1. 

If a water supply authority or other public supply water system serves only wholesale users 

(other water utilities), this provision does not apply. 

b. Daily potable water demand data, including demands met with water provided pursuant 

to the water utility’s own water use permit as well as demands met with water received from a 

water supply authority or other public supply water system. Estimated or provisional data is 

acceptable, provided it is identified as such and replaced by final data when available. 

c. Basic account information for the most recently available month’s billing records, 

including the numbers of total and residential accounts served. If a public supply water system 

is a wholesale-only system, supply the name of each wholesale customer (other water utility) in 

lieu of the number of accounts. Excluding wholesale-only systems and water utilities 

withdrawing an annual average amount of less than 100,000 gallons per day, within 60 days of 

the Water Shortage declaration, this account information shall specifically include the number of 

High-Use Single Family accounts identified using the average of the most recently available six 

21-19 

30


months of data. High-Use Single Family accounts shall be as defined in 40D-21.051 or a lower 

alternative threshold approved by the District for a specific water utility for the current Water 

Shortage declaration. The water utility may request approval of a lower alternative threshold by 

petitioning for variance from the current Water Shortage declaration. 

d. A quantified summary of customer communication and other water conservation efforts 

conducted in accordance with Rule 40D-21.631(3)(b)3. 

e. Additional information that explains any daily demand value(s) exceeding 110% of the 

average daily demand for the same month during the previous year. 

2.3. Each public supply water system shall institute or accelerate system-level water 

conservation measures which can help manage demand during a Water Shortage declaration. 

These efforts shall include: 

a. Excluding Small Water Utilities, customerCustomer messaging for all customers, 

including wholesale users (other water utilities). This messaging shall inform customers about 

the current Water Shortage declaration, describe how the water utility’s primary and back-up 

water supplies are affected by the declaration and the resource or supply conditions that lead to 

the declaration, and promote any ongoing water conservation projects offered by the water utility 

(such as appliance rebates or irrigation inspections) that would assist customers in their efforts to 

immediately reduce water consumption. If a public water supply system is a wholesale-only 

system, then communication with all of its wholesale users (other water utilities) satisfies this 

requirement. The messaging method(s) shall be determined by the public supply water system. 

b. Except for wholesale-only systems and water utilities withdrawing an annual average 

amount of less than 100,000 gallons per day, identification of High-Use Single Family accounts, 

as defined in Rule 40D-21.051, or as approved pursuant to 40D-21.631(3)(b)2.c., within 60 days 

of the Water Shortage declaration. This identification is in preparation for supplemental High- 

Use Single Family customer outreach which needs to be implemented if a Phase III or Phase IV 

order is subsequently declared. 

b.c.Review and refinement, as necessary, of water utility operational practices regarding 

water pressure and line flushing to identify and implement any opportunities which would reduce 

water demand without causing adverse impact to public health, welfare and safety. With regards 

to line flushing, this shall include taking the actions described in Rule 40D-21.621(3)(b)3.b. 

3.4. The notice specified in Rule 40D-21.275(2), F.A.C., that is sent to public supply 

Permittees will summarize the requirements listed in Rule 40D-21.631(3)(b) 1-2.3. 


The use of water for medical purposes and protection of public health, safety and welfare 


(4) Commercial and Industrial 

The following restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all commercial and 

industrial activities, as appropriate:. Whether or not a commercial or industrial water use activity 

with associated Lawn and Landscape use is authorized by a Water Use Permit, the Lawn and 

Landscape use is separately regulated for the purpose of this Chapter and is subject to the Lawn 

and Landscape Use restrictions and other required actions of the applicable Water Shortage 

declaration. Rule 40D-21.631(6)(c), F.A.C., contains the Lawn and Landscape use restrictions 

and other required actions for a Phase II declaration. 

(a) Each user whose use is governed by a commercial or industrial Water Use Permit shall 

continue to comply with all permit requirements and terms. 

21-20 

31


(b) Each user whose use is not governed by a Water Use Permit shall implement the 

following demand management measures as appropriate: 

1. Reduce off-site discharge to the extent practicable; 

2. Recycle water to the extent practicable; 

3. Reduce clean-up requiring water use to the minimum required to protect efficiency of the 

operation and prevent damage to equipment; 

4. Reduce the washing of vehicles and other Mobile Equipment except for health and safety 

needs or as otherwise required by published industry standards; 

5. Maximize the use of the least restricted Source Class to which there is access; 

6. Power generation utilities are specifically requested to encourage their customers to 

voluntarily reduce power consumption as a means to reduce water consumption, and; 

7. Water use necessary to the activity, such as that consumed in a manufacturing process, 

shall not be otherwise restricted. 

(5) Agricultural Use 

The following restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all agricultural activities, 

as appropriate. Whether or not a agricultural water use activity with associated Lawn and 

Landscape use is authorized by a Water Use Permit, the Lawn and Landscape use is separately 

regulated for the purpose of this Chapter and is subject to the Lawn and Landscape Use 

restrictions and other required actions of the applicable Water Shortage declaration. Rule 40D- 

21.631(6)(c), F.A.C., contains the Lawn and Landscape use restrictions and other required 

actions for a Phase II declaration. 

(a) Each Agricultural Permittee shall comply with all of its Water Use Permit requirements 

and terms. Those Permittees located within the Southern Water Use Caution Area, with the 

ability to earn and expend "Water Conservation Credits" shall continue to do so pursuant to Rule 

40D-2.621, F.A.C., and the associated Basis of Review section, which is incorporated by 

reference in Rule 40D-2.091, F.A.C. 

(b) If a use is not governed by Water Use Permit, but the user has a valid variance from 

Chapter 40D-22, F.A.C., to follow a published BMPs document, the user shall continue to follow 

those BMPs. 

(c) All other users not governed by Rule 40D-21.631(5)(a) or (b) shall implement the 

following demand management measures, as appropriate: 



3. Reduce clean-up requiring water use to the minimum required to protect efficiency of the 


4. Reduce the washing of vehicles and other Mobile Equipment; except for health and 

safety needs or as otherwise required by BMPs, such to prevent the spread of plant or animal 

diseases; 

5. Maximize the use of the lesser or least restricted Source Class to which there is access; 

6. Except as otherwise noted herein, comply with the applicable provisions and exemptions 

in Chapter 40D-22, F.A.C. These provisions include a ban on supplemental irrigation between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. These exemptions include allowances for Low-Volume 

Irrigation technology, plant protection, testing and maintenance of irrigation systems and 

irrigation to water in chemicals. In the context of allowable watering hours, Agricultural Uses of 


Irrigation. 

21-21 

32


7. Water use necessary to the activity, such as irrigation of crops or maintenance of 

livestock, shall not be otherwise restricted. 


(a) Golf Courses and Driving Ranges 

The following restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all Golf Course and 

Driving Range athletic play area activities, as appropriate. Whether or not a golf course or 

driving range water use activity with associated Lawn and Landscape use is authorized by a 

Water Use Permit, the Lawn and Landscape use is separately regulated for the purpose of this 

Chapter and is subject to the Lawn and Landscape Use restrictions and other required actions of 

the applicable Water Shortage declaration. Rule 40D-21.631(6)(c), contains the Lawn and 

Landscape use restrictions and other required actions for a Phase II declaration. 

1. Each user whose use is governed by a Water Use Permit shall comply with all permit 

requirements and terms. Those Permittees located within the Southern Water Use Caution Area 

with the ability to earn and expend "Water Conservation Credits" shall continue to do so 

pursuant to Rule 40D-2.621, F.A.C., and the associated Basis of Review section, which is 

incorporated by reference in Rule 40D-2.091, F.A.C. 

2. If a user is not governed by a Water Use Permit, the use shall continue as specified in 

Rule 40D-22.201(5)(b)1, F.A.C. 

3. All other users not governed by a Water Use Permit and not following Rule 40D- 

22.201(5)(b)1, F.A.C., shall implement the following demand management measures as 

applicable: 

a. Reduce off-site discharge to the extent practicable; 

b. Recycle water to the extent practicable; 

c. Reduce clean-up requiring water use to the minimum required to protect efficiency of the 


d. Reduce the washing of vehicles and other Mobile Equipment except for health safety 

needs or as otherwise required by the published BMPs, such as cleaning the blades on 

commercial lawn mowers to prevent the spread of Turfgrass diseases between properties; 

e. Maximize the use of the least restricted Source Class to which there is access; 

f. Limit supplemental irrigation to the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 8 a.m. or 6 p.m. to 11: 59 p.m. 

for properties less than two acres in size. Properties two acres or larger may irrigate between the 

hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.; 

g. Except as otherwise noted herein, continue to comply with all applicable provisions and 

exemptions in Chapter 40D-22, F. A. C. Exemptions include irrigation allowances for plant 

protection on tees and greens, testing and maintenance of irrigation systems and irrigation to 

water in chemicals. 

(b) Other Athletic Play Areas 

The following water use restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all Athletic Play 

Areas, other than Golf Courses and Driving Ranges, as appropriate. Whether or not an athletic 

play area water use activity with associated Lawn and Landscape use is authorized by a Water 

Use Permit, the Lawn and Landscape use is separately regulated for the purpose of this Chapter 

and is subject to the Lawn and Landscape Use restrictions and other required actions of the 

applicable Water Shortage declaration. Rule 40D-21.631(6)(c), F.A.C., contains the Lawn and 

Landscape use restrictions and other required actions for a Phase II declaration. 



21-22 

33





2. Users whose use is not governed by a Water Use Permit shall implement the following, 

as applicable: 

a. Reduce off-site discharge to the extent practicable; 

b. Recycle water on-site to the extent practicable; 

c. Reduce clean-up requiring water use to the minimum required to protect efficiency of the 

operation or prevent damage to equipment; 

d. Reduce the washing of vehicles and other Mobile Equipment except for health and safety 

needs or as otherwise required by the BMPs, such as to prevent the spread of Turfgrass disease; 

e. Maximize the use of the least restricted Source Class to which there is access; 

f. Limit supplemental irrigation to the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 8 a.m. or 6 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. 

for properties less than two acres in size. Properties two acres or larger may irrigate between the 

hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.; 

g. Except as otherwise noted herein, continue to comply with applicable provisions and 

exemptions in Chapter 40D-22, F. A. C. These specifically include allowances for plant 

protection of Turfgrass athletic fields, wetting clay tennis courts and similar surfaces 

immediately prior to play, one extra irrigation application immediately after heavy league play 

and the ability to have a special watering schedule under some circumstances without applying 

for a variance. 

(c) Lawns and Landscaping Use, including Cemeteries 

The following restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all Lawn and 

Landscaping Use, including Cemeteries, as appropriate: 




pursuant to Rule 40D-2.621, F.A.C., and the associated Basis of Review section which is 


2. All Lawn and Landscaping use shall comply with the following demand management 

measures, as applicable: 

a. Limit Supplemental Irrigation to the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. to 

11:59 p.m. Properties less than one acre in size or with fewer than 11 irrigation zones shall use 

only one of the two available watering times. 

b. During the months of March through November, limit Supplemental Irrigation 

applications to a maximum of two applications per week, in accordance with the schedule 

provided in Chapter 40D-22.201(4), F.A.C. However, during the months of December, January 

and February, limit Supplemental Irrigation to a maximum of one application per week in 

accordance with the following schedule: 

i. Addresses with a house number ending in 0 or 1 shall only water on Monday. 

ii. Addresses ending with a 2 or 3, on Tuesday. 

iii. Addresses ending with a 4 or 5, on Wednesday. 

iv. Addresses ending with a 6 or 7, on Thursday. 

v. Addresses ending with an 8 or 9 and locations with a mix of addresses or for which an 

address cannot be determined (such as common areas associated with a subdivision), on Friday. 

21-23 

34


vi. Cemeteries and other properties greater than two acres in size that have a special 

irrigation schedule in accordance with Chapter 40D-22.201(4)(c), F.A.C., or pursuant to a valid 

variance from Chapter 40D-22, F.A.C., shall only water each section of property on the first day 

of the week already assigned to it. For example, a section of the property assigned a “Tuesday 

and/or Friday” "Monday and Thursday" schedule shall only water on TuesdayMonday. 

c. Reduce off-site discharge to the extent practicable. 

d. Recycle water to the extent practicable. 

e. Maximize the use of the least restricted Source Class to which there is access. 

f. If core aerification or Vertical Mowing (also sometimes referred to as verticutting) as 

defined in Rule 40D-22.101 is conducted, temporary extra watering is allowed as provided in 

Chapter 40D-22.201(3)(f), F.A.C. 

g. If Spot Treatment as defined in Rule 40D-21.101 is conducted, temporary extra watering 

is allowed as provided in Chapter 40D-22.201(3)(e), F.A.C., during the months of March 

through November. During these nine months, the extra watering may occur on any day of the 

week. However, during the other three months of the year (December, January and February), 

this extra watering shall be limited to only the three specified days of the week. The three 

allowable days of the week for Even addresses are Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. The three 

allowable days of the week for Odd addresses are Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. The three 

allowable days of the week for rights-of-way, common areas and other locations without any 

discernable address are Sunday, Tuesday and Friday. Cemeteries or other properties two acres in 

size or larger may instead maintain a written log of when this extra watering occurs. Regardless 

of the month involved, Spot Treatment shall only be accomplished during the allowable 

irrigation hours specified by the Water Shortage declaration. 

h. Except as otherwise noted herein, comply with all applicable provisions and exemptions 

of Chapter 40D-22, F.A.C., including partial exemptions for testing of irrigation systems and 

irrigation to water-in chemicals. These provisions also specifically include an establishment 

period exemption providing extra water applications for new plant material and a separate 

exemption for Low-Volume Irrigation technology (such as microirrigation or handwatering) to 

be used on any plant material other than turfgrass which requires frequent irrigation beyond the 

standard establishment period. 

i. The property owner or manager shall, upon request, provide a receipt or other proof of 

qualification for the new plant establishment period or other claimed exemption or allowance. 


(a) Except as provided below, all users engaging in Other Use shall comply with applicable 

provisions of Chapter 40D-22 and implement the following demand management measures, as 

appropriate: 




4. Reduce unnecessary uses to the extent practicable. 

(b) Aesthetic Use (fountains, waterfalls and other artistic water features) 

1. If an aesthetic use also provides a necessary water quality benefit, such as aeration of a 

stormwater pond, it may be operated as necessary. 

2. If an aesthetic use involves a pond or other catchment area with a volume of 100 gallons 

or less or meets one of the following criteria, it may be operated as necessary: 

a. The feature provides necessary aeration for pet fish, such as in a koi pond. 

21-24 

35


b. The feature is an integral part of the circulation system for a swimming pool. 

c. The feature is in a pond or other catchment area augmented exclusively by reclaimed 

water, seawater, brackish bay or intracoastal water, air conditioning condensate or other 

byproducts of an allowable activity. 

3. If an aesthetic use is also intended as an interactive recreational use, such as operation of 

a water play area for children, commercial and institutional users may engage in that activity in 

accordance with Rule 40D-21.631(7)(c). In this context, commercial and institutional users 

specifically include mobile entertainment businesses, events sponsored by public agencies or 

non-profit organizations, and permanent devices maintained to pool and spa health standards. 

Water slides and other portable devices, other than those operated by commercial or institutional 

users, may only be used on an allowable watering day for the location involved. 

4. All other aesthetic uses shall be limited to eight hours a day, and the user shall select and 

post the normal hours of operation. 

(c) Recreation Area Use 

1. All pools shall be maintained in a manner that minimizes the need for make-up water. 

This shall include the prompt repair of leaks, optimum scheduling of backwash filtration and the 

use of shade or covers to reduce evaporation. 

2. Commercial and institutional users of water for recreational purposes shall comply with 

Rule 40D-21.631(4). 

3. Residential and other non-commercial uses of water for recreational purposes shall be 

reduced to the maximum extent practicable. For example: 

a. Use of a sprinkler or sprinkler-like device on a Lawn for recreational purposes shall be 

restricted to the watering day(s), watering times and horticulturally necessary amounts for the 

address involved. 

b. Use of a wading pool, water slide, or other child-oriented recreation device shall include 

discharge or emptying onto a Lawn or Landscape area that requires irrigation. 

(d) Water Body Augmentation 

Augmentation of a pond or other water body shall be limited to the following circumstances: 

1. As required by a Water Use Permit or Environmental Resource Permit, typically for 

environmental mitigation purposes. 

2. The minimum necessary to maintain and preserve the structural integrity of a newly 

constructed or recently altered pond. 

3. The minimum needed to maintain and preserve habitat for native fish and wildlife. 

4. Where lake levels are below the lowest minimum level or guidance level, as applicable, 

established for that lake by the District. 

(e) Washing or cleaning of buildings, structures and outdoor impervious surfaces 

1. Annual Pressure Washing for aesthetic purposes is allowed. 

2. Pressure Washing of buildings or other structures in preparation for painting, sealing or 

other necessary maintenance and as a construction practice is allowed. Compliance with 

homeowner association or other aesthetic standards does not constitute necessary maintenance. 

3. Pressure Washing driveways, sidewalks and other impervious surfaces is allowed for 

necessary maintenance, such as to either maintain a warranty or remove mold, mildew and other 

potentially hazardous material that cannot be removed by mechanical means (such as a broom or 

leaf blower) and as a construction practice (such as cleaning a concrete surface prior to painting 

or sealing). Compliance with homeowner association or other aesthetic standards does not 

constitute necessary maintenance. 

21-25 

36


4. Washing or cleaning streets in preparation of, or immediately after, a parade or other 

public event is allowed. 

5. Washing or other water-based cleaning of streets or other impervious surfaces, other than 

that described above, shall be prohibited, except to meet federal, state, or local health or safety 

standards. These standards specifically allow for required dust control. 

(f) Mobile Equipment Washing 

1. Commercial car washes, hand-detailing operations and similar establishments shall 

comply with Rule 40D-21.631(4), F.A.C. 

2. Car wash fundraisers held on behalf of non-profit organizations are allowable, provided 

participants use water in an efficient manner. This specifically includes the use of a trigger (selfcanceling) 

nozzle on any garden-type hose used. 

3. Washing of fire trucks and other emergency vehicles, including ambulances and law 

enforcement vehicles, shall comply with Rule 40D-21.631(3)(a)3, F.A.C. 

4. Rinsing boats and flushing boat engines is allowed after each use, as necessary, to 

remove salt water or to prevent the transportation of exotic plant or animal material. 

5. Cleaning agricultural vehicles in accordance with canker abatement procedures, animal 

husbandry practices and other activities endorsed by the University of Florida's Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences or United States Department of Agriculture is allowed, as necessary. 

6. Other than as described above, car, truck and other Mobile Equipment washing shall be 

accomplished using low volume methods only, such as with a hand-held hose equipped with a 

trigger (self-canceling) nozzle and shall be restricted to only one washing a week. This one 

washing a week shall only occur on the allowable watering day for the address at which the 

activity occurs. 

(g) No person or entity, for example, a homeowner association or property manager, shall 

enforce any deed restrictions or other community standards which are inconsistent with the 

Water Shortage declaration. This specifically includes that the person or entity responsible for 

enforcement will suspend any requirement to replace plant material to meet aesthetic standards. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, F.S. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.185, 373.246, F.S. History – New 11-19-84, 

Amended 7-2-86, 5-30-93, 4-9-06, __-__-1110. 

40D-21.641 Phase III: Extreme Water Shortage. 

(1) A Phase III Water Shortage is a hydrologic or climatic condition in which multiple 

regional Drought Indicators have severely abnormal values, or a local Drought Indicator for a 

specific public supply has an extremely abnormal value, such that conditions warrant temporary 

minimization of unnecessary water use and/or preparation for supply augmentation. The 

following measures shall be in effect during a Phase III Water Shortage unless otherwise 

provided in the order implementing a Phase III Water Shortage. 




1. Each fire hydrant testing agency, whether a local government unit or an independent 

entity, shall implement or continue to implement provisions of Rule 40D-21.631(3)(a)1., F.A.C., 

except that fire hydrant testing shall be limited to only activities conducted by fire service 

personnel, water utility personnel or vendors as authorized by Chapter 633, F.S., that the 

applicable fire service or water utility has approved to conduct that activity during the specific 

Water Shortage declaration. 

21-26 

37


2. Each fire-fighting agency shall and each local government shall direct its fire department 

review and revise its list of primary and back-up sources. This review and revision process 

should involve, as necessary, work with District staff to proactively locate potential back-up 

sources, such as existing permitted supplies, especially in areas where potable water is not 

available for fire fighting. 


In addition to the requirements of the applicable Water Use Permit, the following restrictions 

and other required actions shall apply to all Water Utility Uses, as appropriate: 

1. Plan for supplementation or replacement of primary potable water supplies, including 

coordination with any applicable regional water supply authority or other public water supply 

system and coordination with District staff to request any appropriate emergency order. 

2. Each public supply water system, except wholesale-only systems, shall provide, directly 

or through the appropriate local agency, the following enforcement assistance: 

a. Ongoing implementation of all provisions of Rule 40D-21.631(3)(b), including response, 

as needed, to enforcement referrals made by the District and violation complaints made by 

members of the general public. 

b. Compliance monitoring, as appropriate, in portions of the service area where violation 

complaints or identified High-Use Single Family accounts appear to be concentrated. At a 

minimum, this shall include the use of either night-time enforcement patrols on at least a onceper-week 

basis or automatic meter reading technology to detect extra lawn watering. 

c. Issuance of a citation, without needing to first issue a warning, in response to any 

violation that occurs more than 14 days after the effective date of a Phase III Water Shortage 

order declaration. Warnings are authorized in lieu of citations if the violation is not witnessed or 

otherwise confirmed by the local enforcement agency’s employee or authorized agent, or if the 

local enforcement agency determines that there are extenuating circumstances which warrant a 

one-time forbearance. 

3. [MODIFIED details previously included in October 2010 amendments for Phase II>>>] 

Within 30 days of the Water Shortage declaration and then each subsequent month during which 

thethat declaration remains in effect, each water utility public supply water system shall provide 

a concise monthly system status report to the District. This report shall include the followingin 

accordance with Rule 40D-21.631(3)(b)2, except: 

a. [MODIFIED details previously included in October 2010 amendments for Phase II>>>] 

A quantified summary of enforcement activity information specified by Rule 40D-21.641 

(3)(b)2. Small Water Utilities and water supply authorities or other public supply water systems 

that serve only wholesale users (other water utilities) are exempt from this specific reporting 

requirement because they are exempt from the enforcement activity specified in Rule 40D- 

21.641(3)(b)2, 

b. [MODIFIED details previously included in October 2010 amendments for Phase II>>>] 

A quantified summary of customer communication and other water conservation efforts 

conducted in accordance with Rule 40D-21.641(3)(b)4. 

a. Excluding wholesale-only systems and water utilities withdrawing an annual average 

amount of less than 100,000 gallons per day and any water supply authority or other public water 

supply system which serves only wholesale users (other water utilities), each monthly report 

shall also list and quantify the customer outreach and any other water conservation efforts being 

used to manage High-Use Single Family residential water demand while the Water Shortage 

declaration remains in effect. 

21-27 

38


b. Submit the daily potable water demand data specified in Rule 40D-21.631(3)(b)2.b on a 

biweekly basis. 

c. Notify the District within 24 hours if the public supply water system experiences a 

sudden loss of its primary water supply or other significant change in system status. 

4. Each public supply water system shall institute or accelerate system-level water 

conservation measures which can help manage demand during the Water Shortage declaration. 

These efforts shall include: 

a. Continue to provide the customer messaging specified in Rule 40D-21.631(3)(b)2.a3.a, 

and enhance this messaging through the use of repetitive contact mechanisms, such as bill 

messages or public signs, and through the use of a press conference or other news event (such as 

a drought summit, board meeting or other public forum) involving a water utility executive. The 

press conference or other news event is intended to provide a “call to action” sense of urgency to 

customers and elected decision-makers. 

b. Excluding wholesale-only systems and water utilities withdrawing an annual average 

amount of less than 100,000 gallons per day, conduct High-Use Single Family customer 

outreach. Within 90 days of the Water Shortage declaration, in addition to the general customer 

messaging specified in Rule 40D-21.641(3)(b)4.a, this shall include making contact with each 

High-Use Single Family customer which has been identified pursuant to Rule 40D- 

21.631(3)(b)3.b. Contact can be written or oral, and may take the form of a drought surcharge or 

other enhanced price signal instead of a message regarding high use. A message sent to all 

customers, such as a generic statement on all bills, does not satisfy this contact requirement; 

however, a standard message sent only to each identified customer would satisfy this contact 

requirement. 

b.c.Address water pressure and line flushing as described in Rule 40D-21.631(3)(b)2.b3.c 

and any other operational practices identified by the water utility which can be modified during 

the Water Shortage declaration to reduce water demand without causing adverse impact to public 

health, welfare and safety. 

5. The notice specified in Rule 40D-21.275(3), that is sent to the public supply Permittees 

will summarize the requirements listed in Rule 40D-21.641(3)(b). 


The use of water for medical purposes or the protection of public health, safety and welfare 



In addition to the requirements of the applicable Water Use Permit, the following water use 

restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all commercial and industrial use, as 

appropriate, including efforts that go beyond normally applicable Water Use Permit 

requirements, as appropriate. Whether or not a commercial or industrial water use activity with 

associated Lawn and Landscape use is authorized by a Water Use Permit, the Lawn and 




and other required actions for a Phase III declaration. 

(a) Inform the District about any drought-related challenges with their water supplies. At a 

minimum, each Permittee shall, within 14 days of receipt of the District's Water Shortage 

declaration notice and when any major change in water supply status occurs, notify the District's 

Demand Management staff regarding: any water well failures, quantity or quality concerns about 

21-28 

39


primary water supplies, any anticipated need for supply supplementation and planned strategies 

for supply supplementation in the event that the drought continues or worsens. 

(b) Eliminate off-site discharge to the extent practicable; 

(c) Recycle water to the extent practicable; 

(d) Suspend clean-up requiring water use, except for the minimum required to protect 

efficiency of the operation and prevent damage to equipment; 

(e) Suspend the washing of vehicles and other Mobile Equipment, except for the minimum 

required to meet health and safety needs or as otherwise required by published industry 

standards; 

(f) Maximize use of the least restricted Source Class to which there is access; 

(g) Eliminate unnecessary uses; 

(h) Power generation utilities only: if using a water source that is affected by the Phase III 

declaration, encourage customers to voluntarily reduce power consumption as a means to reduce 

water consumption. 

(i) Restaurants and other food serving establishments shall serve water only upon request. 

(5) Agricultural Uses 


restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all Agricultural Use, as appropriate. 

Whether or not a agricultural water use activity with associated Lawn and Landscape use is 

authorized by a Water Use Permit, the Lawn and Landscape use is separately regulated for the 

purpose of this Chapter and is subject to the Lawn and Landscape Use restrictions and other 

required actions of the applicable Water Shortage declaration. Rule 40D-21.641(6)(c), F.A.C., 

contains the Lawn and Landscape use restrictions and other required actions for a Phase III 

declaration. 

(a) Inform the District about any drought-related challenges with their water supplies. At a 

minimum, each Permittee shall, within 14 days of receipt of the District's declaration notice and 

when any major change in water supply status occurs, notify the District's Demand Management 

staff regarding: any water well failures, quantity or quality concerns about primary water 

supplies, any anticipated need for supply supplementation and planned strategies for supply 

supplementation in the event that the drought continues or worsens; 

(b) Each Agricultural Permittee shall comply with all of its Water Use Permit requirements 

and terms. This specifically includes, for those Permittees located within the Southern Water 

Use Caution Area, the ability to earn and expend "Water Conservation Credits" pursuant to Rule 

40D-2.621, F.A.C., and the associated Basis of Review section, which is incorporated by 

reference in Rule 40D-2.091, F.A.C.; 

(c) Eliminate off-site discharge to the extent practicable. For example, agricultural irrigation 

involving the use of seepage systems shall be operated in a manner that will eliminate surface 

runoff and loss of water through lateral seepage to open ditches; 

(d) Recycle water to the extent practicable; 

(e) Suspend clean-up requiring water use, except for the minimum required to protect 

efficiency for the operation and prevent damage to equipment; 

(f) Suspend the washing of vehicles and other Mobile Equipment health and safety needs, or 

as otherwise required by published BMPs, such as to prevent the spread of plant disease; 

(g) Maximize use of the least restricted Source Class to which there is access; 

(h) Eliminate unnecessary uses; 

21-29 

40


(i) Except as otherwise noted herein, continue to comply with applicable provisions and 

exemptions in Chapter 40D-22. These exemptions include: allowances for Low-Volume 

Irrigation technology, plant protection, testing and maintenance of irrigation systems and 

irrigation to water-in chemicals. In the context of allowable watering hours, Agricultural Uses of 


Irrigation. 


(a) Golf Courses and Driving Ranges 


restrictions and required actions shall apply to all Golf Course and Driving Range athletic play 

areas, including efforts that go beyond normally applicable Water Use Permit requirements, as 

appropriate. Whether or not a golf course or driving range water use activity with associated 

Lawn and Landscape use is authorized by a Water Use Permit, the Lawn and Landscape use is 

separately regulated for the purpose of this Chapter and is subject to the Lawn and Landscape 

Use restrictions and other required actions of the applicable Water Shortage declaration. Rule 

40D-21.6431(6)(c), F.A.C., contains the Lawn and Landscape use restrictions and other required 

actions for a Phase II declaration. 

1. Inform the District about any drought-related challenges with their water supplies. At a 


declaration notice and when any major change in water supply status occurs, notify the District's 

Demand Management staff regarding any anticipated need for supply supplementation and 

planned strategies for supply supplementation in the event that the drought continues or worsens. 






3. Eliminate off-site discharge to the extent practicable; 


5. Suspend clean-up requiring water use, except for the minimum required to protect 

efficiency of the operation and prevent damage to equipment. 

6. Suspend the washing of golf carts, lawn mowers and other Mobile Equipment, except for 

the minimum necessary to meet health and safety needs or as otherwise required by published 

BMPs, such as to prevent the spread of Turfgrass disease; 

7. Maximize use of the least restricted Source Class to which there is access; 

8. Eliminate unnecessary uses and take appropriate actions to avoid water use increases. 

This shall include the following, as appropriate: 

a. No change. Reducing wear on fairways by restricting cart traffic to designated paths only. 

b. Modifying nutritional, soil amendment and mowing practices to minimize water stress. 

c. Limiting overseeding to tees and greens only. 

d. Providing information to golfers and guests about the current Water Shortage declaration, 

the steps the facility is taking to reduce water use and how golfers and guests can conserve water 

while visiting the facility. 

9. Limit Supplemental Irrigation (“normal watering”) to the allowable hours of 12:01 a.m. 

to 8:00 a.m.p.m. or 6:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. 

21-30 

41


10. Tees, golf course greens and practice greens shall receive supplemental irrigation no 

more than three times per week. Upon specific request by the District, a course may be required 

to maintain a log documenting when this irrigation occurs. 

11. Fairways and driving range greens shall be irrigated no more than once per week during 

all months that the Water Shortage declaration is in effect. Upon specific request by the District, 

a course may be required to maintain a log documenting when this irrigation occurs. 

12. Roughs shall not be irrigated, except that irrigation may occur when used for the disposal 

of excess reclaimed water (i.e., wet weather disposal). 

13. Limit New Plant Establishment as follows: 

a. A 60-day establishment period is applicable as set forth in b. – d. below. 

b. On days 1-30, the New Plant Material may be irrigated any day of the week as needed. 

c. On days 31-60, irrigation of the New Plant Material shall occur only on three days a 

week. Maintain a written schedule of establishment period watering. 

d. Except for the day of installation and sprig propagation, this extra watering must only 

occur during the allowable hours of the day. 

14. Except as otherwise provided herein, all irrigation and Other Uses shall comply with the 

applicable exemptions in Chapter 40D-22, F.A.C. Exemptions continue to include allowances 

for plant protection on tees and greens, testing and maintenance of irrigation systems and 

irrigation to water in chemicals. 



restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all Athletic Play Areas, except Golf Courses 

and Driving Ranges, as appropriate. Whether or not an athletic play area water use activity with 

associated Lawn and Landscape use is authorized by a Water Use Permit, the Lawn and 




and other required actions for a Phase II declaration. 

1. Inform the District about any drought-related challenges with their water supplies. At a 


declaration notice and when any major change in the water supply status occurs, notify the 

District's Demand Management staff regarding: any water well failures, quantity or quality 

concerns about the primary water supplies, any anticipated need for supply supplementation and 

planned strategies for supply supplementation in the event that the drought continues or worsens; 





incorporated by reference in Rule 40D-2.091, F.A.C.; 





6. Suspend the washing of lawn mowers and other Mobile Equipment, except for the 

minimum necessary to meet health and safety needs or as otherwise required by published 

BMPs, such as to prevent the spread of Turfgrass disease; 

21-31 

42


7. Users having access to more than one Source Class shall maximize use of the least 

restricted Source Class to which there is access; 


This includes the following, as appropriate: 

a. Reducing wear on athletic fields as practical. 

b. Modifying nutritional, soil amendment and mowing practices to minimize water stress. 

c. Providing information to players and guests about the current Water Shortage declaration, 

the steps that the facility is taking to reduce water use and how players and guests can conserve 

water while visiting the facility; 

9. Limit Supplemental Irrigation (“normal watering”) to the allowable hours of 12:01 a.m. 

to 8:00 a.m.p.m. or 6:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.; 

10. Turfgrass fields shall be irrigated no more than once per week during all months that the 

Water Shortage declaration is in effect. A facility that cannot accomplish its normally scheduled 

supplemental irrigation on the Lawn and Landscape watering day designated by Rule 40D- 

21.641(6)(c) may submit its alternative irrigation schedule to the District as a petition for 

variance from the order declaring the current Water Shortage declaration. 





week. Maintain a written schedule of establishment period watering. 



12. Except as otherwise provided herein, all irrigation and Other Uses shall comply with the 

applicable exemptions in Chapter 40D-22, F.A.C. These exemptions continue to specifically 

include allowances for: plant protection of Turfgrass athletic fields, wetting of clay tennis courts 

and similar surfaces immediately prior to play, and one extra irrigation application immediately 

after heavy play to encourage athletic field Turfgrass repair. 

(c) Lawn and Landscaping Use, including Cemeteries: 


restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all Lawn and Landscaping Use, including 

Cemeteries, as appropriate: 

1. Each Permittee shall comply with all of its Water Use Permit requirements and terms. 

Those Permittees located within the Southern Water Use Caution Area with the ability to earn 

and expend "Water Conservation Credits" shall continue to do so pursuant to Rule 40D-2.621, 

F.A.C., and the associated Basis of Review section, which is incorporated by reference in Rule 

40D-2.091, F.A.C. 

2. Eliminate off-site discharge to the extent practicable. 

3. Recycle water to the extent practicable. 


efficiency of the operation and prevent damage to equipment. 

5. Suspend the washing of lawn mowers and other mobile equipment, except for the 

minimum necessary to meet health and safety needs or as otherwise required by published 

BMPs, such as the spread of Turfgrass disease. 

6. Maximize the use of the least restricted Source Class to which there is access. 


21-32 

43






week. During this portion of the "establishment period": 

i. Even Addresses shall only water New Plant Material on Tuesday, Thursday and/or 

Sunday 

ii. Odd addresses shall only water New Plant Material or Monday, Wednesday, and/or 

Saturday. 

iii. Rights-of-way, common areas and other locations without discernable addresses shall 

only water New Plant Material on Sunday, Tuesday and/or Friday. 

iv. Cemeteries and other properties two acres in size or larger may instead maintain a written 

schedule of establishment period watering. 



e. The irrigation of any non-lawn plant material which requires frequent irrigation beyond 

the establishment period exemption provided in a. – d. above shall employ Low-Volume 

Irrigation technology in accordance Rules 40D-21.641(6)(c)11.g, F.A.C. 

9. Limit Supplemental Irrigation to the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. to 

11:59 p.m. Properties less than one acre in size or with fewer than 11 irrigation zones shall use 

only one of the two available watering times. 

10. Supplemental irrigation accomplished by microirrigation, handwatering or other 

low volume technology shall only occur during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. 

to 11:59 p.m. 

11. Limit Supplemental Irrigation to a maximum of only one application per week 

during all months that the Water Shortage declaration is in effect. This watering shall be in 

accordance with the following schedule: 

a. Addresses with a “house number” ending in 0 or 1 may water on Monday . 

b. Addresses ending with a 2 or 3, on Tuesday. 

c. Addresses ending with a 4 or 5, on Wednesday. 

d. Addresses ending with a 6 or 7, on Thursday. 

e. Addresses ending with an 8 or 9 and locations with a mix of addresses, or for which an 

address cannot be determined (such as common areas associated with a subdivision), on Friday. 

f. Cemeteries and other properties greater than 2 acres in size that have a special irrigation 

schedule in accordance with Rule 40D-22.201(4)(c), F.A.C., or properties regardless of size that 

have a special irrigation schedule pursuant to provisions of a variance from Chapter 40D-22, 

F.A.C., shall only water each section of property on the first day of the week already assigned to 

it. For example, a section of the property assigned a "Monday and Thursday" schedule shall only 

water on Monday. 

g. This one application per week limitation does not apply to the use of microirrigation, 

handwatering or other low volume technology when used to water flower beds, shrubs or other 

non-turfgrass plant material. 

12. If core aerification or Vertical Mowing (also sometimes referred to as verticutting) is 

conducted, follow the applicable watering schedule. The extra watering allowance for such 

activity normally provided in Chapter 40D-22.201(3)(f), F.A.C., is not applicable. 

21-33 

44


13. If Spot Treatment or Syringing is conducted, follow the applicable water schedule. The 

extra watering allowance normally provided for in Chapter 40D-22.201(3)(e), is not applicable. 

14. Except as otherwise noted herein, all applicable exemptions and other provisions of 

Chapter 40D-22, F.A.C., shall be in effect. 

15. The property owner or manager shall, upon request, provide a receipt or other proof of 

qualification for the New Plant Establishment period or other claimed exemption. 


(a) In addition to the requirements of the applicable Water Use Permit, the following water 

use restrictions and other required actions shall apply to all other use, as appropriate: 


2. Recycle water on-site to the extent practicable; 



4. Suspend the washing of vehicles and other Mobile Equipment, except for the minimum 

required to meet health and safety needs or as otherwise required by published BMPs; 



(b) Aesthetic use. Aesthetic use includes the use of water in fountains, waterfalls and other 

artistic water features. 

1. If an aesthetic use also provides a necessary water quality benefit, such as aeration of a 

stormwater pond, it may be operated as necessary. 

2. If an aesthetic use either involves a pond or other catchment area with a volume of less 

than 100 gallons or meets one of the following criteria, it may be operated as necessary: 

a. The feature provides necessary aeration for pet fish, such as in a koi pond. 

b. The feature is an integral part of the circulation system for a swimming pool. 

c. The feature is in a pond or other catchment area augmented exclusively by reclaimed 

water, seawater, brackish bay or intercoastal water, air conditioning condensate or other 

byproducts of an allowable activity. 






Water slides and other portable devices, other than those operated by commercial or institutional 

users, may only be used on an allowable watering day for the location involved. 

4. All other aesthetic uses shall be limited to four hours a day, and the user shall select and 

post the normal hours of operation. 

(c) Recreation use shall comply with Rule 40D-21.631(7), F.A.C. 

(d) Water Body Augmentation: 

1. Augmentation shall be limited to those circumstances indicated in Rules 40D-21.631(7), 

F.A.C. 

2. Other augmentation, including augmentation of those water bodies for which the District 

has established minimum levels or guidance levels, is prohibited unless part of a Districtauthorized 

minimum flow or level recovery strategy. 

(e) Washing or cleaning of buildings, structures and outdoor impervious surfaces: 

1. Annual Pressure Washing for aesthetic purposes is prohibited . 

21-34 

45


2. Pressure Washing of buildings or other structures in preparation for painting, sealing or 

other necessary maintenance and as a construction practice is allowed. Compliance with 

homeowner association or other aesthetic standards does not constitute necessary maintenance. 

3. Pressure Washing of driveways, sidewalks and other impervious surfaces is allowed for 

necessary maintenance, such as to either maintain a warranty or remove mold, mildew and other 

potentially hazardous material that cannot be removed by mechanical means (such as a broom or 

leaf blower), and as a construction practice (such as cleaning a concrete surface prior to painting 

or sealing). Compliance with homeowner association or other aesthetic standards does not 


4. All other washing or cleaning of impervious surfaces or structures shall be prohibited, 

except to meet federal, state or local health or safety standards. These standards specifically 

allow for required dust control. 

(f) Mobile Equipment washing: 

1. Commercial car washes, hand detailing operations and similar establishments shall 

comply with Rule 40D-21.641(4), F.A.C. 

2. Car wash fundraisers held on behalf of non-profit organizations are prohibited, except for 

one-day events that were scheduled prior to the date of the Phase III Water Shortage declaration. 

3. Washing of fire trucks and other emergency vehicles is allowed in accordance with Rule 

40D-21.641(3)(a), F.A.C. 

4. Rinsing of boats and flushing of boat engines is allowed after each use when needed to 

remove salt water or to prevent the transportation of exotic plant or animal material. 

5. Cleaning agricultural vehicles in accordance with canker abatement procedures, animal 

husbandry practices and other activities endorsed by the University of Florida's Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences and the United States Department of Agriculture is allowed, as 

necessary. 

6. The washing of fire engines and other emergency Mobile Equipment, such as ambulances 

and law enforcement vehicles, remains subject to 40D-21.631(3)(a)3. 

7. Other than as described above, car, truck and other Mobile Equipment washing shall be 

accomplished using low volume methods only, such as with a hand-held hose equipped with a 

trigger (self-canceling) nozzle and shall be restricted to only one washing a week. This one 

washing a week shall only occur on the allowable lawn watering day associated with the address 

at which the activity occurs. 

(g) No person or entity, for example, a homeowner association or property manager, shall 




Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, F.S. Law Implemented 373.175, 373.185, 373.246, F.S. History – New 11-19-84, 

Amended 7-2-86, 5-30-93, 4-9-06, __-__-1110. 

40D-21.651 Phase IV: Critical Water Shortage. 

(1) A Phase IV Water Shortage is a hydrologic or climatic condition where multiple regional 

Drought Indicators have extremely abnormal values, or the local Drought Indicator for a specific 

public supply has a critically abnormal value, such that conditions warrant the temporary 

suspension of nonessential use and/or initiation of supply augmentation. The following 

measures shall be in effect during a Phase IV declaration unless otherwise provided in the order 

implementing a Phase IV Water Shortage. 

21-35 

46




(a) Fire Fighting, Other First-Responder Activities, Health and Medical water uses shall be 

subject to Rule 40D-21.641(3)(a) and (c), F.A.C. 


Water Utility Uses shall be subject to Rule 40D-21.641(3)(b), F.A.C., with the following 

modifications: 

1. If specifically Ordered by District, increase the frequency of system status reports or 

transmittal of demand data. 

2. Immediately notify the District's applicable Regulation Department about any new water 

supply emergency and any supply supplementation or replacement that occurs in order to address 

or prevent such an emergency. 

3. Identify, based on the water utility’s customer demographics and system characteristics, 

and implement additional means by which the water utility will temporarily maintain or reduce 

system demand during the Water Shortage declaration. This requirement shall include listing 

and quantifying the implementation of these additional means on each system status report. 

4. Except for wholesale-only systems, take the following additional enforcement assistance 

steps: 

a. Place temporary limits to potable water service in response to a location-specific request 

from the District to remedy a violation of this Chapter that the District has determined is causing, 

or likely to cause, a public health hazard or property damage. These limits do not necessarily 

involve suspension of service; however, at a minimum, such limits shall involve constraining the 

user to the amount of water necessary for reasonable Indoor Uses or assessing the user a punitive 

surcharge for any amount of water beyond that necessary for reasonable Indoor Uses. The 

applicable public supply water system shall determine the limitation method and may consider 

any mitigating circumstances when determining what constitutes reasonable Indoor Uses for a 

specific customer, such as the number of persons in the household or medical needs. 

b. Coordinate with local code enforcement officials to advocate temporary waivers, or other 

means of deferring the enforcement of local code violations, until after the Phase IV Water 

Shortage declaration has been rescinded, if enforcement would result in an increase in water use 

and compliance is not immediately required to protect public health, safety and welfare. 


The water use restrictions and other required actions specified in Rule 40D-21.641(4), 

F.A.C., shall apply, with the following modifications: 

1. Users that are Permittees shall promptly notify the District's applicable Regulation 

Department about any new water supply emergency and any supply supplementation or 

replacement that occurs in order to address or prevent such an emergency. 

2. Users shall, if specifically Ordered by the District, cease all uses of water that are not 

essential to public health, safety and welfare. 

(5) Agricultural Uses 

The water use restrictions and other required actions specified in Rule 40D-21.641(5), 


(a) Users that are Permittees shall promptly notify the District's applicable Regulation 



21-36 

47


(b) Users shall, if specifically Ordered by the District, cease all crop related uses of 

water that are not essential to public health, safety and welfare. 

(6) Landscape Use and Driving Ranges 

(a) Golf Courses 

The water use restrictions and other required actions specified in Rule 40D-21.641(6)(a), 


1. Watering roughs and non-play native or naturalized areas shall be prohibited. 

2. Users that are Permittees shall promptly notify the District’s applicable Regulation 



3. The establishment period for New Plant Materials shall be reduced 

to "15/30/15." This means that the material can be watered on any day for a 15-day period 

starting the day it is installed, then up to three days a week during the next 30 day period, then 

only two days a week during the final 15-day period. 




The water use restrictions and other required actions specified in Rule 40D-21.641(6)(b), 

F.A.C., shall continue to apply, with the following modifications: 

1. Supplemental irrigation of Turfgrass shall only be allowed once a week, regardless of the 

month. 

2. Users that are Permittees shall promptly notify the District's applicable Regulation 



3. The establishment period for New Plant Materials shall be reduced to "15/30/15." This 

means that the material can be watered on any day for a 15-day period starting the day it is 

installed, then up to three days a week during the next 30 day period, then only two days a week 

during the final 15-day period. 



(c) Lawn and Landscaping Use, including Cemeteries: 

1. All Lawn and Landscaping Use, including Cemeteries, shall continue to comply with 

applicable provisions of Rule 40D-21.641(6)(c), F.A.C., with the following modifications: 

a. The establishment period for New Plant Materials shall be reduced to "15/30/15." This 

means that the material can be watered on any day for a 15-day period starting the day it is 

installed, then up to three days a week during the next 30-day period, then only two days a week 

during the final 15-day period as follows: 

i. When "three days a week" establishment period watering is allowed, Even Addresses 

shall only water on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday; Odd Addresses shall only water on Monday, 

Wednesday and Saturday; and Rights-of-way, common areas and other locations without 

discernable addresses shall only water on Sunday, Tuesday and/or Friday. 

ii. When "two days a week" establishment period watering is allowed on properties less than 

one acre in size, Even Addresses shall only water on Thursday and Sunday; Odd Addresses shall 

only water on Wednesday and Saturday; and Rights-of-way, common areas and other locations 

without discernable addresses shall only water on Tuesday and/or Friday. 

21-37 

48


iii. When "three days a week" or "two days a week" establishment period watering is 

allowed in cemeteries or on other properties one acre in size or larger, each property may instead 

maintain a written schedule of its establishment period watering. 

iv. Establishment period irrigation shall be applicable once for any specific area of lawn or 

landscape while the Water Shortage declaration is in effect. 

v. Users shall, upon the specific request of the District, provide receipts or other proof of 

installation date. 

vi. Users shall, upon the specific request of the District, cease all establishment period 

irrigation. 

b. Supplemental Irrigation for properties with an in-ground system shall only occur during 

the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 4 a.m. 

c. Supplemental Irrigation accomplished by microirrigation, handwatering or other Low- 

Volume technology, or by manual means only (such as an oscillating sprinkler supplied by 

garden hose) shall only occur during the hours of 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. or 6 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 

d. Users shall, if specifically Ordered by the District, cease all Supplemental Irrigation 

except as otherwise provided in accordance with Rule 40D-21.651(6)(c)1.e, F.A.C. 

e. Supplemental Irrigation of landscaping beds and other non-Lawn plant material, when 

accomplished by handwatering, microirrigation and other Low-Volume Irrigation methods, shall 

be limited to the hours specified in Rule 40Dd-21.651 (6)(c)1.c, F.A.C., but may continue to 

occur on any day of the week, if needed. 

f. If core aerification, Vertical Mowing (verticutting) and Spot Treatment or Syringing 

activities are conducted, follow the applicable water schedule. The extra watering allowances 

normally provided for in Chapters 40D-22.201(3)(e)-(f), for such activities is not applicable. 

2. The property owner or manager shall, upon request, provide a receipt or other proof of 

qualification for the New Plant establishment period or other claimed exemption. 


(a) The water use restrictions and other required actions specified in Rule 40D-21.641(7), 







However, water slides and other portable devices which are not operated by commercial or 

institutional users are prohibited. 

2. Other aesthetic use as described in Rule 40D-21.641(7)(b)3, F.A.C., is prohibited. In 

public spaces, the owner or manager of such features shall use signs, when practical, to indicate 

that this action was taken in compliance with current Water Shortage restrictions. 

3. Washing or cleaning of buildings, structures and impervious surfaces (such as driveways 

and sidewalks) is prohibited, except: 

a. Pressure Washing conducted with professional-grade equipment is allowed for necessary 

maintenance. Compliance with homeowner association or other aesthetic standards does not 


b. Dust control is allowed if required by federal, state or local health or safety standards. 

4. Mobile Equipment Washing: 

21-38 

49


a. Washing of cars or trucks, other than professional car washes or mobile detailing 

businesses, is prohibited. This means that car wash fundraisers are prohibited. However, the 

washing of fire engines and other emergency Mobile Equipment (such as ambulances and law 

enforcement vehicles) is allowable, subject to 40D-21.631(3)(a)3. 

b. The following specific activities are allowed: rinsing of boats after use, flushing of boat 

motors after use, necessary cleaning of Lawn and maintenance and agricultural vehicles, rinsing 

of any vehicle after exposure to saltwater or sewage and washing of any vehicle immediately 

prior to sale, rent or lease (including lease termination, but excluding daily car or truck rentals. 



(b) No person or entity, for example, a homeowner association or property manager, shall 




Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, FS., Law Implemented 373.175, 373.185, 373.246, FS, History- New – 4-9-06, Amended 

__-__-1110. 

21-39 

50


Executive Summary for the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs 

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 40D-21, F.A.C., Water Shortage Plan 

Executive Summary 

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

120.541, Florida Statutes (F.S.) regarding the proposed amendments to Chapter 40D-21, Water 

Shortage Plan (Plan), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 

The District’s Water Shortage Plan is adopted by rule and is contained in Chapter 40D-21, 

F.A.C. The Plan, as amended from time to time has been in District rule since 1984. In 2009, 

the Governing Board directed staff to revise and enhance the existing plan based on the 

District’s experience during the multi-year drought that began in 2007. The Board approved 

revisions in October 2010. These revisions have not yet been implemented due to the need for 

the existing SERC to be revised to comply with the new economic analysis criteria required by 

the Legislature in November 2010. In response to the new economic analysis, staff 

recommends additional revisions to reduce costs. This SERC describes the anticipated costs 

and economic impacts associated with the proposed revisions to the existing Plan that were 

approved in October 2010, together with those additional revisions that further reduce costs and 

are proposed for approval by the Board in October 2011. 

A brief description of the content of the Plan is provided immediately below. The benefits of a 

Water Shortage Plan are addressed in the following “Benefits of the Overall Water Shortage 

Plan” section of this Executive Summary. The proposed revisions to the Water Shortage Plan 

are addressed further below in the “Background for the Proposed Revisions” and “Summary 

Findings on the Impacts of the Proposed Revisions” sections of this Executive Summary and 

throughout the rest of the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC). 

What is the Water Shortage Plan? 

The District has an existing Water Shortage Plan. The Plan: 

� is required under subsection 373.246(1), F.S., 

� includes restrictions on water use pursuant to Sections 373.175, and 373.246 F.S., and 

� includes the phases and elements required in Rule 62-40.411, F.A.C. 

The purpose of the plan is to protect against loss of or other serious harm to water resources 

and water supplies, including impacts to public health and safety, due to drought or other water 

shortage conditions. The Plan establishes procedures and responses designed to prevent 

undue hardship and ensure equitable distribution of available water resources during times of 

shortage. The plan also provides advance knowledge of the means by which water 

apportionments and reductions will be made during times of shortage as a means of promoting 

greater security for water users including Water Use Permittees. The Water Shortage Plan is 

designed to be an integral part of the District’s continuing effort to manage, protect and 

conserve the waters of the District. The current and proposed measures within the Plan for 

public water supply utilities are generally consistent with the measures and concepts included in 

51




the American Water Works Association’s Manual of Water Supply Practices for Drought 

Preparedness and Response (M60). 

Benefits of the Overall Water Shortage Plan 

This subsection of the Executive Summary addresses the benefits of having a water shortage 

plan, in general, not the benefits of the previously approved and currently recommended 

revisions to the existing Water Shortage Plan. Documentation of described benefits is provided 

in Section 7.0 of this SERC. 

As opposed to Rule Chapters 40D-2, 40D-8 and 40D-80, F.A.C., which primarily regulate longterm 

water withdrawal impacts, Chapter 40D-21, F.A.C., regulates impacts due to shorter term 

“water shortages”. Water shortages generally occur due to naturally occurring droughts and 

supply infrastructure failures. The latter generally affects isolated entities such as the 

customers of particular water utility service area and are localized. Drought induced events 

tend to affect whole regions and require a regional response – especially in the case of a shared 

resource such as the Floridan aquifer. No Water Shortage Plan can eliminate all the negative 

impacts of a drought but it can be designed to reduce the degree of harm. 

The supply impacts of water shortages can range from simple inconveniences, such as having 

to reduce or delay discretionary water use such as car washing, to actual loss of nondiscretionary 

water use such as domestic use, and water used in construction, maintenance and 

manufacturing. Except for catastrophic supply disruptions, loss of non-discretionary use in 

Florida is rare because we are blessed with the highly productive Floridan and Biscayne aquifer 

systems. Groundwater sources are less susceptible to supply shortages than surface water 

sources. In western states, which are much more reliant on surface water, it is not unusual for 

water shortages plans to call for complete bans on lawn and landscape irrigation and significant 

reductions in supply to agriculture and manufacturing. The economic impacts of such events 

have been well described for both urban water uses and agricultural water uses in California. 

The phased nature of the Plan is designed to allow affected entities to prepare for potential 

worsening conditions and begin with reductions in discretionary use that will minimize the 

likelihood that drastic measures to reduce non-discretionary demand will be required. 

While water shortage measures are generally not as dramatic in Florida as they are in western 

states, hydrologic droughts are a natural phenomenon with impacts that cannot be economically 

avoided solely through the development of more and better infrastructure and increased 

groundwater withdrawals. Declines in stream flows and aquifer levels due to lack of rainfall are 

exacerbated by higher than normal demands for irrigation during periods of drought. 

Research has shown that a calculated net irrigation requirement (roughly the evapotranspiration 

needs of lawns minus effective rainfall) is highly correlated with residential water 

use. Analysis of single family home water use over a near 10 year period in Spring Hill 

(Hernando County) and the City of Lakeland (Polk County) show that the monthly net irrigation 

requirement explained 71% and 83% of the variation in household water use for the homes in 

those utilities, respectively. In the absence of water shortage restrictions or their enforcement, 

52




utility water withdrawals can rise significantly due to increased irrigation demand. This was 

illustrated in a large study of single-family residential use that showed that reducing allowable 

irrigation days from 2 days to 1 day per week during a drought resulted in reductions of 9% to 

20% across 5 utilities in the District relative to use that would have occurred in the absence of 

restrictions. In the 6 th utility, in which it was known that irrigation restrictions were not enforced 

and effectively voluntary, use actually increased 10% over the same time frame. Such an 

increase would likely be universal without enforced restrictions or other equally effective 

measures. While no Water Shortage Plan can eliminate all negative impacts of drought, a well 

designed and enforced plan can moderate drought driven increases in demand and thus reduce 

the severity of the impacts. 

Water Supply - Reduced stream flow can cause both regulatory and physical limits on 

withdrawals for surface water utilities. Surface water withdrawals during low flow periods can 

render water intakes useless and chloride levels for tidally influenced streams may exceed 

treatment capabilities as the saltwater wedge moves upstream in response to declining flows. 

Drought reduced supplies may require utilities to purchase higher priced sources of water. The 

Water Shortage Plan can help reduce the probability that such disruptions and cost impacts will 

occur. In addition, drought-related increases in customer demand can cause public health, 

welfare and safety concerns for ground and surface water utilities. Specifically, high demand for 

irrigation can reduce potable water delivery pressure to the point of allowing intrusion of 

untreated native waters into the delivery pipes, and even to the point of providing insufficient 

pressure for fire-fighting purposes. 

Fisheries and Related Industries - Various studies from the Gulf Coast, including Florida, 

have shown positive relationships between freshwater inflow and the abundance or harvest of 

estuarine dependent species. Studies from Texas have also shown significant relationships 

between seasonal rates of freshwater inflow and the harvest of a variety of estuarine dependent 

species. It has been estimated that over 90% of the sport and commercial fisheries catch 

associated with the Gulf Mexico is comprised of species that are estuarine dependent, meaning 

they utilize coastal estuaries for feeding, growth, or reproduction during some point their life 

cycle. Important estuarine-dependent species on the coast of west-central Florida include blue 

crab, pink shrimp, oysters, red drum, tarpon, mullet, menhaden, spotted seatrout and snook. To 

give a perspective on the magnitude of the fisheries industry, the total commercial landings 

value (dockside) of estuarine dependent species in the counties wholly or partially within the 

District in 2010 was $16.2 million. Data on recreational landings of estuarine species are not 

available, but it has been estimated that the economic activity associated with saltwater sport 

fishing in Florida is between $5 and $6 billion per year, with much of this activity associated with 

inshore species. 

Reduced freshwater inflow to estuaries can negatively impact the species that depend on them. 

While the impacts of drought may be temporary, they can be important. Impacts of reduced 

flows are believed to have been a major contributor to the collapse of the blue crab industry in 

Georgia. Although other factors could not be ruled out, an 80% reduction in historic landings in 

2003 was attributed to historically declining flows, severe drought and increased coastal 

53




salinities that allowed a parasitic infection of Hematodinium to impact the blue crab population. 

Although drought is a naturally occurring event, increased water demands can exacerbate the 

impact of droughts and significantly, albeit temporarily, affect the productivity of natural systems, 

including economically important estuaries. Drought management activities can help to limit the 

severity and duration of these impacts. 

Recreation and Related Industries – Drought reduced flows and levels in streams and lakes 

can cause the closing of public and private boat ramps either because they are unusable or to 

prevent propeller wash damage that undermines the ramp when water levels are too low. Lack 

of access to ramps reduces both fishing and recreational boating activity and revenues to 

businesses that supply fishing and boating participants. Approximately 17% of the population of 

the District and 2% of tourists visiting the District make use of freshwater boat ramps. Docks 

may also become unusable and may also suffer damage from propeller wash. If stream depths 

become too shallow and portaging is required, canoe and kayak rentals may also decline. 

Again, the Water Shortage Plan will not eliminate all negative impacts, but can help to decrease 

their severity 

Property Damage – A benefit of the Plan related to moderating the amount by which aquifer 

levels are lowered during drought is that there will likely be less sinkhole activity than would 

otherwise occur. Sinkhole activity can be accelerated through both long-term and short-term 

reductions in aquifer levels. Due to the prevalence of karst topography in the West-Central and 

Northern portions of the District, sinkhole activity is well documented. For the period 2006 

through 2009, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (FOIR) reported 81% of all sinkhole 

claims filed in the state were in counties wholly or partially within the District. Depending on the 

type of sinkhole, paid claims range from $102,000 to $149,000 per claim according to the FOIR. 

Research on sinkholes in the Orlando area indicates that management of aquifer levels to within 

a given range from their typical levels, particularly in the dry season, can minimize the formation 

of sinkholes. Clearly it is in the public interest to minimize dramatic changes in aquifer levels 

and water shortage restrictions help to reduce the severity of reductions in aquifer levels during 

drought. 

Background for the Proposed Revisions 

In September 2009, the Governing Board authorized initiation of rulemaking to incorporate rule 

modifications that were identified during the District’s experience with recent water shortage 

orders. There were two primary purposes for the proposed revisions: 

1. Codify effective water use reduction actions contained in previous water shortage 

orders so that utilities and others can better plan for such actions when required during 

the various water shortage phases. 

Examples include: enhanced customer messaging; enhanced but simplified irrigation 

restrictions in certain water shortage phases; and enhanced and clarified enforcement and 

54




enforcement reporting expectations. Codification of previously implemented water shortage 

order measures provides the greater degree of certainty desired by those affected by the Plan. 

2. Delete water shortage plan elements that are economically inefficient. 

The primary example is the existing ban on nearly all pressure washing activities in Phase IV 

(critical water shortage). During the drought of 2007-2010, the District considered including 

elements of the Plan’s Phase IV restrictions in a water shortage order – including the ban on 

pressure washing. Based on industry input about the potential impacts of such a ban, the 

District conducted an economic analysis of the impact of banning nearly all pressure washing. 

Pressure washing is often a contract requirement for activities such as commercial painting, 

concrete sealing (as in parking garages) and many other activities. It became evident that a 

pressure washing ban would technically bring many construction and maintenance activities to a 

halt and have a negative economic impact, in terms of employment and wages that would far 

exceed the benefits of the reduced water use. Based on this analysis, the ban on pressure 

washing contained in the Plan was not included in the water shortage order that was declared. 

The general ban is now proposed to be deleted from the Plan and be replaced with a provision 

that simply requires that water efficient professional-grade pressure washing equipment be 

used. Restrictions on some less necessary pressure washing activities will remain in some 

water shortage phases. An annual allowance for aesthetic based pressure washing is proposed 

to be added for the first two phases of the Plan. In addition, restrictions on water-cooled air 

conditioning are being deleted as are restrictions on the use of commercial car washes. Air 

conditioning restrictions are difficult to enforce and such water use may be best addressed 

through education. Most commercial car washes now recycle water so the economic impacts of 

restricting such use likely exceed the water use reduction benefits. 

Staff held two focus group meetings on November 5, 2009 and January 14, 2010, two public 

workshops on November 20, 2009 and April 29, 2010, and one special joint meeting of the 

Green Industry Advisory Committee and Agricultural Advisory Committee on July 8, 2010. 

Participants in these forums, held to develop and refine appropriate amendment language, 

included: the air conditioning industry, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences agents, public supply water conservation specialists, sod farmers, local government 

attorneys, plant nursery representatives, and other subject matter experts. 

The Governing Board approved the proposed amendments to the Plan during its October 26, 

2010 meeting. However, publication for adoption and other final rulemaking steps needed to 

formally implement the Board-approved amendments were postponed so that staff could 

complete additional data collection and analysis that was necessary to update the SERC in 

accordance with new provisions of Section 120.541, F.S. (enacted as a result of HB 1565 from 

the Florida Legislature’s 2010 session). The analysis generated options to reduce the regulatory 

costs of the proposed revisions while preserving the most effective measures. Details of all final 

proposed revisions are addressed in Section 1.0 of this SERC. The Governing Board has been 

kept apprised of the status of this rule making through the Regulation Committee’s monthly 

Significant Initiatives Report. 

55




Summary Findings on the Impact of the Proposed Revisions 

The development of this SERC was required pursuant to section 120.541, F.S., because the 

proposed revisions have the potential to adversely impact some small business entities. This is 

one of two thresholds for requiring the preparation of a SERC. The proposed revisions may 

increase some reporting and customer messaging costs for non-exempt, investor-owned water 

utilities that may be small businesses. They may also impact some small business entities that 

conduct lawn and landscape irrigation that, in spite of experience with previous water shortages, 

have not: 

� made adjustments to landscapes to reduce water requirements 

� made adjustments to irrigation systems to improve efficiency, and 

� made changes to irrigation management practices to improve efficiency. 

Such changes would have increased their ability to meet the irrigation needs of their landscapes 

within the revised allowable hours of irrigation. Those who cannot complete irrigation within the 

prescribed irrigation windows may still apply for a water shortage variance if it is beneficial for 

them to do so. 

The second threshold for requiring the preparation of a SERC – an increase in regulatory costs 

of more than $200,000 per year – was not exceeded. The total annual increase in regulatory 

costs, due primarily to increased utility customer drought messaging, drought management 

activity reporting and enforcement requirements is estimated to be approximately $127,000. 

The increase would have been approximately $33,000 higher but “small” utilities are now 

proposed to be exempted from several existing reporting requirements. Some of these small 

exempted utilities are likely to be small businesses. 

In addition to the two thresholds for determining whether a SERC must be prepared, there are 

three separate thresholds for determining whether the proposed rule must be approved by the 

Florida legislature. According to Subsection 120.541(2), 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 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 implementation of the rule. 

56




If any one of these thresholds is exceeded, legislative approval is required. The Office of Fiscal 

Accountability and Regulatory Reform suggests several benchmarks that can be estimated 

through the use of regional economic impact models to determine if these thresholds have been 

exceeded. In spite of some increases in regulatory and indirect costs associated with lawn and 

landscape irrigation restrictions, the very significant positive economic impact of the proposed 

deletion of the ban on pressure washing under Phase IV restrictions resulted in consistently net 

positive economic impacts across all benchmarks relative to the existing rule. These 

benchmarks include: personal income, employment, output (sales), indirect business taxes, total 

non-farm employment, wages and salaries and property income. More detailed results of the 

regional economic impact modeling are contained in Section 5.0 of this SERC. 

The proposed revisions are not anticipated to have an adverse impact on business 

competitiveness. Similar water shortage plan provisions exist in other states and are generally 

consistent with the provisions of the previously mentioned AWWA practices manual. The 

proposed revisions contain no provisions that would stifle productivity or innovation. 

As noted before, the total regulatory costs are estimated to be approximately $127,000 per year 

and therefore would not exceed $1,000,000 over 5 years. As none of the three thresholds are 

exceeded, legislative approval is not required. Descriptions of the proposed rule revisions and 

the associated regulatory costs associated with them are contained in Section 5.0 of this SERC. 

57




Denials Referred to the Governing Board 

Item 30 

District Rule 40D-1.6051, Florida Administrative Code, provides that if District staff intends to 

deny a permit application for incompleteness, the applicant will be advised of the opportunity to 

request referral to the Governing Board for final action. 

Under these circumstances, if an applicant or petitioner requests their application or petition be 

referred to the Governing Board for final action, that application or petition will appear under this 

agenda item for consideration. As these items will be presented at the request of an outside 

party, specific information may not be available until just prior to the Governing Board meeting. 


If any denials are requested to be referred to the Governing Board, these will be presented at 

the meeting. 

Presenter: Richard S. Owen, Interim Division Director, Regulation Division 

58




Permits with Five-Year Compliance Reports 

Item 31 

In the 2010 legislative session, Senate Bill 550 amended Ch. 373, Florida Statutes to, in part, 

change the reporting provisions for 20-year permits from a frequency of every 5 years to every 

10 years, as follows: 

Section 55. Subsection (4) of section 373.236, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 

373.236 Duration of permits; compliance reports.— 

(4) Where necessary to maintain reasonable assurance that the conditions for 

issuance of a 20-year permit can continue to be met, the governing board or 

department, in addition to any conditions required pursuant to s. 373.219, may 

require a compliance report by the permittee every 10 5 years during the term of a 

permit. 

To comply with this new legislation, the District identified all water use permits with compliance 

reporting requirements in order to appropriately modify these permits. Of these it was 

determined that five permits met the statutory directive. For one of these permits, the time 

period for reporting had already passed, so permit modification was not necessary. For the 

remaining four, the District offered the permittees the opportunity to modify permit conditions for 

consistency with the legislative changes. In addition, the District identified seven permits that 

had compliance reporting conditions that, although not expressly encompassed by the language 

of the statute, were considered similar. In keeping with the overall intent, the District opted to 

also offer these permittees the opportunity to modify the reporting conditions. 

Of the four permits expressly covered by the statutory directive, three were successfully 

modified to address their compliance reports. One remains outstanding as the permittee has 

not decided whether they desire to have their permit modified. Of the seven permits where the 

District also offered to modify the permit to adjust the compliance reporting condition, all have 

been completed. 



Presenter: Ken Weber, Program Director Water Use Permitting 

59




Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Update 

Item 32 

In October 2010 the Governing Board directed staff to accept all reasonable permit applications 

located within the Dover / Plant City area with proposed crop protection quantities received prior 

to the December Board and issue them in accordance with the rules in effect at the time. The 

Board also directed staff to report in October of 2011 on the crop protection quantities. 

The Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area rules went into effect June 16, 2011. The rules, 

which established a minimum aquifer level under 40D-8.626, F.A.C., and a recovery strategy for 

meeting the minimum level under 40D-80.075, F.A.C., set the objective of reducing groundwater 

withdrawals for crop protection by 20% over the next ten years. 

The table below reflects the permitted crop protection quantities within the Dover/Plant City 

Water Use Caution Area prior to the 2010 January freeze events and as of October 1 of this 

year. 

TOTAL PERMITTED CROP 

PROTECTION QUANTITIES 

(GALLONS PER DAY) 

TOTAL CROP PROTECTION 

QUANTITIES FROM GROUNDWATER 

(GALLONS PER DAY) 

As of October 1, 2009 1,056,938,380 832,264,680 

As of October 1, 2011 1,156,146,070 872,098,986 

Increase in quantities 99,207,690 39,834,306 

The increase in groundwater quantities is reflective of the Board’s direction concerning permit 

applications received prior to the December 2011 Governing Board meeting, staff’s efforts at 

identifying and permitting previously unpermitted groundwater use for crop protection within the 

water use caution area and adjustments to the Districtwide permitting model. Also of note is 

that 60 percent of the increase in crop protection quantities was met using surface water, 

primarily through tailwater recovery systems. 



Presenter: Alba E Más, Director, Tampa Regulation Department 

60

61 

Districtwide Major Utilities 

Monthly Water Use 

2010 through August 2011 

This report shows the annual average and monthly water production for major public supply permittees throughout the District, 

including Tampa Bay Water; the cities of Tampa, Plant City, Dunedin, Clearwater and Temple Terrace and Pasco County in the 

Tampa Bay area; the Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority and its member governments; the cities of Sarasota, 

Punta Gorda, Bradenton, Venice and the Englewood Water District in the southern region of the District; Polk County and the cities of 

Lakeland, Winter Haven, Haines City, Sebring and Auburndale in the "Heartland" area of the District; and The Villages, Marion, Citrus 

and Hernando counties, and On Top of the World communities in the northern District area. 

Data from 2000 through 2009 is available on the District’s website at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/index.php#reports/. 

The current data (previous year and current year to-date) will be included in the Governing Board packet on a quarterly basis 

(January, April, July and October).

62 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Tampa Bay Water .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

City of Tampa ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Other Tampa Bay Area Permits ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Peace River / Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority and Member Governments .......................................................................... 7 

Southern District ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

‘Heartland’ .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 

Northern District ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

63 

Calendar Year 2010 

Tampa Bay Water Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

Ground Water Surface Water 

Tampa Bay Water Enhanced Surface Water Project 

Consolidated SCHRWF BUDWF Tampa Hills. Int. US 301 Int. TBW Desal ESWP Total (1) TBC Middle Pool TBC Lower Pool Alafia River 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Jan 82.05 55.67 21.37 19.82 6.68 7.12 2.73 3.23 0.15 0.00 18.71 24.80 31.63 35.40 0.00 0.00 42.72 31.85 26.42 30.60 

Feb 78.28 62.30 21.16 19.44 6.63 5.90 2.89 3.19 0.15 0.00 19.23 19.38 31.26 29.13 0.00 0.00 45.73 45.68 26.92 7.64 

Mar 73.92 92.00 20.97 21.11 6.39 5.06 3.06 3.18 0.15 0.00 19.17 14.16 31.07 8.65 0.00 0.00 46.25 8.26 26.92 0.00 

Apr 69.71 84.82 20.92 23.22 6.11 6.59 3.06 1.17 0.15 0.00 18.35 6.64 33.95 34.90 0.00 0.00 47.17 11.27 27.01 1.01 

May 68.32 105.65 20.97 24.12 5.59 3.43 3.06 1.13 0.15 0.00 16.77 0.00 36.81 35.46 0.00 0.00 48.44 32.69 25.82 4.21 

Jun 71.67 103.38 21.19 21.87 5.51 3.74 2.75 1.23 0.15 0.00 15.15 0.00 35.89 33.83 0.00 0.00 46.76 29.42 23.50 6.27 

Jul 74.77 96.34 21.34 20.31 5.27 2.12 2.52 1.19 0.15 0.00 13.48 0.00 34.90 32.29 0.00 0.00 42.05 47.65 19.13 0.75 

Aug 78.03 96.24 21.21 18.64 4.74 0.13 2.47 2.64 0.00 0.00 12.76 0.00 33.47 32.38 0.02 0.25 35.45 30.07 15.68 0.03 

Sep 79.36 73.08 21.27 20.40 4.33 0.00 2.41 2.49 0.00 0.00 11.40 0.00 34.89 63.25 0.02 0.00 28.99 49.37 11.47 5.15 

Oct 79.66 74.25 21.21 23.13 3.91 0.66 2.24 1.14 0.00 0.00 9.46 0.00 38.43 75.24 0.02 0.00 28.43 16.54 9.96 9.68 

Nov 80.68 80.16 21.14 22.52 3.67 2.40 2.11 1.54 0.00 0.00 7.51 0.00 40.60 59.93 0.02 0.00 28.02 0.00 8.49 3.90 

Dec 85.49 99.82 21.18 19.54 3.35 3.25 1.93 1.14 0.00 0.00 5.34 0.00 40.98 51.04 0.02 0.00 25.09 0.00 5.80 0.27 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

1

64 


Tampa Bay Water Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

Ground Water Surface Water 

Tampa Bay Water Enhanced Surface Water Project 

Consolidated SCHRWF BUDWF Tampa Hills. Int. US 301 Int. TBW Desal ESWP Total (1) TBC Middle Pool TBC Lower Pool Alafia River 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Jan 86.82 71.29 20.94 17.02 4.94 4.80 1.75 1.14 0.00 0.00 4.07 9.87 42.61 54.66 0.02 0.00 23.49 12.97 3.76 6.68 

Feb 87.19 67.06 20.84 18.12 4.50 4.45 1.60 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 14.57 43.87 45.46 0.02 0.00 22.13 27.96 3.51 4.37 

Mar 85.54 72.59 20.84 21.11 4.31 5.61 1.42 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.54 12.17 47.22 48.11 0.02 0.00 22.38 11.19 3.75 2.76 

Apr 84.72 74.85 21.00 25.09 4.05 7.25 1.42 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 8.79 48.20 46.79 0.02 0.00 31.17 118.20 5.06 16.91 

May 83.77 94.49 21.48 29.88 4.19 7.41 1.42 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 49.43 50.03 0.02 0.00 28.39 0.01 4.70 0.00 

Jun 83.55 100.64 21.69 24.38 4.19 6.16 1.41 1.13 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 50.76 49.97 0.02 0.00 25.98 0.00 4.18 0.00 

Jul 82.25 81.08 21.47 17.75 4.43 5.97 1.41 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 52.24 49.73 0.02 0.00 23.45 17.91 4.54 5.02 

Aug 80.47 75.26 21.71 21.46 4.99 6.78 1.28 1.13 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 53.50 47.17 2.00 23.51 30.73 115.75 6.65 24.80 

WUP 

AAD: 90.00 24.10 6.00 85.00 17.51 

Annual 

Avg 

Note: Consolidated Permit - WUP 11771.001, Expiration Date=Jan. 25, 2021 

SCHRWF - South Central Hillsborough Regional Wellfield - WUP 4352.006, Expiration Date=Dec. 31, 2020 

BUDWF - Brandon Urban Dispersed Wellfield - WUP 11732.003, Expiration Date=Nov. 29, 2019 

TBC - Tampa Bypass Canal - WUP 11796.002, Expiration Date=Dec. 31, 2030 

Alafia River Project - WUP 11794.001, Expiration Date=Dec. 31, 2010 (Application In-House for .002) 

Monthly 

Avg 

ESWP - Enhanced Surface Water Project (Surface Water Delivered to the Regional TBW Water Treatment Plant) 

Annual 

Avg 

(1) - TBC Middle Pool, TBC Lower Pool, and Alafia River may not sum to ESWP (does not include reservoir-filling quantities) 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

2

65 


Hillsborough River SW Rome Avenue ASR GW * 

City of Tampa Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

Imports from TBW 

System 

Aug from TBC to 

Hillsbor. River 

Aug from SSP to 


Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. 

Jan 61.72 67.91 2.46 0.00 7.32 0.00 8.39 0.00 0.99 0.00 

Feb 63.58 65.90 1.98 0.00 5.53 0.00 6.84 0.00 0.86 0.00 

Mar 66.01 64.26 1.21 0.00 3.26 0.00 4.84 0.00 0.59 0.00 

Apr 68.77 65.78 0.52 0.00 1.45 0.00 3.14 0.00 0.33 0.00 

May 70.95 65.76 0.56 6.62 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.00 0.07 0.00 

Jun 70.00 67.03 1.12 6.76 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.00 0.07 0.00 

Jul 69.78 75.85 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aug 69.39 75.46 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sep 69.27 73.64 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Oct 69.63 78.14 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 16.10 0.00 0.00 

Nov 69.52 69.05 1.12 0.00 0.31 3.83 3.57 25.36 0.00 0.00 

Dec 68.20 49.43 1.12 0.00 1.89 18.54 5.26 21.24 0.00 0.00 

3

66 


Hillsborough River SW Rome Avenue ASR GW * 

City of Tampa Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

Imports from TBW 

System 

Aug from TBC to 


Aug from SSP to 



Jan 66.72 50.56 1.12 0.00 3.07 13.89 6.45 14.02 0.00 0.00 

Feb 66.70 65.60 1.12 0.00 3.22 1.99 6.50 0.76 0.00 0.00 

Mar 66.35 60.10 1.78 7.83 3.22 0.00 7.79 15.12 0.00 0.00 

Apr 66.78 71.00 1.78 0.00 3.22 0.00 7.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 

May 67.24 71.27 1.92 8.29 3.22 0.00 9.29 17.61 0.00 0.00 

Jun 67.47 69.80 1.95 7.09 3.46 2.96 11.07 21.74 0.00 0.00 

Jul 67.57 77.03 1.95 0.00 3.46 0.00 11.80 8.56 0.00 0.00 

Aug 67.81 78.24 1.95 0.00 3.46 0.00 11.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 

WUP 

AAD: 82.00 2.74 * 20.00 

Note: City of Tampa - WUP 2062.006, Expiration Date=Dec. 14, 2024 

ASR - Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ground water recovery from ASR wells) 

ASR storage volumes are subtracted from Hillsborough River Reservoir withdrawals to eliminate double accounting 

SSP - Sulphur Springs withdrawal 

* Injection/Withdrawal quantity based on FDEP permit (1-billion gallons in/1-billion gallons out per annual cycle) 

4

67 


Other Tampa Bay Area Permits Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

City of Plant City GW City of Dunedin GW City of Clearwater GW 

Pasco County Utilities 

GW 

City of Temple Terrace 

GW 


Jan 4.90 4.38 4.44 4.10 4.24 4.86 3.76 3.44 3.40 2.77 

Feb 4.81 4.14 4.52 5.54 4.31 4.28 3.79 4.46 3.36 3.17 

Mar 4.71 4.44 4.46 4.22 4.23 4.00 3.75 3.09 3.25 2.51 

Apr 4.66 4.99 4.43 4.16 4.29 4.17 3.72 3.88 3.24 3.55 

May 4.51 3.37 4.43 4.58 4.26 4.20 3.73 4.45 3.25 3.73 

Jun 4.70 7.39 4.43 4.61 4.21 4.22 3.70 3.99 3.26 3.69 

Jul 4.70 4.78 4.42 4.26 4.22 4.33 3.76 3.95 3.30 3.49 

Aug 4.71 4.54 4.39 4.17 4.23 3.58 3.74 3.52 3.36 3.44 

Sep 4.76 4.84 4.37 4.14 4.09 3.08 3.80 4.21 3.40 4.10 

Oct 4.79 5.44 4.39 4.59 4.29 6.14 3.93 5.16 3.45 3.90 

Nov 4.80 4.97 4.40 4.40 4.35 4.71 4.11 4.85 3.44 3.73 

Dec 4.82 4.60 4.39 3.98 4.40 5.23 4.08 4.01 3.48 3.63 

5

68 


Other Tampa Bay Area Permits Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

City of Plant City GW City of Dunedin GW City of Clearwater GW 

Pasco County Utilities 

GW 

City of Temple Terrace 

GW 


Jan 4.81 4.26 4.39 4.14 4.40 4.77 4.09 3.50 3.53 3.38 

Feb 4.84 4.48 4.31 4.53 4.39 4.26 4.02 3.66 3.56 3.54 

Mar 4.89 5.04 4.34 4.59 4.47 4.87 4.12 4.18 3.66 3.73 

Apr 4.93 5.43 4.37 4.51 4.55 5.15 4.12 3.97 3.69 3.93 

May 5.15 6.00 4.38 4.62 4.55 4.19 4.09 4.08 3.74 4.34 

Jun 5.02 5.80 4.37 4.56 4.65 5.42 4.16 4.86 3.76 3.95 

Jul 5.03 4.89 4.01 0.00 4.57 3.41 4.20 4.34 3.74 3.25 

Aug 5.04 4.71 4.31 7.73 4.53 3.11 4.31 4.81 3.75 3.52 

WUP 

AAD: 9.85 6.62 6.25 6.29 5.15 

Note: City of Plant City - WUP 1776.010, Expiration Date=Jan. 28, 2013 

City of Dunedin - WUP 2980.009, Expiration Date=Feb. 27, 2017 

City of Clearwater - WUP 2981.016, Expiration Date=Dec. 16, 2010 (Application In-House for .017) 

Pasco County Utilities - WUP 11863, Expiration Date=Apr. 9, 2020 

City of Temple Terrace - WUP 450.009, Expiration Date=Oct. 28, 2018 

6

69 


Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority and Member 

Governments Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

PRMRWSA SW PRMRWSA ASR GW Charlotte Co. GW DeSoto Co. GW Sarasota Co. GW Manatee Co. SW Manatee Co. GW 

Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. 

Jan 30.25 30.80 2.91 1.24 0.54 0.61 0.45 0.45 8.31 3.23 23.02 23.28 16.52 12.05 

Feb 33.67 58.13 2.89 2.81 0.53 0.61 0.44 0.29 7.60 2.49 22.89 22.98 15.97 6.34 

Mar 34.96 15.32 1.94 2.96 0.52 0.56 0.43 0.37 6.75 2.82 22.41 22.75 15.75 14.68 

Apr 36.06 13.38 1.24 2.76 0.51 0.55 0.43 0.46 5.72 2.64 22.47 24.20 15.43 15.70 

May 35.69 0.00 0.80 0.03 0.51 0.51 0.44 0.50 4.62 3.76 22.73 26.36 15.21 15.02 

Jun 34.05 0.00 0.86 0.64 0.52 0.54 0.44 0.47 4.07 3.32 23.06 24.13 15.34 16.77 

Jul 34.14 47.95 0.85 0.00 0.52 0.42 0.44 0.46 3.79 1.98 23.41 22.84 14.81 12.75 

Aug 32.37 46.24 0.85 0.00 0.52 0.42 0.44 0.54 3.35 1.75 22.95 17.81 14.66 15.88 

Sep 27.48 31.10 0.85 0.00 0.52 0.51 0.45 0.55 2.95 1.25 22.24 19.47 14.82 17.46 

Oct 25.55 9.73 0.85 0.00 0.53 0.54 0.45 0.52 2.45 1.28 22.59 29.01 15.01 17.37 

Nov 25.74 4.08 0.85 0.00 0.53 0.56 0.45 0.36 2.34 1.24 22.82 26.17 15.21 17.38 

Dec 21.53 4.00 0.85 0.00 0.53 0.52 0.45 0.42 2.37 2.63 23.43 22.19 14.65 13.93 

7

70 


Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority and Member 

Governments Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

PRMRWSA SW PRMRWSA ASR GW Charlotte Co. GW DeSoto Co. GW Sarasota Co. GW Manatee Co. SW Manatee Co. GW 


Jan 20.18 14.91 1.21 5.39 0.53 0.58 0.45 0.46 2.34 2.86 23.22 20.74 14.89 14.82 

Feb 16.76 13.51 1.45 5.99 0.53 0.64 0.46 0.47 2.47 4.19 23.30 24.02 15.33 12.11 

Mar 15.69 2.68 1.70 5.83 0.52 0.50 0.47 0.39 2.51 3.33 23.80 28.64 14.68 7.04 

Apr 17.68 37.54 1.55 0.95 0.53 0.62 0.46 0.37 2.62 4.03 23.94 25.86 14.46 13.02 

May 17.76 1.02 1.54 0.00 0.54 0.59 0.46 0.46 2.56 3.05 24.00 27.14 14.39 14.20 

Jun 17.76 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.54 0.55 0.45 0.44 2.49 2.46 24.26 27.29 14.34 16.10 

Jul 20.08 75.20 1.49 0.00 0.54 0.51 0.45 0.44 2.50 2.10 24.01 19.91 14.55 15.28 

Aug 23.37 85.05 1.49 0.00 0.55 0.47 0.44 0.42 2.60 2.94 24.09 18.75 14.46 14.80 

WUP 

AAD: 32.70* 3.17 0.57 13.74 34.90 17.95 

Note: PRMRWSA - Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority - WUP 10420.006, Expiration Date=Mar. 26, 2016 

Manatee County is a Member of the PRMRWSA, however, no withdrawal quantities are transferred to Manatee County 

The data contained in this table for PRMRWSA represents the quantity of raw water being withdrawan from the river. 

* This quantity is not limited by the annual average but by a diversion schedule and maximum daily withdrawal 

Charlotte County Utilities - WUP 3522.010, Expiration Date=Sep. 26, 2012 

DeSoto County Utilities - WUP 6841.010, Expiration Date=Nov. 18, 2014; WUP 7056.004, Expiration Date=Aug. 6, 2011 (Application In-House for .006) 

Sarasota County Utilities - WUP 8836.010, Expiration Date=Sep.29, 2018 

Manatee County Utilities - SW - WUP 5387.007, Expiration Date=Sep. 29, 2018 

GW - WUP 7345.005, Expiration Date=Dec. 18, 2017; WUP 7470.006, Expiration Date=Aug. 28, 2011 

8

71 


Southern District Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

City of Sarasota GW City of Punta Gorda SW City of Bradenton GW City of Bradenton SW City of Venice GW 

Englewood Water 

District GW 

Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. 

Jan 7.95 6.94 4.68 6.70 0.00 0.00 5.31 5.08 4.01 4.41 2.78 2.99 

Feb 7.87 7.58 4.63 4.04 0.00 0.01 5.28 4.84 3.93 3.88 2.77 3.77 

Mar 7.74 7.40 4.60 4.75 0.00 0.00 5.29 5.39 3.89 4.63 2.64 3.05 

Apr 7.74 8.79 4.58 4.43 0.00 0.01 5.37 6.03 3.86 4.18 2.55 3.25 

May 7.75 8.62 4.66 3.85 0.00 0.01 5.45 5.84 3.80 3.23 2.59 3.31 

Jun 7.77 8.12 4.72 4.48 0.01 0.01 5.47 5.52 3.85 4.11 2.58 2.17 

Jul 7.82 7.89 4.60 3.38 0.01 0.00 5.43 4.91 3.83 3.48 2.56 1.83 

Aug 7.81 7.89 4.54 4.50 0.01 0.01 5.37 4.85 3.85 3.58 2.58 2.20 

Sep 7.81 7.78 4.60 5.80 0.01 0.01 5.33 4.94 3.85 3.34 2.61 2.07 

Oct 7.85 8.39 4.77 6.45 0.01 0.00 5.29 5.29 3.85 3.48 2.67 2.71 

Nov 7.85 7.82 4.84 5.55 0.01 0.00 5.26 5.35 3.88 4.32 2.70 3.17 

Dec 8.24 11.64 4.82 3.84 0.01 0.01 5.30 5.50 3.87 3.76 2.79 3.01 

9

72 


Southern District Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

City of Sarasota GW City of Punta Gorda SW City of Bradenton GW City of Bradenton SW City of Venice GW 

Englewood Water 

District GW 


Jan 8.27 7.22 4.63 4.44 0.01 0.00 5.27 4.80 3.86 4.35 2.81 3.27 

Feb 8.29 7.94 4.67 4.61 0.01 0.01 5.27 4.76 3.91 4.57 2.79 3.54 

Mar 8.38 8.40 4.68 4.83 0.01 0.00 5.23 5.00 3.87 4.14 2.89 4.15 

Apr 8.34 8.26 4.73 5.14 0.01 0.00 5.14 4.93 3.91 4.62 3.01 4.72 

May 8.31 8.36 4.80 4.65 0.01 0.00 5.08 5.07 3.97 3.94 3.04 3.69 

Jun 8.33 8.35 4.71 3.41 0.01 0.01 5.08 5.59 3.96 4.00 3.34 5.87 

Jul 8.26 6.99 4.70 3.26 0.01 0.01 5.09 4.98 3.95 3.41 3.57 4.48 

Aug 8.23 7.57 4.62 3.55 0.01 0.01 5.13 5.35 3.98 3.86 3.56 2.04 

WUP 

AAD: 12.04 8.09 0.23 6.95 6.86 5.36 

Note: City of Sarasota - WUP 4318.004, Expiration Date=Jun. 24, 2013; WUP 10224.003, Expiration Date=Nov. 10, 2020; WUP 10225.002, Expiration Date=Jan. 8, 2018 

City of Punta Gorda - WUP 871.008, Expiration Date=Jul. 31, 2027 

City of Bradenton - WUP 6392.004, Expiration Date=Apr. 28, 2018 

City of Venice - WUP 5393.008, Expiration Date=Dec. 16, 2028 

Englewood Water District - WUP 4866.009, Expiration Date=Dec. 18, 2019 

10

73 


City of Lakeland GW 

'Heartland' Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

City of Winter Haven 

GW Polk Co. GW City of Haines City GW City of Sebring GW City of Auburndale GW 


Jan 21.18 18.97 9.47 8.38 13.42 10.63 3.68 3.19 2.55 3.37 4.28 3.35 

Feb 20.82 17.71 9.35 7.77 13.24 10.88 3.64 3.14 2.59 3.24 4.22 3.71 

Mar 20.23 17.81 9.14 7.99 12.97 11.79 3.56 3.19 2.63 3.30 4.16 4.07 

Apr 19.88 19.64 9.06 9.34 13.09 16.17 3.52 3.63 2.68 3.26 4.16 4.95 

May 19.75 20.70 9.07 10.01 13.25 14.86 3.51 3.95 2.75 3.36 4.24 5.66 

Jun 19.73 20.61 9.06 9.27 13.33 13.86 3.51 3.63 2.81 3.18 4.31 5.36 

Jul 19.72 19.68 9.07 9.63 13.39 12.94 3.52 3.65 2.89 3.03 4.40 5.24 

Aug 19.78 20.23 9.08 9.15 13.26 12.97 3.55 3.73 2.95 2.82 4.47 4.94 

Sep 19.93 21.36 9.11 9.45 13.41 14.34 3.57 3.66 3.02 3.07 4.51 4.91 

Oct 20.10 23.72 9.15 10.75 13.40 14.81 3.59 4.14 3.09 3.47 4.54 5.33 

Nov 20.01 20.83 9.15 9.72 13.21 13.26 3.59 3.91 3.18 3.77 4.64 4.97 

Dec 20.21 21.03 9.18 8.57 13.19 11.74 3.62 3.59 3.26 3.20 4.76 4.58 

11

74 


City of Lakeland GW 

'Heartland' Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

City of Winter Haven 

GW Polk Co. GW City of Haines City GW City of Sebring GW City of Auburndale GW 


Jan 20.25 18.60 9.05 6.85 13.20 10.73 3.62 3.23 3.26 3.40 4.83 4.20 

Feb 20.55 21.64 8.98 6.92 13.25 11.51 3.65 3.52 3.27 3.45 4.89 4.46 

Mar 21.00 23.04 8.95 7.65 13.66 16.58 3.69 3.64 3.29 3.54 4.96 4.94 

Apr 21.52 25.93 8.92 8.93 13.56 14.94 3.71 3.86 3.31 3.42 5.01 5.45 

May 21.92 25.43 8.97 10.61 13.49 14.09 3.72 4.08 3.33 3.60 5.06 6.27 

Jun 22.28 25.00 9.06 10.38 13.68 16.13 3.76 4.14 3.33 3.23 5.06 5.34 

Jul 22.38 20.91 9.04 9.38 13.55 11.39 3.80 4.03 3.33 3.03 5.00 4.64 

Aug 22.38 20.17 8.95 8.12 13.41 11.41 3.73 2.98 3.35 3.02 4.91 3.87 

WUP 

AAD: 35.03 14.06 27.71 5.71 5.71 7.04 

Note: City of Lakeland - WUP 4912.006, Expiration Date=Mar. 25, 2014 

City of Winter Haven - WUP 4607.014, Expiration Date=Apr. 19, 2016 

Polk County BOCC - WUP 6505.011, Expiration Date=Oct. 30, 2011; WUP 6506.007, Expiration Date=Mar. 26, 2012; WUP 6507.008, Expiration Date=Jul. 31, 2012; 

WUP 6508.009, Expiration Date=Sep. 27, 2011; WUP 6509.012, Expiration Date=Jul. 31, 2027; WUP 8054.005, Expiration Date=Jan. 29, 2012 

City of Haines City - WUP 8522.008, Expiration Date=Mar. 28, 2010 (Application In-House for .009) 

City of Sebring - WUP 4492.012, Expiration Date=Mar. 5, 2030 

City of Auburndale - WUP 7119.009, Expiration Date=Feb. 26, 2014 

12

75 


Northern District Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

The Villages SW The Villages GW The Villages Reclaim Marion Co. Util. Dept. 

Citrus Co. 

Water Res./Util./Withla. Hernando Co. Util. Dept. 

On Top of the World 

Communities 


Jan 2.73 3.52 11.34 7.01 2.19 2.39 5.76 7.04 8.66 6.61 18.65 15.60 3.10 1.77 

Feb 2.86 2.65 10.91 6.67 2.11 1.59 5.80 4.67 8.50 5.91 18.33 14.40 3.02 1.65 

Mar 3.21 4.34 10.11 6.96 2.05 1.84 5.71 4.93 8.20 6.60 17.81 15.93 2.88 1.89 

Apr 3.74 7.34 9.76 10.50 2.05 2.36 5.78 6.97 8.14 9.51 17.65 19.96 2.88 3.72 

May 3.90 3.36 10.13 17.46 2.09 2.09 5.73 6.47 8.29 10.82 17.95 21.82 2.94 3.89 

Jun 3.97 4.73 10.88 17.15 2.09 2.07 5.80 7.11 8.39 10.65 17.96 20.15 2.99 4.11 

Jul 4.00 5.29 11.47 14.54 2.09 2.01 5.90 6.68 8.57 10.13 18.13 19.30 3.08 4.00 

Aug 4.00 3.78 11.83 11.78 2.10 2.27 5.93 5.42 8.49 7.98 17.96 16.70 3.05 3.13 

Sep 4.08 7.30 12.05 11.19 2.11 2.07 6.09 7.48 8.63 10.10 18.05 18.83 3.14 4.13 

Oct 4.14 2.63 12.43 20.84 2.12 2.10 6.14 6.82 8.78 11.41 18.21 21.33 3.20 4.43 

Nov 4.26 1.73 12.49 17.43 2.13 2.34 6.15 6.03 8.84 9.21 18.27 19.42 3.21 3.33 

Dec 3.93 0.53 13.09 15.07 2.13 2.37 6.18 4.51 8.97 8.57 18.39 16.93 3.21 2.33 

13

76 


Northern District Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

The Villages SW The Villages GW The Villages Reclaim Marion Co. Util. Dept. 

Citrus Co. 

Water Res./Util./Withla. Hernando Co. Util. Dept. 

On Top of the World 

Communities 


Jan 3.81 2.07 13.25 8.92 2.15 2.70 5.92 3.93 9.10 7.24 18.33 14.99 3.22 1.89 

Feb 4.03 5.53 13.46 9.32 2.22 2.39 5.92 4.67 9.26 8.10 18.48 16.37 3.27 2.40 

Mar 3.83 2.02 14.16 15.25 2.30 2.82 6.00 5.93 9.59 10.38 18.73 18.87 3.36 2.87 

Apr 3.91 8.30 14.32 12.49 2.30 2.38 6.00 6.97 9.73 11.34 18.79 20.60 3.35 3.66 

May 3.86 2.73 14.99 25.29 2.31 2.26 6.04 6.96 9.95 13.39 18.96 23.82 3.41 4.60 

Jun 3.69 2.68 15.39 21.98 2.33 2.29 6.13 8.09 10.07 12.20 19.21 23.30 3.43 4.39 

Jul 3.79 6.49 15.11 11.25 2.37 2.46 6.03 5.50 9.98 9.06 19.25 19.68 3.36 3.14 

Aug 4.09 7.31 15.02 10.78 2.36 2.19 5.96 4.68 10.29 11.81 19.31 17.41 3.37 3.20 

WUP 

AAD: 23.06 9.70 12.14 28.67 5.82 

Note: The Villages - WUP 13005.003, Expiration Date=Mar. 26, 2017 

Marion County Utilties Dept. - WUP 377.008, Expiration Date=Sep. 25, 2013; WUP 2999.004, Expiration Date=Jan. 14, 2015; WUP 6151.009, Expiration Date=Sep. 7, 2021; 

WUP 6884.002, Expiration Date=Aug. 2, 2020; WUP 7849.004, Expiration Date=Mar. 5, 2017; WUP 8165.005, Expiration Date=Sep. 18, 2014; 

WUP 8481.005, Expiration Date=Mar. 31, 2019; WUP 11752.001, Expiration Date=Jun. 12, 2018; WUP 12218.001, Expiration Date=Jun. 25, 2012 

Citrus County Water Resources Dept./Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Auth. - WUP 729.003, Expiration Date=May 21, 2014; WUP 2842.008, Expiration Date= 

May 20, 2015; WUP 7121.005, Expiration Date=Jan. 27, 2010 (Application In-House for .006); WUP 7879.003, Expiration Date=Dec. 6, 2017; WUP 9791.007, 

Expiration Date=Feb. 24, 2015 (Application In-House for .008) 

Hernando County Utilities Dept. - WUP 2179.003, Expiration Date=June 11, 2019; WUP 2983.010, Expiration Date=Jun. 29, 2010 (Application In-House for .011); 

WUP 5789.004, Expiration Date=Jan. 26, 2015; WUP 12011.001, Expiration Date=Sep. 2, 2014 

On Top of the World Communities - WUP 1156.011, Expiration Date=Mar. 20, 2011 (Application In-House for .012) 

14

77 

�� 

�� 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA 

TOTAL AND FLORIDAN AQUIFER PERMITTED 

ANNUAL AVERAGE QUANTITIES AND 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE 

GROUNDWATER QUANTITIES USED 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Year 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

�� 

�� 

78 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

79

�� 

�� 

80 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

81 

PERMIT 

Well Construction Permits 

Public on-line use for applications and 

completion report submission 

Water Use Permits 

Public on-line use for applications 


Public on-line use for applications 

E-Permitting Performance Metrics 

October 2011 

AUGUST 

2011 

91% 

(590) 

38% 

(45) 

15% 

(34) 

SEPTEMBER 

2011 

89% 

(517) 

27% 

(31) 

12% 

(25) 

SIX MONTH 

AVERAGE 

89% 

(3,717) 

29% 

(204) 

13% 

(168) 

ONE YEAR 

AVERAGE 

89% 

(7,031) 

28% 

(372) 

10% 

(247) 

GOAL: Reach online utilization of 80% for each category by October 1, 2013. This will be based 

on the annual average.

82 

PERMIT 

NUMBER 

43001220.011 

43026736.007 

43026736.008 

PROJECT 

NAME 

Hillsborough Co. – 

Lake Meade Water 

Quality Improvements 

– Lake June Water 

Quality Improvements 

Epperson Ranch 

Phase 5 Construction 

Plan 

Epperson Ranch 

Phase 6 Construction 

Plan 

INDIVIDUAL PERMITS ISSUED: ERPS 

COUNTY DESCRIPTION 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

ACRES 

WETLAND 

ACRES 

WETLAND 

ACRES 

IMPACTED 

WETLAND 

MITIGATION 

ACRES 

Hillsborough Drainage System 7.57 1.45 1.45 0.00 

Pasco 

Pasco 

Construction of a new surface 

water management system to 

serve a 446.53-acre future 

residential development 

Construction of a new surface 

water management system to 

serve a 396.64-acre future 

residential development 

446.53 156.03 4.87 5.88 

396.64 203.92 3.07 0.00 

Wetland Mitigation Acres may be zero or less than Wetland Acres Impacted for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons 

are: impacted wetlands require no mitigation by rule (e.g., upland cut manmade ditches, etc.); quality of the impacted wetlands 

is less than the quality of proposed mitigation; or mitigation is provided through a different permit or a mitigation bank.

83 

PERMIT 

NUMBER 

20010420.000 

20002715.017 

20020141.000 

20006151.009 

PERMITTEE NAME / 

PROJECT NAME 

Peace River 

Manasota Regional 

Water Supply 

Authority 

Mosaic – Agricultural 

WUP 

Hillsborough County / 

Wholesale Permit 

Marion Co. Utilities 

Dept. / SR 200 

Corridor, Dunnellon 

Airport JB Ranch & 

Spruce Creek 

Preserve Areas 

INDIVIDUAL PERMITS ISSUED: WUPS 

COUNTY DESCRIPTION USE TYPE 

DeSoto 

Hardee, 

Polk 

Hillsborough 

Marion 

Individual Public Supply 

Modification 

Individual Renewal 

Request for a new wholesale 

water use permit 

Renewal of an existing 

permit with the combination 

of WUP Nos. 20006151.008 

and 20012218.001 for public 

supply 

PREVIOUS 

PERMITTED 

QUANTITY 

NEW 

PERMITTED 

QUANTITY 

DURATION 

(YEARS) 

Public Supply 32,855,000 37,855,000 5 

Recreation / 

Aesthetic, 

Agricultural 

5,768,900 5,096,800 10 

Public Supply N/A N/A 10 

Public Supply 3,774,925 3,262,600 10




Item 38 

Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives Report 

This report provides information regarding significant activities within the Resource Regulation 

Division. Recent activity within each of the District's major permitting programs is provided, 

followed by information regarding other significant activities. 

� Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) (FKA Central Florida Coordination Area Rules 

Development and Implementation [CFCA]) – The District continues to coordinate with the 

St. John's River and South Florida Water Management Districts on the assessment of 

groundwater sustainability and development of water supply solutions, including regulations, 

for the Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA). The initiative, now known as the Central 

Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) to reflect the emphasis of stakeholder involvement, is focused 

on a single model solution, creating a definition of environmental impact/harm, agreement on 

the baseline reference condition and a basis of review for all technical decisions. Once these 

milestones are achieved, the emphasis will shift back to determining groundwater availability 

and the potential necessity of alternative water supplies to meet the regional water supply 

demand. The web site for the initiative has been transitioned to CFWIwater.com and will be 

managed by the St John’s River Water Management Districts’ staff; the web site contains all 

historical documents associated with the CFCA effort as well as current documents and 

schedules for the new initiative. A decision-making process featuring a Technical Working 

Group reporting to an Executive Steering Committee has been established. The Technical 

Working Group is supported by five technical teams working collaboratively on hydrologic, 

environmental and data assessment issues. At the July 8 Steering Committee meeting a 

presentation was received on water supply demand projections for the region and the addition 

of another technical group to create a common methodology for demand projections was 

discussed. The group also heard presentations on issues effecting state Sunshine Rules and 

how the Steering Committee needs to proceed to be in compliance. The Legal Technical 

Group presented their findings on the consumptive use permitting, alternative water supply 

(AWS) compliance dates; indicating the permits with AWS conditions could be modified with a 

letter of revision. The Steering Committee also indicated staff should begin planning for an 

open public meeting in the fall. The CFWI Technical Oversight Team met on August 9 to 

prepare and discuss items to be consideration by the Steering Committee at their August 25 

meeting. Major items in the Oversight Team meeting were a final draft of the CFWI scope of 

work document was finished and includes the addition of completion dates for key 

components of the scope of work, and draft language for key components of the Groundwater 

Availability Team effort. The document will be sent to Steering Group members prior to their 

August 25 meeting for final acceptance. The concept of a “baseline” condition for the CFWI 

effort was discussed. It was determined that the Technical Oversight Team will be 

responsible for development of this concept/issue with respect to the various CFWI team 

efforts, and will present findings and recommendations to the Steering Group. The Legal 

subgroup has completed their recommendation regarding the application of the Sunshine Law 

to the CFWI effort and will be presenting options to the Steering Committee in September. 

The Technical Oversight subgroup has initiated their efforts on establishing a "Reference 

Condition" which will serve as the baseline environmental conditions which will all alternative 

proposals will be compared against. New activities since last meeting: The Steering 

Committee met on September 30 th . As well as receiving updates from the Technical Working 

Groups, the Steering Committee accepted recommendations to simplify the group’s operating 

procedures by having FDEP serve as the CFWI Steering Committee “Coordinator” and the 

project contract facilitator will take meeting notes and the FDEP will be the official keeper of 

the meeting notes. The Steering Committee also discussed the project schedule indicating all 

technical work completed by December 31, 2012 and rulemaking completed by December 31, 

2013. The Steering Committee reiterated the need to meet CFWI completion dates and to 

84

Item 38 

accelerate task completion dates wherever possible and FDEP stated maintaining the 

schedule is their highest priority. All project documents and presentations are available at on 

www.cfwiwater.com 

� Reclaimed Water Policy Workgroup Reclaimed Water Policy Workgroup – During the 

2008 legislative session, a number of reuse issues prompted proposed legislation. The 

proposals raised several areas of concern regarding the respective roles of local 

governments, utilities and the water management districts related to reclaimed water. In lieu 

of legislation, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) agreed to review 

emerging reclaimed water issues, particularly those related to the regulation of reuse under 

the consumptive use permitting program. Since that time, representatives of the five water 

management districts, local governments, utilities and DEP have formed a Reclaimed Water 

Policy Workgroup that meets approximately monthly to discuss impediments, conflicts and 

concerns, and to develop incentives, policy clarifications and legislation regarding local 

government, utilities and water management district programs to optimize the use reclaimed 

water. The Workgroup has drafted legislation that has been enacted and has other proposals 

that may become bills. Additionally, the Workgroup has developed solutions that reclaimed 

water providers and water management districts can use in continuing collaborative efforts to 

increase the use of reclaimed water in lieu of other higher quality water supplies. New 

activities since last meeting: A Workgroup meeting was held on September 29, 2011 at 

the Toho Water Authority offices in Kissimmee. The attendees included FDEP, Office of 

Water Policy, SFWMD, SJRWMD, SWFWMD, utilities from across the state, and other 

interested parties such as water attorneys. The primary topics of discussion included utility 

comments to FDEP’s Draft Reuse Feasibility Guidelines, and the Draft Reclaimed Water 

Availability Documentation language (373.25093 (c) (d) F.S.) which specifies the information a 

WUP/CUP applicant must request from their local reclaimed water utility. The discussions 

centered on statewide consistency and avoidance of duplication of efforts. The SFWMD will 

take the lead on adoption of the Reclaimed Water Availability Documentation rule language 

(scheduled for Nov. 1 st ); however the FDEP Reuse Feasibility Guideline adoption is on a 

longer schedule (2013 at earliest). Utilities and other interested parties are requested to send 

the SFWMD comments on the Draft 373 language by October 18, 2011, and discussions on 

the Draft Reuse Feasibility Guidelines will continue at the next meeting on November 18, 

2011. 

� Establishment of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Nutrients – Under the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) Section 303, states are required to establish water quality standards, which 

define the amounts of pollutants (in either numeric or narrative form) that waters can contain 

without impairment of their designated beneficial uses. Florida currently uses a narrative 

nutrient standard to guide the management and protection of its waters. In July 2008, the 

Florida Wildlife Federation and other environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in an attempt to compel the prompt adoption of numeric nutrient criteria in 

Florida. EPA signed a consent decree (subsequently revised) which obligates them to adopt 

final numeric nutrient standards for Florida’s fresh water lakes and streams by November 

2010, and estuaries and coastal systems by August 2012. EPA published draft fresh water 

numeric nutrient criteria in the Federal Register on January 26, 2010. District staff submitted 

formal written comments to EPA on April 26, 2010. District comments have also been posted 

on the District’s website. EPA received over 22,000 comments on the proposed rule. The 

final rule for lakes and flowing waters was published in the Federal Register on December 6, 

2010. The rule takes effect 15 months after publication except for the Site-Specific Alternative 

Criteria (SSAC) provision, which was effective starting March 2011. EPA held several 

meetings of their Science Advisory Board (SAB) to discuss its draft report on the development 

of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, and southern canals. 

Due to extensive public concerns regarding the cost of implementation, EPA agreed to task 

the National Academy of Sciences with an independent review of the estimated cost of 

compliance with the new water quality standards. The committee will issue their final report in 

late February 2012. On April 22, 2011, the FDEP filed a petition requesting the EPA withdraw 

its January 2009 determination that numeric criteria are necessary in Florida and restore to 

the state its responsibility for the control of excess nutrients. In a June 13, 2011 response, 

85

Item 38 

EPA did not grant or deny the petition. EPA noted they will repeal the existing federally 

promulgated freshwater numeric criteria if FDEP adopts and EPA approves of protective 

criteria. EPA also noted they will not propose or promulgate criteria for any as yet 

unaddressed waters (estuarine, coastal, south Florida canals) if FDEP adopts legally effective 

criteria under Florida law. EPA stated they would seek an extension to the deadlines in the 

consent decree so that Florida can continue to focus on completing its own rulemaking 

provided FDEP has made substantial progress toward adoption of approvable standards. As 

a result of the EPA response, FDEP is pursuing rule development of criteria for fresh water 

lakes, springs and streams. In June, July and August 2011, FDEP held public meetings on 

potential revisions to Chapters 62-302 and 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, regarding 

nutrient standards. The existing narrative criteria would continue to apply to all water bodies; 

however numeric interpretations would be applied based on the scientific information 

available. The narrative will be implemented using a systematic structure that numerically 

interprets the narrative nutrient criteria for each water body in a hierarchical manner giving 

preference to site specific analyses. FDEP intends to submit rule language for Environmental 

Regulation Commission adoption in January 2012 and legislative ratification in the 2012 

session. FDEP has also scheduled a public workshop to address estuary-specific nutrient 

standards for the following estuarine areas: Southwest Florida (Clearwater Harbor, Tampa 

Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor), the Ten Thousand Islands area, and South Florida 

(Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay, and the Florida Keys) on October 4, 2011 in Naples. 

� Watershed Model Review and Maintenance – This is an information item regarding 

Resource Regulation’s role in an inter-divisional initiative to enhance and support the District’s 

Watershed Management Program and associated Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Map Modernization, including the District’s role in the FEMA process. Resource 

Regulation is providing assistance to the Resource Projects Division in several ways, 

including the review of watershed models prior to submittal to FEMA, the maintenance of the 

GIS Geodatabase which will be the platform for future watershed models, and maintenance of 

final watershed models. Six full time engineering positions were transferred from Resource 

Regulation to Resource Projects in February 2011 to assist in this initiative. The number of 

transferred positions was determined using the District’s Resource Regulation Staffing Model. 

For the remainder of this year, Resource Regulation staff will continue to support the 

watershed initiative by continuing to review assigned watershed studies. New Activities 

since last meeting: Currently, 82 watersheds are listed (67 completed, 9 assigned, 3 in 

review, 1 to be assigned and 2 reviews that have been suspended). 

� Conserve Florida Statewide Public Supply Water Conservation Initiative – Conserve 

Florida is the name of the collaborative effort to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 373.227, 

Florida Statutes to develop comprehensive water conservation program for public suppliers 

that provides them with utility-specific options. Tampa Regulation (Demand Management), 

Strategic Program Office (Water Use Permitting), and Office of the General Counsel staffs 

have been involved in this initiative since its inception because there are many potential 

regulatory implications. Executive and Resource Projects (Conservation and Utility Outreach) 

staffs have also been involved, as appropriate. The main product of this initiative to date is 

two versions of a tool for utilities to use when developing or updating their water conservation 

plans; one version is a web-based computer application called “The Guide” and the other is a 

spreadsheet referred to as “EZ Guide” (both versions identify recommended and optional 

elements to include in a water conservation plan based on the utility's size, mix of customers, 

existing efforts, etc). The workgroup also helps Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) staff provide oversight of the Conserve Florida Clearinghouse (currently 

hosted by the University of Florida (UF), under contract from DEP, to provide technical 

support for both versions of the water conservation planning guide, an on-line water 

conservation library, and other core services). The District's financial contribution to the 

Clearinghouse in Fiscal Year 2011 is $75,000. Conserve Florida is in the process of 

transitioning from an informal collaborative effort to a more deliberate organizational 

structure. While the restructuring is in progress, the Clearinghouse is continuing to follow its 

FY2011 scope of work, including two items of interest to the District: (1) identification of 

Hillsborough County Water Resource Services as a case study participant to work on how to 

86

Item 38 

use the EZ Guide as part of a Water Use Permitting application process and (2) improvements 

to the storage capacity and user interface features of the on-line water conservation library. 

FDEP has organized the Conserve Florida Steering Committee (part of the more deliberate 

organization structure to be used, from this point forward), which held its first teleconference 

on April 11, 2011 to discuss the draft scope of work and associated budget for the next 

contract period with UF. The Steering Committee recently used an ad-hoc team from its 

Technical Advisory Group (including two District staff members) to develop a two-year budget 

and associated scope of work for July 2011 – June 2013 which were both incorporated into 

DEP’s new two-year contract with UF. This budget uses only current-year funds ($325,000 

total), and the scope focuses those funds on keeping basic Clearinghouse services available 

while also making targeted fixes and adding priority functions to the EZ Guide so that more 

public suppliers will use it for permitting, compliance and supply planning processes. New 

activities since last meeting: Four public suppliers responsible for a total of ten water use 

permits have been invited to a hands-on workshop regarding the EZ Guide that will be held on 

October 26. This workshop will be taught by UF staff and each utility participant will leave with 

a pre-populated spreadsheet for one of their service areas to continue refining the water 

conservation plan it will help them develop. 

� Water Shortage Plan – Rulemaking Update – Please refer to the Discussion portion of the 

Regulation Committee’s Agenda for details this month. 

. 

� Water Restriction Hotline – Tampa Regulation staff continues to maintain a toll-free 

telephone number (1-800-848-0499) and e-mail address (water.restrictions@ 

watermatters.org) that citizens and local officials can use to ask questions, report possible 

violations, and request information about water shortage restrictions, year-round water 

conservation measures and associated local government ordinances. New activities since 

last meeting: The hotline answered 172 calls and 123 e-mails during the five-week period 

that ended September 30, 2011. Hotline activity resulted in twelve first-time violation letters 

being sent to a property owner or manager, but only two repeat-violation situations required 

referral to a local enforcement agency for investigation. Two variances (requests for a special 

watering schedule that abides by the basic intent of year-round water conservation measures 

and any applicable water shortage restrictions) were also approved or otherwise resolved 

during that time period. 



Presenter: Richard S. Owen, AICP, Interim Division Director, Regulation Division 

87

TYPE OF PERMIT 

ENV RES PERMITS ISSUED - AUG 11 BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

General Minor System 

Noticed General 

General 

Individual 

Exemption 

Formal Wetland Determination 

ERP Conceptual 

ERP Site Condition 

Letter Modification 

TOTALS 

ENV RES ACRES PERMITTED - AUG 11 BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

General Minor System 

Noticed General 

General 

Individual 

Exemption 

Formal Wetland Determination 

ERP Conceptual 

ERP Site Condition 


TOTALS 

WATER USE PERMITS ISSUED - AUG 11 BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

Small General 

General 

Individual 


TOTALS 

WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 

Item 38 

DEPARTMENTS AVERAGES 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

24 

4 

89 

9 

64 

6 

0 

0 

43 

239 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

478.46 652.04 3,720.40 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

ISSUED - AUG 11 BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

Well Construction 

COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES - AUG 11 BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

Water Use Inspection (Includes Well 

Tag Installations) 

ERP/WUP Permit Condition Violation 

ERP/WUP Expired/Expiring 

ERP/WUP Permit Ownership Trnsfr 

ERPs Re-certification Received 

ERP/WUP Complaints Received 

ERP Construction Inspection 

ERP As-Built Activities 

ERP Transfer to Operation 

Well Abandonments/Grouting 

Other Well Construction Inspections 

TOTALS 

AGRICULTURAL GROUND & SURFACE 

WATER MGT PROJECT DESIGNS 

(AGSWM) - AUG 11 

Ordinary Farming 

Temporary Farming 

Permanent Farming 

TOTALS 

4 

2 

20 

0 

13 

0 

0 

0 

8 

47 

25 

5 

2 

11 

43 

7 

1 

27 

8 

12 

2 

0 

0 

8 

65 

10 

2 

1 

11 

24 

1 

0 

13 

1 

14 

1 

0 

0 

15 

45 

3 

5 

0 

2 

10 

12 

1 

29 

0 

25 

3 

0 

0 

12 

82 

3 

9 

2 

4 

18 

41 

21 

5 

28 

95 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

24 

5 

70 

6 

61 

5 

1 

0 

37 

209 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

48 

20 

5 

24 

97 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

24 

5 

67 

5 

53 

4 

1 

0 

29 

188 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

3.42 15.56 2 19.75 40.73 N/A N/A 

2.50 5.60 0.00 1.50 9.60 N/A N/A 

86.35 654.77 105.61 163.52 1,010.25 N/A N/A 

0.00 1,741.57 162.30 0 1,903.87 N/A N/A 

28.21 1.74 36.55 360.42 426.92 N/A N/A 

0.00 50.18 172 106.85 329.03 N/A N/A 

0.00 

0 0.00 0 0.00 N/A N/A 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

120.48 2,469.42 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

46 

19 

5 

16 

86 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

126 154 20 159 459 536 485 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

9 17 21 15 62 

66 61 

1 27 5 23 56 

50 40 

96 19 15 63 193 

130 97 

12 6 9 6 33 

45 45 

49 107 107 230 493 

506 486 

16 13 7 16 52 

58 74 

152 294 180 115 741 

817 864 

38 119 28 28 213 

185 

185 

38 43 21 44 146 

139 141 

12 33 

30 14 

1 

0 

13 

40 

453 692 394 593 2,132 2,138 2,121 

88 

59 

84 

47 

95 

48 

88 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

1 1 2 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

2 

5 5 5



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 



40. Development of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Nutrients in Florida ...................... 2 

(Strategic Plan: Water Quality – Maintenance & Improvement) 

41. Southern Water Use Caution Area Recovery Strategy – 

Annual Status Report.......................................................................................................... 4 

(Strategic Plan: Natural Systems – MFLs Recovery) 

42. Surplus Lands Assessment Program Update ................................................................... 5 

(Strategic Plan: Natural Systems – Conservation & Restoration) 



43. Minimum Flows and Levels ............................................................................................... 6 

44. Structure Operations ......................................................................................................... 10 

45. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency 

Management Agency Map Modernization ......................................................................... 24 

46. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects ....................................... 27




Development of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Nutrients in Florida 

Item 40 

Purpose 

This is an information item. District staff will present a summary of the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s (DEP) efforts to develop site specific interpretations of the narrative 

nutrient criteria in Chapters 62-302 and 62-303, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 


Under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303, states are required to establish water 

quality standards that define the amounts of pollutants (in either numeric or narrative form) that 

waters can contain without impairment of their designated beneficial uses. Florida currently uses 

a narrative nutrient standard to guide the management and protection of its waters. DEP has 

relied on this narrative for many years because nutrients, unlike other pollutants regulated by 

the CWA, are not only naturally present in aquatic systems, they are necessary for their proper 

functioning. In July 2008, the Florida Wildlife Federation and other environmental groups sued 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an attempt to compel the adoption of numeric 

nutrient criteria in Florida. The lawsuit argued that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary and 

that EPA was obligated by the CWA Section 303 (c)(4), to promptly propose such criteria. In 

January 2009, EPA determined that numeric nutrient standards are necessary in Florida under 

the CWA and in August 2009, entered into a consent decree to resolve the lawsuit. The decree 

obligated EPA to finalize numeric nutrient standards for Florida’s freshwater lakes and streams 

by November 2010, and south Florida canals, estuaries and coastal systems by August 2012. 

On December 6, 2010, EPA published the final water quality standards for the state of Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters. The standards will become effective 15 months from the date of 

publication. The standards comply with the terms of the decree. As modified by a joint notice to 

the court filed on September 30, 2011, the decree also obligates EPA to propose numeric 

criteria to protect estuaries, south Florida canals and coastal waters by March 2012, and finalize 

them by November 2012. 

On April 22, 2011, DEP filed a petition requesting EPA withdraw its January 2009 determination 

that numeric criteria are necessary in Florida and restore to the state its responsibility for the 

control of excess nutrients. In a June 13, 2011 response, EPA noted they will repeal the existing 

federally promulgated freshwater numeric criteria if DEP adopts and EPA approves of protective 

criteria. EPA also noted they will not propose or promulgate criteria for any as yet unaddressed 

waters (estuarine, coastal, south Florida canals) if DEP adopts legally effective criteria under 

Florida law. EPA stated they would seek an extension to the deadlines in the consent decree so 

that Florida can continue to focus on completing its own rulemaking provided DEP has made 

substantial progress toward adoption of approvable standards. 

As a result of the EPA response, DEP is pursuing rule development of criteria for freshwater 

lakes, springs, streams and estuaries along the south Florida coast. DEP shall establish estuary 

specific criteria for the remaining estuaries (Springs Coast) by June 30, 2015. DEP held several 

public meetings on potential revisions to Chapters 62-302 and 62-303, F.A.C., regarding 

nutrient standards. DEP intends to numerically interpret the narrative standard using best 

available information on a site-specific basis using a hierarchical approach. The primary tier of 

the hierarchy consists of Total Maximum Daily Loads, Site Specific Alternative Criteria, or other 

site specific interpretations (such as Reasonable Assurance Demonstrations). The second tier 

of the hierarchy consists of cause-and-effect relationships. The third tier consists of reference 

based thresholds combined with biological validation. In all other cases (wetlands, intermittent 

streams and highly colored lakes) the narrative standard would continue to apply. 

2

Item 40 

DEP intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by November 4, 2011, in order to 

bring the draft rules to the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) on December 1, 2011. 

The DEP rules will be implemented only upon ERC adoption, legislative ratification and EPA 

approval. 

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 

Appellate Proceedings 

The Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council (FWEA) and South Florida Water 

Management District (SFWMD), Intervenors in the lawsuit filed by the Florida Wildlife Federation 

and other environmental groups, appealed the district court’s entry of the consent decree to the 

11 th Circuit Court of Appeals. FWEA and SFWMD argued on appeal that the consent decree 

was substantively and procedurally unreasonable, and that the district court had abused its 

discretion by approving it. The appeal was argued before a three-judge panel. On August 5, 

2011, the court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that FWEA and SFWMD had not 

demonstrated a live case or controversy and lacked standing, and therefore the court had no 

subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In September 2011, FWEA petitioned the appeals 

court for a rehearing in front of the full appellate judge panel. 

Ongoing District Court Proceedings 

Shortly after EPA promulgated numeric nutrient criteria for lakes, springs, and flowing waters in 

November 2010, several challenges to EPA’s rules were filed by many parties including the 

state of Florida; Florida’s Commissioner of Agriculture; environmental organizations; agricultural 

associations; utility associations; stormwater associations; fertilizer companies; and the Florida 

League of Cities on a variety of issues. These rule challenges have been consolidated with the 

other numeric nutrient criteria lawsuits. Some groups believe the criteria are too stringent while 

others believe the criteria are not stringent enough. Some groups have also challenged EPA’s 

underlying 2009 determination that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary in the state of Florida 

to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. 

On June 15, 2011, a coalition of industry groups, agricultural interests, and government 

interests filed a motion for summary judgment arguing against the promulgated rules, which 

included arguments regarding EPA’s failure to account for decision-making errors in setting the 

standards and that the nutrient standards, together with EPA's rule governing site-specific 

alternative criteria, are too lenient in some respects. On September 15, 2011, EPA and another 

coalition of environmental groups filed responses in opposition to the motions for summary 

judgment filed in June, as well as their own motions for summary judgment in defense of the 

adopted rules. A hearing on the motions for summary judgment is set for January 11, 2012. 

Rulings will likely come shortly thereafter. 

EPA had also filed a motion to dismiss the claims challenging the 2009 necessity determination, 

arguing that the determination was a discretionary act and not final agency action, precluding 

review under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. On September 30, 2011, the district 

court denied EPA's motion to dismiss, holding that the 2009 necessity determination was final 

agency action. The court will now hear those arguments challenging the validity of the 2009 

necessity determination. 



Presenters: Veronica Craw, Environmental Section Manager, Resource Projects Department 

Amy Wells Brennan, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel 

3




Southern Water Use Caution Area Recovery Strategy – Annual Status Report 

Item 41 

Purpose 

This item is for the Board's information only. Staff will provide the Board with the annual update 

and status of the District’s efforts to monitor the recovery of water levels and flows in the 

Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA). 


In March 2006, the Governing Board adopted minimum "low" flows for the upper Peace River 

and minimum levels for eight lakes along the Lake Wales Ridge in Polk and Highlands counties 

and the Upper Floridan aquifer in the "Most Impacted Area" of the SWUCA to slow the rate of 

saltwater intrusion. Since most, if not all, of these minimum flows and levels were not meeting 

their adopted levels and flows, the Board adopted a SWUCA Recovery Strategy and changes to 

its water use permitting rules to implement the strategy. The purpose of the SWUCA Recovery 

Strategy is to provide a plan for reducing the rate of saltwater intrusion and restore low flows to 

the upper Peace River and lake levels by 2025, while ensuring sufficient water supplies and 

protecting the investments of existing water use permittees. The strategy has six basic 

elements: conservation, alternative water supply development, resource recovery projects, land 

use transitions, permitting, and monitoring and reporting. Promoting conservation and 

alternative supply development are a continuation of longstanding District programs that, along 

with the District's permitting program, have contributed to a stabilization of groundwater 

withdrawals in the region over the past 30 years. Resource recovery projects, like the project to 

raise the levels of Lake Hancock for release to the upper Peace River during the dry season, 

are actively being pursued. Whereas, coastal areas will generally meet their future demands 

through development of alternative supplies, some new uses in inland areas will be met with 

groundwater from displaced non-residential uses (i.e., land use transitions). 

The success of the SWUCA Recovery Strategy will be determined through continued monitoring 

of the resource. The District uses an extensive monitoring network to assess actual versus 

anticipated trends in water levels, flows, and saltwater intrusion. Additionally, the District 

conducts an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the factors affecting recovery. 

Information developed as part of this monitoring effort is provided to the Governing Board on an 

annual basis. 

Staff will present an update and status of the District's ongoing SWUCA Recovery Strategy 

efforts. 



Presenter: Jill A. Hood, P.G., Senior Professional Geologist, Hydrologic Evaluation Section, 


4




Surplus Lands Assessment Program Update 

Item 42 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to update the Governing Board on the District’s Surplus Lands 

Assessment Program. 

Background 

During the Strategic Plan discussion on natural systems at the March 29, 2011 Governing 

Board meeting, the Governing Board passed a motion directing staff to review all 450,000 acres 

of District-owned land interests with the goal of identifying candidate parcels which could be 

surplused. Since the March meeting, the Land Resources and Planning Departments have 

created a project scope and timeline, and have met with District subject matter experts to 

establish review criteria to identify potential surplus opportunities . In addition, staff has met with 

representatives from the Suwannee River Water Management District to learn more about their 

surplus lands program which has been functioning since 2009. To assist staff in establishing a 

sound program methodology and also identify surplus opportunities for consideration by the 

entire Board, a Governing Board subcommittee was established at the August Board meeting. 

The presentation will discuss the FY2012 implementation schedule for staff analysis as well as 

public information and Governing Board Subcommittee meetings. 



Presenter: Roy Mazur P.E., AICP, Director, Planning Department 

5




Minimum Flows and Levels 

Item 43 

District staff continues to work on various phases of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) 

development for water bodies on the District's MFLs priority list. Attached for the Board's use 

and information is the current Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule – Water 

Body Timelines report that identifies the status of each water body in regard to our five phase 

process of MFL establishment. 



Presenter: Martin H. Kelly, Ph.D., Minimum Flows and Levels Program Director, 


6

Board Adopted 2011 Priority List 

Schedule and Timeline 

Exhibit A 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

RIVERS, SPRINGS and ESTUARIES 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 

Data Collection Data Analysis Rpt to Board / Peer Review Recovery Rule Adoption 

& Internal Draft MFL Report Strategy 

Chassahowitzka River System and Springs completed completed completed NN Dec 2010 

Homosassa River System and Springs completed completed completed NN Dec 2010 

Lower Myakka River System completed completed completed NN Dec 2010 

Middle and Upper Withlacoochee River System completed completed completed NN Dec 2010 

Brooker Creek completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

Crystal River System & Kings Bay Springs completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

Gum Springs Group completed completed Feb 2011 / May 2011 TBD Jun 2011 

Lower Withlacoochee River System completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

Little Manatee River System completed completed May 2011/ Aug 2011 TBD Oct 2011 

Manatee River System completed Apr 2011 May 2011/ Aug 2011 TBD Oct 2011 

Pithlachascotee River System completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

Rainbow River and Springs completed Mar 2011 Apr 2011/ Jul 2011 TBD Aug 2011 

Shell Creek Estuary completed completed completed Recovery Nov 2011 

Upper Peace River completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

"Middle" and "High" Minimum Flows 

Charlie Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2012 May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

Horse Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2012 May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

North Prong Alafia River completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

South Prong Alafia River completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

Prairie Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov 2013 

Shell Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov 2013 

Cypress Creek Jan 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014/ Oct 2014 TBD Nov 2014 

Bullfrog Creek Jan 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014/ Oct 2014 TBD Nov 2014 

Lower Peace River Jan 2015 May 2015 Jul 2015/ Oct 2015 TBD Nov 2015 

At the Board's direction, staff have added projected dates on which: we expect to have internal draft reports complete, presentation of draft to Board, 

report of peer review to Board, and return for rule establishment. 

* NN = not needed TBD = to be determined 

** Waterbodies completed through Phase 5 will be removed from this list and added to the Minimum Flows and Levels Established to Date list when 

the priority list is updated each year. 

7 

Updated October 3, 2011



Exhibit A 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2015 

LAKES 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 

Data Collection Data Analysis Peer Review Recovery Rule Adoption 

& Draft MFL Report Strategy 

Polk County Lakes 

Crystal (near Lake Wales) completed completed NA NN* completed 

North Lake Wales completed completed NA NN completed 

Hillsborough County Lakes 

Carroll completed completed NA TBD * Dec 2011 

Hooker completed Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Raleigh completed Aug 2011 completed completed Dec 2011 

Rogers completed Aug 2011 completed completed Dec 2011 

Starvation completed Aug 2011 completed completed Dec 2011 

Wimauma completed completed NA TBD Jun 2011 

Marion County Lakes 

Bonable completed Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Little Bonable completed Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Tiger completed Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Polk County Lake 

Lowery June 2011 Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Hancock completed completed NA completed Jun 2011 

Hillsborough County Lakes 

Hanna June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Keene June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Kell June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Polk County Lakes 

Amoret June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Aurora June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Bonnet June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Easy June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Effie June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Little Aurora June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Josephine June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Hernando County Lakes 

Tooke June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Whitehurst June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Highland County Lakes 

Damon June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Pioneer June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Pythias June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Viola June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 


Trout June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 


Eva June 2014 Aug 2014 NA TBD Dec 2014 

* NN = not needed TBD = to be determined 

** Waterbodies completed through Phase 5 will be removed from this list and added to the Minimum Flows and Levels Established to Date list when 

the priority list is updated each year. 

8 




Exhibit A 

Minimum Flows and Levels Already Adopted 

� Alafia River (upper freshwater segment) 

� Alafia River Estuary (includes Lithia and Buckhorn Springs) 

� Anclote River (estuarine and freshwater segments) 

� Braden River (freshwater segment) 

� Citrus County Lakes – Ft. Cooper, Tsala Apopka – Floral City, Inverness and Hernando Pools 

� Dona Bay/Shakett Creek System 

� Hernando County Lakes – Hunters, Lindsey, Mountain, Neff, Spring and Weekiwachee Prairie 

� Highland County Lakes – Angelo, Anoka, Denton, Jackson, Little Lake Jackson, June-in-Winter, 

Letta, Lotela, Placid, Tulane, and Verona 

� Hillsborough County Lakes – Alice, Allen, Barbara, Bird, Brant, Calm, Charles, Church, Crenshaw, 

Crescent, Crystal, Cypress, Dan, Deer, Dosson, Echo, Ellen, Fairy [Maurine], Garden, Halfmoon, 

Harvey, Helen, Hobbs, Horse, Jackson, Juanita, Little Moon, Merrywater, Mound, Platt, Pretty, 

Rainbow, Reinheimer, Round, Saddleback, Sapphire, Stemper, Strawberry, Sunset, Sunshine, 

Taylor and Virginia. 

� Hillsborough River (lower segment) 

� Hillsborough River – upper segment (including Crystal Springs) 

� Levy County Lake – Marion 

� Peace River (middle segment) 

� Peace River (three upper segments – "low" minimum flows) 

� Lower Peace River 

� Northern Tampa Bay –41 Wetland sites 

� Northern Tampa Bay – 7 Wells – Floridan Aquifer/Saltwater Intrusion 

� Pasco County Lakes – Bell, Big Fish, Bird, Buddy, Camp, Clear, Green, Hancock, Iola, 

Jessamine, King, King [East], Linda, Middle, Moon, Padgett, Parker aka Ann, Pasadena, Pasco, 

Pierce, unnamed #22 aka Loyce 

� Polk County Lakes – Annie, Bonnie, Clinch, Crooked, Dinner, Eagle, Lee, Mabel, McLeod, Parker, 

Starr, Venus, and Wales 

� Myakka River (upper freshwater segment) 

� Sulphur Springs (Hillsborough County) 

� Sumter County Lakes – Big Gant, Black, Deaton, Miona, Okahumpka and Panasoffkee 

� SWUCA – Floridan Aquifer 

� Tampa Bypass Canal 

� Weekiwachee River System and Springs (includes Weeki Wachee, Jenkins Creek, Salt, Little 

Weeki Wachee and Mud River springs) 

9 





Structure Operations 

Item 44 

September historically marks the last month of the rainy season and this year’s September 

rainfall totals were less than expected and at the lower-end of the normal range. Rainfall during 

the month was scattered, regionally variable, and associated with tropical moisture from the Gulf 

or Atlantic Ocean moving over the Florida peninsula interacting with lessening convective 

(afternoon/evening) rain showers. Rainfall during the 2011 rainy season (June through 

September) was disappointing, falling within the low-normal to normal range, and did not bring 

the above-normal rainfall conditions that national weather forecasts had predicted. Although 

falling within the normal range, the District-wide rainy season totals were approximately 

3.5 inches below the long-term mean. District-wide, the provisional 12-month rainfall deficit is 

6.4 inches, while the 24- and 36-month cumulative rainfall deficits are approximately 6.0 and 

11.2 inches, respectively. 

NOAA climate forecasts indicate uncertainty (i.e., equal chances for normal, above-normal or 

below-normal) for rainfall in October, while they predict below-normal rainfall conditions for the 

remaining fall and coming winter/spring months, due to existing and projected La Niña 

conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Extended drier-than-normal rainfall conditions during the 

fall/winter/spring months would worsen already lagging hydrologic conditions. 

Updated weather forecasts will be available in mid-November. Staff will continue to closely 

monitor conditions in accordance with the District's updated Water Shortage Plan, including any 

necessary supplemental analysis of pertinent data. 

Rainfall 

Provisional rainfall totals for September were in the low-end of the normal range in all three 

regions of the District. The normal range is defined as rainfall totals that fall on or between the 

25 th to 75 th percentiles derived from the historical data for each month. 

• The northern region received an average of 4.80 inches of rainfall, equivalent to the 

33 rd percentile. 

• The central region received an average of 5.34 inches of rainfall, equivalent to the 


• The southern region recorded an average of 5.52 inches of rain, equivalent to the 


• District-wide, average rainfall was 5.26 inches, equivalent to the 26 th percentile. 

A summary of the operations made in September is as follows: 

• Inglis Water Control Structures: The Inglis Bypass Spillway was operated during the month of 

September in order to maintain water levels in Lake Rousseau and provide flow to the lower 

Withlacoochee River. The average monthly water level for Lake Rousseau was 27.61' NGVD. 

The recommended maintenance level for the reservoir is 27.50’ NGVD. 

• Withlacoochee River Basin: On the Tsala Apopka Chain of Lakes during the month of 

September, Leslie Heifner, Floral City, Moccasin Slough, Golf Course, and Brogden Bridge 

10

Item 44 

Structures were operated to allow river water into the Floral City, Inverness, and Hernando 

Pools. All other structures in the basin remained closed. During September, the Wysong- 

Coogler Water Conservation Structure main gate was fully inflated to 39.00’ NGVD aiding in 

the regulation of the Lake Panasoffkee water elevation. The low flow gate was inflated to 

34.90’ NGVD providing minimum flow requirements to the Withlacoochee River downstream 

of the structure. The average monthly water level for Lake Panasoffkee was 38.27’ NGVD. 

• Alafia River Basin: During the month of September the Medard Reservoir was operated to 

assist in maintaining recommended maintenance levels. The average monthly water level for 

the reservoir is 60.14’ NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of 60.00’ 

NGVD. 

• Hillsborough River Basin: Structures A and G, Pretty, Armistead, Island Ford, Crescent, 

Keystone, Keene, Keene 1, Keene 2, Hanna, Stemper, Sherry’s Brook, Magdalene, Bay, 

Ellen-Lipsey, Carroll and Flint Creek were operated during the month of September to assist 

in maintaining recommended maintenance levels. Structure S-162 on the Tampa Bypass 

Canal was operated to assist in maintaining the recommended maintenance level in the 

Middle Pool. The average monthly water level for Lake Thonotosassa was 36.39' NGVD 

compared to the recommended maintenance level of 36.50' NGVD. 

• Pinellas-Anclote River Basin: Structure S-551 and the Sawgrass Lake Structure were 

operated during the month of September. A water level of 3.00’ NGVD was maintained on 

Sawgrass Lake in order to facilitate the Sawgrass Lake Restoration Project. The average 

monthly water level for Lake Tarpon was 3.25’ NGVD compared to the recommended 

maintenance level of 3.20' NGVD. 

• Peace River Basin: The Banana Lake, Parker, P-11 (Lake Hancock) and Circle B Structures 

were operated during the month of September. The average monthly water level for Lake 

June-in-Winter was 73.06' NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of 74.50’ 

NGVD. 

• Green Swamp Basin: The Lake Gibson Structure was operated during the month of 

September in order to maintain water levels in lake. The average monthly water level for Lake 

Gibson was 142.64' NGVD. The recommended maintenance level for the Lake Gibson is 

143.00’ NGVD. 



Presenter: David Crane, Manager, Structure Operations Section 

11

STRUCTURE 

STRUCTURE OPERATIONS SECTION HYDROLOGIC REPORT 


ELEVATION ELEVATION CURRENT POSITION OF ELEVATION ELEVATION CURRENT POSITION OF 

LEVELS DIFFERENCE LEVEL STRUCTURE STRUCTURE LEVELS DIFFERENCE LEVEL STRUCTURE 

FLINT CREEK 36.42 Gate 1 Closed FLORAL CITY POOL 39.37 

HIGH LEVEL 37.00 -0.58 Gate 2 Closed HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 41.80 -2.43 Leslie Heifner Fully Open 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 36.50 -0.08 All drop gates: 36.00' MSL HIGH MIN LEVEL 41.20 -1.83 Floral City Fully Open 

LOW LEVEL 34.50 1.92 invert 32.9' MIN LAKE LEVEL 39.80 -0.43 Golf Course Golf Course All Gates Open 3.15' 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 39.60 -0.23 invert 38.0' Moccasin Slough Open 

KELL 65.85 

HIGH LEVEL 66.00 -0.15 Open (No Boards) INVERNESS POOL 37.27 Brogden Bridge Gate 1 Open 0.19' 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 65.50 0.35 HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 40.30 -3.03 Brogden Bridge Gate 2 Open 0.19' 

LOW LEVEL 63.50 2.35 invert 64.66' HIGH MIN LEVEL 40.10 -2.83 Brogden Bridge Brogden Culvert Closed 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 38.70 -1.43 invert 34.25' Bryant Slough gates Closed 

KEENE 62.57 Keene 1: Closed 12" of Board LOW GUIDE LEVEL 37.80 -0.53 

HIGH LEVEL 63.00 -0.43 Keene 2: Open 6" of Board 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 62.50 0.07 1-invert 61.6' Keene 3: Open (No Boards) HERNANDO POOL (S353) 35.42 

LOW LEVEL 60.50 2.07 2-invert 61.6' Sherry's Brook: Open (No Boards) HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 39.00 -3.58 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 38.70 -3.28 S-353 Van Ness Closed 

STEMPER 60.73 MIN LAKE LEVEL 37.30 -1.88 invert 36.5' S-353 Gates Closed 

HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 61.20 -0.47 Open No Boards LOW GUIDE LEVEL 35.90 -0.48 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 60.80 -0.07 Two Mile Prairie (max) 35.00 -11.70 23.30 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 59.40 1.33 invert 60.25' 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 59.10 1.63 LESLIE HEIFNER 39.53 Upstream (RIVER level) 

UPSTREAM 40.04 39.50 Downstream (POOL level) 

HANNA 61.77 DOWNSTREAM 40.03 0.01 Gate Fully Open 

HIGH LEVEL 62.50 -0.73 Open 12" of Boards invert 35.0' 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 61.75 0.02 

LOW LEVEL 59.50 2.27 invert 60.28' WYSONG-COOGLER 

UPSTREAM 39.50 -2.08 37.42 Main Gate At 39.10' 

CYPRESS CREEK Flood Stage DOWNSTREAM 36.60 Low Flow Gate at 34.79 

WORTHINGTON GARDENS 8.00 -3.65 4.35 Drop Gate Open 3.0'. 258 USGS cfs flow 

INGLIS 27.64 

SAWGRASS LAKE HIGH LEVEL 28.00 -0.36 By-pass Gates Open 1.50' 

HIGH LEVEL 5.00 -2.10 2.90 Gate 1 Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 27.50 0.14 Main Gates Closed 

LOW LEVEL 3.80 -0.90 Gate 2 Open 3.17' LOW LEVEL 26.50 1.14 invert 11.3' 654 Total Bypass cfs flow 

Gate 3 Open 0.30' 

TARPON (S551) 3.22 LAKE BRADLEY 

HIGH LEVEL 3.80 -0.58 Main Gates 1, & 4 Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 42.50 -4.09 38.41 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 3.20 0.02 Main Gates 2, & 3 Closed Gate Fully Closed 

LOW LEVEL 2.20 1.02 Drop Gates 1,2,3,4 Open 3.20' LAKE CONSUELLA 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.50 -5.82 35.68 

ANNE PARKER 47.85 All Logs in Closed 

HIGH LEVEL 48.75 -0.90 36" of Board Installed MEDARD RESERVOIR 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 48.25 -0.40 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 60.00 0.10 60.10 Gate Fully Closed 59.00 msl 

LOW LEVEL 45.75 2.10 invert 46.40' 

HANCOCK (P11) 98.85 Gauge at structure 

WHITE TROUT 35.55 HIGH LEVEL 99.00 -0.15 98.84 Gauge on lake 

HIGH LEVEL 36.50 -0.95 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 98.50 0.35 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 36.00 -0.45 18" of Board Installed LOW LEVEL 96.00 2.85 invert 91.7' Gates Closed 

LOW LEVEL 34.00 1.55 invert 32.94' HENRY (P5) 124.86 

HIGH LEVEL 126.50 -1.64 LRLMD 

KEYSTONE 41.74 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 126.00 -1.14 

HIGH LEVEL 42.00 -0.26 Gate 1 Closed LOW LEVEL 124.00 0.86 invert 122.0' 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.75 -0.01 Gate 2 Closed 

LOW LEVEL 39.75 1.99 invert 37.2' SMART (P6) 126.03 

HIGH LEVEL 128.75 -2.72 LRLMD 

CRESCENT 42.14 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 128.50 -2.47 

HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 41.90 0.24 Gate Open 0.30' LOW LEVEL 126.50 -0.47 invert 127.2' 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 41.30 0.84 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 40.30 1.84 invert 38.5' FANNIE (P7) 120.74 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 39.80 2.34 HIGH LEVEL 125.75 -5.01 LRLMD 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 125.50 -4.76 

ISLAND FORD 41.10 LOW LEVEL 123.50 -2.76 invert 119.5' 

HIGH LEVEL 41.50 -0.40 Gates 1 &3 Closed 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.00 0.10 invert 35.0' Gate 2 Open 0.30' HAMILTON (P8) 118.95 

LOW LEVEL 39.00 2.10 crest 41.25' HIGH LEVEL 121.50 -2.55 LRLMD 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 121.25 -2.30 

PRETTY 44.53 LOW LEVEL 119.00 -0.05 invert 113.0' 

HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 44.30 0.23 Lift Gate Closed 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 43.90 0.63 Drop 1&4 Open 1.50' LENA (P1) 134.36 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 42.50 2.03 invert 38.0' HIGH LEVEL 137.00 -2.64 Gates closed 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 42.20 2.33 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 136.75 -2.39 

LOW MANAGEMENT 134.50 -0.14 invert 134.47' 

MAGDALENE 49.55 Lake gauge 

HIGH LEVEL 50.00 -0.45 49.58 Structure gauge JUNE-IN-WINTER (G90) 73.10 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 49.50 0.05 HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 74.70 -1.60 Gates Closed 

LOW MANAGEMENT 47.50 2.05 invert 45.6' Gates Closed HIGH MIN LEVEL 74.50 -1.40 Overflow at 75.00' NGVD 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 74.00 -0.90 invert 65.37' 

BAY 45.67 LOW GUIDE LEVEL 73.20 -0.10 

HIGH LEVEL 46.75 -1.08 Gates Closed ARIETTA (P3) 139.03 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 46.00 -0.33 HIGH LEVEL 144.00 -4.97 Gate Closed 

LOW LEVEL 44.00 1.67 invert 44.0' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 142.50 -3.47 

LOW LEVEL 141.00 -1.97 invert 137.4' 

ELLEN-LIPSEY 40.72 Structure Gauge 

HIGH LEVEL 41.50 -0.78 40.74 Lake Gauge GIBSON 142.79 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.00 -0.28 Both Gates Closed HIGH LEVEL 143.50 -0.71 Gate Closed 

LOW LEVEL 39.00 1.72 invert 37.6' Drops: At 41.00' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 143.00 -0.21 Stop log bays at 142.64' crest 

Low Level 141.50 1.29 invert 141.4' 

CARROLL 36.75 

HIGH LEVEL 37.00 -0.25 30" of Board Installed PARKER 130.41 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 36.50 0.25 HIGH LEVEL 131.00 -0.59 Gate Closed 

LOW LEVEL 34.50 2.25 invert 34.17' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 130.75 -0.34 

LOW LEVEL 128.75 1.66 invert 129.15' 

ARMISTEAD 42.28 

HIGH LEVEL 44.00 -1.72 Gate Open 0.90' PEACE RIVER Flood Stage 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 43.00 -0.72 BARTOW 8.00 -4.00 4.00 

LOW LEVEL 40.50 1.78 ZOLFO SPRINGS 16.00 -9.85 6.15 

ARCADIA 11.00 -8.32 2.68 

HILLSBOROUGH RIVER Flood Stage 

MORRIS BRIDGE 32.00 -5.43 26.57 S-155 is open LITTLE MANATEE RIVER Flood Stage 

FOWLER 29.00 -5.98 23.02 WIMAUMA 11.00 -7.10 3.90 

WITHLACOOCHEE R. Flood Stage ALAFIA RIVER Flood Stage 

TRILBY 61.27 -8.92 52.35 LITHIA 13.00 -9.12 3.88 

CROOM 47.94 -5.94 42.00 

HIGHWAY. 48 39.69 MYAKKA RIVER Flood Stage 

LAKE PANASOFFKEE 40.70 -2.42 38.28 MYAKKA STATE PARK 7.00 -3.02 3.98 

HOLDER 35.52 -7.44 28.08 

MANATEE RIVER Flood Stage 

ANCLOTE RIVER Flood Stage MYAKKA HEAD 11.00 -7.84 3.16 

ELFERS 20.00 -9.95 10.05 

12

ISLAND FORD 

KEYSTONE 

CRESCENT 

´ 

TARPON 

PINELLAS 

#* 

LEVY 

#* 

#* 

ROUSSEAU 

ANN-PARKER 

#* 

#* #* 

#* 

PRETTY 

ARMISTEAD 

SAWGRASS 

CITRUS 

#* #*#* 

#* #* 

#* 

#* #* 

HERNANDO POOL 

#* 

INVERNESS POOL 

CONSUELLA 

HERNANDO 

PASCO 

#* 

BRADLEY 

KELL 

HANNA 

KEENE 

STEMPER 

FLORAL CITY POOL 

#* 

#* #* 

#* 

MARION 

LESLIE HEIFNER 

THONOTOSASSA 

MAGDALENE 

BAY 

ELLEN-LIPSEY 

CARROLL 

WHITE TROUT #* 

MEDARD 

SARASOTA 

HILLSBOROUGH 

MANATEE 

SUMTER 

13 

LOWERY 

GIBSON ARIETTA (P-3) #* HAINES 

#* #* #* #* HENRY (P-5) 

PARKER#* 

#* #* #* SMART (P-6) 

LENA (P-1) #* FANNIE (P-7) 

POLK 

HAMILTON (P-8) 

#* 

LAKE 

HANCOCK (P-11) 

HARDEE 

DESOTO 


Structure 

Sites 

ORANGE 

VOLUSIA 

OSCEOLA 

HIGHLANDS 

#* 

FLAGLER 

SEMINOLE 

JUNE-IN-WINTER (G-90)

14 

Water Surface Elevation 


145.00 

144.50 

144.00 

143.50 

143.00 

142.50 

142.00 

141.50 

141.00 

140.50 

140.00 

Lake Gibson 

Daily Average Values 

Lake Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

Lake Thonotosassa 



Lake Surface Area = 480 Acres 

Low Slab = 144.81' 

Structure Gauge Datum = 100.00' 

Lake Gauge Datum = 135.00 MSL 

SCADA Device Number 2427 


Low Slab = 39.0' 

Flint Creek Gauge Datum = 32.16 

SCADA Device #6807 


5.50 

5.00 

4.50 

4.00 

3.50 

3.00 

2.50 

2.00 

1.50 

1.00 

0.50 

Lake Tarpon, S-551 




49.50 

49.00 

48.50 

48.00 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

Lake Anne Parker 



Lake Surface Area =2,534 

SCADA Device # 6491 


Low Slab = 40.09' 

SCADA Device Number: 8491

15 



63.50 

63.00 

62.50 

62.00 

61.50 

61.00 

60.50 

60.00 

59.50 

59.00 

58.50 

58.00 

57.50 

57.00 

56.50 

56.00 

55.50 

55.00 

Lake Hanna 



67.50 

67.00 

66 66.50 50 

66.00 

65.50 

65.00 

64.50 

64.00 

63.50 

63.00 

62.50 

62.00 

61.50 

Lake Kell 


Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 63.68' 



Low Slab = 68.09' 


Lake Gauge Datum = 54.45' MSL 



64.00 

63.50 

63.00 

62.50 

62.00 

61.50 

61.00 

60.50 

60.00 

59.50 

59.00 

58.50 

58.00 

57.50 

57.00 

56.50 

56.00 

Lake Keene 



63.00 

62.50 

62.00 62.00 

61.50 61.50 

61.00 

60.50 

60.00 

59.50 

59.00 

58.50 

58.00 

57.50 

57.00 

56.50 

56.00 

55.50 

55.00 

54.50 

54.00 

53.50 

53.00 

Lake Stemper 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 



Lake Surface Area = 58.32 Acres 

Low Slab = 63.70 


SCADA Device # 2067

16 



48.00 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

Bay Lake 


Lake Level Low Level Max. Desireable High Level 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

Crescent CrescentLake Lake 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 

Lake Surface area = 37 Acres 

Low Slab = 47.80' 

Structure Gauge Datum = Direct Read 

Lake auge Datum = Direct Read 

SCADA Device Number = 1647 


Low Slab = 44.63' 


Lake Gauge Datum = Direct Read 




38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

31.00 

30.50 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

Lake Carroll 



Lake Island Ford 


WSE Low Level Max Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 39.50' 




Low Slab = 42.64 


SCADA Device number = 1621 

L

17 


Water Surface Elevation tion 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

Lake Keystone 



51.00 

50.50 

50.00 

49.50 

49 49.00 00 

48.50 

48.00 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

Lake Magdalene 


Structure Level Lake Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 43.53' 




Low Slab = 51.80' 

Structure Gauge Datum = 45.52 




42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

Lakes Ellen and Lipsey 


Lipsey WSE Lake Ellen Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45 45.00 00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

Lake Pretty 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 


Low Slab = 42.35' 



(Pretty, Rock, Josephine combined) 

Low Slab = 47.10' 

Structure Gauge Datum = 40.00'

18 

Water Surface Elevationn 


38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

29.50 

29.00 

28.50 

28 28.00 00 

27.50 

27.00 

26.50 

26.00 

25.50 

25.00 

24.50 

Lake White Trout 



Lake Rousseau 




Low Slab = 39.41' 




Structure Gauge Datum = 10.00 



132.00 

131.50 

131.00 

130.50 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

Lake Lowery 



Water Surface Elevation ion 

144.50 

144.00 

143.50 

143.00 

142 142.50 50 

142.00 

141.50 

141.00 

140.50 

140.00 

139.50 

139.00 

138.50 

138.00 

137.50 

Lake Arietta (P-3) 




Low Slab = 131.61 



Lake Gauge Datum = 100.00' 

SCADA Device Number 7431

19 



40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

31.00 

Hernando Pool 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min. Lake Lv. High Min. Lv. High Guide Lv. 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

Leslie Heifner 


Upstream Level Downsream Level 


Low Slab = 40.47' 




Low Slab = 47.80' 

SCADA Device #6767 & #6766 


Water Surface Elevation ion 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

Inverness Pool 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min. Lake Lv. High Min. Lv. High Guide Lv. 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

31.00 

30.50 

30.00 

Floral City Pool 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min.Lake Lv. High Min. Lv. High Guide Lv. 


Low Slab = 42.54' 




Low Slab = 44.10' 



SCADA #2007

20 

Water Surface Elevation on 


128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 

124.00 

123.50 

123.00 

122.50 

122.00 

121.50 

121.00 

120.50 

120.00 

119.50 

119.00 

Lake Fannie (P-7) 



103.00 

102.50 

102.00 

101.50 

101.00 

100.50 100 50 

100.00 

99.50 

99.00 

98.50 

98.00 

97.50 

97.00 

96.50 

96.00 

95.50 

95.00 

94.50 

Lake Hancock (P-11) 


Gauge at Structure Lake Level Low Level Max Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 127.60' 



Lake Surface Area = 4,541 Acres 




124.50 

124.00 

123.50 

123.00 

122.50 

122.00 

121.50 

121.00 

120.50 

120.00 

119.50 

119.00 

118.50 

118.00 

117.50 

117.00 

116.50 


128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126 126.00 00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 

124.00 

123.50 

123.00 

122.50 

122.00 

121.50 

121.00 

Lake Hamilton (P-8) 



Lake Henry (P-5) 







Structure Gauge Datum = 100.00' MSL 

S.R. Gauge Datum = 120.00' MSL 


21 



138.00 

137.50 

137.00 

136.50 

136.00 

135.50 

135.00 

134.50 

134.00 

133.50 

133.00 

132.50 

132.00 

133.00 

132.50 

132.00 

131.50 

131.00 

130.50 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

Lake Lena (P-1) 



Lake Parker 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High MinLv. & High Guide Lv. 


Lake Gauge Datum = 132.12 






Water Surface Elevationn 

77.00 

76.50 

76.00 

75.50 

75.00 

74.50 

74.00 

73.50 

73.00 

72.50 

72.00 

Lake June-in-Winter (G-90) 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 

130.50 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128 128.50 50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 

124.00 

123.50 

123.00 

Lake Smart (P-6) 






SCADA Device Number=6136 


Low Slab = 131.43' 

Lake Gauge Datum = 120.00' MSL

22 



9.00 

8.50 

8.00 

7.50 

7.00 

6.50 

6.00 

5.50 

5.00 

4.50 

4.00 

3.50 

3.00 

2.50 

2.00 

1.50 

Lake Level Low Level High Level 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 

Sawgrass Lake 


Lake Haines 




Low Slab = N/A 




Low Slab = 131.61' 




Water Surface Elevation ation 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

Lake Armistead 



63.5 

63.0 

62.5 

62.0 

61.5 

61.0 

60.5 

60 60.0 0 

59.5 

59.0 

58.5 

58.0 

57.5 

57.0 

56.5 

56.0 

55.5 

55.0 

54.5 

54.0 

53.5 

Medard 


Water Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 45.72' 



23 


43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

31.00 

Lake Consuella 

Weekly Average Values 

Water Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 47.80' 


eypad 


43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

Lake Bradley 

Weekly Average Values 



Low Slab = 44.38'




Item 45 

Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map 

Modernization Status Report 

District staff continues to work on various steps of the District’s Watershed Management 

Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization. Attached for the 

Board’s information is the current schedule that identifies the status of each watershed for the 

topographic information, watershed evaluation, watershed management plan, and Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The list also indicates whether the updated FIRMs will be a 

redelineation of the existing FIRMs or based on a detailed study. 



Presenter: Mark A. Hammond, P.E., Division Director, Resource Management Division 

24

Topographic 

Information 

Watershed 

Model Public Meetings 

Present to 

Board 

Submit 

Preliminary 

DFIRMs to 

FEMA 

Year 

2009 

County 

�� 


Blue Sink complete complete complete complete complete 

Bystre Lake complete complete complete complete complete 

Centralia complete complete complete complete complete 

Chassahowitzka River complete complete complete complete complete 

Croom complete complete complete complete complete 

Little Withlacoochee complete complete complete complete complete 

Lizzie Hart Sink complete complete complete complete complete 

McKethan complete complete complete complete complete 

Oman Quarry/Indian Creek complete complete complete complete complete 

Powell complete complete complete complete complete 

Spring Hill Lakes/Aripeka complete complete complete complete complete 

Toachodka complete complete complete complete complete 

Tooke complete complete complete complete complete 

Weeki Wachee Prairie complete complete complete complete complete 

Willow Sink complete complete complete complete complete 

Wiscon complete complete complete complete complete 

Eastern Hernando complete complete complete complete complete 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

Anclote - E. of Suncoast complete complete complete complete complete 

Cypress Creek complete complete complete complete complete 

East Pasco complete complete complete complete complete 

Trout Creek complete complete complete complete complete 

Island Of Venice complete complete complete Oct 2011 Feb 2012 

Whitaker Bayou complete complete complete Oct 2011 Feb 2012 

Hudson Bayou complete complete complete complete Feb 2012 

Roberts Bay complete complete complete Oct 2011 Feb 2012 

Alligator Creek complete complete complete Oct 2011 Feb 2012 

Big Slough - Northport complete complete Dec 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2012 

Note: FEMA will start their formal appeals period for adoption after the District submits the preliminary DFIRMS to FEMA. 

25

Topographic 

Information 


Model Public Meetings 

Present to 

Board 

Submit 

Preliminary 

DFIRMs to 

FEMA 

Year 

2010 

County 

�� 


Upper Peace River complete complete Oct 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 

Christina complete complete complete complete Jan 2012 

Peace CreekCanal complete complete Oct 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 

Polk City complete complete Sep 2011 Nov 2011 Jan 2012 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

Thornton Branch complete complete complete complete Dec 2011 

Deep Creek Gully complete complete complete complete Dec 2011 

Buzzards Roost Run complete complete complete complete Nov 2011 

City of Wauchula complete complete complete complete Nov 2011 

Horse Creek complete complete complete complete Nov 2011 

Alligator Branch complete complete complete complete Nov 2011 

Thompson Branch complete complete complete complete Nov 2011 

Limited Detailed Studies complete complete Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Jan 2012 

East Citrus complete Nov 2011 Mar 2012 May 2012 May 2012 

Crystal River complete complete complete complete May 2012 

Tsala Apopka complete complete complete Nov 2011 May 2012 

Cardinal Lane complete complete Nov 2011 Jan 2012 May 2012 

Homosassa River complete Mar 2012 Jun 2012 Aug 2012 Aug 2012 

Center Ridge complete complete complete complete May 2012 

Buffalo Canal/Frog Creek complete complete completed complete complete 

Note: FEMA will start their formal appeals period for adoption after the District submits the preliminary DFIRMS to FEMA. 

26




Item 46 

Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects 

This report provides information on significant Resource Management projects and programs in 

which the Governing Board is participating in funding. The report provides a brief description 

and status of significant activities associated with the project that have recently occurred or are 

about to happen. For greater detail, refer to the Project Information Management System 

(PIMS) write-ups or request information directly from the project manager identified with the 

project. 

Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project 

This project is being implemented as part of the adopted Southern Water Use Caution Area 

(SWUCA) Recovery Plan for restoring minimum flows in the upper Peace River. The project 

began in 2002 with preliminary feasibility and development of a scope of work to raise the water 

level in the lake. The District received the conceptual environmental resource permit (CERP) for 

the project from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in June 2007 with an 

operating level of up to 100 feet (currently the District operates the P-11 structure at an 

elevation of 98.7 feet). In response, the Governing Board in September 2007 authorized the 

project to go forward with final design, permitting, and construction; adopted the Resolution 

Authorizing Proceedings in Eminent Domain, including a Declaration of Taking; amended the 

2007 Update to the Florida Forever Work Plan to include all lands identified as necessary for the 

project, designating $41 million in Florida Forever Trust Funds; and designated and 

encumbered $79 million in General Fund Water Supply and Resource Development Reserves 

for the project. Seventy-three parcels were identified as necessary to acquire in fee (40 parcels) 

or a lesser interest (33 easement parcels). At the September 2007 meeting, the Governing 

Board instructed staff to exhaust all negotiations prior to filing eminent domain proceedings. All 

property owners have been contacted and offers made. On June 12, 2009, DEP approved the 

District’s request to extend the CERP commence construction deadline to June 14, 2011. In 

September 2010, the District received eight bids for construction of the new P-11 structure. The 

District decided to reject all bids and issue a new request for bid based upon ambiguities in the 

bid documents. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The District awarded the construction of 

the new P-11 water control structure on August 9, 2011. A preconstruction meeting was held on 

September 22 and construction is anticipated to begin in November 2011. On September 14, 

the District submitted the ERP application package for the Old Florida Plantation/Coscia 

mitigation project to DEP. The District’s consultant, Amec-BCI, Inc., and District staff attended a 

project kick-off meeting with City of Lakeland staff on September 19 for the mitigation project at 

the Oak Hill Burial Park. Amec-BCI received comments from the Florida Department of 

Transportation on the submittal package for the 540/Jacque Lee Lane mitigation project on 

September 19. Acquisition Status: Acquisition Status: Of the 73 parcels necessary for the 

project, 68 parcels (8,464 acres) have been acquired. The remaining five parcels involve four 

owners (126 acres) and are comprised of partial easement acquisitions. District staff has made 

offers on all acquisitions necessary for the project. All of the acquisitions that remain are being 

handled through the District's special counsel who has initiated legal proceedings. The special 

counsel and District staff continue to evaluate opportunities for settlement that would avoid 

litigation. The District has maintained the Old Florida Plantation Development of Regional 

Impact (DRI) and made changes to the Development Order, as necessary, through the City of 

Bartow, Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and the Department of Community Affairs. 

The changes to the DRI allow the proposed development to accommodate the District’s Lake 

Hancock minimum flows and levels (MFL) and land use projects. Those portions of the DRI not 

needed for District projects will be considered surplus, and the District is currently preparing an 

application to DEP in order to proceed with disposition of this property. Project Managers: 

Scott Letasi/Michael Peck/Steve Blaschka 

27

Item 46 

Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment Project 

At the February 2006 Governing Board meeting, the Board approved the staff recommendation 

to adopt a 27 percent nitrogen load reduction goal and to utilize wetlands as the primary 

treatment component. The selection of wetlands as the treatment option was based on a 

comprehensive consultant investigation into alternative treatment technologies. Following the 

receipt of bids on April 6, 2011, the low bidder, PCL Construction, Inc., filed a formal protest. In 

accordance with Board approval, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative 

Hearings. On July 11, following several discovery requests and legal motions, PCL agreed to 

drop the bid protest and move forward with the project at their submitted bid amount. The 

construction contract and the consultant amendment for construction management services 

were fully executed on September 6. The preconstruction conference was held on September 

21. Notice to Proceed was issued and effective September 26. With regard to grant funding, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informed the District that all Special Appropriations 

allocated in EPA’s fiscal year (FY) 2008 and earlier were on hold. A revised grant application for 

available FY2009 funds totaling $485,000 was submitted. If EPA makes the earlier appropriated 

funds available, a revised application will be submitted. EPA funds will offset District Save Our 

Rivers (Water Management Lands Trust Fund) funding. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting: The contractor mobilized to the project site on September 26. Initial activities included: 

delivery of equipment, installation of the construction trailer, clearing, and installation of silt 

fence and tree protection barrier. Excavation of the borrow material and dike construction 

commenced. Project Manager: Janie Hagberg 

Watershed Management Program/Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization 

The District initiated a partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to 

modernize Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as part of its Watershed Management Program 

(WMP). Flood protection and floodplain information has been a priority at the District since the 

inception of the organization, and that priority was renewed following the El Niño weather event 

in 1997-1998. In addition to studies conducted by the District and others, information on 

floodplains (elevations) is available through the FEMA FIRMs. However, many of the existing 

maps do not accurately represent the flood-prone areas, either because the initial studies were 

technically limited or the maps are outdated due to significant land use changes since 

completion. Accurate floodplain information is vital to local government planning and zoning, 

and to the District’s regulatory program and the land owners. To improve the floodplain 

information, develop regional scale flood routing models for alternative analysis, and improve 

local governments’ understanding of their flood protection level of service, the District reached 

out to local governments and initiated the WMP in the late 1990s. Additionally, the District and 

FEMA executed a Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Memorandum of Agreement on 

September 14, 2001, to formalize the relationship and to improve the existing FIRMs to better 

identify risks of flooding within the District. As a CTP, the District is eligible for federal funds to 

act as FEMA's partner in modernization of the FIRMs. Federal funds have allowed the District 

and local governments to accomplish significantly more than would have otherwise been 

possible. To date, the District has received $12.1 million in federal funds from FEMA for 

countywide map modernization projects for Pasco, Sarasota, Hernando, Marion, Polk, Hardee, 

DeSoto, Citrus, and Sumter, Levy, and Highlands counties. The Map Modernization Program 

also includes federal funding for management support. FEMA began FIRM updates for 

Hillsborough and Marion counties before the District became a CTP. FEMA issued its letter of 

determination finalizing the FIRMs for Hillsborough and Marion counties, and the FIRMs 

became effective on August 28, 2008. New Activities Since Last Meeting: Hernando County: 

The anticipated effective date for the FEMA FIRMs is February 2, 2012. Pasco County: The 

countywide preliminary maps and FIS reports have been submitted to FEMA for postpreliminary 

processing. Sarasota County: Intensive analysis continues for the Big Slough 

watershed model update and for seven certified watershed models provided by Sarasota 

County. Island of Venice, Roberts Bay, and Alligator Creek will be presented to the Board in 

October for approval. Polk County: Work continues in the county; Peace Creek, Polk City and 

Upper Peace River�Homeland watersheds are currently being reviewed and refined. Hardee 

County: The District and communities are currently reviewing panels of the draft FIRM maps. 

The District is preparing the communities for preliminary map release. DeSoto County: Detailed 

studies for Deep Creek and Thornton Branch are being incorporated into the FIRMs for DeSoto 

28

Item 46 

County. The District is preparing the communities for preliminary map release. Sumter County: 

Workshops with the Board of County Commissioners and City of Bushnell were held September 

20 and October 10 respectively. Citrus County: Watershed models are being developed by 

consultants. Crystal River and Center Ridge were approved by the Board and provided to the 

FIRM mapping consultant. Tsala Apopka is scheduled to be presented to the Governing Board 

in November and several other watersheds are being reviewed by District staff. Cardinal Lane 

watershed open house is scheduled for October 25. Levy County: Post-preliminary processing 

continues and notification of approval of the Levy County base flood elevation was published in 

the Federal Register on December 29, 2010. Notifications were published in the local 

newspaper on February 17 and 24, 2011. The “90-Day Appeal and Protest Period” was 

completed on May 25, 2011. Marion County: Modernized FIRMs were adopted in August 2008. 

The County and District are updating the watershed models to account for infiltration in deep 

sandy soils. Gum Swamp, Big Jones Creek, Flemington, Hog Prairie, Northwest Ocala, 

Blichton, Cotton Plant 1, Martel, SR 200, Cotton Plant 2, and Cotton Plant 3 watersheds are in 

the peer review and public meeting process. The floodplain results from these watersheds may 

be used to update the FIRMs by the County and FEMA. Manatee County: Buffalo Canal/Frog 

Creek has been approved by the Board and has been provided to the FIRM mapping 

consultant. FEMA will manage the production of the FIRMs and the map adoption process. 

Highlands County: The District, the South Florida Water Management District, and the County 

are presenting to the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners on September 27, 

2011, to prepare for preliminary map release. An open house for the limited detailed studies will 

be held on October 27. Project Manager: Gordon McClung 

Myakka River Watershed Initiative and Flatford Swamp Hydrologic Restoration 

The Myakka River Watershed Initiative (MRWI) is a comprehensive project that will illustrate the 

effects of land use conversions and alterations and evaluate best management practices for 

environmental restoration alternatives. A primary focus of the initiative is the Flatford Swamp 

area. The overall objective of this initiative is to restore historic water quantity regimes, improve 

water quality, natural system, and reduce floodplain impacts in the watershed in ways that can 

also provide a benefit to water supplies in the SWUCA. In February 2006, the Governing Board 

allocated $500,000 to hire a consultant team to perform elements of the WMP and for the 

collection of topographic information in eastern Manatee County using light detection and 

ranging (LiDAR) mapping technologies. Several outreach meetings were held to solicit 

stakeholder input and gather data. A water budget model comparing existing and historic 

conditions within Flatford Swamp was developed to determine the amount of excess water that 

could be captured for a beneficial use. This information was provided to the Peace River 

Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority) for use in its latest water supply master 

plan. Several preliminary scenarios for removal of excess water from the swamp have been 

evaluated and, as a result, a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the development of a 

scope of work for a feasibility study to determine Mosaic’s potential uses for excess water from 

Flatford Swamp received Governing Board approval in November 2010. A subsequent revenue 

agreement with Mosaic has been executed. The District will act as the lead party in the 

feasibility study and a consultant services contract with Ardaman & Associates for the feasibility 

study was executed on September 20, 2011. New Activities Since Last Meeting: A kick-off 

meeting was held for the Mosaic feasibility study on September 22. The Watershed 

Management Plan tasks for the development of the hydraulic model in approximately 230 

square miles of watershed began September 15. Field work began to set a complete baseline 

vegetation survey in Flatford Swamp. Project Managers: Lisann Morris/Mary Szafraniec 

Tampa Bay Water 

� System Configuration II Project: The Governing Board approved the agreement with Tampa 

Bay Water (TBW) for the System Configuration II project at its February 2007 meeting; the 

cooperative agreement was executed May 1, 2007. The project, when completed in 

December 2011, is expected to provide up to 25 million gallons per day (mgd) of alternative 

water to the regional system. The estimated total project cost is $247,694,339 with the District 

committing to half of eligible costs of $232 million, which is $116 million. The project seeks to 

increase TBW's overall system capacity by drawing more water from the Hillsborough River 

during high flows via the Tampa Bypass Canal (TBC), in combination with increasing the 

29

Item 46 

allowable percentage of withdrawals from the TBC. The project components are primarily 

associated with improvements to the regional systems treatment, transmission, and storage 

infrastructure. Specifically, this project includes six surface water pumping projects and four 

system interconnects that will allow TBW to deliver the new alternative water supply to its 

member governments. The Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) Expansion, TBC Pump 

Station Expansion, TBW Regional High Service Pump Station Expansion, SWTP Repump 

Station Expansion, South Central Hillsborough Intertie Booster Pumping Station, and Offstream 

Reservoir Pump Station are all project components that contribute to the downstream 

enhancements. The South Central Hillsborough Infrastructure Project (SCHIP) Phases IB 

and II, Northwest Hillsborough Pipeline, Morris Bridge Booster Station Expansion, and 

Cypress Creek Pump Station Expansion are part of the system interconnects. New Activities 

Since Last Meeting: The project is currently on schedule, with construction completion 

expected by December 31, 2011. The SCHIP Phases IB and II, Morris Bridge Booster Station 

Expansion, Surface Water Treatment Plant Expansion, and TBC Pump Station Expansion are 

complete. The remainder of the project met the substantial completion milestone in 

September 2011. Project Manager: Alison Ramoy 

� Surface Water Expansion Project: This is a four-year feasibility study to determine the 

availability of surface water withdrawals from surface water supply sources (including the 

Alafia River and Bullfrog Creek), evaluate expanding TBW’s reservoir, and perform cost 

analyses. New Activities Since Last Meeting: District staff attended a project status meeting 

with TBW in October. Ongoing activities include surface water modeling, analyses and cost 

estimating. Due to TBW’s recent decision to expand their reservoir, the modeling runs and 

assessments have been reduced to include Bullfrog Creek and alternative treatment locations 

only. This will allow TBW to continue evaluating expansion alternatives for their surface water 

system as part of their long-term planning efforts. The project is currently ahead of schedule 

and is anticipated to be complete in June 2012. The next status meeting will be held in early 

2012. Project Manager: Sandie Will 

Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

� Regional Integrated Loop System Project: The Integrated Loop System Feasibility and 

Routing Study recommended four main phases to interconnect the water supply and 

distribution systems of Authority members and non-member customers. Phases 1 and 1A 

connect the Peace River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to the City of Punta Gorda’s Shell 

Creek WTP. Phase 1 would extend the Authority’s existing transmission line in DeSoto 

County along US 17 southward. Design was completed in 2007, but the project has been 

indefinitely postponed in favor of constructing Phase 1A. Phase 1A will provide additional 

service to developed portions of Charlotte County near I-75. The project includes 

approximately 12 miles of pipeline with a capacity of 6 mgd and a subaqueous crossing of the 

Peace River. A cooperative funding agreement between the District and Authority for Phase 

1A was executed in September 2008. Design was completed in October 2009. A construction 

contract was awarded to Garney Companies in August 2010. Construction commenced in 

March 2011 and is scheduled for completion by June 2012. Total cost is estimated at 

$19,015,000 with the District providing up to $12,007,500, which includes $5 million in West- 

Central Florida Water Restoration Action Plan funding. The Phase 2 interconnect will run from 

the Peace River WTP to a connection with the City of North Port near Serris Boulevard. 

Future sub-phases may extend to the City’s WTP, then branch westward to the Englewood 

Water District and northward to establish a rotational link with the Carlton WTP. The first 

seven-mile, 42-inch diameter segment is being developed by the Authority to deliver the City’s 

allocated share from the Peace River WTP. The City and the Authority executed an Interlocal 

Agreement to develop Phase 2 in June 2009. The cooperative funding agreement for Phase 2 

was executed in May 2010. The construction contract was awarded in May 2011. The total 

project cost provided in the funding agreement is $15,400,000. The District’s share of eligible 

costs is $7,783,015 and includes $166,031 in Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Funds 

(WPSTF). Phases 3 and 4 will eventually interconnect the Carlton WTP to water supply 

systems in Manatee County. Preliminary engineering for Phase 3 was completed in 

March 2008. The first portion of this pipeline, Phase 3A, extends the Authority’s existing 

regional transmission line that currently terminates at the Carlton WTP. Phase 3A provides an 

additional water delivery point to Sarasota County and creates a potential intertie to the City of 

30

Item 46 

Venice. This project includes 8.5 miles of 48-inch diameter pipeline with a design capacity of 

37 mgd and includes a subaqueous crossing of the Myakka River. The cooperative funding 

agreement for Phase 3A was executed in November 2008. Construction commenced in 

February 2010 and is scheduled for completion in March 2012. The total project cost is 

estimated to be $31,879,240. The District’s share of eligible costs is $13,825,135 and includes 

$166,031 in WPSTF. The future expansion of Phase 3B northward will join long-term 

components of Phase 4 in Manatee County and will connect to the surface water treatment 

facility on Lake Manatee and a WTP on University Parkway. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting: Phase 1A construction continues along multiple portions of the pipeline route and 

pumping station. All construction easements have been secured. The water crossing has 

commenced inside a boat canal on the northern bank of the Peace River. The Phase 2 

pipeline installation has begun at the Peace River WTP and will work southwestward to North 

Port. North Port’s City Council approved an agreement for the remaining construction 

easement and is now pending approval by the Authority. Phase 3A is now operable and is 

delivering approximately 5 mgd of water supply to a new service connection in Sarasota 

County. Remaining construction tasks such as paving and landscaping along Laurel Road will 

continue through November. Project Manager: John Ferguson 

� Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Arsenic Research 

This project is investigating methods for controlling the mobilization of arsenic occurring during 

aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) activities. Beginning in 2008, the District initiated a pilot 

project with the City of Bradenton for the design, permitting, and construction of a 

degasification system to remove dissolved oxygen (DO) from water prior to injection and 

storage in the aquifer. The project is co-funded by the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District, South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management 

District, the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, and the City of 

Bradenton. The pilot project is being performed at the City of Bradenton's ASR site and is 

capable of processing water at 700 gallons per minute with 99.96 percent removal of DO. 

Construction of the degasification system was completed in June 2008 at a cost of $700,000. 

Preliminary operation cost is estimated at approximately 10 cents per thousand gallons. The 

first attempt at running a full cycle test with deoxygenated water began on December 2, 2008. 

The system, however, was shut down on December 17, 2008, due to equipment failure. 

Repairs to the degasification system were made in January 2009 and the test was restarted in 

August 2009. The recharge portion of the test was completed in May 2010 with an optimal 

storage volume of 160 million gallons (mg) of treated water having been injected, exceeding 

the minimum goal of 140 mg. Recovery of the stored water started on September 7, 2010. 

New Activities Since Last Meeting: The 160 mg cycle test with pre-treated water was 

successfully completed on February 23, 2011, and all the recovered water was well within the 

drinking water standard of 10 ug/l. The results received to date clearly show the pre-treatment 

process of removing dissolved oxygen does control arsenic mobilization. The City is preparing 

a final report documenting the pre-treatment system performance and a DEP operating permit 

application for submittal. The City is now operating the system 100 percent with their own staff 

and started recharge for the next 160 mg cycle in June. Approximately 40 mg of water has 

been injected so far this year at an average rate of 1 mgd. Recovery will begin March 2012 

and be complete by July 2012. Project Manager: Don Ellison 

Lower Hillsborough River MFL Recovery Strategy – Implementation 

At the August 2007 meeting, the Governing Board established the minimum flow for the lower 

Hillsborough River (LHR). As required by statute, if the actual flow of a water course is below 

the proposed minimum flow or is projected to fall below the proposed minimum flow over the 

next 20 years, a "recovery strategy" must be developed as part of the minimum flow 

development process. In the case of the LHR, a recovery strategy was needed. The proposed 

recovery strategy was approved by the Governing Board at the August 2007 meeting. The 

recovery strategy includes a number of projects to divert water from various sources to help 

meet the minimum flow. Projects that are planned under the recovery strategy include 

diversions of water from Sulphur Springs, Blue Sink, the TBC, and Morris Bridge Sink. Pursuant 

to the recovery strategy, 75 percent of the 11 cubic feet per second (cfs) (8.2 cfs or 5.3 mgd) 

transferred to the reservoir from the TBC is being pumped to the base of the dam. This amount 

of fresh water, in combination with 10 cfs supplied from Sulphur Springs to the base of the dam 

31

Item 46 

by the City of Tampa (COT), indicates an actual minimum flow of 18.2 cfs (11.8 mgd) or 70-to- 

80 percent of the adopted minimum flow is now being supplied to the LHR, depending on 

season. A COT request for a variance to deadlines for completion of recovery strategy projects 

was approved at the June 2011 Governing Board meeting. The deadlines for project completion 

were extended as follows: Lower Weir – December 1, 2011; Upper Weir and Pump House – 

October 1, 2012; Blue Sink Project – December 31, 2013. New Activities Since Last Meeting: 

Staff continues the permitting process for the permanent pump station at Morris Bridge Sink and 

will issue the Request for Bid when timelines are confirmed. Due to improved hydrologic 

conditions in the upper Hillsborough River beginning in July, both the COT and the District 

ceased diversions from Sulphur Springs and the TBC. Currently water is still spilling over the 

COT dam and no diversions are needed to meet the MFL; however, it is expected that 

diversions will resume as soon as the summer rainy season comes to an end. Project 

Managers: Marty Kelly/David Crane 

TECO’s Southwest Polk Power Station Interconnects to Lakeland and Polk County 

� Reuse Project: This project, consisting of transmission pipelines and a deep injection well, 

will provide reclaimed water from several domestic wastewater treatment facilities to Tampa 

Electric Company’s (TECO) power facility in southwest Polk County. TECO will be expanding 

the power generation capacity at its Polk Power Station with the addition of Unit 6. Phase I of 

the project was anticipated to provide 6 mgd of reclaimed water from the City of Lakeland for 

the first TECO expansion. With the additional quantities that will be provided by Polk County 

and the City of Mulberry, approximately 7 mgd will now be available. Phase I of the project 

was expected to utilize reclaimed water by 2013. Due to the economic downturn and reduced 

demands, TECO has delayed the addition of Unit 6. However, TECO intends to replace, to the 

greatest extent possible, existing groundwater uses with reclaimed water before the 

expansion is complete, as required by the cooperative funding agreement. While the 

reclaimed water infrastructure and deep injection well are still expected to be complete by 

2013, the project will not use the full 7 mgd until Unit 6 is operational. In order to utilize the 

reclaimed water, additional treatment is necessary, consisting of filtering and possible reverse 

osmosis to reduce dissolved solids to an acceptable level. The reverse osmosis reject water 

(concentrate by-product) will be mixed with other facility discharge water and pumped to one 

of two proposed deep injection wells for final disposal. While the wells are being drilled as part 

of this project, only one will be eligible for cooperative funding. Phase I is estimated to cost 

$72,686,800 which includes the portion of the project that will provide TECO with reclaimed 

water from the City of Mulberry. Plans for Phase II, originally estimated to be underway by 

2012, have also been delayed. Initial estimates indicate that 6 mgd of reclaimed water will be 

needed for TECO's second phase of expansion, although the source has not been identified. 

New Activities Since Last Meeting: Demobilization at the IW-1 and DZMW-1 site continues. 

Geophysical logging of DZMW-1 is complete. While not included in the scope of work for the 

cooperative funding agreement, the rig has been relocated and drilling has commenced at the 

IW-2 and DZMW-2 site. The third request for reimbursement from TECO has been processed 

and paid. TECO entered into an agreement with AECOM for pipeline and pump station 

engineering. AECOM has been working on equipment sizing and the site layout. The hydraulic 

model has been completed. Geotechnical work on the pump station, pipeline, and reclaimed 

water treatment system is also proceeding. The Reclaimed Water Supply Agreement between 

TECO and Mulberry is being finalized. TECO also anticipates entering into a separate 

Reclaimed Water Supply Agreement with Polk County after it is approved by the Board of 

County Commissioners, which is anticipated on October 25. Project Manager: Alison Ramoy 

� Aquifer Recharge Projects: In 2009, the District funded a study (H076) as part of the 

Regional Reclaimed Water Partnership Initiative to assess the feasibility of using highly 

treated reclaimed water to recharge the Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA) in the southern 

Hillsborough and Polk County areas. Findings from the study indicate that it is possible to 

develop direct and indirect aquifer recharge projects to improve UFA water levels and provide 

opportunities for additional groundwater withdrawals. The costs associated with developing 

these projects were found to be comparable to costs of other planned alternative water supply 

projects. Since completing the study, several local governments have expressed interest in 

assessing the applicability of aquifer recharge in their areas. District staff is working with these 

entities to develop and implement project plans to assess the site specific feasibilities of 

32

Item 46 

implementing aquifer recharge projects to address their individual needs. Prior to initiating 

work, District staff also reviews project tasks to avoid as much duplicative efforts as possible 

between cooperators. 

� Currently-Funded Aquifer Recharge Projects – FY2010/2011 Cooperative Funding 

City of Clearwater - Groundwater Replenishment Project 

This is an indirect potable reuse desktop feasibility study and pilot testing project to evaluate 

the viability of using 3 mgd of highly treated reclaimed water to increase water levels within 

the northeast portion of the City and provide possible future water supplies at their existing 

wellfield. The feasibility study was completed in May 2011. The results showed that water 

level improvements from direct recharge into the brackish zone of the UFA can potentially 

provide additional water supplies to the City and that water treatment requirements could be 

met with current available technologies. The study also showed that preliminary cost 

estimates for the full-scale facility would be $4.07 per thousand gallons. Therefore, the City 

will move forward with pilot testing to confirm the findings. The pilot testing program includes 

permitting, installing a recharge well and associated monitor wells, evaluating aquifer 

characteristics, testing water treatment and recharge, and conducting public outreach. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting: The City completed contract negotiations with their 

consultant in September. It is anticipated that the project will begin by the end of October. 

Project Manager: Sandie Will 

City of Winter Haven - Reclaimed Water for Recharge Feasibility Study 

This is a desktop feasibility study to evaluate using 4 mgd of highly treated excess reclaimed 

water for indirect aquifer recharge to benefit water levels in the area. New Activities Since 

Last Meeting: District staff attended a monthly status meeting in September. The 

consultants are performing initial evaluations on hydrogeology, water quality, and permitting. 

The next status meeting is anticipated to be held at the end of October. Project Manager: 

Sandie Will 

Pasco County - Reclaimed Water Natural Systems Treatment and Restoration Project 

A desktop feasibility study to assess using 10 mgd of highly treated reclaimed water to 

indirectly recharge the UFA via constructed wetlands and/or rapid infiltration basins (RIB) in 

the Crews Lake and central Pasco areas was completed in January 2011. The study 

showed that indirect aquifer recharge is a viable option for Pasco County. A Phase II 

feasibility study will be performed by the end of 2011 and will include a screening analysis 

for potential rapid infiltration basin locations, as well as cost analyses refinements. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting: The agreement and scope of work for the Phase II 

feasibility study were completed in August, and work is anticipated to begin by mid-October. 

District staff is also working with the County to prepare the scope of work and agreement for 

the next phase (Phase III), which will include field testing for the construction of RIBs in 

areas identified in the feasibility study. Work is anticipated to begin on the Phase III tasks in 

early December. Project Manager: Mike Hancock 

Polk County - Groundwater Recharge Investigation 

This is an indirect aquifer recharge desktop feasibility study and pilot testing project to 

evaluate improvements to UFA water levels from applying varying quantities of reclaimed 

water flows into existing RIB systems in the County's Northeast Regional Utilities Service 

Area. Sites being evaluated include the Northeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility 

and Polo Davenport. Tasks include performing a site characterization, installing monitoring 

wells, performing aquifer and RIB characterization activities, and conducting recharge 

testing for one year. New Activities Since Last Meeting: District staff attended a status 

meeting with the County in September and October. The County’s consultant is currently 

performing preliminary site assessment activities and preparing the detailed site assessment 

plan for field activities. The next status meeting is scheduled in November. Project Manager: 

Sandie Will 

South Hillsborough County Aquifer Recharge Program (SHARP) 

This is a direct aquifer recharge pilot project to evaluate directly recharging the non-potable 

zone of the UFA with up to 2 mgd of highly treated reclaimed water at the County’s Big Bend 

facility near Apollo Beach in southern Hillsborough County. The pilot testing program 

includes permitting, installing a recharge well and associated monitor wells, assessing 

aquifer characteristics, performing recharge testing, evaluating water level improvements, 

33

Item 46 

migration of the recharge water and metals mobilization, and conducting public outreach. 

New Activities Since Last Meeting: Work is ongoing. The County’s consultant is currently 

preparing the well construction permit application for authorization to install the recharge 

and monitoring wells. It is anticipated that District staff will attend a kick-off meeting with the 

County and their consultant by the end of October. Project Manager: Sandie Will 

Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Flow Meter and Automatic Meter Reading 

Equipment Implementation Program 

At the June 2011 Governing Board meeting, the Board reviewed the Dover/Plant City Water 

Use Caution Area (DPCWUCA) Flow Meter and Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Equipment 

Implementation Program (program) and authorized staff to encumber $1,394,980 from FY2011 

into FY2012 to implement the program. The program administration will be guided by a District 

Procedure. The program is being implemented as a result of several groundwater drawdown 

events related to frost/freeze protection of agricultural commodities in the Dover/Plant City area. 

In January 2010, this area experienced a record number of well failures (760) related to 

groundwater drawdown associated with irrigation used for crop frost/freeze protection. The 

magnitude of the 2010 frost/freeze event brought into focus the need to further enhance the 

collection of hydrogeological data, including water use information, to better understand and 

manage the relationship between pumping and groundwater drawdown. As part of the District’s 

response to these events, a series of Stakeholder and Technical Work Group meetings were 

held to develop management strategies. Potential management strategies were also discussed 

by the Governing Board at several Board meetings in spring 2010. At the June 2010 Governing 

Board meeting, the Board directed staff to proceed with the establishment of the DPCWUCA 

and a recovery strategy that included the expansion of data collection activities through the 

installation of flow meters and AMR equipment. The Board also authorized the use of $50,000 in 

contingency funds to begin AMR implementation. At the December 2010 Governing Board 

meeting the Board adopted a minimum aquifer level in the DPCWUCA (Rule 40D-8.626, Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.)), as well as a recovery strategy (Rule 40D-80.075, F.A.C.) that 

incorporated flow meters and AMR installations to reduce resource impacts from future 

frost/freeze pumping events. The rules went into effect on June 16, 2011. Meter information in 

the Dover/Plant City area will be used by the District to: (1) improve the allocation of well 

mitigation responsibilities among permit holders, (2) allow District staff to better identify permit 

compliance issues resulting from pumping during frost/freeze events, (3) improve the modeling 

of impacts resulting from pumping during frost/freeze events, (4) allow the monitoring of 

performance and track the progress of management actions implemented, and (5) provide for 

the overall assessment of the recovery strategy goal of reducing frost/freeze protection 

quantities by 20 percent in ten years. It is estimated that 626 flow meters and 961 AMR devices 

will need to be installed within the 256-square mile DPCWUCA. Total costs of the program are 

estimated to be $5.5 million for flow meter and AMR equipment installation with approximately 

$300,000 required annually to support the program. The implementation schedule is to 

complete all flow meter installations within three years (September 2014) and AMR installations 

within five years (September 2016). New Activities Since Last Meeting: Staff has contacted 

28 permittees to initiate flow meter installations as a trial to test program procedures. 

Installations began in early August 2011 and Reimbursement Claim Forms are being 

processed. Staff is finalizing a Request for Proposal to obtain a qualified consultant to install 

AMR equipment. AMR installations are anticipated to begin by December 2011. Project 

Manager: Paul Yosler 

Land Resources 

In September 2011, the following events were held on District land or attended by Land 

Resources staff: 

� Staff spoke to Leadership Hernando’s current class of 22 participants concerning the many 

facets of the District’s land management program and how it supports the District’s Areas of 

Responsibility. 

� Hillsborough County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) hosted a joint public 

meeting to discuss plans for reopening Medard Park to boating/fishing now that the District’s 

maintenance of the reservoir is complete. The reservoir is owned by the District and managed 

by Hillsborough County and the FWC. The County and FWC have proposed the designating 

34

Item 46 

the reservoir a “Fish Management Area,” which will give FWC more flexibility to improve the 

game fish populations in the reservoir. The FWC made a formal presentation on its restocking 

efforts, and the County advised that it plans to reopen the boat ramps to boating in December 

2011; however, fishing will be prohibited until 2013 to allow the stocked fish to mature. 

Members of the public appeared supportive of FWC’s restocking plans but were concerned 

that fishing would be prohibited for so long. FWC agreed to consider all public input and will 

create a subcommittee to determine if other options should be considered. 

� Flying Eagle Youth Center 

The Flying Eagle Youth Center is located within the Flying Eagle Preserve. A no cost lease of 

580 acres was entered into with the Gulf Ridge Council of the Boy Scouts of America (Scouts) 

in 2006. The lease requires the Scouts to maintain and operate the Project Lands as a youth 

center including all buildings, facilities, site security and any other management actions 

necessary to protect the Project Lands. In 2010, the Scouts contacted the District regarding 

renovation of facilities and expanding use. They indicated they did not have the financial 

resources to address renovation costs and requested the District to consider providing 

funding. As part of these discussions, the District, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWC), Wildlife Foundation of Florida (WFF) and the Scouts evaluated options to 

expand the utilization and functionality of the property. In April of 2011, the District, FWC and 

WFF entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which memorialized the intent of the 

parties to develop a partnership. At the August Governing Board meeting, the Board allocated 

$150,000 in the FY2012 budget to be used for renovation of facilities for public safety or 

demolition, if required. The Board approved a six-month period for the Scouts, FWC, and WFF 

to evaluate their options before the District would recommend a final disposition of the 

facilities. The Board also approved staff to expend a portion of the funds for safety and 

demolition without seeking Board approval. New Activities Since Last Meeting: Staff met 

with representatives of the Scouts, FWC, and WFF on September 16, 2011 and informed 

them of the Board’s recommendations. The parties will evaluate their options and meet with 

District staff in early October. 

� Fire Activity 

A shift to summertime rain patterns has significantly decreased likelihood of wildfires on 

District lands. During FY2011, 12 fires totaling 1,313 acres have occurred on District lands. 

District staff has conducted nearly 26,000 acres of prescribed burns on District lands since 

October 1, 2010. 



Presenters: Mark A. Hammond, Division Director, Resource Management 

Michael L. Holtkamp, Division Director, Operations, Maintenance & Construction 

35



GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT 


47. Supplement to Resolution Authorizing Proceedings in Eminent Domain for 

Acquisition of Certain Interests in Land Necessary for the Lake Hancock 

Lake Level Modification Project ......................................................................................... 2 

(Strategic Plan: Natural Systems – MFLs Recovery) 


48. Receipt of Formal Opinion of the Attorney General – Competitive Negotiation 

for Public Construction Projects ......................................................................................... 10 


49. Litigation Report ................................................................................................................. 11 

50. Rulemaking Update ........................................................................................................... 23




Item 47 

Supplement to Resolution Authorizing Proceedings in Eminent Domain for Acquisition of 

Certain Interests in Land Necessary for the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to request the Governing Board approve Resolution 11-20 which 

supplements the earlier resolution that authorizes proceedings in eminent domain for acquisition of 

certain interests in land necessary for the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project (Project). 

This supplemental resolution clarifies the language previously authorized and approved for the 

taking of easements to more fully explain the effect of establishing the Lake Hancock Outfall Control 

Structure at elevation 100 NGVD. 


The District is required by state law (Section 373.042, Florida Statutes (F.S.)) to develop minimum 

flows and levels (MFL) on priority water bodies and aquifers. The purpose of the MFL is to ensure 

that adequate flows or levels are maintained to protect the state’s water resources. The District has 

set minimum flows for the upper Peace River including17 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Bartow, 

27 cfs at Fort Meade, and 45 cfs at Zolfo Springs. Flows in the upper Peace River were below the 

minimum flows at Fort Meade approximately 28 percent of the time during the last 30 years. The 

District’s Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) Recovery Strategy includes a recovery 

strategy, as required by state law (Section 373.0421, F.S.), for the upper Peace River because the 

minimum flows are not currently being met. 

Ground-water withdrawals in the SWUCA have resulted in declines in aquifer levels throughout the 

SWUCA and contribute to reduced flows in the upper Peace River. The District determined that it is 

not feasible to reduce groundwater withdrawals to achieve the minimum flows for the upper Peace 

River. Therefore, the District evaluated a series of projects with the potential to restore the 

historically lost lake and floodplain storage to aid in reestablishing minimum flows. The project 

areas include Lake Hancock, Peace Creek Canal, and the mined lands around Bartow. The Lake 

Hancock Lake Level Modification Project was determined to be critical to the District's strategies for 

meeting the minimum flows in the upper Peace River. The goal of the Project is to store water by 

raising the control elevation of the existing outflow structure on Lake Hancock from 98.7 to 

100.0 feet and to slowly release water during the dry season to help meet the low flow requirements 

in the upper Peace River. Historically, the lake level was approximately one to two feet higher than 

the current operating level. The Project will increase the number of days the upper Peace River will 

meet the minimum flow from 70 percent to 87 percent. In addition, the Project will improve the 

function of approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands around the lake and preserve approximately 

4,800 acres of floodplain. 

In October 2004, the Governing Board authorized staff to proceed with the preliminary design and 

engineering to prepare a conceptual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application for the 

Project with a target operating level of up to 100 feet. In January 2006, the Board authorized staff, 

upon reaching agreement through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Polk County, to submit 

the conceptual ERP application. In July 2006, the Governing Board approved the MOA with the 

County to address potential Project issues that may affect the County’s North Central Landfill. The 

County approved the MOA in August 2006. The District submitted the Conceptual ERP application 

to FDEP on August 31, 2006 and they issued the Conceptual ERP on June 14, 2007. 

2

Item 47 

The impacts associated with raising the operating level involve inundating surrounding public and 

private properties. The 100.0 foot operating level will alter the depth, duration, and frequency of 

water levels on these properties. Raising the lake level will result in the 100 year floodplain 

increasing by approximately 230 acres from approximately 4,570 acres to 4,800 acres. 

To date, 68 of the 73 parcels necessary for the Project have been acquired. The acquired lands or 

interests in land total 8,337 acres or 99 percent of the total needed. All of the five remaining parcels 

are easements, containing approximately 126 acres and encumbering only a portion of the subject 

properties. The District has sufficient funds available for acquiring the remaining parcels. 

Proposed Supplemental Resolution 11-20 

The District is empowered by Section 373.139(2), F.S., to acquire fee title, easements or other 

interests in real property for water storage projects through condemnation. The Governing Board 

exercises the District's power of eminent domain by adopting a resolution that authorizes the 

acquisition of the necessary interests in land through condemnation proceedings. In September 

2007, the Governing Board adopted Resolution 07-34 which authorized the taking of private 

property for the Project. In October 2008, the Board adopted Resolution 08-27 which superseded 

Resolution 07-34 and amended the 100 year flood elevation and legal descriptions incorporated 

therein. Both earlier resolutions contain recitals concerning the necessity for acquiring the property 

and a statement that the ultimate award, or total cost for obtaining the property, is believed to be 

within the limits of the District's ability to pay. 

In pending eminent domain lawsuits to acquire easement parcels, arguments have been made that 

the District would have the right and ability to hold Lake Hancock above elevation 100 and thereby 

continuously inundate the various easement parcels. To address such arguments, the District’s 

special counsel has used language explaining the consequences of establishing the Lake Hancock 

outfall control structure at 100 NGVD (1929), including particularly that “the District may not hold 

Lake Hancock at an elevation above 100 NGVD (1929)”, and that “any increase in the lake elevation 

above 100 NGVD (1929) may only occur as a consequence of rainfall events that cause the 

intermittent inundation or flooding of the Property”; and, the term “intermittent” has been added to 

the description of the flowage and inundation easement. 

Property owners’ counsel have objected to this language and argue that such explanations are 

beyond District counsel’s authority and describe an easement different from that described in 

Resolution 08-27 which was “an inundation easement for the purposes and consequences of 

establishing the Lake Hancock Outfall Control Structure at elevation 100 NGVD (1929), and operate 

the control structure so that the 100 year flood level for Lake Hancock is 103.9 NGVD (1929).” 

The District has countered that the description used is completely consistent with Resolution 08-27. 

The additional words and phrases concerning the lake elevation follow directly from establishing the 

outfall control structure at elevation 100 NGVD (1929); and, inundation or flooding of the easement 

areas will necessarily be intermittent given cycles of above average and below average rainfall and 

seasonal rainfall variations, as well as the planned release of water from the lake during dry periods. 

This Resolution is designed to confirm these basic facts, confirm that the easement language is 

within the authority previously granted, and, if deemed necessary by the Court, to authorize the 

easement language being used by counsel and to otherwise ratify the prior findings, conclusions 

and authorizations of the Board. 


Adopt Resolution 11-20 which supplements Resolution 08-27 to confirm or approve the easement 

language being used by counsel. 

Presenters: Richard V. Neill and Richard V. Neill, Jr., Special Eminent Domain Counsel 

3



SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION 08-27, WHICH AUTHORIZED 

PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT DOMAIN, INCLUDING PRESUIT 

NEGOTIATION AND DECLARATION OF TAKING, FOR ACQUISITION 

OF CERTAIN LANDS IN POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE LAKE 

HANCOCK LAKE LEVEL MODIFICATION PROJECT 

WHEREAS, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“the 

District”), through its Governing Board (“the Board”), authorized 

implementation of the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project 

(“the Project”) on September 25, 2007, 

WHEREAS, the Board concurrently adopted Resolution 07-34, 

authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property 

interests necessary to implement the Project, 

WHEREAS, the Board subsequently adopted Resolution 08-27, 

amending and superseding Resolution 07-34, to incorporate revisions to 

the legal descriptions of the properties to be acquired and the 100 

year flood elevation, 

WHEREAS, the Board has previously determined that: 

a. Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes authorized the District 

to acquire real property for the Project, 

b. Acquisition of the lands described in Resolution 08-27 

(the Project Lands) was necessary for water storage and 

was authorized by Section 373.139(2) of the Florida 

Statutes, which specifically authorized property 

acquisition through eminent domain, and 

c. Acquisition of the Project Lands was not only necessary for 

water storage, but also to address recovery of the minimum 

flows for the upper Peace River as required pursuant to 

Sections 373.042 and 373.0421 of the Florida Statutes, was 

in the public interest, and was for a public purpose. 

WHEREAS, the Resolution 08-27 specifically authorized: 

a. Initiation of presuit negotiations and, if the same are 

unsuccessful, acquisition of all or any part or parts of 

the Project Lands . . ., in fee simple title or, where 

designated with the suffix “P”, an inundation easement for 

the purposes and consequences of establishing the Lake 

Hancock outfall control structure at an elevation of 100 

4 

1

NGVD (1929) and operating the control structure so that the 

one hundred year flood level for Lake Hancock is 103.9 NGVD 

(1929) at the control structure, by eminent domain pursuant 

to Chapters 73 and 74 of the Florida Statutes (2007) as 

expeditiously as possible. 

b. The institution of presuit negotiations and eminent domain 

proceedings as may be necessary to avail the District of 

all eminent domain powers and procedures pursuant to 

Florida Statutes and rules of Court, including proceedings 

pursuant to Chapters 73 and 74 Florida Statutes (2007), in 

order to acquire an interest in the Project Lands as 

described above, including proceedings by way of a 

Declaration of Taking authorized under Chapter 74 of the 

Florida Statutes (2007), and as otherwise may be necessary 

to complete the acquisition of the Project Lands in fee 

simple, for the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification 

Project, and for such work, facilities and appurtenances as 

may be required in connection therewith; 

WHEREAS, although more than two-thirds of the necessary parcels 

were acquired without the necessity of filing suit, it has been 

necessary to initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire some of 

the parcels which make up the Project Lands, 

WHEREAS, while seventy percent of the parcels taken to Court have 

been acquired in settlements, and all of the fee parcels and threequarters 

of the easement parcels assigned to outside counsel have been 

acquired, there are 5 easement parcels consisting of approximately 126 

acres yet to be acquired. 

WHEREAS, arguments have been made in Court that, in acquiring the 

easements, the District will have the right and ability to inundate 

the easement parcels at will and/or to hold Lake Hancock above 

elevation 100 and thereby continuously inundate the various easement 

parcels. 

WHEREAS, to address such arguments, counsel for the District has 

used the following language in recent petitions to describe easements 

being acquired: 

The estate or interest in the property that Petitioner intends to 

acquire is an intermittent flowage and inundation easement, 

described more particularly as follows: 

the perpetual right, power, privilege and easement (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as the “Easement”) to intermittently 

overflow, submerge, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and 

through the land described in Schedule B, attached hereto and 

incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as 

the “Property”), in connection with and for the purposes and 

consequences of establishing the Lake Hancock outfall control 

5 

2

structure at an elevation of 100 NGVD (1929), and operating the 

control structure so that the one hundred year flood level for 

Lake Hancock is 103.9 NGVD (1929), reserving to the fee owner 

all other rights. The District may not hold Lake Hancock at an 

elevation above 100 NGVD (1929). Any increase in the lake 

elevation above 100 NGVD (1929) may only occur as a consequence 

of rainfall events that cause the intermittent inundation or 

flooding of the Property. The Easement is to be governed by and 

construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida and 

inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto 

and their respective executors, administrators, personal 

representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns. 

WHEREAS, arguments have since been made in Court that this 

language used by counsel describes an interest different from that 

described in Resolution 08-27, and that the use of such language was 

beyond counsel’s authority. 

WHEREAS, the Board finds that: 

1. The purpose of the Project is to help meet the minimum 

flows in the Peace River. 

2. That will be accomplished by raising the level of Lake 

Hancock and storing water for release during the dry 

season. 

3. The Board decided to proceed with a new Lake Hancock 

operating level of 100 NGVD (1929)(all elevation 

references are NGVD [1929]). 

4. A higher level was considered and rejected. 

5. The District’s Conceptual Environmental Resource Permit 

describes the project as establishing an operating level 

of 100. 

6. Resolution 08-27 specifically states that the easements 

are for the purposes and consequences of establishing the 

outfall control structure at elevation 100. 

7. The plans show the operating control structure elevation as 

100. 

8. With the outfall control structure established at elevation 

100, the lake level cannot be held above 100. 

9. With the outfall control structure established at elevation 

100, the lake level cannot exceed 100 except as a result of 

a rainfall event or events. 

6 

3

10. The inundation or flooding of the easement areas will 

necessarily be intermittent, given cycles of above average 

and below average rainfall and seasonal rainfall 

variations, as well as the planned release of water from 

the Lake during dry periods. 

11. While the project lands extend to encompass the floodplain 

established with a 100 year flood level of 103.9 at Lake 

Hancock, and the acquisitions are part of a water storage 

project, the storage will be in the lake, itself, up to 

elevation 100; and, the additional lands are needed 

because raising the lake level changes how flood events 

will impact those surrounding properties. 

12. It was neither necessary nor the intent of the 

acquisitions to impose any use limitation on the 

subject properties. 

WHEREAS, the Board determines that, to the extent that the 

easement language used in recent petitions and set forth above, 

contains wording in addition to that specifically included in the 

Resolution 08-27, it was merely explanatory of the effect of 

establishing the Lake Hancock Outfall Control Structure at elevation 

100 as provided in that Resolution. 

WHEREAS, the Board further finds that the use of the easement 

language in recent petitions as set forth above was within the 

authority conferred by the Resolution 08-27 and does not change the 

nature or extent of the interest to be acquired. 

WHEREAS, the Board also notes that, pursuant to Section 74.111(4) 

of the Florida Statutes, counsel in eminent domain proceedings is 

authorized to stipulate or agree to exclude any property, or any part 

thereof, or any interest therein, that may have been, or may be taken 

by or on behalf of the District by the declaration of taking, or 

otherwise. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Board of the 

District as follows: 

1. The Board confirms that Resolution 08-27 authorizes use of 

the language below to describe the easement interests being acquired 

in the eminent domain proceedings: 

The estate or interest in the property that Petitioner intends to 

acquire is an intermittent flowage and inundation easement, 

described more particularly as follows: 

the perpetual right, power, privilege and easement (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as the “Easement”) to intermittently 

overflow, submerge, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and 

7 

4

STATE OF FLORIDA 

COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _____ day of 

___________, 2011, by H. Paul Senft, Jr., and Douglas B. Tharp, Chair 

and Secretary, respectively of the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District. They are personally known to me. 

__________________________________ 

Notary Public State of Florida 

Printed Name:_____________________ 

Commission No.____________________ 

My Commission Expires:____________ 

9 

6




Item 48 

Receipt of Formal Opinion of the Attorney General – Competitive Negotiation for Public 

Construction Projects 

At the June, 2011 Governing Board meeting, the Board authorized the District to request a 

formal opinion from the Attorney General concerning the use of competitive negotiation for 

construction projects and construction management services. On July 8, 2011, Chair Senft 

submitted the District’s Request for Formal Opinion (Request) to Attorney General Bondi. 

Specifically, the Request asked 

whether the District may lawfully use a hybrid process for awarding construction 

projects (which include construction and construction management services) that 

combines a request for bids or proposals with a competitive negotiation process 

such that the lowest or best responsive bidder is selected and then competitive 

negotiations are begun in an effort to arrive at a final project or service cost. 

On October 4, 2011, the Attorney General rendered her formal Advisory Legal Opinion, AGO 

2011-21. In that Opinion, General Bondi opined that, “[t]he Southwest Florida Water 

Management District is limited to utilizing the procedures set forth in the statutes for public 

construction works and for construction management services. The district has no authority to 

develop a ‘hybrid’ model for awarding construction projects in the absence of statutory 

authority.” AGO 2011-21, at 1. General Bondi opined that while there is some flexibility in the 

statutes governing procurement methods for construction projects and construction services, 

the statutes do not allow competitive negotiations to be combined with another method of 

procurement, such as requests for sealed bids. 

Accordingly, the District may procure these kinds of services by either competitive negotiation or 

requests for sealed bids (or proposals), but not by a hybrid process combining the two 

procurement methods. 


This item is submitted for the Board’s information, and no action is required. Copies of AGO 

2011-21 are available upon request. 

Presenter: Lori Tetreault, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel 

10

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LITIGATION REPORT 

October 2011 

(Changes in status since last month are in boldface type) 

STYLE/CASE NO. COURT/JUDGE ATTORNEY DESCRIPTION STATUS (current as of 10/04/11) 

SWFWMD v. 

Robert Barfield/ 

Case No. 10-CA- 

020317 

SWFWMD v. 

Robert Barfield 

SWFWMD v. 

Dollar Golf, Inc. 

and The Trails at 

Rivard 

Homeowners’ 

Association, Inc. 

SWFWMD v. 

Fatemah 

Corporation 

11 

SWFWMD v. 

Peter Geraci and 

Sheila Geraci/ 

Case No. 11- 

004509 

SWFWMD v. Holt, 

Tony 

13 th Judicial Circuit 

Hillsborough 

County/R. Foster 

Division of 

Administrative 

Hearings/D.R. 

Alexander 

ENFORCEMENT CASES 

(Including Administrative Complaints) 

A. Vining Complaint and Petition for 

Enforcement 

A. Vining Administrative Complaint and 

Order 

C. Felice Administrative Complaint and 

Order 


Order 

A. Brennan Administrative Complaint and 

Order 


Order 

1 

10/4/10 – Complaint and Petition for Enforcement filed. 10/19/10 

Respondent served. 10/24/10 – Letter to Clerk of Court captioned 

Answer served. 

2/21/11 – Respondent served. 3/28/11 – Administrative Complaint 

and Order No. SWF 11-004 entered. 

9/23/11 - Respondent, The Trails at Rivard Homeowners’ 

Association, Inc. served. 10/4/11 - Respondent, Dollar Golf, Inc. 

served. Respondent The Trails at Rivard Homeowners’ Assn., 

Inc., Request for Hearing served 10/7/11. 

10/18/10 – Respondent served. 11/1/10 – Respondent’s Answer to 

Administrative Complaint and Request for Administrative Hearing 

and Referral to Mediation served. 

3/17/11 – Respondent Sheila Geraci served. 4/13/11 – Respondent 

Peter Geraci served. 4/22/11 – Respondents’ Motion for Extension 

of Time to Respond to the Administrative Complaint and Order 

served. 5/4/11 – Respondent’s Answer to Administrative Complaint 

and Order and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing served. 

5/5/11 – Order Granting Request for Extension of Time as to Peter 

Geraci and Denying Request for Extension of Time as to Sheila 

Geraci entered. 5/12/11 – Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice as 

to Peter Geraci entered. 5/19/11 – Amended Answer to Administrative 

Complaint and Order and Petition for Formal Administrative 

Hearing served. 5/25/11 – Final Order of Dismissal as to Sheila 

Geraci entered. 5/27/11 – Notice of Entry of Final Order entered. 

9/1/11 – Referral to DOAH served. 9/7/11 – Initial Ordered 

entered. 9/15/11 – Joint Response to Initial Order served; and 

Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions 

entered. 9/20/11 – Notice of Service of Interrogatories and First 

Request for Production of Documents served. 9/22/11 – 

Amended Notice of Hearing entered 


and Order No. SWF 11-003 entered.

12 


SWFWMD v. 

Howard, Waylon 

SWFWMD v. 

Howard, Waylon 

SWFWMD v. The 

Kell Group, Ltd./ 

Case No. 

09CA007932 Div. 

K 

SWFWMD v. 

McClendon, J.C., 

Jr./Case 

No.0811837CI13 

SWFWMD v. 

Milmack, 

Inc./Case No. 53- 

2011-CA-000910- 

0000-00 

SWFWMD v. 

Wendy B. 

Mozdzer/Case No. 

53-2011-CA- 

001131-0000-00 

SWFWMD v. 

Shant Hotels, 

LLC/Case No. 53- 

2008-CA- 

0010708-0000-00 

13 th Judicial Circuit, 

Hillsborough 

County/W. Levens 


Pinellas 

County/Rondolino 


Polk County/M. 

Raiden 


Polk County/ 

McCarthy 

10th Judicial Circuit, 

Polk County/D. 

Prince 


Order 


Order 


Enforcement 


Enforcement of ACO SWF07- 

056 

A. Brennan Complaint and Petition for 

Enforcement of ACO SWF 

2010-018 


Enforcement 


Enforcement of ACO No. SWF 

08-029 

2 

5/27/10 – Return of Non-Service. 9/14/10 – Respondent served. 

10/21/10 – Order No. SWF 2010-019 entered. 10/28/10 – 

Suspension of License letter served. 


and Order No. SWF 11-008 entered. 

3/27/09 – Complaint and Petition for Enforcement filed. 4/2/09 – 

Defendants served. 8/19/09 – Answer to Complaint and Third-Party 

Complaint served. 1/22/10 – Third Party Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss Third Party Complaint served. 3/29/10 – Order Granting 

Third Party Defendant’s Sazam, Inc.’s Motion to Vacate and Set 

Aside Clerk’s Default entered. 4/1/10 – Order Granting in Part Third 

Party Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Third Party Complaint entered. 

4/5/10 – Order Sending Parties to Mediation entered. 5/7/10 – 

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Third Party 

Complaint. 7/22/10 – Order Granting Motion to Withdraw of 

Defendant’s Attorney entered. 

8/12/08 – Complaint and Petition for Enforcement filed. 8/18/08 – 

Complaint and Petition for Enforcement served. 8/29/08 – 

Response served. 9/16/08 – Motion for Default by the Court 

served. 11/26/08 – Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default by 

the Court entered. 12/23/09 – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment served. 12/30/09 – Notice of Hearing served. 1/28/11 – 

Summary Judgment entered. 

2/28/11 – Complaint filed. 3/7/11 – Defendant served. 3/22/11 – 

Notice of Filing of Return of Service served. 3/23/11 – Answer, 

Affirmative Defenses, and Demand for Trial by Jury served. 4/8/11 

– Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Extension of Time 

served. 4/14/11 – Notice of Hearing (set for 5/20/11) served. 

5/12/11 – Verified Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and 

Demand for Trial by Jury served. 5/17/11 – Notice of Cancellation 

of Hearing served. 

3/14/11 – Complaint filed. 3/24/11 – Complaint served. 4/25/11 – 

Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed. 5/12/11 – 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses served. 6/3/11 – 

Notice of Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative 

Defenses for July 6, 2011 served. 7/20/11 - Notice of Hearing on 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses for October 14, 

2011 served. 

11/5/08 - Complaint filed. 11/17/08 - Defendant served. 1/5/09 - 

Motion for Default filed. 2/2/09 - Motion for Default by the Court 

served; Notice of Hearing (on Motion for Default - set for 3/3/09) 

served. 3/6/09 - Default by the Court entered. 2/1/11 – Motion for 

Final Judgment After Default served. 3/3/11 – Notice of Telephonic 

Hearing on Motion for Final Judgment After Default served.

13 


SWFWMD v. 

Vikings, LLC/10- 

10588 

SWFWMD v. 

Zerep Enterprises, 

Inc./Case No. 10- 

CA-011085 

Division of 

Administrative 

Hearings/D.R. 

Alexander 


Hillsborough 

County/J.D. Arnold 

C. Felice Administrative Complaint and 

Order 


Enforcement 

3 

4/8/11 – Notice of Hearing on Motion for Final Judgment After 

Default (set for 5/13/11) served. 5/18/11 – Final Judgment After 

Default entered. 

11/9/10 - Administrative Complaint served on Registered Agent for 

Vikings, LLC. 11/23/10 – Respondent’s Request for Extension of 

Time to File Request for Hearing served. 11/30/10 – Respondent’s 

Request for Administrative Hearing served. 12/9/10 - Referred to 

DOAH. 12/14/10 - Initial Order entered. 12/22/10 - Notice of 

Hearing (set for 2/16/11 in Brooksville) served. 2/2/11 - Joint 

Motion to Abate served. 2/3/11 - Order Canceling Hearing and 

Placing Case in Abeyance entered. 4/8/11 - Joint Status Report 

served. 4/12/11 - Notice of Hearing (set for 6/2/11) served. 5/2/11 

- Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery served. 5/13/11 – 

SWFWMD’s Witness and Exhibit List served. 5/18/11 – 

Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Respondent’s Pleading for Failure to 

Obey Discovery Order and for Dismissal or Entry of Default 

Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Stay served. 5/25/11 – 

Order (Respondent’s answers to interrogatories due 5/27/11; 

6/2/11 hearing cancelled – rescheduled to 6/27/11; prehearing 

stipulation due 6/23/11) entered. 5/24/11 – Vikings, LLC’s Witness 

and Exhibit List served. 5/25/11 – Order (Respondent shall file 

answers to First Set of Interrogatories by 5/27/11; cancelling final 

hearing on 6/2/11 and rescheduling it for 6/27/11; prehearing 

stipulation shall be filed by 6/23/11; notify court if resolved prior to 

hearing) entered. 5/27/11 - Respondent’s Response to 

Interrogatories served. 6/8/11 – Motion for Leave to Amend 

Petition served. 6/13/11 – Notice of Hearing (set for 6/27/11). 

6/17/11 – Order (granting Motion for Leave to Amend Petition and 

Amended Administrative Complaint and Order attached is deemed 

to be filed) entered. 6/23/11 – Joint Notice of Resolution and 

Request to Relinquish Jurisdiction served. 6/27/11 – Order 

Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File entered. 7/12/11 – 

Order No. SWF 2011-015 – Amended Administrative Complaint 

and Order entered. 

5/27/10 – Complaint and Petition for Enforcement served. 9/20/10 

– Motion for Default served. 9/22/10 – Order granting Motion for 

Default entered. 7/1/11 – Notice of Appearance on behalf of 

Zerep served. 8/4/11 – Order Scheduling Status Conference in re: 

Zerep Enterprises Case No. 8:11-bk-14028-CPM United States 

Bankruptcy Court entered. 8/11/11 – Notice of Preliminary Hearing 

in Bankruptcy Court entered. 9/29/11 – Order on Amended 

Motion to Dismiss or Convert entered.

14 


Branch Banking 

and Trust Co v. 

Krueger, Joseph 

M., et al./Case No. 

2010 CA 001200 

Maguire, Raymer 

F., III and 

Charlotte E., M.D., 

as Trustees of the 

Raymer F. 

Maguire Trust v. 

SWFWMD, et 

al./Case No. 10- 

609 GCS 


Sumter County 


Highlands County/A. 

Cowden 

MISCELLANEOUS 

J. Ward Foreclosure complaint against 

Joseph M. Krueger, Joanne 

Suggs Krueger, et al., against 

whom the District has a judgment 

with regard to an enforcement 

action 

J. Ward Suit seeking declaratory judgment 

re tax certificates 

4 

10/8/10 - Summons, Complaint and Notice of Lis Pendens served. 

10/26/10 - Answer of Defendant, SWFWMD, served. 

11/3/10 - Summons and Amended Complaint served. 11/22/10 - 

SWFWMD's Answer to Amended Complaint served. 12/7/10 - 

Sun 'N Lake's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Tax Collector's 

Crossclaim served. 1/14/11 - Defendant (Highlands County) Tax 

Collector's Motion to Sever and to Stay served. 1/17/11 - 

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' 

Motions to Dismiss served. 1/18/11 - (Sun 'N Lake of Sebring 

Improvement District's) Memorandum of Law (in support of its 

Motion to Dismiss) served. 1/20/11 - (Highlands County) Tax 

Collector's Amended Notice of Authority served. 1/31/11 - Order 

Denying Defendant's, Highlands County Tax Collector and 

Highlands County School Board by Joinder, Motion to Sever and 

Stay, and Defendants' Highlands County, Florida, Florida 

Department of Revenue and SWFWMD, Ore Tenus Motion for 

Joinder in Tax Collector's Motion to Sever and Stay as Moot 

entered; Order Granting Defendant's, Sun 'N' Lake of Sebring 

Improvement District, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended 

Complaint; and Denying Defendant's, Highlands County School 

Board, Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Defendant's, Highlands 

County Tax Collector, Motion to Dismiss Count I as Moot entered. 

2/18/11 - Second Amended Complaint served. 3/9/11 - Sun 'N 

Lake of Sebring Improvement District's Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint served. 3/10/11 - 

SWFWMD's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and; 

Defendant Department of Revenue's Motion for More Definite 

Statement or in the Alternative Motion to Dismiss the Second 

Amended Complaint served. 3/15/11 - Notice of Compliance with 

Section 86.091, F.S., served. 6/2/11 – Plaintiff’s Memorandum of 

Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss; Tax 

Collector’s Memorandum in Support of Motions for Clarification, 

Dismissal and Abatement; Memorandum of Law on Defendant 

Highlands County, Florida’s Motion to Dismiss; and Defendant 

Department of Revenue’s Notice of Joinder with Tax Collector’s 

Memorandum in Support of Motions for Clarification, Dismissal 

and Abatement served. 6/3/11 – Sun ‘N Lake Improvement 

District’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss

15 


Mudd, Marcia, et 

al. v. SWFWMD, et 

al./Case No. 

2006CA-001537- 

0000 


Polk County/D. 

Prince 

D. Scott/J. 

Ward 

Complaint for Inverse 

Condemnation and Continuing 

Trespass 

5 

Second Amended Complaint served. 9/29/11 - Notice to 

Convene Case Management Conference served. 

11/3/08 - Summons and Second Amended Complaint for Inverse 

Condemnation and Continuing Trespass served. 12/4/08 - 

Defendant, SWFWMD’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Abate 

and/or Motion for a More Definite Statement served. 2/1/10 - Third 

Amended Complaint for Inverse Condemnation served. 2/9/10 - 

Order Granting FDEPs Amended Motion to Dismiss and 

SWFWMD's Motion to Dismiss, with Leave to Amend entered. 

2/11/10 - Polk County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third 

Amended Complaint for Inverse Condemnation served. 2/22/10 - 

Defendant SWFWMD's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint for Inverse Condemnation 

served. 2/26/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's Motion for Final 

Summary Judgment served. 4/22/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's 

Notice of Serving Proposal for Settlement/Offer of Judgment to 

Plaintiff(s) (to each Plaintiff individually) served. 5/13/10 - 

Defendant SWFWMD's Memorandum of Law in Support of its 

Motion for Final Summary Judgment served. 5/18/10 - Motion for 

Leave to Amend Third Amended Complaint (with Fourth 

Amended Complaint for Inverse Condemnation attached) served; 

Defendant SWFWMD's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 

Motion for Continuance of Summary Judgment Hearing served; 

Defendant SWFWMD's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 

Motion for Leave to Amend served; Defendant SWFWMD's 

Objection to, and Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs' Notice of Hearing 

served. 5/21/10 - Order (granting Plaintiffs' Motion for 

Continuance (therefore, District's Motion for Summary Final 

Judgment was not heard) entered. 6/9/10 - Defendant 

SWFWMD's Second Notice of Filing Summary Judgment 

Evidence served. 6/11/10 - Answer and Affirmative Defenses of 

Defendant, City of Lake Wales, to Plaintiffs' Third Amended 

Complaint served. 9/27/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint 

served. 10/4/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's Notice of Hearing (on its 

Motion for Final Summary Judgment set for 11/16/10) served. 

11/13/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's Amended Memorandum of 

Law in Support its Motion for Final Summary Judgment served. 

11/30/10 - Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment entered. 

12/1/10 - Order Granting Motion for Leave to Amend Third 

Amended Complaint entered. 6/14/11 – Notice That Case Is At 

Issue and Request for Trial Date on Taking Hearing served. 

6/17/11 – Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Defendant, City of

16 


SWFWMD v. King, 

M. Lewis, Hancock 

Lake Ranch, et al./ 

Case No. 2011CA- 

000665-111P-00 


Polk County/S. 

Selph 

R. Neill, Jr./ 

J. Pepper 

Petition in Eminent Domain 

(Parcel No. 20-503-111-P) 

6 

Lake Wales, to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint served. 

7/21/11 – Order Setting Pretrial Conference (1/31/12), Non-Jury 

Trial (2/13/12 (4 days)) and Directing Mediation entered. 7/22/11 

– Plaintiffs’ Reply to Affirmative Defenses of Defendant City of 

Lake Wales served. 7/30/11 – Defendant SWFWMD’s Notice of 

Trial Date Conflict / Notice of Unavailability served. 8/19/11 – 

Plaintiffs’ Witness and Exhibit Lists served. 8/25/11 – Defendant 

SWFWMD’s Trial Witness List; Trial Exhibit List served. 

2/10/11 – Application for Docketing and Assignment of Case; and 

Civil Cover Sheet filed. 3/28/11 – Petition in Eminent Domain; 

Declaration of Taking and Estimate of Value in Connection With 

Parcel No. 20-503-111-P; Notice of Lis Pendens; Petitioner’s 

Witness and Exhibit List; Petitioner’s First Request for Production to 

Defendants M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC; and 

Notice of Serving First Interrogatories to Defendants M. Lewis King 

and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC served. 5/2/11 – Order Setting Pre- 

Order Taking Case Management Conference (for 5/31/11) entered. 

5/5/11 – M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC’s Answer to 

Petitioner served. 5/16/11 – Petitioner’s Reply to Defendants 

Affirmative Defenses served. 6/15/11 – Petitioner’s Motion to 

Amend Petition in Eminent Domain; and Notice of Hearing served. 

6/29/11 – M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC’s Notice of 

Adoption of Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Petition in 

Eminent Domain served. 7/18/11 – Order Granting Petitioner’s 

Motion to Amend Petition in Eminent Domain entered. 8/4/11 – 

Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss 

Amended Petition in Eminent Domain served. 8/8/11 - Notice of 

Hearing (on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition) 

served. Hearing scheduled for 9/26/11. 9/20/11 - M. Lewis King 

and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC’s Notice of Adoption of 

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss Amended Petition in Eminent Domain served. 9/21/11 

– Petitioner’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

Amended Petition in Eminent Domain served. 10/3/11 – Order 

Granting Defendants M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, 

LLC Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition in Eminent Domain 

entered.

17 


SWFWMD v. Lake 

Hancock Partners, 

LLLP, f/k/a Lake 

Hancock Property, 

(a/k/a Rogers 

Trust) etc., et 

al./Case No. 

2011CA-001160- 

118P-00 and 

2011CA-001160- 

108P-00 

SWFWMD v. 

Quintana-Alcocer, 

Elia, et al./Case 

No. 53-2010-CA- 

05262 



Selph 



Selph 


J. Pepper 


J. Pepper 


(Parcel Nos. 20-503-118-P and 

20-503-108P) 


(Parcel No. 20-503-177-P) 

7 

3/15/11 - Application for Docketing and Assignment of Case; and 

Civil Cover Sheet filed. 4/14/11 – Eminent Domain Order of Taking 

Hearing Order entered. Pre-Order of Taking Case Management 

Conference scheduled for 5/31/11. 5/2/11 – Petition in Eminent 

Domain; Declaration of Taking and Estimate of Value in Connection 

With Parcel Nos. 20-503-118P and 108P; Notice of Lis Pendens; 

Petitioner’s Witness and Exhibit List; Petitioner’s First Request for 

Production to Defendants Lake Hancock Partners, LLLP, OW 

Hancock, LLLP, and RB Hancock, LLLP; and Notice of Serving 

First Interrogatories to Defendants Lake Hancock Partners, LLLP, 

OW Hancock, LLLP, and RB Hancock, LLLP served. 6/6/11 – 

Answer to Petition in Eminent Domain; and Defendants’ Motion to 

Allow Withdrawal of Funds served. 6/15/11 – Petitioner’s Motion to 

Amend Petition in Eminent Domain; and Notice of Hearing served. 

7/18/11 – Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition in 

Eminent Domain entered. 8/1/11 – Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

Amended Petition in Eminent Domain served. 8/8/11 - Notice of 

Hearing (on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition) 

served. Hearing scheduled for 9/26/11. 9/20/11 – Memorandum 

of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended 

Petition in Eminent Domain; and M. Lewis King and Hancock 

Lake Ranch, LLC’s Notice of Adoption of Memorandum of Law 

in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition 

in Eminent Domain served. 9/21/11 – Petitioner’s Response to 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition in Eminent 

Domain served. 10/3/11 – Order Granting Defendants M. Lewis 

King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC Motion to Dismiss 

Amended Petition in Eminent Domain entered. 

6/14/10 - Application for Docketing and Assignment of Case filed. 

7/6/10 – Petition in Eminent Domain; Declaration of Taking and 

Estimate of Value in Connection with Parcel No. 20-503-177-P; 

Notice of Lis Pendens; and Petitioner’s Witness and Exhibit List 

served. 8/4/10 – (Quintana-Alcocer’s) Answer; and Waiver of 

Service and Acceptance of Process of Defendant Elia Quintana- 

Alcocer served. 8/20/10 – Petitioner’s Reply served. 9/9/10 – 

Motion to Consolidate for Purposes of Order of Taking Hearing; and 

Notice of Hearing. Hearing scheduled for 9/14/10. 09/27/10 – 

Amended Eminent Domain Order of Taking Hearing Order entered. 

Pre-Order of Taking Case Management scheduled for 11/22/10. 

11/2/10 – Stipulated Order of Taking As To Parcel 177-P entered.

18 


SWFWMD v 

Stanton, William 

H., Jr. and Brandy 

Lee, et al/Case 

No. 2010CA- 

004509-209P-00 


Polk County/S. L. 

Selph 


J. Pepper 


(Parcel Nos. 20-503-209-P and 

20-503-210-P 

8 

5/13/10 - Civil Cover Sheet and Application for Docketing and 

Assignment of Case filed. 7/6/10 – Petition in Eminent Domain; 

Declaration of Taking and Estimate of Value in Connection with 

Parcel Nos. 20-503-209-P and 20-503-210-P; and Notice of Lis 

Pendens served. 8/10/10 – (Stantons’) Answer and Claim for Full 

Compensation; and (Stantons’) Request for Hearing served. 

8/20/10 – Petitioner’s Reply and Motion to Strike Referenced 

Affirmative Defenses and Any Associated Denial of Defendants 

Stanton served. 9/27/10 – Amended Eminent Domain Order of 

Taking Hearing Order entered. Hearing scheduled for 11/22/10. 

10/1/10 – Stipulated Order of Taking As To Parcels 209-P and 

210-P entered. 11/9/10 – Notice for Trial served. 2/25/11 - 

Petitioner’s Offer of Judgment and Proposal for Settlement to 

Defendants, William H. Stanton and Brandy Lee Stanton served. 

3/29/11 – Order on Respondents’ Agreed Motion to Continue 

Pretrial Conference and Trial entered. Pretrial Conference 

scheduled for 4/26/11 and Trial scheduled to begin on 5/23/11. 

4/14/11 – Defendants’ Motion in Limine and Incorporated 

Memorandum of Law to Preclude Valuation and Other Testimony 

Based On or Suggesting That the Easement’s Impact Will Be 

Lessened By the Acts and Uses of the District; and Defendants’ 

Motion in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law to 

Exclude Testimony of David Carter, P.E. served. 4/21/11 – 

Petitioner’s First Motion in Limine And/Or to Strike entered. 5/5/11 

– Defendants’ Motion in Limine Concerning Defendants’ Purchase 

of the Subject Property; and Amended Notice of Hearing served. 

Hearing on Defendants’ 3 Motions in Limine set for 5/12/11. 

5/19/11 – Order Denying Respondents’ Motion in Limine to 

Exclude Testimony of David Carter, P.E.; Order Granting 

Respondents’ Motion in Limine Concerning Respondents’ 

Purchase of the Subject Property entered. 5/23/11 – Order 

Granting In Part and Denying In Part Respondents’ Motion in 

Limine to Preclude Valuation and Other Testimony Based on or 

Suggesting That the Easement’s Impact Will Be Lessened by the 

Acts and Uses of the District; and Order on Petitioner’s First 

Motion in Limine And/Or to Strike entered. 5/27/11 – Verdict 

entered. 6/6/11 – Motion for New Trial and For Remittitur served. 

6/7/11 – Final Judgment As To Parcels 209 and 210 entered. 

7/5/11 – Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s Motion for New 

Trial and for Remittitur served. 7/7/11 – Respondents’ Motion to 

Tax Costs served. 7/8/11 – Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for 

New Trial and for Remittitur entered. 8/24/11 – Designation to 

Civil Court Reporter (McGill & Associates, Inc.) served.

19 


Davis, Alfred J. 

and Cindy v. 

SWFWMD, et 


15513-D 

Davis, Alfred J. 

and Cindy v. 

SWFWMD, et 


11137-D 

U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the 11th 

Circuit 

U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the 11th 

Circuit 

APPEALS 

J. Ward Appeal of Orders entered in U.S. 

District Court of the Middle 

District of Florida, Tampa Division 

J. Ward Appeal of Orders entered in U.S. 

District Court of the Middle 

District of FL, Tampa Div. - Lower 

Tribunal Case No. 8:09-cv-1070- 

T17 TBM 

9 

11/24/10 - Notice of Appeal served. 12/15/10 - Appellants' 

Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure 

Statement served. 1/10/11 - Initial Brief of Appellants served. 2/7/11 

- Answer Brief of Appellee City of St. Petersburg, FL; and 

Certificate of Interested Persons served. 03/08/11 - Reply Brief of 

Appellants served. 3/21/11 - Defendant-Appellee City of St. 

Petersburg's Response to Jurisdictional Question and Incorporated 

Memorandum of Law served; Appellee's Certificate of Interested 

Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement served. 3/22/11 - 

Appellants' Response to Jurisdictional Question served. 6/2/11 – 

Appellee David L. Moore’s Certificate of Interested Persons; and 

Appearance of Counsel served. 6/24/11 – Certificate of Readiness 

of Record on Appeal served. 9/15/11 - Opinion filed (Affirmed). 

3/9/11 - Notice of Appeal served. 3/14/11 - Amended Notice of 

Appeal served. 3/28/11 - Appellants' Certificate of Interested 

Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement served; (Appellants') 

Civil Appeal Statement and Appearance of Counsel Form filed. 

3/31/11 - Appellee's (City of St. Petersburg) Certificate of Interested 

Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement served; (City of St. 

Petersburg's) Appearance of Counsel Form filed. 5/25/11 – Initial 

Brief of Appellants; and Initial Brief of Appellants (with accompanying 

appendix) served. 6/21/11 – Answer Brief of Appellee City 

of St. Petersburg, FL and Appendix for Answer Brief of Appellee 

City of St. Petersburg, FL served. 6/22/11 – Answer Brief of 

Appellee David L. Moore, Executive Director, SWFWMD served. 

6/24/11 – Certificate of Readiness of Record on Appeal served. 

7/6/11 – Reply Brief of Appellants served. 8/11/11 – (City of St. 

Petersburg’s) Notice of Unavailability served. 8/19/11 – Letter from 

Clerk of Court advising that no action will be taken regarding Notice 

of Unavailability as there is no provision in either the Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure or the 11 th Circuit Rules for a leave of 

absence. 9/15/11 - Opinion filed (Affirmed). 9/27/11 - (City of St. 

Petersburg’s) Notice of Filing Bill of Costs served.

20 


Hames, Cedar and 

Nora H. Scholin v. 

SWFWMD, et 

al./2D11-1817 

Ross, Henry v. City 

of Tarpon Springs 

and 

SWFWMD/Case 

No. 2D11-3056 

SWFWMD v. 

Shea, Raymond & 

Mary Lou, et 

al./Case No. 2D11- 

1642 

Second District 

Court of Appeal 





D. Graziano/ 

J. Ward 

J. Ward/J. 

Pepper/R. 

Neill, Jr. 

Appeal of Final Judgment 

entered in Manatee County 

Circuit Court Case No. 2007 CA 

001649 

Appeal of Final Order No. SWF 

11-011 entered by SWFWMD in 

DOAH Case No. 10-10214 dated 

May 25, 2011. 

Appeal of Orders entered in the 

10th Judicial Circuit in and for 

Polk County, Florida - Lower 

Tribunal Case No. 53-2009-CA- 

008352 related the Parcel No. 

20-503-129 

10 

4/5/11 – Notice of Appeal of Final Judgment served. 4/12/11 – 

Notice of Filing served. 4/15/11 – Notice of Cross-Appeal served. 

4/21/11 – Notice of Related Case served. 4/25/11 - Amended 

Designation to the Reporter served. 5/27/11 – (Court Reporter’s) 

Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Transcript served. 

5/31/11 – (Appellant/ Cross-Appellee’s) Unopposed Motion to 

Extend Time for Serving Initial Brief served. 6/2/11 – (Appellants/ 

Cross-Appellees’) Notice of Filing (Court Reporter’s Motion For 

Extension of Time to File Appeal Transcript and Plaintiff’s Notice of 

Agreement to Court Reporter’s Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Appeal Transcript) served. 6/3/11 – Order (granting court reporter’s 

motion for extension of time to file transcript until 30 days from date 

of order) entered. 6/7/11 – Order (granting Appellant’s motion for 

extension of time to file initial brief – due by 8/1/11) entered. 

7/28/11 – Order (granting Appellant’s motion for extension of time; 

initial brief shall be served within 30 days of the date of Order). 

7/29/11 – Index to Record on Appeal served. 8/15/11 – 

(Appellants’) Motion to Supplement the Record served. 8/19/11 – 

Order (granting Appellants’ Motion to Supplement the Record) 

entered. 8/25/11 – Index to Supplemental Record on Appeal 

served. 8/29/11 – Appellants’ Initial Brief served; Appellants’ 

Request for Oral Argument served. 

6/20/11 – Notice of Appeal served. 8/4/11 – Index to Record on 

Appeal served. 8/8/11 – Pending Related Case served. 8/11/11 – 

Record on Appeal served. 8/31/11 – Appeal of Final Order of 

SWFWMD served. 9/22/11 – Answer Brief of City of Tarpon 

Springs; and Notice of Adoption of City of Tarpon Springs’ 

Answer Brief served. 

3/28/11 - Notice of Appeal filed. 4/1/11 - Notice of Cross-Appeal 

served; Acknowledgment of New Case. 4/4/11 - Amended Notice of 

Cross-Appeal served. 4/6/11 – Notice of Filing Transcript of 

Proceedings; and Directions to Clerk (regarding Shea) served. 

5/11/11 – Motion to Tax Appellate Fees and Costs served. 5/31/11 

– Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in Which to 

Serve Initial Brief served. 6/2/11 – Service of Copy of Original Index 

served. 6/3/11 – Order (Appellant’s motion for extension of time is 

granted, initial brief shall be served by 6/27/11) entered. 6/27/11 – 

Appellant’s Initial Brief served. 7/18/11 - Order (granting Motion for 

Extension of Time – Answer Brief shall be served by 8/22/11) 

entered. 8/19/11 – Appellee’s Request for Oral Argument served. 

8/22/11 – Appellees’ Answer Brief and Initial Brief on Cross Appeal 

served. 8/25/11 – Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae of Pacific 

Legal Foundation in Support of Appellees, Raymond J. Shea and

21 


SWFWMD v. 

Stanton, William H. 

and Brandy Lee, et 

al./Case No. 2D11- 

4211 



J. Ward/J. 

Pepper/R. 

Neill, Jr. 

Appeal of final order entered in 

the 10 th Judicial Circuit in and for 

Polk County, Florida – Lower 

Tribunal Case No. 53-2010-CA- 

004509 related to Parcel Nos. 20- 

503-209-P and 20-503-210-P 

11 

Mary Lou Shea (with Brief) served. 9/2/11 – Order (denying Pacific 

Legal Foundation’s motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae) 

entered. 9/8/11 – Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time in Which to Serve Reply Brief and Answer Brief 

on Cross-Appeal served. 9/13/11 – Order (granting Motion for 

Extension of Time served on 9/8/11 – Reply Brief and Answer 

Brief shall be served by 10/31/11) entered. 9/28//11 - Appellant/ 

Cross-Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in 

Which to Serve Reply Brief and Answer Brief on Cross-Appeal 

served. 

8/12/11 – Notice of Appeal filed. 8/24/11 – Directions to Clerk 

served; Designation to Civil Court Reporter (Reliable Reporting, 

Inc. and McGill & Associates, Inc.) served. 8/26/11 – 

Acknowledgement of New Case. 8/29/11 – Court Reporter’s 

(Reliable Reporting) Acknowledgment(s) served; Civil Court 

Reporter’s (McGill & Associates) Acknowledgment served.

RULE 

1. 40D-1.002 Approve Amendment to Well 

Construction Permitting Agreement 

between SWFWMD and Marion County 

Health Department and Authorize 

Amendments to Rule 40D-1.002, F.A.C. 

2. 40D-1.101 Initiation and Approval of 

Amendments to Rule 40D-1.659, 

40D-4.091, 40D-4.101, 40D-4.331 and 

40D-4.351, F.A.C.,; ERP Application 

Forms and Information Manual Part B, 

Basis of Review, to Clarify Submission of 

Permit-Related Documents by Licensed 

or Registered Professionals 

3. 40D-1, 40D-2, 40D-3, 40D-4, 40D-40 and 

40D-400 – Amend District rules to address 

number of copies of applications, 

application support documents to be 

submitted. 

4. Initiate Rulemaking as Mandated by 

Section 373.250(3)(c) and (d), Florida 

Statutes, To Address Certain Reuse 

Feasibility Requirements for Water Use 

Permit Applications and Reuse Providers 

5. 40D-2 Amend Dover Well mitigation 

report deadline, incorporate Meter 

Reimbursement Form, and address other 

cleanup matters for Dover/Plant City 

WUCA rules 


Rulemaking For Upper Peace River/Lake 

Hancock reservation to help achieve 

minimum flow in the Upper Peace River 


Rulemaking for Lake Pretty reservation to 

achieve minimum levels for Lakes Roger 

and Raleigh 


Amendments to Rule 40D-2.091 and 

40D-2.801, F.A.C., to Correct the Legal 

Descriptions of the Boundaries of the 

Southern Water Use Caution Area 

(SWUCA) and the Most Impacted Area 

of the SWUCA 

RULEMAKING UPDATE 

OCTOBER 25, 2011 

PROPOSED RULES &AMENDMENTS 

INITIATION 

DATE 

NA = NOT APPLICABLE;TBD=TO BE DETERMINED 

NEXT 

SCHEDULED 

ACTION 

Sept 2011 Effective Approx. 

Jan 2012 

Sept 2011 Effective approx. 

Jan 2012 

Aug 2011 Effective Approx. 

Jan 2012 

BOARD 

PROJECTED/ 

APPROVED 

DATE 

Sept 2011 

Sept 2011 

Aug 2011 

June 2011 Initiate and Approve TBD 

Nov 2011 Initiate and Approve Nov 2011 

TBD Initiate and Approve TBD 

Oct 2011 Initiate and Approve Oct 2011 

Sept 2011 Effective approx Feb 

2012 

23 

Sep 2011

RULE 



40D-3.502 and 40D-3.517, F.A.C., to 

Allow Well Construction Permit Extensions 

and Eliminate Outdated Provisions 



40D-1.659, 40D-4.091 and 40D-4.351, 

F.A.C., and Environmental Resource 

Permitting Information Manual Part B, 

Basis of Review, to Eliminate Fees for 

and Simplify Transfers of Environmental 

Resource Permit, Clarify Fees for 

Resubmitted Applications 


Amendments to Rule 40D-4.331, F.A.C., 

to Authorize Reactivation of Expired 


12. 40D-9.230, Initiation and Approval of 

Amendments to Rule 40D-9.230, F.A.C, 

to Conform to Legislation Preempting All 

Firearms Regulation 

13. 40D-21 Refine water shortage plan based 

on recent shortages, 40D-21.031 Delete 

unnecessary description of the contents 

of each plan section, 40D-21.441 Delete 

unnecessary burdensome requirement 

for submittal of mitigation plans for public 

supply water shortages 

14. Initiation and Approval of Amendments 

to Extend Interval for Submittal of 

Statements of Inspection Required for 


15. Initiation and Approval of Amendments to 

Rule 40D-40.302, Florida Administrative 

Code, to Clarify Threshold for General 


Involving Impacts to Surface Waters 

INITIATION 

DATE 

NA = NOT APPLICABLE;TBD=TO BE DETERMINED 

NEXT 

SCHEDULED 

ACTION 

Sept 2011 Effective approx Jan 

2012 

Sept. 2011 Effective approx Jan 

2012 

Sept 2011 Effective Approx. 

Jan 2012 

BOARD 

PROJECTED/ 

APPROVED 

DATE 

Sept 2012 

Sept 2011 

Sept 2011 

Sept 2011 Pending Legislative 

Approval – 

Effective Approx. 

April 2012 

Sept 2011 

Oct 2011 Approve Oct 2011 

24 

Oct 2011 Initiate and Approve Oct 2011 

Oct 2011 Initiate and Approve Oct 2011



COMMITTEE/LIAISON REPORTS 

51. Well Drillers Advisory Committee Meeting 

The meeting was held on October 12, 2011. Mr. Combee is the Board’s liaison. 

52. Other Liaison Reports 

Items 51-52



EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 



Item 53

Effective October 10, 2011 

Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Governing Board 

Executive Director 

Office of General Counsel Office of Inspector General 

Chief of Staff 

Resource Management 

Division 

Assistant Executive Director 

Regulation Division 

Administrative & 

Management Services 

Division 

Operations, Maintenance, & 

Construction Division



CHAIR’S REPORT 


Presenter: Paul Senft, Chair 

Item 54

notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?