Well Field for Beach Water SFWMD App No. 924504-10South Florida Water Management District
r
5,5111 Gun Club Road • P.O. Box 24680 • West Palm Beach. F1,55416-4680 0 (407) 686-8800 • FL WATS I-8(1)-452.2(145
CON 24-06
August 31, 1993
Okeechobee Beach Water Association Inc
8840 Highway 78 West
Okeechobee, FL 34974
Subject: Application No. 921204-10 , Wellfield for Okeechobee Beach
Water Association Inc, Okeechobee County, S--/T37S/R35E
Enclosed is a copy of this District's staff report covering the permit application
referenced therein. It is requested that you read this staff report thoroughly and
understand its contents. The recommendations as stated in the staff report will be
presented to our Governing Board for consideration on September 9, 1993.
Should you wish to object to the staff recommendation or file a petition, please
provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers (refer to the attached "Notice of
Rights") to:
Vern Kaiser, Deputy Clerk
South Florida Water Management District
Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The "Notice of Rights" addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public
hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. You are advised, however, to
be prepared to defend your position regarding the permit application when it is
considered by the Governing Board for final agency action, even if you agree with the
staff recommendation, as the Governing Board may take final agency action which differs
materially from the proposed agency action.
Please contact the District if you have any questions concerning this matter. If we
do not hear from you prior to the date on the "Notice of Rights", we will assume you
concur with our recommendations.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a "Notice of Rights" has been mailed to the addressee and the
persons listed in the attached distribution list not later that 5:00 p.m. this 31st
day of August 1993, in accordance with Section 120.60 (3), Florida Statutes.
Sincerely,
Steve Lamb, Director
Regulation Department
CERTIFIED P # 252 257 514
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Governing Board
Valerie Boyd. Chairman Williarn Hammond Eugene K. Pettis Tiltord C. Creel. Executive Director
Frank Williamson, Jr., Vice Chairman Betsy Krant Nathaniel P Reed Thomas K. Nlac\ icar. Deputy Executive Director
Annie Betancourt Allan .Milledge Leah C;. Schad
0 South Florida Water Management District
Notice Of Rights
Wrm MU3UU
Rev. 7/93
NOTICE OF RIGHTS
Enclosed is a copy of the Staff Review Summary regarding the subject permit application, which
is this agency's Notice of Proposed Agency Action.
PETITION FOR FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Any person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by the action which is proposed
in the enclosed Notice of Proposed Agency Action/Staff Review Summary, may petition for an
administrative hearing in accordance with the requirements of Rule 40E-1.521, Florida
Administrative Code, and be filed with (received by) the District Clerk, 3301 Gun Club Road,
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406. Petitions for administrative hearing on the above application
must be filed within fourteen (14) days of actual receipt of this Notice of Proposed Agency
Action. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any rights
such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under section
120.57, Florida Statutes, concerning the subject permit application. Petitions which are not filed
in accordance with the above provisions are subject to dismissal.
FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADIUDICATORY COMMISSION
A party to the proceeding below may seek review of a Final Order rendered on the permit
application before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Review under section
373.114, Florida Statutes, is initiated by filing a request for review with the Land and
Adjudicatory Commission and serving a copy on the Department of Environmental Protection
and any person named in the Order within applicable statutory timeframes. This review is
appellate in nature and limited to the record below.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
A party who is adversely affected by final agency action on the permit application is entitled to
judicial review in the District Court of Appeal pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, as
provided therein. Review under section 120.68, Florida Statutes, is initiated by filing a Notice of
Appeal in the appropriate District Court of Appeal in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.110.
CIRCUIT COURT
Section 373.617(2), Florida Statutes, provides:
Any person substantially affected by a final action of any agency with respect to a permit
may seek review within 90 days of the rendering of such decision and request monetary
damages and other relief in the circuit court in the judicial circuit in which the affected
property is located; however, circuit court review shall be confined solely to determining
whether final agency action is an unreasonable exercise of the state's police power
constituting a taking with just compensation. Review of final agency action for the
purpose of determining whether the action is in accordance with existing statutes or rules
and based on competent substantial evidence shall proceed in accordance with Chapter
120.
Form 0300/side 2
Rev. 7/93
40E-1.521 Initiation of Formal Proceedings
(1) Initiation of formal proceedings shall be made by filing a petition with the District ( leek
within the applicable tirneframes set forth in this chapter. The term petition includes any application
or other document which expresses a request for formal proceedings.
(2) All petitions filed under these rules shall contain:
(a) The name and address of the District and the District's file or identification number, if known,
(b) The name and address of the petitioner or petitioners;
(c) An explanation of how each petitioner's substantial interests will be affected by the District's
determination;
(d) A statement of when and how petitioner received notice of agency action or notice of proposed
agency action;
(e) A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate;
(f) A concise statement of the ultimate facts which petitioner believes entitle petitioner to the relief
sought as well as the rules and statutes which support petitioner's claim for relief;
(g) A demand for the relief to which the petitioner deems himself entitled; and
(h) Other information which the petitioner contends is material.
(3) Upon receipt of a petition for formal proceedings, the Office of Counsel shall review the petition
for compliance with subsection (2). The Board shall accept those petitions in substantial compliance therewith,
which have been timely filed, which establish that the petitioner is a substantially affected party, and which state a
dispute which is within the jurisdiction of the District to resolve. If accepted, the Board shall designate the presiding
officer of the administrative hearing. The District shall promptly give written notice to all parties of the action
taken on the petition, and shall state with particularity its reasons therefor.
(7) If the Board designates a Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings as the
presiding officer, the District Clerk shall forward the petition and all relevant materials filed with the District to the
Division of Administrative Hearings, and shall notify all parties of its action.
Specific Authority 373.044, 373.113 F.S.
Law Implemented 120.53(1), 120.57 F.S.
History New 9-3-81, Amended 5-11-93.
Formerly 16K-1.09(1), 16K-1.112(1) through (3), 16K-1.12
DRAFT
- Subject to Governing
LAST DATE FOR GOVERNING BOARD ACTION:
November 10, 1993 Board Approval
WATER USE STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY
APPLICATION NUMBER: 921204-10
PROJECT NAME: WELLFIELD FOR OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASSOCIATION INC
WATER USE STATUS: PROPOSED
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT STATUS: NOT APPLICABLE.
RIGHT OF WAY STATUS: NOT APPLICABLE
LOCATION: OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
SEC 29,30,32/T37S/R35E
APPLICANT'S NAME AND ADDRESS: OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASSOCIATION INC
8840 HIGHWAY 78 WEST
OKEECHOBEE, FL 34974
OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS: OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASSOCIATION INC
8840 HIGHWAY 78 WEST
OKEECHOBEE, FL 34974
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this application is to obtain a water use permit for public
water supply system to serve a service area in Okeechobee and Glades Counties.
The wellfield locations are outside of the service area in Sections 29, 30 &
32, Township 37S, Range 35E. The applicant's service area is depicted in
Exhibits 1-3.
1
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 9, 1993
PERMIT DURATION: 10.00 YEARS
EXPIRATION DATE: September 9, 2003
USE CLASS: PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
GROUNDWATER FROM THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION:
ANNUAL ALLOCATION: 259
MAXIMUM DAILY ALLOCATION: 1.06
MILLION GALLONS (MG)
MILLION GALLONS (MG)
EXISTING WITHDRAWAL FACILITIES - GROUNDWATER:
GW SOURCE: SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM
1 - 8" X 160' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 105 FEET
PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL FACILITIES - GROUNDWATER:
GW SOURCE: SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM
1 - 8" X 135' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 90 FEET
1 - 8" X 150' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 105 FEET
3 - 8" X 155' X 175 GPM WELLS CASED TO 110 FEET
1 - 8" X 165' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 120 FEET
TOTAL RATED CAPACITY:
GPM No
SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM E 175 .25
SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM P 1050 1.51
MGM MGY
7.6
45.4
92
552
TOTALS 1225 1.76 52.9 644
2
IMPACT EVALUATION SUMMARY
RESOURCE SAFE YIELD:
The Surficial Aquifer System in the City of Okeechobee area generally has low
yield characteristics. On-site aquifer performance tests indicate the
transmissivity of the Surficial Aquifer System ranges from 5000-8000 GPD/FT
with an approximate thickness of 160 feet. Water level readings of 15 feet
NGVD result in a total available drawdown of approximately 155 feet. The
applicant's consultant utilized the U.S.G.S. groundwater flow model, MODFLOW,
to address potential impacts by simulating a maximum pumpage of 1.5 MGD with 2
in 10 deficit rainfall. However, due to a change in the maximum daily
allocation to 1.06 MGD, Staff utilized the Theis Non-Equilibrium model to
simulate maximum daily withdrawals for a 90 day period with no recharge.
Results of the Theis model (Exhibit 5) predict a maximum drawdown of
approximately 13.5 feet in the production zone of the wellfield. The
sustained yield of the aquifer is not expected to be exceeded as a result of
the withdrawal of the recommended allocation.
EXISTING LEGAL USERS:
The closest existing legal user is Wolff Brothers Dairy, Inc. (Permit 47-
00035-W), which utilizes surface water from the County Highway Drainage Ditch
along Eagle Bay Road for irrigation of 17 acres of citrus. The proposed water
treatment plant site is located south of Durrance Road with the 17 acre citrus
grove to the north. Results of the modelling indicate an approximate drawdown
of 5 feet at the existing legal user's surface water pump location. Because
the existing legal user utilizes only surface water from the ditch, the
projected drawdown should not interfere with the withdrawal capability of the
pump. The potential for adverse impacts to occur to existing legal users as a
result of the withdrawal of the recommended allocation is considered minimal.
LEGAL DOMESTIC USERS:
A residential area, located directly to the northeast of the main wellfield
site, may potentially utilize the Surficial Aquifer System as a source of
potable water. For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that a domestic
user is as close as the project boundary withdrawing water from a well with a
centrifugal pump that has a lifting capability of 20 feet below land surface.
The dry season water level of the Surficial Aquifer System is approximately 5
feet below land surface. Modelling indicates an approximate drawdown of 12
feet at the project boundary which would result in a water level of 17 feet
below land surface. The potential for adverse impacts to occur to existing
legal domestic users as a result of the withdrawal of the recommended
allocation is not considered to be likely.
3
SALINE WATER INTRUSION:
The project is located over 32 miles from the nearest source of surface saline
water. The applicant has submitted water quality results from each of the
three test wells which do not indicate the presence of connate saline water.
The Surficial Aquifer System is hydrologically separated from the Floridan
Aquifer System by a confining unit. Therefore, the potential for significant
saline intrusion or upconing to occur as a result of the withdrawal of the
recommended allocation is considered minimal.
PROTECTED WETLANDS ENVIRONMENT:
An off-site, viable wetland area is located northwest of the proposed
wellfield. Results of the Theis modelling indicate that withdrawals from the
proposed wellfield location result in less than one foot of drawdown at the
wetland boundary, when wells 1-6 are utilized equally in the normal wellfield
rotation to meet the maximum daily allocation and well number 7 (located
closest to the wetland) is not used. Exhibit 5B shows the extent of the
projected one foot drawdown contour in relation to the wetland area.
Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts to occur to protected wetland
environments as a result of the withdrawal of the recommended allocation is
considered minimal. Staff recommends that well number 7 be utilized only as
an emergency backup facility or, if feasible, relocated at a greater distance
away from the wetland area. See Limiting Condition Number 28.
SOURCES OF POLLUTION:
The closest known potential pollution source in the vicinity of the project is
the Time Saver Shell No. 49 located approximately 1.5 miles north of the main
wellfield in the north part of Section 20, Township 37S, Range 35E. The gas
station has documented hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater and has an
approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) from the Department of Environmental
Protection. The RAP and associated recovery system are currently under review
for a water use permit. Results of the model predict a drawdown of less than
0.1 feet at the gas station boundary. The potential for the induced movement
of contaminants from known sources of pollution to occur as a result of the
withdrawal of the recommended allocation is considered minimal.
ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION:
FACILITIES
The applicant proposes one wellfield and one water treatment plant with no
emergency interconnections. Pursuant to Limiting Condition Number 18, the
permittee shall develop and implement a wellfield operating program which
details the operation schedule of the wellfield. This plan may be submitted
to the District as a letter report. Pursuant to Limiting Condition Number 28,
Staff recommends that proposed well number 7 only be utilized as an emergency
backup facility due to its proximity to the off-site wetland area and the
potential for adverse impacts.
4
The wellfield will have 6 proposed and 1 existing (no. 5) Surficial Aquifer
System wells with a total proposed withdrawal capacity of 1.764 MGD. Wells 3-
7 will be located in one area as the main wellfield with wells 1 and 2 located
in the vicinity of the water treatment site, as shown on Exhibit 5B. The lime
softening water treatment facility is proposed to have a capacity of 1.5 MGD.
There are two elevated storage tanks with a 75,000 gallon capacity and an
additional proposed storage tank with a capacity of 1 to 1.5 MG.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
The Department of Environmental Protection and Okeechobee County HRS have
reviewed the application and have no objections to the proposed wellfield and
issuance of the permit.
DURATION OF PERMIT
Current District regulations (Permit Information Manual, Volume III, Section
5.1.2.1) allow a maximum of a 10 year permit duration. Staff recommends a
permit duration of 10 years.
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
1. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance - OBWA has requested Okeechobee and Glades
Counties to pass an ordinance which restricts landscape irrigation to the
hours of 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. seven days per week.
2. Xeriscape - OBWA has requested Okeechobee and Glades Counties to pass an
ordinance which requires the use of xeriscape landscape principles.
3. Ultra-low Volume Plumbing Fixtures - OBWA has requested Okeechobee and
Glades Counties to pass an ordinance which requires ultra-low volume plumbing
fixtures on all new construction.
4. Water Conservation Rate Structure - OBWA has adopted an increasing block
rate structure and seasonal rates to encourage water conservation.
5. Leak Detection - OBWA performs a leak detection survey when the
unaccounted-for water loss is greater than 10% utilizing leak surveillance
techniques and calibration and certification of all water meters.
6. Rain sensor devices - OBWA has requested Okeechobee and Glades Counties to
pass an ordinance which requires any person who purchases and installs an
automatic lawn sprinkler system to install, operate and maintain a rain sensor
device or automatic switch which will override the irrigation system with the
occurance of adequate rainfall.
7. Water Conservation Education Program - OBWA will print a message about
water conservation to customers on the monthly bills.
8. Reclaimed Water - OBWA does not operate its own wastewater treatment
plant. Part of the OBWA service area is served by septic tanks, with the
5
remainder of the wastewater being treated by the City of Okeechobee.
SERVICE AREA AND LEGAL CONTROL
Introduction
OBWA requests to serve its existing customer base and the current and
projected demands in its proposed service area (Exhibit 3). Since 1970, OBWA
has been supplying water to the requested service area in portions of Glades
and Okeechobee Counties through its corporate owned water transmission lines.
OBWA provides water service in the designated area to its approximately 2000
members, who own and control the corporation. Each customer or member has an
ownership interest in the corporation and voting rights.
OBWA's proposed service area lies within both Okeechobee and Glades Counties.
In the permit application, OBWA submitted copies of franchise agreements
executed with each county requiring water service by OBWA for the proposed
service area within their respective jurisdictions.
Criteria 3.1.1.1.1 requires an entity regulated by the Public Service
Commission (PSC) to obtain a certification of the proposed service area prior
to issuance of the water use permit. OBWA is exempt from regulation by the
Public Service Commission pursuant to Section 367.022, Fla. Stat. As required
by Section 367.031, Fla. Stat., OBWA has obtained an "Order Indicating the
Exempt Status of Okeechobee Beach Water Association, Inc." (PSC Exemption
Order) for the proposed service area.
The City of Okeechobee ("City"
their bulk sale agreement ("Coi
through its water distribution
area. OBWA currently does not
with the City after expiration
intends to begin producing its
permit application. OBWA also
water treatment plant which it
currently sells water to OBWA pursuant to
itract"). OBWA then distributes the water
system to its customers within the service
intend to renew its contractual relationship
of the Contract in September, 1994. OBWA
own water from the wellfield requested in this
plans to build a 1.5 million gallon per day
represents will be operational in 1994.
The City currently has a water use permit (Permit # 47-00004-W), which was
renewed in 1991. The permit includes an allocation of water to supply to OBWA
pursuant to the Contract between the City and OBWA.
The City has provided information to District Staff regarding the OBWA
requested service area. Specifically, the City represents that City Ordinance
488, which it adopted in 1983, provides it the exclusive right to supply water
to portions of the OBWA designated service area (Exhibits 2A, 2B & 3). The
City's claim is that such ordinance prohibits OBWA from serving the requested
area and the City asks the District to deny the OBWA requested allocation.
Since two entities claim the right to serve the same geographic area, the
District's service area dispute criteria is called into question by OBWA's
application. The following is a discussion of this criteria as applied to the
6
OBWA application.
District Service Area Dispute Criteria
Pursuant to the reasonable-beneficial use test set forth in Section 373.223,
Fla. Stat., a permit applicant must demonstrate need for the requested water
allocation. Need is demonstrated in part through a showing of "legal control"
over the area to be served by a public water supply. The District's legal
control criteria is set forth in Criteria 3.1.1 of the Basis of Review.
Criteria 3.1.1.1.5 of the BOR states that conflicting service area claims
between the applicant and an unregulated water service area must be resolved
by the involved parties. Service area is defined as "the geographic region in
which a water supplier has the ability and legal right to distribute water for
use." The Criteria goes on to state that "unresolved disputes will prompt the
Staff to recommend an allocation based only on the non-disputed protions of
the projected service area." Staff's position is that the purpose of this
resource related criteria is to prevent waste when water is allocated to two
separate entities for the same use, or double allocated.
In making the determination of whether the applicant has need for the
requested water allocation, pursuant to Criteria 1.3 of the BOR, District
Staff is directed to implement the Basis of Review criteria flexibly, "with
the primary goal being to meet District water resource objectives... Depending
on the magnitude of impacts, other methods will be considered by Staff, or
presented to the District's Governing Board for its consideration:" Thus, in
this circumstance of disputed service area claims, the context of the City's
claims must be considered in relation to the District's resource objectives,
such as protecting water supplies from depletion and contamination.
Moreover, it is important to note what Criteria 3.1.1.1.5 is not intended to
address. Specifically, the criteria does not, and cannot be interpreted as,
giving the District the authority to decide service area claims. It is not
within the jurisdiction of the District's consumptive use permitting authority
to adjudicate service area disputes. These disputes generally involve
contract and statutory rights that are irrelevant to the objectives of Chapter
373 and are properly resolved in circuit court actions. Likewise, the
issuance of a consumptive use permit with an allocation of water for use
within a disputed geographic region does not establish or alter the legal
right of either entity to supply water to the affected region.
With the resource and public interest related context of the District's
service area inquiry in mind, it is also necessary to understand the extent of
inquiry which the agency conducts when a service area is disputed. Due to the
lack of jurisdiction to decide service area disputes, this scope of inquiry
into legal control is limited.
In implementing the legal control criteria, the District requires only a
preliminary demonstration of legal control to supply water to a subject
service area, irrespective of another entity's claim for the service area.
Only a preliminary demonstration of legal control is necessary, because the
7
agency's purpose of inquiring into these matters is limited in scope, as
stated above. A requirement for demonstration of legal control beyond this
preliminary showing would put the District in the precarious position of
adjudicating the rights of disputing entities, a responsibility that lies
solely within the circuit court's jurisdiction. In extraordinary
circumstances, such as this application, a disputed service area question
arises. However, the existence of a disputed service area does not alter the
preliminary nature of the agency's inquiry into legal control matters.
City of Okeechobee Service Area Dispute
In response to the City's service area dispute arguments, OBWA maintains that
it has facially demonstrated legal control over the service area through its
legal obligation and ability to distribute water to its customers. An
examination of the nature of OBWA itself and the Contract terms and
relationship created thereby will further clarify each party's interest in
supplying water to the designated area.
As stated above, OBWA is a corporation which provides water service solely to
its members, who own and control the corporation. Each customer has an
ownership interest in the corporation and voting rights. Thus, OBWA has a
unique legal obligation to supply water to its customers.
The City sells water to OBWA pursuant to a bulk sale agreement, or the
Contract. OBWA then distributes the water throughout its water distribution
system to its customers within the service area. Significantly, the Contract
expires in September, 1994. Although the parties have attempted to negotiate
a renewal, it appears that they are currently at an impasse.
Clearly, both parties have some interest in supplying water to the service
area. Initial reading of Criteria 3.1.1.1.5 suggests that this agency must
attempt to force the parties to resolve their dispute and, if possible, issue
a partial allocation for undisputed areas. The result of such an action, in
this case, would be contrary to the agency's overriding interest in the
public's health, safety and welfare. If a water use permit is not issued to
OBWA, the citizens may not receive the potable supply upon which they depend
for daily subsistence.
There is no assurance under the Contract that water will be supplied to OBWA
for its existing customers after October, 1994, unless OBWA obtains a water
use permit. As set forth in the PSC Exemption Order, OBWA represents that it
must begin construction of the water withdrawal facilities and water treatment
plant as soon as possible in order to supply water by the time the Contract
with the City expires in 1994 or when the water treatment plant becomes
operational.
Moreover, by denying the requested allocation based on the fact that there is
a service area dispute, the District would in effect be adjudicating the right
of OBWA to service its customers. OBWA has instituted a circuit court action
to resolve the service area dispute set forth by the City. If the legal
8
dispute is ultimately resolved in OBWA's favor, denial of the OBWA permit
application now would prevent it from initiating construction of necessary
water withdrawal and treatment facilities in time to be able to provide water
to its customers in October, 1994. Such a denial would force OBWA to accept
the City's provision of service, thereby confirming the City's service area
claims; a matter not within the District's authority to adjudicate.
The terms of the Contract further support OBWA's assertion that OBWA has the
ultimate legal obligation to supply water to its customers. Under the
Contract, the City retains the right to "discontinue water service to the
Association until all arrearage is paid in full." The fact that the City can
shut off water supply to OBWA undermines the City's arguments that it has the
exclusive legal obligation to supply water to the affected area. (See
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Contract). Furthermore, under the Contract, OBWA is
held ultimately responsible for "testing, evaluating and treating the water
purchased from the City..." and the City is "not held accountable for the
quality of water delivered" to OBWA. Thus, OBWA, and not the City, has the
legal responsibility for assuring that an adequate quantity and quality
of drinking water is supplied to its customers.
In addition to the prima facie establishment of the legal right to serve
water, pursuant to the definition of "service area," the water supplier must
have the ability to distribute water for use within the affected area. This
recognizes that although the permit applicant or permittee is able to
demonstrate the requisite legal water supply right, no supply of water will
occur if the entity is without the ability to distribute water within the
affected area. In this case, the infrastructure used to distribute the water
within the service area is owned by OBWA. In the event that the Contract is
not renewed in 1994, it is unclear how the City would be able to actually
distribute water to OBWA's customers.
Based on these considerations, District Staff has determined that OBWA has
made the requisite preliminary showing that it has the legal right and ability
to provide water to its customers and, therefore, has legal control. District
Staff recognizes that a facially sufficient showing of a legal right to
service water within a geographic region may be made by more than one public
water supply entity in some cases. Thus, in this instance, the allocation of
water to the two entities for a limited time period until the dispute is
ultimately resolved through the pending court action is necessary due to the
overriding public interest concerns.
DEMAND PROJECTIONS
The applicant has based demand projections on population figures from the
existing customer base of OBWA and areas outside the City of Okeechobee's 201
facilities planning area. The population projections are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plans for Okeechobee and Glades Counties. The applicant
indicates a population of approximately 8,013 persons for the year 1992. The
projected increase in population through the year 2003 is approximately 337
people for a total of 8,350 persons in the service area. The applicant
9
requests an average daily demand of .71 MGD for the year 2003, based on a
historical per capita use rate of approximately 85 gallons per day. The
implementation of the water conservation plan should yield future water
savings which will be used for the forecasting of projected demands at the
next permit re-issuance.
REQUESTED AVERAGE DAILY ALLOCATION
The applicant has requested an average daily allocation of .71 MGD or 259.15
MGY.
REQUESTED MAXIMUM DAILY ALLOCATION
The applicant has requested a maximum daily allocation of 1.065 MGD. The
maximum daily allocation is based on a maximum daily to average daily demand
ratio of 1.5 weighted over the entire service area requested to be served by
OBWA.
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATIONS
Staff recommends an annual allocation of 259 MGY (.71 MGD average) and maximum
daily allocation of 1.06 MGD from the wellfield withdrawing groundwater from
the Surficial Aquifer System for supplying potable water to the requested
service area.
10
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPLICATION NUMBER: 921204-10
DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 9, 1993
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:
Staff recommends approval of Application No. 921204-10 for public water
supply serving 8350 persons in the year 2003 with an average per capita
use rate of 85 gallons per day and a maximum daily to average daily
pumping ratio of 1.5. Withdrawals are from the Surficial Aquifer System
via 1 existing withdrawal facility and 6 proposed withdrawal facilities.
The use is reasonable-beneficial, will not adversely impact presently
existing legal uses and is consistent with the public interest. The use
is further subject to 28 limiting conditions.
APPLICATION REVIEWER: U DATE: 13,0 Thomas- Co i os
SUPERVISOR: DATE: S 130193
Jeffrey Rosenfeld / '
WATER USE DIVISION APPROVAL-.' I 'a' DATE: 9136/73
m. Scott Burns, P.G.
DRp~
Subject to Governing y
Board App~fl~~~ ~
11
LIMITING CONDITIONS
1 IN THE EVENT OF A DECLARED WATER SHORTAGE, WATER WITHDRAWAL REDUCTIONS
WILL BE ORDERED BY THE DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WATER SHORTAGE
PLAN, CHAPTER 40E-21, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. DURING A WATER
SHORTAGE PUMPAGE REPORTS MAY BE NECESSARY ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
2 . SOURCE CLASSIFICATION IS:
GROUNDWATER FROM THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM
3 PERMITTEE SHALL MITIGATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DISTRICT ANY ADVERSE
IMPACT ON EXISTING LEGAL USES CAUSED BY WITHDRAWALS. WHEN ADVERSE IMPACTS
OCCUR, OR ARE IMMINENT, DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CURTAIL WITHDRAWAL
RATES. ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE:
A) REDUCTION IN WELL WATER LEVELS THAT IMPAIRS THE ABILITY OF AN
ADJACENT WELL TO PRODUCE WATER (AN ADJACENT WELL MAY BE A DOMESTIC
WELL, LAWN IRRIGATION WELL, PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL, ETC.),
B) SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN LEVELS IN AN ADJACENT WATER BODY SUCH AS
A LAKE, POND, OR A CANAL SYSTEM,
C) SALINE WATER INTRUSION OR INDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE WATER
SUPPLY OF AN ADJACENT WATER USE, RESULTING IN A SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTION IN WATER QUALITY, AND
D) CHANGE IN WATER QUALITY THAT CAUSES IMPAIRMENT OR LOSS OF USE OF A
WELL OR WATER BODY.
4 PERMITTEE SHALL MITIGATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DISTRICT ANY ADVERSE
IMPACT ON EXISTING OFF-SITE LAND USE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF WITHDRAWALS
PERMITTED HEREIN. IF INCREASED WITHDRAWALS CAUSE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON
EXISTING LAND USE, THE DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CURTAIL FUTURE
WITHDRAWAL RATES. ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE:
A) SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN WATER LEVELS IN AN ADJACENT WATER BODY
(SUCH AS A LAKE, POND, WETLAND OR CANAL SYSTEM);
B) LAND COLLAPSE OR SUBSIDENCE CAUSED BY REDUCTION IN WATER LEVELS;
C) DAMAGE TO CROPS AND OTHER VEGETATION, CAUSING FINANCIAL HARM TO
THE LANDOWNER; AND
D) DAMAGE TO HABITAT OF RARE, ENDANGERED SPECIES.
5 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DISTRICT SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ENTER,
INSPECT, AND OBSERVE THE PERMITTED SYSTEM TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
6 IF ANY CONDITION OF THE PERMIT IS VIOLATED, THE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND POSSIBLE MODIFICATION, ENFORCEMENT ACTION, OR REVOCATION.
7 . APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT MODIFICATION MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME.
12
y
8 . WITHDRAWAL FACILITIES ARE:
GROUNDWATER - EXISTING:
1 - 8" X 160' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 105 FEET
GROUNDWATER - PROPOSED:
1
- 8"
X
135'
X
175
GPM
WELL CASED TO
90 FEET
1
- 8"
X
150'
X
175
GPM.
WELL CASED TO
105 FEET
3
- 8"
X
155'
X
175
GPM
WELLS CASED TO
110 FEET
1
- 8"
X
165'
X
175
GPM
WELL CASED TO
120 FEET
9 . THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE ON SEPTEMBER 09, 2003.
10. ANNUAL ALLOCATION SHALL NOT EXCEED 259 MG.
MAXIMUM DAILY ALLOCATION SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.06 MG.
11. USE CLASSIFICATION IS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY.
12. THE PERMITTEE SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND SPECIAL
DISTRICT AUTHORIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE USE OR WITHDRAWAL OF WATER.
13. THE PERMIT DOES NOT CONVEY ANY PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE PERMITTEE, NOR ANY
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE PERMIT AND CHAPTER
40E-2, FAC.
14. A PERMIT MODIFICATION WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, ALLOCATION (INCREASE OR DECREASE), CHANGES IN USE, OR
CHANGE IN FACILITIES OR IN THE LOCATION OF FACILITIES. THE PERMITTEE IS
ADVISED THAT AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION SHALL BE EVALUATED BASED ON
RULES AND PERMITTING CRITERIA IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL.
15. PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT TO THE DISTRICT COPIES OF THE MONTHLY DER WATER
TREATMENT PLANT REPORTS SHOWING WELLFIELD PUMPAGE. REPORTS SHALL BE
SUBMITTED MONTHLY IN THE MONTH FOLLOWING EITHER THE FIRST MONTH OF PUMPAGE
OR PERMIT ISSUANCE.
16. PERMITTEE SHALL DETERMINE "UNACCOUNTED FOR" DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSSES IF
THE PERMITTEE DISTRIBUTES WATER WITHIN ONE MILE OF SURFACE SALINE WATER.
LOSSES SHALL BE DETERMINED FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ON A MONTHLY
BASIS. PERMITTEE SHALL DEFINE THE MANNER IN WHICH "UNACCOUNTED FOR"
LOSSES ARE CALCULATED. DATA.COLLECTION SHALL BEGIN WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF
PERMIT ISSUANCE. LOSS REPORTING SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT ON A
YEARLY BASIS FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
17. IF THE PERMITTEE DOES NOT SERVE A NEW DEMAND WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA FOR
WHICH THE ANNUAL ALLOCATION WAS CALCULATED, THE ANNUAL ALLOCATION MAY THEN
BE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION.
13
18. PRIOR TO MARCH 09, 1994, PERMITTEE SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A
"WELLFIELD OPERATING PROGRAM". THIS PROGRAM SHALL DETAIL WHICH WELLS ARE
PRIMARY, SECONDARY, STANDBY (RESERVE), AND ANY OTHER ASPECTS OF WELLFIELD
MANAGEMENT. THE WELLFIELD OPERATING PROGRAM, WHICH MAY BE SUBMITTED AS A
LETTER REPORT, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT STAFF PRIOR TO DECEMBER 091
1993.
19. PERMITTEE SHALL MAINTAIN AN OPERABLE AND ACCURATE FLOW METER ON THE
DISCHARGE SIDE OF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASURING
DAILY USE OF WATER.
20. THE PERMITTEE SHALL NOTIFY THE DISTRICT OF ANY CHANGE IN SERVICE TERRITORY
OR AREA WITHIN 30 DAYS OF CHANGE IN BOUNDARY.
21. PERMITTEE SHALL MAKE MONTHLY MEASUREMENTS OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN
EACH PRODUCTION WELL AND SHALL SUBMIT THIS DATA TO THE DISTRICT IN THE
MONTH FOLLOWING THE DATA COLLECTION.
22. PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 09, 1995, POTABLE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY UTILITIES ARE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A STUDY EVALUATING EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY
PREPAREDNESS, INCLUDING ANALYSIS OF DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES, POTENTIAL
PUMPAGE SHIFTING AND THE FEASIBILITY OF EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTIONS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING WATER ON A SHORT-TERM, EMERGENCY BASIS TO ADJOINING
UTILITIES. THE PERMITTEE MUST PROVIDE THE DISTRICT WITH A COPY OF THE
STUDY. AS TO EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTS, THE FEASIBILITY STUDY MUST ASSESS
THE TECHNICAL, PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC ABILITY OF THE PERMITTEE TO DEVELOP
INTERCONNECTING PIPES CAPABLE OF DELIVERING WATER TO ADJOINING UTILITIES
TO MEET EMERGENCY, SHORT-TERM WATER SUPPLY NEEDS. (IN THE EVENT OF AN
INTERCONNECT BEING ESTABLISHED, INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PERMIT
ALLOCATIONS WILL NOT ADDRESS THE EMERGENCY USAGE.) IT IS THE POLICY OF THE
DISTRICT TO ENCOURAGE EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTS BETWEEN ADJOINING PUBLIC
WATER SUPPLY UTILITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EMERGENCY WATER
SUPPLY. THUS, WHERE THE FEASIBILITY STUDY INDICATES EMERGENCY
INTERCONNECTS ARE POSSIBLE, THE DISTRICT ENCOURAGES THE ADJOINING
UTILITIES TO IMPLEMENT THE SAME.
23. THE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN REQUIRED BY CRITERIA 3.1, OF APPENDIX 1 OF THE
BASIS OF REVIEW FOR WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - JANUARY, 1993, MUST BE IMPLEMENTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE CONTAINED THEREIN.
24. IF AT ANY TIME THERE IS AN INDICATION THAT THE WELL CASING, VALVES, OR
CONTROLS LEAK OR HAVE BECOME INOPERATIVE, REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE
MADE TO RESTORE THE SYSTEM TO AN OPERATING CONDITION ACCEPTABLE TO THE
DISTRICT. FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH REPAIRS SHALL BE CAUSE FOR FILLING AND
ABANDONING THE WELL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN CHAPTERS
40E-3 AND 40E-30, F.A.C.
25. IF A PROPOSED WELL LOCATION IS DIFFERENT FROM A LOCATION SPECIFIED IN THE
APPLICATION, THE PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT TO THE DISTRICT AN EVALUATION OF
THE IMPACT OF PUMPAGE FROM THE PROPOSED WELL LOCATION ON ADJACENT EXISTING
14
LEGAL USES, POLLUTION SOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, THE SALINE WATER
INTERFACE, AND WATER BODIES ONE MONTH PRIOR TO ALL NEW WELL CONSTRUCTION.
THE PERMITTEE IS ADVISED THAT THE PROPOSAL MUST MEET ALL PERMITTING
CRITERIA IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL, AND THAT BASED ON STAFF
EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT, A FORMAL MODIFICATION OF THE PERMIT MAY BE
REQUIRED.
26. PERMITTEE SHALL SECURE A WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION,
REPAIR, OR ABANDONMENT OF ALL WELLS, AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTERS 40E-3 AND
40E-30, F.A.C.
27. THE PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT TO THE DISTRICT AN UPDATED TABLE "A" (WELL
DESCRIPTION TABLE) WITHIN ONE MONTH OF COMPLETION OF THE 6 PROPOSED WELLS
IDENTIFYING THE ACTUAL TOTAL AND CASED DEPTHS, PUMP MANUFACTURER AND MODEL
NUMBERS, PUMP TYPES, INTAKE DEPTHS AND TYPE OF METERS.
28. PERMITTEE SHALL UTILIZE PROPOSED WELL NO. 7 AS AN EMERGENCY BACK-UP SUPPLY
SOURCE, UNLESS THE PROPOSED WELL IS RELOCATED. IF THE PROPOSED WELL IS
RELOCATED, LIMITING CONDITION NO. 25 APPLIES AND MUST BE ADDRESSED.
15
vi~e
~Nso--
v v
PALM BEACH
BROWARD
urnm"
2-1
'
•
-
7
A y
_
t r i. rF'~~ -jam I •I
~ii:~ ~ ~ `I_~.
l
I
- -
_
- R b.. ~
I
~
L~T:"'T. "I
n
-
7 1
~ ~,Y " l~
^
i
yjT
I
F
"
.
- - 1 J d. I "F 4 •a•.1
~
'y . ~ , - L. i.~
- ••j.
_T LI r-)
1111 ttt
f
t
y
X
n 1
•
•
v
_ rL i_\!,
-
-
- kl'f
j._i" _ -yL°,P .I nl
^
=
4
"
•
^
-
7,,
.
_
°
- ~1.
II
l~, I
.
I j
I
-
.I I ~~'i
.j
r
I j
~
iF~
~
`iJ
_
1
_
~ _
l
~ ~1
~
-
I
~
~
t
~F1.
I .,j
j fem..
J,
T,.. -
I
_ I_ _r l-
-~r
c \T,yr-~„ .s. `nil - _ lr\~ I i _ I _s i n ~ r
_ - -
i , ~ • - .I°' Lam" ti` i.
- f _ nT
1 _
L . 4 e
O 4 c e c A o/ f
♦ ~c
OEKNAI c[O[10
_ _ _ _ IKE, •E T' a OBWA REQUESTED i i
~I SERVICE AREA
BOUNDARY
X 'GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
- i /OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
FLORIDA
Ile
E r_na. • / sun NIwNNNa mlu
rn j ) N..N,Cn .IYlfl STATE Or FLORIDA
ceun. WIICN . ISSS
~ n OFINTKNT~Of..11Y1YMi4T ION
U.S. DEPAR KNT Of TIIYq/ONTATION
~9.~(.]I r-'~-~ I,.[W .IYMYI YI11NI4nM,l6
.,,r + EXHIBIT 2A
1 1 11 k t1 1 - ^
1 'w, tI r I.a.. t1 ,u, M ~ 1' " ~t' 1 e:,, ~ 1 6
I~~1 ii i t)!„ ~p;~t~~ 4'4 l v ! Z ~ i Q li ~
,•rl 1 1, i P T.o_! li :fi~i:i 1•!• :i U Q f~ :Sa°~~ ' !
~1l~Itl!! = t! !1l~rl s ~ O l~,__ >s~ i I ~I
~III~ II13%I IIi"31 I l I
< 19
op ,
i)~it", LLS C19
0 V'~?7", ' 111!1 li il{ JI t R LLJ
O I ~ T•~ 1~ 1 / i' . ill,.,. r
q r j{ o 1 J l l d 1 ~ +e "4»
1111!,
~~111,. =~d'jy J • r - t,l'ih1i1n-
%w^' ~l lily .~..pr.~ J b it J I,J'I 1 ! 1 I'! Im W O ,a " 11 Ott , J,V J I.,
~`r~t'~' 7 +tn p s ! 1 1 1 .1 O of Im . a .l 1 1 1 t 1
+ L',,~;i. ~Jil i1 l~l Jil Jill I ~ Il h ~l'I,y~hl'11'I i I~! I Ijf I J I , 1 t
~s ~ 1~' ~ / J 1.1~f~1 J J JJ; ~ 'Jl)~7'J J 1 JJ 1 ~
~ S ~ , lilililMll'IJId i 1i 41111; +d 1,1 'llal 1 JI IJIJft
1"'r Yy i_~ Sa n, tl tJ tJ '1 . O 1 tl to ta; to tl , ,y .t tl t , ,1 , ,l , J
1/ w.-yr' 11 1di1111i~, ~J'Id'4J IIJi!~'I,'' ~JI al ~`4);I,; ,l l I, 1 I; 1- 1!- i-
i 4 a..LCe ~'t11V tl ~l ,!1 i,tl t) t; t t, , ~ t , t. ~
/ e t Id ~ !iLV;11 i1 iJ!4~Ii~Sb' .•r iii! l 1 . {I' 7 1' 1'111 J -1
• ' / , '!4 { L.Je +ll!1! ' t tJ '1 V '1 tJ t1 1J 11' • ' ~ I I .
a,. i ° ro ~;~1x ~_+I~L~ .1111 , 1111 1111 '1111114 111 1-'~I
L/ it a ' u !c~-i-' 7 1 All ~f ~~.1•W o 1 ~ ~ ~ 'fi ,I, J ; I l'I;'I J, IiJ 1 I J, 1'.11 11171 l.1_S
.w t t , t t
I.a_,.~•..7` 1 M~ „ •r r 1I.~ 0 4 ~ _tl ' tJ ~ t',1~'J tJ1;J; j,,Jw ,l ,l ,l ,J aJ t~ t ' 4 JL -L,
J J 1 1 111.
+ F~"" r , itt ,111'1 J I )11111 J'T'1'tri I )111!'1 J I, I J'I Fdli ~ -1.J..J J • +
d t,,t
Idi~d~f'~11'~1J'~~ 114;14jJ11,Jl~~li{l tJ1Rt1'1•t i,
i'1 1 1.11111, . 1 f
t , - ~ ti ~ ~J';'1y1~ ~1'Id'114JId1J11 11~J11J11JIJ' 6 t y.r,
.tttt ,te,,tt,t
- .,.a,,, I jA•,,. '1 • ur '1 t11i111'4~'IA X11" +~_e J,1.1!rr ~ .
Ir
44
111 t J.~,•a}_, , , tl •r'o~ 1~u I ~Jil,, I y'.
l>M. . , 7Y ~1~ If I ~}.-J- ..t tfi♦-11 ii 'i:rr
lilt t ,
In {~t r`~o~ ~o r i J :,t 4 o b •m . le y i -
t ` O y'.~{ a o tP cD I
~llt+ F 6 o(f it 1111 i ,i ~i i!t ~1! ~ 'lo e.~ L o~.o ~ '1' ~ J 11 ~ { gl • 0 1`,
1t~ 1~ , i~t{t 1 !1 tf I j ,1p , 1 } - I I
fM{ {i If, i~t ~ ~ T' L fl :1~ I~iii ~1~ ~1 B I ti9 1 i ~ ee ' . 1 d / ~ `r
f4t~ -1'u'd{i '1,'t ti 'd hh ! v 1 a ~ . " J '7 I ~ • . ° t ' ~i -
_ 1 , ~ Q~~ } i / H •.r _ ••1 ~ I sn fQo ' t 1 0 ~r 1 1 - `1~ 'sl t i.~,J
EL-
I ra i 4-
r
5,111
•o
. ; __111... b ~n ~D
o,
.
_ ~x • yyi) "P 1 coo _ o°• ° j~ j, •J,v1 '
_ I w- fSc ci.
r Puf
$y~ ' o. - lei b .1 I~`'.i!f.. • r.efi ~e ,I
EXHIBIT28
. ~ t t.
L
k:~
Nil
-1 go .41
3
co US -c
W Z 'f W W W Q o
O Z 1 y w pp~~ s_~ `
O w9s[W W / YY
9.4 2c LA.
wN - 1 H~~O O N ~ ;
LAJ 3c
. W 1
H I C O d
m - OmN~ W ~1
w
O
IV;
1
W
ac w a ~ \ ,
o i
•..1 it _
s
w W ► Q "
i ~ ' 1 i IQ 1 11` + j
AAWW S3"
M !
_ 6 1. ~ _ i • y./4
EXHIBIT 3
z
In
-1 w
In
o ko
I- m
Ill
In
N
m N
O In In
I- In Ch
N
°
°
-
ON
~
`
N
a
-
a
+
I
no z
CD r
as
z
1
ri
04 O
M ~
a H
F.
H
t
ul
14
A
z
o
Ln
~
-1 H
e
t~ M
eN
d~
Ln O O N In
V M
r-i
I r4
H
-
~ LO
a
-
a
-I I
l1 r
z
CD r
a
t a z
~o
~-1
H
M
T
Ln
O
O
N
to
%D
N
N
0%
~
a
-
a
a
co
r4
-
H
a
z
I
z
-
z
c w
M 01
O
01 ao
ep M
o w
rq Ln
z
O
Ln w
In
M v
H H
N CD
N
N
'
OD N
~
~
O U1 In O Ill
V~ ~o
OD H
°
w
w
z
a co P l r-4 14 a z
Ln
z
r1 W
M H CD H
H w M
In W In
m
W O It m Ch W 7. ~ rq z ~q Ln
a w
z ~
a
E E 48
y H M H AM W
od p aw a, a D4 aaa 04 a a H
p "E H N I'~-I A A ; p` '~i IAA 6 ~q A Pj H
z N N a E 60 pI~ 04 H 04 Cy N a ~i L~ 14
a W MA H a H O ` to Fi 13W a. ou
~ a A H
EXHIBIT 4A
1.
N
a
a
go o
a~ z
a o
Q1 H
Ea W
H
a4
A
z
O (YI
M
to
10 P
rl H
CD 0%
~
O N
O Ln in r. to
Ln vi
a
a
ri
`
-
a CD
r-4 r-4 a z
I ~ z
° Ln
z
O
pq
rn 14
Ln
Z
r o
ri
H
rn in
If
If
~
O CD
w
a
In
O
~
O
~
N
C'
in
In c,4
a
CD
r-1-1
a
z
ri
z A Ln
z
E
~
E
E
D
r~
14
Pa
C9
b9
pC
~
g
a
pq
Ap
w
i
7
E
O
m
a
a
;
W
W
~
r7 a F
O
A',
Iq
H
A
A
x
a7
a
czn
to
H
o
o
~0
;
E
P9
'li
H
O
a
V
A H
as
►p
q
M
m
a'
O
V z
O
Z
E
U O
3
A
m a
A
N
v
to H
as
3
a
a
H
a
a G
EXHIBIT 45
lr~
z
N
a
6a
A
.~i
HI
04
x
E+
C'41
pH;
N
NI
W
ral
W
~I
z
x
o
N
H
~{'i
W
611
N
a
~
u
v,
a
a
o
V
0
0
w
O
n
ma
94
~
°z
z
x
x
a
60 E4
N H
H
C?
a o
N
N
A Q A A A A
n
z
N
h r h r r r
%D %D %D %D %D %D
N
r- r.
r•1 ri
E
w
w
C
O
Cj)
ar r O\ N 1!
%D
a
O
10
O
unvri.ioH
p0
U
r I ri ri r-4 '-I
a
p0
H
0
N
%D
Q
~l
Ln
H
v
r
v
64
H
Ln c,4 at m m Ln
a
oH~~~
q
n
N
o
to
`
rn
r
o
a
a
I
o
a
1
i
H
94
w
N
>
n
V
i
i
TA
~a
H
L)
to
0
64
ma
0
E-t
m
ok
s
4
o
E+
~
u
o
z
a
a
R
O
A
ri N M %V m w
a
0
aa
aa
e
a
$
i
4
l
EXHIBIT 5A
SEBRING 47 Ml.
O
8Q,o52'30' 51300m..E 514 BASINOER 74 M!. S15
, 2701!"
.
X308 - 7700 M • - .
y = ~ +I ~ - III, • ~V i ~ •i•• ~ M
00
F v i i " - Trailer , 00
Park j
h 70 ^ •'x ~u l ai4 .li • 1 rk
301300p -N
TIME SAVER .30
SHELL NO. 49 •i
-
20
NORTH ' •
1012 .I!..
OFF-SITE z5 4 j ~ • _
WETLAND = • , : .Ih '
APPROXIMATE EXTENT
6. ' ® OF ONE FOOT DRAWDOWN 29
wwrlynk j
x2i I
I ' lam-
WOLFF BROTHERS DAIRY, INC.
PERMIT NO. 47-00035-W '
v
x p le -I
3010 25 BR21
......,M~yEE ' I / Ifl 0, 1
PROPOSED WATER -
TREATMENT PLANT + O
12'30" - - Al 32 1 W is
Al k\
o -
T. 37 S. - -
T. 38 S. _ - ~o~ - -
'45 - - - -
- SCALE: 1" 1000,
• IS ' "s „ LemkZ n
=ot 4' y ti
-
EXHIBIT 58.
x,e
X,-
.
%16 50' Poo
TABLE 1
PAST WATER USE
1981
5358
2458
67
134.907
0.370
0.585
1982
5450 (
2500
67
137.130
0.376
0.570
1983
5670
2601
67
143.554
0.373
0.601
1984
5701
2707
75
162.456
0.445
0.651
1985
6113
2804
82
182.829
0.501
0.752
1986
6302 1
2891
82
188.876 1
0.517 1
0.783
1987 (
6512 1
2987 1
82
195.908 1
0.537
0.740
1988
6662 1
3056 1
84
1 204.600 1
0.561 1
0.803
'
1989
6786 1
3113 1
87
1 215.365 1
0.590 1
1.345
1990
6832
3134
82
204.715
0.561
0.817
1991
6871
3152
85
213.981
0.586
0.866
1992
8013
3205
85
248.565
0.681
1.022
EXHIBIT 6A
i
TABLE 4
PROJECTED WATER USE
1993
8018
3207
85
248.93
0.682
1.023
1994
8048
3219
85
249.66
0.684
1.026
1995
8078
3231
85
250.76
0.687
1.031
1996
8108
3243
85
251.49
0.689
1.034
1997
8140
3256
85
252.58
0.692
1.038
1998
8175
3270 (
85
253.68
0.695
1.043
1999
8210
3284
85
254.77
0.698
1.047
2000
8245
3298
85
255.87
0.701
1.052
2001
8280
3312
85
256.96
0.704 1
1.056
2002
8315
3326
85
258.06
0.707 1
1.061
2003
8350
3340
85
259.15 (
0.710
1.065
2004
8385 1
3354
85
260.25
0.713
1.070
2005
8420 1
3368
85
261.34
0.716
1.074
EXHIBIT 60
TABLE 3
PROJECTED WATER USE
1993
2773
1109
85
86.14
0.236
0.354
1994
2800
1120
85
86.87
0.238
0.357
1995
2828
N 1131
85
, 87.60
0.240
0.360
1996
2855
1142 N
85
88.70
0.243
0.365
1997
2883
1153
85
89.43
0.245
0.368
1998
2913
1165
85
90.52
0.248
0.372
1999
2943
1177
85
91.25
0.250
0.375
2000
2973
1189
85
92.35
0.253
0.380
2001
3003
1201
85
93.08
0.255
0.383
2002
3033
1213
85
94.17
0.258
0.387
2003
3063
1225
85
94.90
0.260
0.390
2004
3093
1237
85
96.00
0.263 +
0.395
2005 1
3123
1249
85
96.73
0.265 +
0.398
EXHIBIT 6C
TABLE 2
PROJECTED WATER USE
1993
5245
2098
85
162.79
0.446
0.669
1994
5248
2099
85
1 162.79 (
0.446
0.669
1995
5250
2100
85
162.79
0.446
0.669
1996
5253
2101
85
1 163.16
0.447
0.671
1997
5258
2103
85
163.16
0.447 (
0.671
1998
5263 N
2105
85
163.16
0.447
0.671
1999
5268
2107
85
163.52
0.448
0.672
2000
5273
2109
85
163.52
0.448
0.672
2001
5278
2111
85
163.89
0.449
0.674
2002
5283
2113
85
163.89
0.449
0.674
2003
5288
2115
85
163.89
0.449
0.674
2004
5293
2117
85
164.25
0.450 '
0.675
2005
5298
2119
85
164.25
0.450
0.675
EXHIBIT 6D
STAFF REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST
PROJECT: WELLFIELD FOR OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASS. APPLICATION NO. 921204-10
APPLICANT: OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASSOCIATION INC PERMIT NO.
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
Reviewer: X Applicant's Consultant:
X Thomas Colios VirogrouD Missimer & Associates
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S. Anderson
B. Colavecchio - REG
D. Cullipher
P. Kochan X
K. Love - GPA
J. Morgan
B. Orlowsky
B. Pratt
J. Show
G. Sinn
M. Slayton
A. Waterhouse
L. Werst
Dir, Water Resource Evaluation Dept
Director, Land Management
Director, Planning Dept.
Executive Director
Well Construction Permitting
Applicant's Agent:
Engineer, County of:
Okeechobee
Engineer, City of:
Local Drainage District:
Building Dept., County of:
Building Dept., City of:
Area Engineer COUNTY
Enforcement
Field Representative BUILDING AND ZONING
Office of Counsel
Permit File
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Annie Betancourt
Ms. Valerie Boyd
Mr. William Hammond
Ms. Betsy Krant
Mr. Allan Milledge
Mr. Eugene K. Pettis
Mr. Nathaniel P. Reed
X Ms. Leah Schad
X Mr. Frank Williamson, Jr.
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
X Port St. Lucie
OTHER
Burton C. Conner, P.A.
Dept of Natural Resources (K.Alvarez)
Div of Recreation and Park - District 7
F.G.F.W.F.C.
Greg F. Rawl, P.G.
John J. Drago
Kissimmee River Coord. Council
L.C. Fortner
Michael Wm. Morell, P.A.
Montgomery Watson, Inc.
Mr. Ed Carlson, Mgr., Nat. Audubon Soc.
S.W.F.R.P.C. - Glenn Heath
( Stephen A. Walker, P.A.
( William D. Reese, P.E.
( Wolff Brothers Dairy, Inc.
EXHIBIT