Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFYI 22-05-05 - NFUCG Ltr to FDEP Re. LSFIR Conservation cot, Clay County Utility Authority HT Working together to 3176 Old Jennings Road protect public health, Middleburg,FL 32068-3907 conserve our natural Gam` 01111..1 �a Telephone(904)272-5999 resources.and create -2.j. p° www.clayutility.org long-term value for RUSH our ratepayers May 5, 2022 VIA EMAIL OWP rulemaking@floridadep.gov Ms. Stefani Weeks, PE Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Water Policy and Ecosystems Restoration 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS 24 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Re: Notice of Rule Development for Minimum Flows and Recovery and Prevention Strategies Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and Priority Springs Comments on Workshops Held on April 5 and 6, 2022 o Dear Ms. Weeks: ° On behalf of the North Florida Utilities Coordinating Group (NFUCG), I write to you regarding the ongoing reevaluation of the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and PrioritySprings MFLs and the proposed z (LSFIR) p p rulemaking discussed at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) workshops on April 5 and April 6, 2022. The NFUCG consists of 8 public water supply utilities in North Florida serving over 1.2 million residents. The NFUCG's member utilities are committed to providing clean, safe, affordable potable water to our communities while protecting our shared water resources and natural systems. One of the primary means to achieving these goals is through our implementation of water conservation programs. These active and other passive measures have resulted in significant reduction in water use over the past 15 years. As presented in the figure below, actual water use by NFUCG member utilities has decreased during this time, despite the fact that our population served has increased by over 20 percent. Furthermore, without this water conservation, our current water use would be approximately 223 mgd. Thus, our total water use savings over this period has been approximately 50 mgd. These water savings are the results of more efficient use by our customers encouraged by our programs and programs from the water management districts and other agencies for including education, rule enforcement, and economic incentives. We also achieve these goals in part through long-term planning and coordination with the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD), St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), the Department, other regulatory agencies, and other key community stakeholders. The NFUCG and its member utilities were participants in both the development and adoption of the existing LSFIR MFLs and associated recovery strategy that took effect in 2015. We remain engaged in the current ongoing rule development process for the adoption of updated LSFIR MFLs, and representatives of the NFUCG attended the Rule Workshops on April 5 and 6, 2022. 1 Water Use and Population Served North Florida Utility Coordinating Group 1,400,000 ; 250 1,261,000 CIJ 1,086,000 A AL � 225 2 ->A- -A ' 223 mgd a) 0 1,100,000 �_ �- ''k - �►- �' -A - A' (without r - conservation) 200 ai I fl. a° 192 mgd -a 175 c 80003mgd w 500,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 to Year To date, only certain portions of the draft Recovery Strategy have been presented by the Department, including the outline of some potential water conservation measures presented at the subject workshops. We appreciate the Department continuing to provide information on various aspects of the draft Recovery Strategy. However, as we have previously stated, interested parties must be able to see and understand the complete picture that these regulations and Recovery Strategy impose to understand if they protect the LSFIR from significant harm while ensuring existing and projected water uses are met. Furthermore, a cohesive Strategy is required in order to evaluate the impact of the proposed draft, as well as whether it addresses the requirements of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes While the Water Conservation provisions presented at the recent workshops are a very important element of the Recovery Strategy, we consider the most critical aspect of the Recovery Strategy to be the identification of water resource development and water supply projects. We continue to believe that the Recovery Strategy and associated regulatory components will only be as good as the projects identified and developed to achieve MFL compliance. Feasible projects that can be implemented to address all water users' impacts, whether they are regulated or unregulated by a consumptive use permit (CUP), are the keys to a strategy that addresses the MFL issues for these water bodies. We look forward to reviewing and discussing these forthcoming aspects of the Recovery Strategy, which will provide critical context for the big picture and implications for water users, taxpayers, ratepayers, and the environment. Nonetheless, we are committed to continuing to collaborate with the Department by providing comments on the recently released draft documents relating to certain portions of the conservation component of the Recovery Strategy. Though our comments below focus on the public supply component of conservation, it is important that the Recovery Strategy provide meaningful conservation requirements for all use classes. This is particularly the 2 case with regard to the LSFIR MFLs, since the majority of the impacts to the MFL water bodies have been attributed to other uses such as agriculture, commercial/industrial, and self-supply uses. Though we acknowledge that specific use of water for the individual personal household purposes of drinking, bathing, cooking, or sanitation is not subject to permitting, a large portion of self-supply uses, such as irrigation, can be subject to regulation that encourages or requires conservation. Achieving greater conservation in these use categories can provide a significant benefit towards the prevention and recovery of impacts to the MFL waterbodies. We are supportive of the general approach to public supply conservation reflected in the draft document released by the Department, however we believe that the following comments on the materials presented at the April 5 and 6, 2022 workshops will improve the proposed requirements, and request that they be considered for incorporation into future drafts of the public supply conservation component of the Recovery Strategy: 1. Per Capita Calculation and Goals As currently written, the gross and residential per capita goals are vague because there is no definition of "average gross per capita or residential per capita water use for the North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership Area." The provision does not provide the methodology for the calculation or the time period over which the calculation is made either for the North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership Area or for an individual public supply utility. We would suggest inclusion of the actual per capita goals in the proposed language along with more information about the calculations. Furthermore, the gross per capita goal is not necessarily an appropriate measure of water conservation effectiveness for public supply utilities with a significant commercial, industrial, tourist, or institutional use component. In these instances, the gross per capita, as narrowly defined in the proposed requirements, will be higher than a similar utility without such components. to As written, the gross per capita calculation does not provide any flexibility to account for different utility characteristics. Using this calculation, the proposed comparison of public supply users across the region against an average gross per capita water use does not necessarily provide a meaningful yardstick for assessing water conservation. Depending on the characteristics of a public supply user, other metrics may be more meaningful. We recommend that an alternative per capita goal methodology be included for utilities with a significant commercial, industrial, tourist, or institutional use component. We also recommend the potential use of alternative per capita metric calculations which may reflect water conservation efforts in a more meaningful way. Since the per capita goals and per capita calculations would be new requirements in the Partnership Area, we request a meeting with the Department to discuss these requirements before a revised draft is issued. 2. Reporting Frequency We suggest that the water conservation effectiveness report referenced on page 2 of the proposed requirements be required every 5 years. This report is currently proposed as an annual submittal; however, we believe that conservation effectiveness is best determined over a longer period, both because of seasonal and climatic variations from year to year, and because many programs take time to be implemented and achieve results that would be reflected in collected water use data. A 5-year report requirement would also be consistent with the per capita goal reporting requirement where additional conservation effectiveness metrics are evaluated. Furthermore, we are concerned about the potential costs of this report if required on an annual basis. 3. Minimum Public Supply Size It appears that the public supply conservation rules generally apply to all public supply permittees. However, several provisions, such as the water conservation effectiveness report and the public supply annual report (PSAR), are limited to public suppliers of a minimum size. We recommend that the minimum size be as 3 inclusive of as many public supply permittees as possible to ensure the broadest application of these provisions as feasible. 4. Water Loss Assessments The proposed provisions include a regionwide water loss assessment program. Members of the NFUCG have instituted a similar water loss assessment program for many years. We are supportive of the broader institution of the proposed program. The NFUCG's member utilities continue to make large investments in both water conservation and alternative water supplies to ensure that water under our control is used efficiently. We also remain committed to participating in recovery and prevention plans to the proportional share of our customers' impacts relative to the total impact by all users as they are supported by sound science and public policy. We look forward to working with you on this important rulemaking, including meeting to discuss the new per capita goal requirements, and we would be happy elaborate on any of these comments. Respectfully, Jeremy Johnston, PE, MBA Executive Director Clay County Utility Authority Submitted on behalf of NFUCG to cc: Hugh Thomas(Hugh.Thomas@srwmd.org) SRWMD Executive Director Adam Blalock, Esq. (adam.blalock@FloridaDEP.gov) FDEP Deputy Secretary Ecosystem Restoration Mike Register, P.E. (mregiste@sjrwmd.com) SJRWMD Executive Director NFUCG Members 4